UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Dan Jarvis – 2025 Speech on Cyber Threats

    Dan Jarvis – 2025 Speech on Cyber Threats

    The speech made by Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, in London on 24 November 2025.

    It’s great to be here with you all today. 

    I’m also really pleased that the invitation for today’s conference actually reached you, and didn’t fall into your email’s junk folder. 

    But if you are here because you picked up this invitation in your spam, I just want to be crystal clear – we are not giving away a free Lamborghini at today’s event.

    Hopefully everybody is connected to the wifi, and if you’re not, the password is very simple to remember.

    It’s the full text of the Magna Carta in Latin.

    Anyway, it’s great to be able to welcome you all to the House of Commons. 

    But at first glance, it may seem like Parliament and Cyber are two mutually exclusive concepts. 

    Our democracy has – historically – been very wary of new technologies.

    There was a Parliament Technology Gap from when an innovation was created until it was introduced in Parliament. 

    First, the printing press.

    From the 1480s, printing became more common in this country. Thomas Hansard began printing Parliament’s debates independently in 1811 and it took a select committee in 1909 to adopt Hansard’s innovation as a legitimate part of their service. 

    A Parliament Technology Gap of about 400 years. Not a great start.  Next, broadcast cameras and microphones, which came into use in the early 1900s.

    Initially, the BBC couldn’t broadcast anything said in either House until two weeks after it had been discussed.  But eventually, cameras entered Parliament by 1989. A Parliament Technology Gap of about 90 years – so something of an improvement.  

    Finally, the personal computer and the internet – which became commonplace from the late 1970s. Parliament was again slow to take up the benefits of IT. 

    One MP, during a debate in 1988, said “the technological revolution – of which we are so proud in Britain – seems to have passed Westminster by”.

    From 1994, every MP with a personal computer was given internet access. A Technology Gap of only 20 years – the best yet. 

    And what about the technology of the future?

    Now, much like Steve Jobs and black rollnecks, Parliament and tech are now becoming inseparable.

    Parliament is more proactive. Its ‘Information and Technology Strategy’ faces the future stating how Parliament must continually adapt to the evolving landscape. 

    This is exactly the right approach to take. 

    The pace of change is only accelerating and the speed in which new technology is introduced and adopted is becoming shorter and shorter. So, we must protect ourselves against the threats of tomorrow. 

    Because cyber-attacks taking place across the world are only getting worse.

    If cybercrime were a national economy, it would be the third largest in the world.

    Microsoft’s Digital Defence Report said that – by 2027 – scams are expected to cost the world $27 trillion a year.

    As a joint Minister between the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, I have heard from my policing colleagues about the sometimes unseen cyber offending. Some that are central to truly awful online crimes.

    Like those that hack into accounts to steal and then trade intimate images mostly of women and children. 

    Or the community groups that blur boundaries between cyber and violence in the most despicable way. 

    These are growing trends and of deep concern, all of which show that our collective exposure to serious impacts is growing at an unprecedented pace.

    This is especially true when it comes to our world-leading business sector. It is essential for every organisation to operate in a way that minimises the risks of a cyber incident.

    The mindset for businesses should not be ‘if’ we get attacked but ‘when’ we get attacked. That means our cyber defences and technical resilience must evolve to cope with the threat.

    Which is why we’re doing more than ever before to keep our businesses and society safe from cyberattacks and cybercrime. 

    And we’re doing that through the building we’re all in today.

    Just a couple of weeks ago, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill was introduced to Parliament.

    It will boost cyber protections for the services that people and businesses rely on every day. And it will ensure any breaches in cyber security are dealt with quickly.

    This is a vital piece of work, as is our Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan.

    Because we know that Parliament is also a target, which is why we are taking this decisive action against foreign interference and espionage operations.

    The Action Plan will strengthen our legislation to disrupt the threat, help those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and help break down the ecosystem of proxy organisations used by foreign powers to target our democratic institutions.

    We’re also giving more direct support to businesses to make sure they remain safe.

    The new tools we have created through the National Cyber Security Centre will help every kind of business, from the SME with a handful of employees, to larger corporations with hundreds of staff. 

    Our ‘Cyber Action Toolkit’ that we launched last month is designed to empower sole traders and small businesses to take their first steps toward cyber protection. 

    Our ‘Cyber Essentials’ certification proves your organisation is protected against common cyber threats.

    And over 13,000 organisations are part of the free ‘Early Warning’ service, giving them exclusive access to information on potential cyber-attacks. 

    All of this work will be enhanced next year when we publish the new National Cyber Action Plan. 

    It will outline how we will continue to build resilience and combat the technological threats facing us to secure economic growth.

    And, of course, it’s vital that the police, National Crime Agency, and our security services continue to work together so we can ruthlessly pursue and disrupt these cyber threats. 

    These criminals need to know we will use all of the tools at our disposal to counter their activity.

    We must support our businesses in any way we can. But businesses cannot be protected by the government alone. 

    Which is why last month, a letter was sent to the CEOs of the FTSE 350 companies that implored those business leaders to recognise the threat that is facing them.

    Now, today I’m talking to some great leaders from our tech sector – a sector that knows the importance behind rigorous security. 

    And I believe we are staring at a potential win-win situation for us if our business leaders increase their cyber security, working alongside the innovative UK cyber industry that brings in over £13billion in revenue. 

    Because this should be a priority for everyone driven at board-level, and I implore any business leader who thinks they may be exempt from gripping cyber risks to think again.

    Perhaps the Parliament of the past was right. 

    They could more or less evade utilising technology and, by doing so, they could keep their discussions mostly private and keep the country running. 

    That is not an option open to any of us today. Technology enhances everything we do. 

    It keeps our democracy transparent, it keeps our businesses successful, it keeps people connected and safe. 

    But this interconnection between technology and society can be exploited by those who seek to cause us harm.

    Many of you in this room lead by example.

    Our tech sector is one of the most crucial chips in the economy’s motherboard. One that takes its cyber security seriously.

    I hope that, through Government support and their own initiative, that the rest of our business leaders follow in your footsteps. 

    Thank you very much.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech on the 25th anniversary of the Women Peace and Security Agenda

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech on the 25th anniversary of the Women Peace and Security Agenda

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, on 24 November 2025.

    Can I just welcome all of you here today. You will have already seen on the video that we’ve seen before some of the inspiring women on whose shoulders we now stand in the work around Women, Peace and Security.

    And can I particularly welcome Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh and to say thank you to you for being here today but also for the immensely powerful work that you have been doing across the world, shining a light on the experiences of women in some of the most challenging circumstances – thank you.

    And can I thank so many of you here today who have also been involved for many years in important and powerful work to champion women’s voices, to speak up for women and to challenge some of the most devastating circumstances that women can face across the world and the work that you do is hugely important. So thank you for being part of this event today and thank you for the important work that you do.

    Because today we mark an important anniversary…

    It is enabled by women who refused to be silenced in the face of war. 

    Because twenty-five years ago, the international community listened to those courageous women. 

    Listened and acknowledged that not only are women victims of war, women must be the architects of peace… 

    And have recognised that women are too often denied a seat at the table when it comes to resolving those very same conflicts that do such damage to women’s lives… 

    Accepted the clear evidence that when you exclude women then peace is more likely to flounder and violence to resume. 

    Because the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was a genuine milestone.

    It was the first time that the world’s highest security body put in black and white what we know to be true… 

    That women’s roles, women’s experiences, women’s insights and contributions must be central to the world’s approaches to conflict. 

    Whether that be in our responses during war or our decision-making in order to build peace. 

    So I am very proud that twenty-five years ago, the UK played a leading role alongside civil society to secure Resolution 1325, and in the progress that  it helped to catalyse.

    I’m glad that the UK has carried forward that ambition reflected in 1325 in the years that followed.

    Be it as penholder, ensuring that the UN Security Council discussions uphold women, peace and security principles.

    And supporting women peacebuilders in the most challenging of contexts.

    So we adopted our first UK national action plan under the last Labour government almost twenty years ago and have carried plans through to this day.

    But of course, global progress does not rest simply on governments. 

    It rests on grassroots women’s rights organisations, on campaigners, on community networks, researchers, humanitarians, businesses, peacebuilders and above all on harnessing efforts across different countries, different communities and stakeholders too.

    It rests on you all of you here today who have played your roles in pushing for change. 

    Two and a half decades on, we have seen women play important roles in stopping violence and creating a more just peace for all. 

    Women like Monica McWilliams and Pearl Sagar in Northern Ireland who campaigned for women’s voices to be heard in ending the troubles in Northern Ireland. 

    Or Leymah Gbowee who led a non-violent movement to end Liberia’s civil war. 

    Or the many women of Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres who helped broker the peace deal that ended Colombia’s protracted conflict.   

    These are so many examples to learn from and to build on. We’ll have an important discussion and I look forward to hearing from people today and women today and their views on the road ahead.

    Because the situation now is more challenging than ever. 

    We have women represented barely a sixth of those at the table in peace talks last year, and in many cases, were excluded entirely. 

    And at a time when we are living through an era of acute instability. 

    There are more countries engaged in violent conflict now than at any time since the Second World War. 

    And that has devastating consequences for all civilians. But too often the impact falls most heavily on women and girls. 

    And if we look at what is happening now in Sudan. 

    In El Fasher where rape is being used systematically as a weapon of war. 

    And where we have seen some of the most terrible stories.

    Women and teenagers and children subject to brutal sexual violence and torture.

    And the UN’s humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher recounted to me last week some of the unimaginable experiences of women survivors that he had met fleeing what he described as an epicentre of global suffering.  

    And suffering that we have seen most acutely in Sudan but more widely too.

    The number of women who live in or close to conflict has almost doubled in the last 15 years.  

    And from Syria to Sudan and from Yemen to Ukraine, it is estimated that in conflict zones up to 30% of women and girls have experienced sexual violence – including some appalling ordeals of rape, or abduction or sexual slavery. 

    And those are the kind of ordeals that can carry lasting stigma and trauma that reverberates for generations. 

    And so, as we have seen conflict getting worse, we have also seen progress stall and going backwards.

    And that is why it is now time to bring new momentum to the commitments captured in Resolution 1325 a quarter of a century ago.

    And as Foreign Secretary, I am determined that we must renew that global focus and ambition around women, peace and security and put it at the heart of UK foreign policy.

    First, by radically stepping up efforts to end impunity for sexual crimes in conflict. 

    Already, the UK is providing expert technical support to Ukrainian police, prosecutors and judges to support war crimes investigations. 

    We have funded specialist sexual investigators to assist in UN fact-finding missions not only in Ukraine, but in Sudan, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Myanmar. 

    Just over a week ago, the UK secured international consensus at the UN Human Rights Council for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher.  

    And the UK-built International Alliance for preventing sexual violence, currently chaired by Ukraine, will rally further support for tackling the silence and stigma faced by survivors of sexual violence.  

    Second, we need to ensure our humanitarian work goes further to address the particular impact of crises on women and girls.  

    In Gaza, pregnant and breastfeeding women are suffering from acute malnutrition and have lost access to critical reproductive health services.

    We have provided £3m to the UN to support pregnant women and new mothers.  

    And I want us to work with Jordan to ensure that the neonatal field hospital that they have can be moved into Gaza as well as part of opening access for humanitarian aid into Gaza.

    And essential wider provision needs to include safe shelter, adequate healthcare and support for survivors of sexual violence to help them recover.

    And third, by amplifying women’s voices and participation in building peace.

    And that’s why we have worked to support women peacebuilders including in Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia, and will press for their inclusion in peace processes, such as in Syria and Sudan.

    And will initiate a no-tolerance approach to reprisals, working with the UN to condemn acts of violence against women, simply for speaking out. 

    So with these priorities and collective wider efforts, we can bring new energy to the commitments that were captured in UN Security Council Resolution 1325 all those years ago.

    Here at home in the UK, this government has set an unprecedented mission to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls including a mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade.

    As Foreign Secretary, I am determined to ensure that mission is reflected in our foreign policy too – standing with women across the globe in resisting violence, expanding opportunity and boosting political participation.  

    We will step up our international collaboration to address these horrific harms that should have been consigned to the history books.

    Because we know there cannot be peace, security or prosperity without women playing their part, free from violence and free from fear.

    Thank you very much.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.

    Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.

    Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?

    Hilary Benn

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.

    Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die?

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment?

    Hilary Benn

    I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.

    The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.

    What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court?

    Hilary Benn

    If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.

    Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity.

    Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)

    I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans?

    Hilary Benn

    I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly.

    Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down.

    Hilary Benn

    The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.

    There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.

    The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely.

    Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)

    Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?

    Hilary Benn

    The commission is an independent body established—

    Dr Evans

    Ah.

    Hilary Benn

    The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment.

    Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)

    I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders.

    Hilary Benn

    I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.

    If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.

    Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)

    The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.

    Hilary Benn

    I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.

    These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.

    Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con) rose—

    Hilary Benn

    I will give way, and then I will make progress.

    Ben Obese-Jecty

    Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?

    Hilary Benn

    I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Hilary Benn

    I will make progress.

    There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:

    “There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”

    What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:

    “As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”

    I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:

    “I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”

    I agree.

    Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:

    “What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”

    The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.

    We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.

    I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere.

    Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)

    May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings?

    Hilary Benn

    My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others—

    James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)

    Warrenpoint.

    Hilary Benn

    And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.

    I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.

    Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.

    Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as

    “a direct threat to national security”?

    Hilary Benn

    I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Hilary Benn

    No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.

    Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.

    The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.

    I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.

    The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.

    Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

    Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.

    I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.

    We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,

    “it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]

    I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.

    Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received

    “with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

    He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should

    “get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,

    and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

    “to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”

    It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.

    I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Calum Miller – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    Calum Miller – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    The speech made by Calum Miller, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester and Woodstock, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for advanced sight of her statement, which I welcome.

    The Foreign Secretary is right that the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is horrendous, as are accounts of systematic murder, rape and torture, often targeted at civilians from specific ethnic groups, and, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence towards women and girls. The UK has a special responsibility as the penholder for Sudan at the UN. We must be relentless in pursuing true protection for civilians, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House with her assessment of the role of external actors in supporting the warring parties? Will she lead efforts at the UN to secure and implement a country-wide arms embargo? How will the UK ensure that the UN inquiry that she referred to can gather evidence, so that those actors, both inside and outside Sudan, who are responsible for these atrocities are held to account?

    Turning to the middle east, last night’s UN Security Council resolution marks an important step forward, and I hope that it will reinforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. However, vital details are missing from the resolution. What will be the remit and scope of the international stabilisation force? How will Hamas be disarmed? How will those responsible for atrocities in Gaza be held accountable, and how does the Foreign Secretary envisage that a Palestinian committee will ensure that Palestinian self-determination is respected?

    The resolution focuses on Gaza, but we desperately need a clear road map to securing a two-state solution. That requires an end to illegal settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and reform of the governance of the Palestinian Authority. How is the UK supporting reforms to the PA, and will the Foreign Secretary today commit to banning all UK trade with illegal settlements?

    Yvette Cooper

    I welcome the response by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I agree with him about the importance of an arms embargo around Sudan, and about ensuring that it is properly implemented. It is deeply disturbing that weapons are still being supplied to the RSF, despite the atrocities, and that there are still weapon flows to all sides. That means that there are immensely serious issues, including around borders, access and routes, that we need to continue to pursue through international pressure.

    The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the investigations. The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drafted with partners provides for the UN-led investigation of these atrocities, but that will be scant comfort to anyone if there is not also the urgently needed action to prevent further atrocities. There must be accountability, but there must also be urgent action to prevent atrocities in the first place.

    On Gaza, work is under way to constitute the International Stabilisation Force. Some countries are prepared to come forward and contribute, and crucially the mandates were provided last night. The ISF must operate in line with international law. Further details of how the new Palestinian committee will operate need to be developed, and we want it to be constituted as rapidly as possible. Also, we must see an end to illegal settlements. We need to rebuild the connections between the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so that we can have a Palestinian state, in which people live in peace and security, alongside the Israeli state. That is the only way that we will get to peace for both.

  • Sarah Champion – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    Sarah Champion – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    The speech made by Sarah Champion, the Chair of the International Development Committee, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    This morning, Members received a private briefing on Sudan, at which one of the academics stated:

    “El Fasher is a slaughter house. Our low estimate is 60,000 people have been killed there in the last three weeks.”

    That would make it the biggest atrocity crime since the 1990s. These are civilians, not soldiers, and this is not about conflict; it is about genocide. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been briefed on the likelihood of a mass-casualty event for years. In November 2021, the FCDO was publicly warned of a likely genocide. The recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact report concluded that last year, officials took “the least ambitious option” on civilian protection. I say to the Foreign Secretary that scrutiny and diplomatic surge can slow down this slaughter, so are we leading the 25 states who signed the joint statement on 11 November to work together to put pressure on the United Arab Emirates? Why has our atrocity prevention team not been surged? Tawila now needs to be our focus of our protection. What are the evacuation plans to protect up to 650,000 people from genocide? The Sudanese civilians need a champion. As UN penholder, will that be us?

    Yvette Cooper

    I thank my hon. Friend for her work and that of her Committee on this issue. She is right to point out the truly horrendous nature of what is happening in Sudan and the atrocities that we have heard about. People have been executed in the middle of a maternity hospital and lives are being lost at scale, and the fact that so few people are emerging from the area makes it deeply troubling to consider what more we may discover. Because I am so deeply concerned, I have raised the issue not just at the Manama dialogue, but at every international discussion that we have been having with foreign ministers, and directly with all members of the Quad, including the UAE and the US, as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as we need urgent action. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is also about preventing further atrocities, which are at risk of happening at any moment if we do not have that urgent action.

  • Andrew Rosindell – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    Andrew Rosindell – 2025 Speech on Gaza and Sudan

    The speech made by Andrew Rosindell, the Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesperson, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the passing of the US-drafted resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the middle east, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved ones, and the families of all the deceased hostages, in the forefront of our thoughts. We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured.

    Key to yesterday’s resolution was a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force, but can the Foreign Secretary set out exactly what Britain’s contribution will be to that force? The Government speak about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid a potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. What is Britain’s contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence, funding, action on the ground, or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about those details. Will she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate, and say what their contributions will be?

    Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and their full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday’s vote, what practical contribution will the UK make to those efforts? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there are several points in the US President’s plan specifically on that, so where does the UK dock into those initiatives? Has she identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day-after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and education overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the west bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the middle east in that domain, and this must now be a moment of reckoning for the curricula in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that is vital if we are to build a sustainable peace.

    On the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza? Have specific proposals and solutions been conveyed by the British side to Israeli Government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved?

    Turning to the situation in Sudan, in El Fasher and elsewhere we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words, all in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered. In the immediate term, the UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators, and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain the conflict. Will that be forthcoming, and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having on that with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan quad and others? Will she also update the House on the Government’s response to US efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire, and say what role Britain is playing in that?

    On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery. How has the situation evolved in the past two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? Finally, on day-after planning, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups, to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? We have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week, and I hope that similar initiatives will be possible with regards to Sudan. As penholder, the UK Government have a special responsibility, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gear.

    Yvette Cooper

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the issues relating to Gaza and Sudan, and I will take his points in turn. We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the international stabilisation force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil-military co-ordination committee that is led by the US. It is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20-point plan. On the nature of the role that we expect to continue to play, we already provide training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training. I met them in Jordan, and other countries are also offering to provide such training for Palestinian police, which will be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise on decommissioning. That is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we have experience and expertise, mostly immediately around de-mining capabilities in terms of both funding and expertise.

    The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of curriculum reform, which I agree needs to take place. That is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed that directly with President Abbas. The importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform must be central in both the west bank and in Gaza. On practical issues about the opening of crossings, we want to see all the crossings opened and restrictions lifted. The co-ordination committee, which has a UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli Government to seek to improve access and monitoring, and to improve arrangements to get more aid through. I continue to urge swifter action to get that desperately needed aid in place.

    On Sudan, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for sanctions. I have had personal direct discussions with all members of the quad, including most recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, and I know how strongly he feels about the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan. We will continue to offer our support to that process.

    On aid delivery, based on what the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though some of the routes into the region are currently completely inadequate, so security and infrastructure need to be provided to get the desperately needed scale of aid into the area. We will need to look at air routes as well as truck routes. He is right to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese civilian organisations. It is crucial that ultimately we have a transition to a civilian Administration in Sudan and an end to the horrendous fighting, abuse and sexual violence that we have seen, with reports on all sides of those sorts of atrocities taking place.

    Finally, US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza, but it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress so far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan and we need the whole international community to pull together to deliver progress in the same way.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on Gaza and Sudan

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on Gaza and Sudan

    The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    I want to update the House on two of the world’s gravest conflicts—in Gaza and in Sudan—following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and on the action that the UK Government are taking to pursue peace.

    First, I turn to Gaza. After two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye has been in place for six weeks. Twenty hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza. But the ceasefire is highly fragile, and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace.

    Last night, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an international stabilisation force for Gaza, and transitional arrangements including the board of peace and a Palestinian committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority, and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond. The resolution is a critical staging post that sustains the unity around President Trump’s 20-point plan.

    Momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an international stabilisation force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left that Hamas can exploit. We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the board of peace. As we made clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law, and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self- determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the west bank, and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza, because Palestine must be run by Palestinians.

    The work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue. That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on 7 October, so that their families can properly grieve. We urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses in Jordan holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month; yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed. People there told me that there were 30 more warehouses nearby, with food, shelter kits, tents and medical supplies—less than 100 miles from Gaza but still not getting in.

    I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing, Zikim, is now partially open. But it is not nearly enough. We need all land crossings open—including the Rafah border with Egypt— with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and to provide shelter as winter draws in. Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international non-governmental organisations need certainty that they can continue to operate. I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit that stands ready to be moved into Gaza—but, again, they cannot yet get it in. The Israeli Government can and must remove the restrictions and uncertainty now.

    As well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace. We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring, based on the Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting on demining and unexploded ordnance, including with £4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service, and we are funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group, whose impressive work I recently saw at first hand. On civil-military co-ordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US-led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.

    Beyond Gaza, stability in the west bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu Government should be extending, not threatening to end, the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks—arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy for Palestinians. This is crucial for stability, which is in Israel’s interests too.

    The pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest. While I welcome Israeli President Herzog’s expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient—practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence is vital to protecting a two-state solution, in line with the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine.

    Let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding, right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as:

    “the epicentre of suffering in the world”

    and he is right. Over 30 million people need lifesaving aid. Twelve million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading. Cholera and preventable disease are rampant. In El Fasher, following advances by the Rapid Support Forces, there are horrifying scenes of atrocities, with mass executions, starvation, and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war—horrors so appalling they can be seen from space.

    As the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. Satellite pictures show discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves. Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken.

    A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, at our London-Sudan conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding, but the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El Obeid.

    We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate the suffering and bring about peace. That means more aid to those in need. The UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering lifesaving support to over 650,000 people—treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine, and supporting survivors of rape—but the challenge is still access.

    The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The Sudanese armed forces are bringing in new restrictions that stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers, supplies and trapped civilians. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce to open routes for lifesaving supplies, but aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by the warring parties, so we desperately need a lasting ceasefire underpinned by a serious political process.

    At the Manama dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan as we have seen around Gaza. At Niagara last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, for the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid, and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security. We are engaging intensively with the Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States—which have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce, and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. I strongly support Secretary Rubio’s latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan.

    Last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK-drafted resolution was passed, securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events. We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.

    The UK will play its full part to ensure that it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan’s future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians; they radiate instability, undermine the security of neighbouring states, and lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. We are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, and striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. From Gaza to Sudan that can only be done through international co-operation, and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    Kemi Badenoch – 2025 Speech on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read in The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.

    I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.

    Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.

    The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.

    I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.

    Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.

    I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.

    We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.

    We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.

    Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?

    The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?

    Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)

    Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.

    Shabana Mahmood

    I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.

    Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.

    The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.

    The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.

    I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.

    To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

    This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

    The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

    I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

    Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.Toggle showing location ofColumn 510

    My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

    Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

    In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

    I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

    Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.Toggle showing location ofColumn 511

    We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

    The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

    We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

    Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

    Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

    While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

    Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

    We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

    It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

    We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

    I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2025 Statement on Budget Leaks

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2025 Statement on Budget Leaks

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the Commons on 17 November 2025.

    Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message.