Wendy Morton MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The House has many serious questions about the decision, announced by the Foreign Secretary to the media rather than to this House, to establish a diplomatic channel with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation, but the Foreign Secretary says that the UK is none the less able to have diplomatic contact. Can the Minister clarify the specific legal basis on which she has established contact? Is HTS the only such organisation operating in Syria that now has a diplomatic channel? We are now aware that Ann Snow, the UK special representative for Syria, and another senior FCDO diplomat, have met the leader of HTS. Can the Minister tell us who else has made contact? Has contact with HTS leaders only been made via official channels, rather than at ministerial level? I know the Minister will be aware that there is a big difference between the two. The Foreign Secretary also said that the FCDO is engaging with HTS because it wants a representative and inclusive Government, and an end to violence in Syria. Has the UK conveyed to HTS a clear expectation of what should happen to bring that about? If so, will the Minister now take this opportunity to share that road map with the House? Does she believe, based on those conversations, that HTS will lead a peaceful transfer of power to a genuine civilian Government which protects minority groups? The Government need to be extremely careful, because by dealing with HTS and publicly doing so, there is a risk of legitimisation of the organisation and its position in Syria. At this stage, does the Minister not agree that that would be premature? These are very early days in the new post-Assad reality, and we need to judge HTS by its actions, not its words. Now that the Government have embarked on this path, can we expect an unequivocal statement that there is no read-across to other proscribed groups? The integrity of the proscription system is absolutely paramount, and the Government must exercise extreme care not to undermine it in any way. Is it still the case that those who left Britain to support the murderous Daesh regime have no place in the UK, and will the Minister commit herself to ruling out any return of Shamima Begum and others to the UK? We note her comments about chemical weapons; can she provide any further detail on how the UK will push for their destruction? Let me now turn to the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. We are aware of the Government’s latest aid package to Syria. Two weeks ago, when pressed on aid delivery in Syria, the Minister for the Middle East said he was concerned that practical access for aid agencies would be difficult to maintain, and work was needed to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors. It would be helpful to hear the Government's latest assessment of the situation. The UK has funded more than £4 billion of aid over the past decade and more, but with a terrorist group in control of significant territory, can the Minister assure the House that the only beneficiaries of British aid, including food, water and sanitation, are innocent civilians? British aid must not end up in the wrong hands, so what assurances can she give that the way in which aid is being delivered has taken account of the new operating environment? There is real concern about what Iran’s next step in Syria might be. There are reports that the regime in Tehran has been in contact with rebel groups, and we need to be very alive to the risk that it may try to re-establish a foothold for its hostile and malign operations in the region. We should be very clear about the fact that would be an awful outcome. We and our allies need to be pulling every diplomatic lever to blunt Iran’s ability to launch a resurgence in Syria, and the House would welcome an update from the Minister on her work on that front. We all want a stable, peaceful Government in Syria who will protect all groups and minorities, free from the influence of Iran and Russia. That is easy to say, but bringing it about is far more difficult—as will be avoiding an incredibly dangerous power vacuum that could fuel extremism, cause a further breakdown of law and order and bring about a proliferation of criminal activities, including the weapons smuggling and drug production. We need to see a clear plan from the Government that protects British interests at home and abroad, and supports those who sincerely want to protect the innocent Syrian civilians who have suffered so much.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  We hear today about a massive backlog at the Department for Work and Pensions in processing pension credit and winter fuel payment claims. Bearing in mind that cold homes increase winter deaths and hospital admissions, and that we are debating winter preparedness today, what discussions has the Minister had with the DWP to ensure that those in my constituency who are waiting for their winter fuel payments will receive them before the Christmas break? Will she commit to publishing a full impact assessment of that decision on the NHS?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to stand here as the shadow Minister representing His Majesty’s official Opposition, and to support this Bill. Sadly, I note that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) is not in her place. The Opposition support the Bill, as we have done throughout its passage—both here and in the other place. We supported the Bill in the last Session, when it was a private Member’s Bill. I, too, pay tribute to Dame Maria Miller, who is no longer a Member of this House and who originally promoted the Bill. We continue our support in this Session as it comes before us as a Government Bill. I thank their lordships, who have taken a lot of interest in the Bill and made valuable contributions, particularly Baroness Anelay of St Johns. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for their work on Second Reading and in Committee respectively. This is a sensible Bill for two really important organisations: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. These organisations do vital work that is often aligned with UK foreign policy objectives. It is important to resolve the issues that the Bill seeks to address, and we want to see it on the statute book. The Bill is to be welcomed, and it will now be key for the Government to take advantage of the new structures it puts in place. On the CPA, we welcome the fact that the Bill makes a number of legal changes and supports the work of the courts in dealing with privileges and immunities. As we said on Second Reading, it is important that the Government now stretch every sinew to support both the work of the UK delegation and the CPA more widely. Perhaps I might also say that the performance of the Government at their first Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was found a little wanting. That said, we very much hope to see future engagement with the CPA, particularly in the democratic institution-building work that was signalled in the Samoa communiqué. The Commonwealth is a community of like-minded nations with shared history, but it is about so much more. It is about our public institutions, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. I recall my own visit to Barbados in 2021, when I was a Minister at the Foreign Office. I accompanied the then Prince of Wales, who is now His Majesty the King. It is surely a testament to the value of the Commonwealth that Barbados has chosen to remain a member of the community of nations. The CPA does so much to strengthen the Commonwealth, and I praise the work of colleagues serving on the executive committee, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who are not in the Chamber today, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is sitting on the Benches behind me. I also thank my colleagues in the other place, Baroness Sugg and Lord Kamall, who are on the executive committee. The ICRC has a unique legitimacy that allows it to engage with parties to conflicts across the world, and to gain important access to vulnerable people in conflict zones. The Bill recognises that, which is to be welcomed. The ICRC does vital work; I hope the Government will continue to recognise that, as we did in government, by committing generously to supporting its activities. The ICRC employs 18,000 staff around the world who work under incredibly difficult circumstances in some of the worst crises, and I would like to thank them on behalf of those of us on the Opposition Benches for their service. I will conclude as I started, by reiterating our support for the Bill before us today. It makes a number of welcome changes that support the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and I again pay tribute to all who support their vital work. As the Minister said as he concluded, I hope this is my last outing at the Dispatch Box this week before Christmas, and I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members a very merry Christmas.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I will not make too many more interventions, but on the specific point about the project moving to the next phase and then into construction, does the Minister not accept that because the mayor and the Department for Transport have vired the money elsewhere, the money for the station’s construction is now gone?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. As train users, we all know that the availability of car parking is important, and it is disappointing when a car park is upgraded or resurfaced and the upshot is fewer spaces rather than more. For Aldridge station, the purchase of the land is critical as part of the plans, but I am conscious that that will need to go through planning and so on. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Let us hope that the Minister might have heard his comments, and if she does not respond in this debate, perhaps she will respond to him another time. Let us return to Aldridge station and the journey to where we are today. By June 2022, the strategic outline business case for the scheme was assessed, and given ministerial approval by the Department for Transport. Further funding was provided from the Restoring Your Railway programme. The outline business case demonstrated that the proposal to reopen a station in Aldridge presented the potential to improve connectivity for the residents of Aldridge, and reduce existing congestion by providing a more convenient public transport route, with greater access to job opportunities. Demand modelling for the proposed station shows the potential for 237,000 passenger journeys per year. That would help to reduce pressure at existing stations nearby, most notably at Blake Street and Four Oaks in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not here today, as well as at Tame Bridge in the West Bromwich constituency. On 20 February this year, the green light for the project was given, and the budget of £30 million was secured from the Government. Transport for West Midlands and the West Midlands Rail Executive were working with Network Rail to get the station built and open, with a project end date of 2027. Imagine how excited we all were when we heard the news. For the avoidance of doubt, it was stated on the West Midlands combined authority website that the budget for Aldridge station was secured. Aldridge station would initially offer a half hourly service to Walsall town centre, where passengers would be offered an easy interchange with services to Birmingham, as well as the opportunity to connect to wider regional and national services. In addition, there were active discussions for further opportunities to improve and increase services at Aldridge. Those included the possibility that if the open access request was granted by DFT Ministers for services between Euston and Wrexham, the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands railway could provide services through Aldridge directly to London five times a day. What a game changer that would be for my constituents. It therefore came as a big surprise to me and my constituents when, no sooner was the newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, in place, than he announced in July a review into the future of Aldridge station. Not only that, but having said that he would look into all transport projects, he then singled out only three projects to be reviewed. Those included, of course, our proposed station in Aldridge. The question is: why? Then, having secured the £30 million of funding through the CRSTS, it came as a further shock to learn that, as an outcome of its review, Arup, the independent assessor, was under the misapprehension that there was a budget of only some £3.6 million, and therefore it seemed to believe that it was not a fully funded project. That is of course wrong, but that is the narrative that the mayor now wants people to believe, somehow conjuring up an illusion that the project has no funding and therefore could easily be pulled. Mayor Parker knows that is completely wrong. In fact, he made an application to the Secretary of State for Transport to move over £26 million of that funding to other areas within the budget. I was informed by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in a letter on 21 November that she had agreed to move the ringfence funding for the project on the advice of the mayor. Can the Minister confirm today when Mayor Parker made his application? Where has he sought to direct that funding to? I can only presume that it is to part of his wider transport budget, but which part, and where? My constituents are left wondering whether their funding is now being used to fund an unaffordable bus nationalisation scheme that everyone told Mayor Parker, before the election, could not be delivered on the budget he had planned, which was only £25 million. On that basis, call me cynical, but an additional £26 million from the Aldridge project would prove to be very handy for the elected mayor to push forward with his pet project. I am not anti-buses at all, but I am against money that was earmarked and ringfenced for Aldridge being moved somewhere else. That is why, given that the Secretary of State gave approval to vire this money, it is important that we fully understand where it has gone. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell me today, as the mayor is trying to have his cake and eat it. First, there was a review, and that review then became all about Aldridge station being deferred until future years. Now this week he is saying: “What is pretty clear is the funding wasn’t in place but more importantly that project has not currently met the business case requirements that it would need for that investment to take place”. To me and my constituents, this all sounds rather like the whole project is slowly being pulled into the sidings, awaiting derailment by the mayor. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed what intention Mayor Parker has signalled to the Department for Transport. I simply cannot, and will not, accept the comments from the mayor on funding. I would like the Minister to confirm: first, this was a fully funded project through the CRSTS and the funding allocation was awarded to the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands; secondly, it was also detailed on the West Midlands Rail Executive website; and thirdly, this was a political decision and a political choice by the elected mayor to change his political priorities to move that money, and he sought approval from the Secretary of State to do so. Once and for all, I believe that it is time to call out the elected mayor. My constituents and wider public transport users in the West Midlands deserve better, and it is time to admit that this was not his political inheritance, nor his predecessor’s, and it was not any failure of the previous Government to fund a new station in Aldridge. It is his decision, and his alone, to deny the people of Aldridge their funding for their new station. Turning to the so-called review, I would like to ask the Minister some questions—sorry about all my questions today. When did the former Secretary of State give her approval to move the money? I am concerned that the basis of the Arup review was seriously flawed, as the independent adviser to the mayor was under the impression either that approval to move the money had been given, or that the project had only a fraction of the budget, when the opposite was true. The residents of Aldridge deserve to be treated with respect, fairly and equitably, yet the manner in which the new mayor has handled the whole matter does a disservice to politics. Now we find that the mayor, having created his own hole, continues to dig himself in by repeating in his statements that the project was not funded and that the case for a station in Aldridge was not properly made, which is simply not the case. The new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said just yesterday that better rail services “put the needs of local people first”. I could not agree with her more. Ensuring that transport services are joined up, meet local needs and drive economic growth is exactly what Aldridge station is all about. It is time that the mayor apologised to the people of Aldridge for the whole review. I hope that the Minister will clear up the facts for my constituents today—that she will confirm that the project was fully funded and that by one means or another, the people of Aldridge have been seriously shortchanged, and the mayor has put their proposed new station at risk. I will conclude by repeating that the residents of Aldridge deserve better than the treatment they have been given, and it is incumbent on the Minister today to be clear with all of them about why the Government have backed the decision. She needs to give them, and me, the answers to those very basic questions. Aldridge deserves its train station, and it expects its train station.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful. I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge. Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. New trains stations must have disabled-friendly access, and also access for those who might have a pram, a pushchair or bags that are hard to carry up the stairs. That is really important. I am conscious that across the rail network, as the Minister will be aware, we have a lot of older train stations and heritage buildings. I know there is a programme to bring those up to speed. Perhaps she will say a little more about that. I am passionate about a train station for Aldridge because I want to make sure that my constituents have opportunities to go into Walsall, Birmingham and beyond. I want young people to have the opportunity to get the train to go to study, to university, and of course to access employment—so, yes, I am ambitious for Aldridge. When Andy Street was the mayor, part of his ambition was to bring a train station back to Aldridge. In fact, I remember the day he launched the plan and it almost looked like a smaller version of the London Underground map with all the different lines linking together and taking passengers into New Street. Such maps probably get the Department for Transport thinking about a mass transit system and the ability to move people around an area. A city region such as the West Midlands combined authority needs an integrated transport plan. In Aldridge we have the train line. All we need is a station and then we will be part of that integrated plan. Throughout the intervening period since 2017 a huge amount of work was undertaken by the West Midlands combined authority and Transport for West Midlands. The gamechanger came in February 2021, when Andy Street, on behalf of the combined authority, purchased land from the NHS for car parking. That was a clear demonstration of intent to reopen a station in Aldridge.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the Minister is saying, and I still hope she will answer some of my questions, but on that ongoing work, that money was part of the £30 million for Aldridge station. The Department and the mayor always fall back on the argument that the station is not under construction, but the work had started and it is ongoing. There is £3.6 million to do the preparatory work and ground work. I have spoken to Network Rail, and it is all teed up to do all of this. The Government have allocated £3.6 million, but I would still argue that that is part of the £30 million. I still do not understand why Aldridge train station was the one singled out to be pulled from all the projects.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to be able to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition today. I start by thanking the Petitions Committee and the petitioners for this important debate on the two petitions. This is clearly a matter of concern to constituents up and down the country, as well as to Members across the House. The Conservatives support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. It is right that the people of the west bank and Gaza should have the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. Our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process. Hamas is still being fought in parts of Gaza, while Israeli hostages remain in captivity. Ensuring that Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza, and removing its capacity to launch attacks against Israel, are essential and unavoidable steps on the road to a lasting peace. The steps we must take now include getting the hostages out and getting more aid in. That is crucial for making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict. The suffering of the hostages is intolerable for Israel; it should be intolerable for any person and any Government who care about human dignity and human rights. Let me be clear: Hamas could release the hostages now, immediately and unconditionally. We must also do more to support the innocent civilians of Gaza who are suffering and desperate. They continue to be used as human shields by Hamas, who have no regard at all for their safety and welfare. We continue to call for more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and, importantly, for improved access through existing routes. The Conservative Government helped to identify different ways that aid could get in, and we appointed a special representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was on the ground and had a remit to try to address the bottlenecks in aid delivery. We came up with clear proposals and put them to the Government of Israel, including in relation to aid delivery through Ashdod and Erez, as well as Kerem Shalom and the Jordan land corridor. Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments on those points, as well as on approving more types of aid, but fulfilment of those commitments is vital and we are monitoring developments closely. Turning to arms export licences, the last Conservative Government reviewed advice about the situation in Gaza and Israel, and our assessments left the UK’s position on arms export licences to Israel unchanged. Our position in government was in line with that of many of our partners, which have also not taken the decision to suspend existing arms export licences to Israel. The Labour Government’s decision to announce an arms embargo on the day on which Israeli hostage families buried six of their loved ones, and weeks after an Iranian attack in which we helped to defend Israel, is difficult to swallow. Weeks later, Iran attacked again. Decisions such as that have broader geopolitical implications, and we must be clear that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel. Our assessment was that the Government’s move was designed to satisfy their Back Benchers while not defending Israel, but it looks to have failed on both counts. Particularly in light of the subsequent direct attack by Iran, the decision was evidently poorly timed and ill judged. Labour has suspended export licences as Israel fends off threats from a terror group proscribed by the UK, as well as from Iran. That is despite the Government confessing that it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgment on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities. Returning to the subject of the future, we recognise that an effective Palestinian authority could have an important role to play in building a lasting peace and progressing towards a two-state solution. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton spoke with the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and offered the UK’s support for implementing much-needed reforms. Indeed, we are very clear that the Palestinian Authority needs serious reform to its education and welfare policies, and it needs to show democratic progress. Just as the Palestinian Authority must act, so must Israel. That means releasing frozen funds, halting settlement expansion and holding to account those responsible for extremist settler violence. To conclude and to reiterate, we continue to want to see a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza, the release of the hostages, and more done to get humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians. Ultimately, we want to be able to lift people’s eyes to the brighter future and regional peace.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Last Saturday was indeed Small Business Saturday. It was an opportunity for us to celebrate and support the many small businesses in our constituencies. However, too many of them are really worried about the increase in national insurance contributions—the £25 billion jobs tax—and there is simply no easy answer for them. They cannot just put up their prices, so they are looking at staffing levels. Why are the Government so against aspiration, and how do they think they will improve productivity and deliver growth in the economy?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have recently noticed an increase in case work from pensioners about accessing the west midlands pension fund, a pension scheme that appears to be run jointly by local government and the Department for Work and Pensions, administered by City of Wolverhampton council. Will the Leader of the House assist me in trying to get Government Departments to come together to unlock what is becoming a very slow process that is affecting people from a number of constituencies in the west midlands?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  This centrally driven intervention drives a coach and horses through green belt areas such as Aldridge-Brownhills and through local democracy. How will the Minister ensure that local communities are respected and have a voice, so that we build the right homes in the right places?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Detained British Nationals Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important and impactful debate. He speaks with such knowledge on the matter. I thank all other hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. Supporting British nationals abroad should rightly be a priority for the FCDO. Looking after the welfare of detainees in particular is a cornerstone of the excellent work done by our consular teams here and overseas. It is crucial that Ministers back our Foreign Office staff, detainees and families by providing leadership at the highest level and supporting them wherever possible. I witnessed some of that during my time as a Foreign Office Minister and, like many Members, I experienced it at a constituency level, seeing how the FCDO has helped with the return of a number of consular cases. In our last full year in government in 2023, the consular team at the Foreign Office supported 21,000 British nationals around the world, including victims of crime and those who had been detained or hospitalised. We are clear that our citizens abroad must get access to the help they need when they need it. I note that the Foreign Secretary confirmed last week that he hopes to announce an envoy who will deal with more complex detention cases. I gently say to the Government and the Minister that this must not become an excuse for outsourcing something that is the responsibility of Ministers. Detained British nationals will rightly expect Ministers to grip those issues and provide the political leadership that they and their families deserve. The Government also promised to introduce a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations, which, disappointingly, was not forthcoming in the King’s Speech. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the Government’s plans to bring forward that commitment. There are a number of high-profile consular cases, some of which we have heard about today, that parliamentarians rightly continue to take a keen interest in seeing resolved. They include, among others, the cases of Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai. We raised our concerns about Jagtar Singh Johal’s case, including his allegations of torture, with the Government of India on over 110 occasions. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton personally met Mr Johal’s brother in Glasgow. We constantly raised Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s case with the highest levels of the Egyptian Government and pressed hard for urgent consular access. We remain deeply concerned about his case and are absolutely clear that he needs to be released. When in government, we also regularly raised consular matters with the United Arab Emirates authorities, including Ryan Cornelius’s case, at an official and ministerial level, and consular staff were in regular contact with Mr Cornelius and his family to provide him with ongoing support. We called strongly for the release of Jimmy Lai, for an end to his politically motivated trial, and for consular access. We raised that consistently at the very highest levels, and pressed for the repeal of Hong Kong’s national security legislation. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), recently met Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien. We will continue to call for Mr Lai’s release. In the light of the deep concern shared across the House, some of which we have heard today, I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on the Government’s work with international counterparts to progress those cases, and on his recent engagement with those individuals’ families. In respect of Jimmy Lai’s case in particular, I return to a theme that I have raised from the Dispatch Box before: the Government’s pursuit of closer relations with Beijing. There is no shying away from the fact that the charge laid against Mr Lai arose because of the national security law that China introduced in Hong Kong. When he was Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was unequivocal that that law is a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, and we continue to call for its repeal. The Foreign Secretary has said that there are disagreements between his Government and the Chinese on that matter, so I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will articulate those differences in opinion loud and clear by making an explicit call for that law to be repealed. The Foreign Secretary wants to avoid surprises with Beijing, but we cannot afford for any reset of relations to be all give and no take just for the sake of avoiding difficult conversations. More broadly, we must be clear-eyed that the autocratic world uses dual-nationals as pawns to achieve its objectives and obtain leverage. Indeed, we have seen a disturbing pattern of British nationals being imprisoned by autocracies in recent years. We saw that in Russia with the appalling treatment of Vladimir Kara-Murza, and in Iran with the callous and cowardly execution of Alireza Akbari. Does the Minister have a strategy for countering that pattern of cynical exploitation of British nationals? I put on record our thanks to the consular teams in the UK, and in British embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world, for the work that they undertake around the clock, often in extremely difficult circumstances, to support thousands of British nationals every year. Many cases may not be as high profile as those that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have set out, but they are all equally important when it comes to safeguarding our interests and looking after our citizens. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how he is backing our consular teams to ensure that they are properly resourced and can keep up their excellent work. We have a duty to British nationals at home and abroad, especially those who are denied access to vital support. It is right that we give consular services our full backing in delivering that support. To support that work, and to ensure that the UK upholds its duties to its citizens, the Government must provide political leadership by continuing to raise cases at the highest levels.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  On the NHS and choices, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have chosen to clobber organisations and charities such as air ambulances and the hospice movement—the very organisations whose help the Government will need to improve services for the general public? As we asked yesterday, will he consider an exemption?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Georgia · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks so far. The shocking and disturbing scenes in Georgia have been hard for all to witness, and I note the statement put out by the Foreign Office this morning. We share the Government’s deep anxiety over the situation in Georgia. What is happening in Georgia matters. From the law on foreign influence to election irregularities and the excessive use of force in recent days against protesters and journalists, we are witnessing Georgia being dragged down a dangerous path. It matters for the Georgian people, for our important bilateral relationship, and for the wider Euro-Atlantic community, which sincerely seeks closer ties and a deeper friendship with Georgia. Our clear and unambiguous aim should be to support the Georgian people, and that includes their desire for a future rooted in the Euro-Atlantic community. Will the Minister confirm she has told her Georgian counterpart, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down the aggressive rhetoric, de-escalate the situation on the streets and stop blaming others for the current tensions? Will she also commit to pulling every diplomatic lever to support the Georgian people as they go through this dark period? Finally, and more broadly, I will circle back to the question I asked last week at Foreign Office questions, because this is a clear example of the dangers of Europe becoming a more contested space. Will the Minister urgently come forward with a plan that builds on the work of the previous Government to be more muscular in leveraging our soft power, so that we can counter attempts to sow division and instead bang the drum for the Euro-Atlantic community? We need to demonstrate to countries in Europe and around the world that a partnership with us, and choosing democracy and openness, is the best route to prosperity.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman refers to the NHS, and I believe the NHS and hospital trusts will receive an exemption to the increase in national insurance contributions. Given his clear passion for the NHS, will he look again at the impact that his rise in national insurance contributions will have on air ambulances? Under the current proposals air ambulances, like hospices, will face a huge increase in their costs.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the UK, the definition of a small business is one that employs fewer than 50 employees and has an annual turnover of less than £10 million? Thanks to his changes and political choices, thousands of small businesses across the country will face the decision of whether to keep staff on or lay them off.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

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

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who always brings such knowledge and expertise to the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). I congratulate her on making her making speech and thank her for sharing her passion for her constituency with us. It is apt that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of your great knowledge of this policy area. Although we do not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, there is nonetheless a valuable and dynamic relationship between London and Taipei, underpinned by strong commercial, educational and cultural links. We also have a solid partnership in other important areas, including health, as we saw particularly during the pandemic. The work of the British Office Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in London is highly commendable and benefits both of our peoples, for example with a wide range of exchanges and visits, including on environmental, educational and judicial themes. We also have a significant trading relationship, which we call on the Government to continue to promote. Trade in goods and services rose from £5.5 billion in 2014 to £8.3 billion in 2023, which is a substantial increase. We want more British businesses to benefit from Taiwan’s impressive economy and prominent trade and investment links with the wider region. Within the current structure of our unofficial relationship, there is more we can do to maximise the benefits to both of our peoples, and we will push the Government to do so. It is right that the UK continues to lobby in favour of Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. In her response, will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current plans on that front, including on the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organisation technical meetings? The Government must not overlook the risks Taiwan has to contend with. There have been some worrying early signs, which we want to see put right. Members on the Conservative Benches harbour concerns that the relationship Labour is carving out with Beijing is all give and no take. Today provides the Minister with an opportunity to dispel the widespread impression that this Government are making concessions with nothing in return. Labour has called in the application for a new super-embassy in London and is desperately performing verbal contortions on issues that should be very straight- forward, including the national security law in Hong Kong. We firmly believe that law should be repealed and we are not afraid to say so publicly. Will the Minister name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices or human rights? As far as I can see, we are yet to receive a convincing answer. We are very clear that what Labour must not do is sacrifice the UK’s voice on the threats facing Taiwan on the altar of closer relations with Beijing. We have already seen signs of naiveté. Within a day of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, which the Prime Minister hailed as an opportunity to bring about a “strong” and “consistent” relationship where “surprises” would be avoided, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. It makes the Prime Minister’s boast that the UK would be a partner “committed to the rule of law” look rather hollow. The Prime Minister’s response to these entirely unjustified jailings and his inability to sufficiently publicly condemn them has raised eyebrows too. It has not gone unnoticed and we will not let that point go. The Government need to be much more clear eyed about the threats and challenges posed by China, whether in relation to Hong Kong or Taiwan. We are concerned by reports that the Foreign Office tried to exert pressure to postpone an inward visit by the former President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. The FCDO has said it “does not recognise” the description of events set out in the reports, which in Westminster language means that it does not deny that this happened. Will the Minister give the House the explanation it expects? What actually happened? Will the Minister also confirm that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have explicitly raised serious concerns in their respective meetings with President Xi and Wang Yi about any activity that risks destabilising the cross-strait status quo? Did they say, in no uncertain terms, that we stand firmly against any unilateral attempts to change the status quo? For reasons that are well understood, we have a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. It is our deep conviction that the tensions, which have understandably received a great deal of attention in this afternoon’s debate, should be resolved peacefully. That is what will best serve people on both sides of the Taiwan strait, as well as the Indo-Pacific region and the wider world. That peace and stability matters for the rules-based order, for trade and for the health of the global economy, and we should not shy away from saying that. We hope that people on the two sides of the Taiwan strait will renew efforts to resolve differences peacefully through constructive dialogue and not under a cloud of coercion or threats. Much of the debate on this subject revolves around the constitutional status of Taiwan and its relationship with China. Yet we should never lose sight of Taiwan’s domestic achievements in its own right, because they are deeply impressive: a flourishing and vibrant democracy, a strong judiciary and one of Asia’s most dynamic economies. Taiwan is also a vital manufacturer of semi- conductors, which is one of the most important pieces of tech in the world. For all those reasons and many more, we will press the Government to deepen and grow our relationship.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Following my question in the Chamber last week, I received confirmation from the Transport Secretary that funding ringfenced for a new train station in Aldridge had been moved and put towards funding the Labour Mayor’s pet bus nationalisation project. With that in mind, will the right hon. Lady set aside time for a debate on the restoring your railways programme and city region sustainable transport settlements to enable us to have greater insight and scrutiny of the Government’s vision on transport? At the moment, they are clearly bypassing Aldridge.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Gambling Operators Levy: Society Lotteries · Hansard source

  More

  3. Whether she has had recent representations from society lotteries on the potential merits of zero-rating those organisations under any future statutory levy on gambling operators.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Gambling Operators Levy: Society Lotteries · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister clearly recognises, as we all do, the contribution that society lotteries make to our constituencies through various organisations. Does she recognise that not-for-profit society lotteries will have to fund any levy due from their charitable return, which the sector, and I think many of us, feel amounts to a charity tax?

• 28 Nov 2024 · UK Leadership on Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome this statement not least because it provides an opportunity to highlight what is a humanitarian catastrophe. Yesterday, I was fortunate to meet representatives of the World Food Programme. From speaking to them and to others in the sector, I know how crucial it is that we continue to raise the importance of this issue and to keep the situation in our minds. This war, which is driven by a man-made power struggle, has already resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis. It is, as I said earlier, a humanitarian catastrophe. Any further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Sudan will have dire consequences. There are already 25 million people—half the entire population of Sudan—in urgent need of assistance. Eleven million people have had to flee from their homes, and 7 million need urgent food assistance. There are reports of systematic human rights abuses, including sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties. What has been happening in Darfur is also incredibly disturbing. The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided. Sadly, we are all well aware of the knock-on effect in the surrounding countries. The UK has already invested a great deal of diplomatic energy into trying to bring about a cessation of hostilities and to press for unhindered, safe humanitarian access to Sudan. The previous Government also invested heavily in aid to Sudan to alleviate the suffering. I would like to take a second to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in his place today, for the leadership that he has shown in response to this crisis and for his commitment in government to the people of Sudan. We understand that the new Government have announced further aid measures, which of course is welcome, but I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details to the House on which trusted organisations she has partnered with for her emergency aid package. We note that she has said that the package will provide food, water, shelter and healthcare where it is most needed, but can she provide specific examples of the aid items she hopes it will deliver and at which areas of Sudan she envisages it being targeted? The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the problem of getting aid into Sudan in the first place, let alone the challenges of distribution. Can she assure the House that everything possible is being done to ensure that this aid can be genuinely effectively distributed? What recent conversations has she had with partners to encourage other countries to provide support to the humanitarian response? Turning to the warring parties, our position remains that there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities. We understand that the resolution the Government introduced at the UN Security Council with Sierra Leone was thwarted by Russia. However, we would welcome a further update on other avenues the Government are actively pursuing, including backing the Jeddah process. The Government and our allies need to be working around the clock to press the warring parties into a ceasefire and to exert whatever pressure they can to see the lifting of arbitrary obstacles to humanitarian aid delivery. In conclusion, I am sure the Minister will agree that the status quo in Sudan is not sustainable and that it must change. The UK has a leadership role here. We must use it to its fullest extent.