(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Uyghur women in Xinjiang detention camps.

I acknowledge the strength of feeling about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, which is shared by hon. Members across the House. The BBC report to which my hon. Friend refers is chilling. It includes deeply distressing testimony of the rape, torture and dehumanisation of Uyghur women in Xinjiang detention centres. It is a further compelling addition to the growing body of evidence of the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in Xinjiang. The evidence of the scale and severity of these violations is now far reaching. It paints a truly harrowing picture. If China wishes to dispute this evidence, it must allow unfettered access to the region for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent fact-finding body.

This Government are committed to taking robust action in respect of Xinjiang. That is why on 12 January the Foreign Secretary announced a series of targeted measures to help ensure that British organisations are neither complicit in nor profiting from the human rights violations in the region. This includes a review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, the introduction of financial penalties for businesses that do not comply with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and support for UK Government bodies to exclude suppliers that are complicit in forced labour.

These measures demonstrate to China that there is a reputational and economic cost to its policies in Xinjiang, and it is why the UK has played, and will continue to play, a leading role in building international pressure on China to change course. In October 2019 and June 2020, the UK led the first two joint statements on Xinjiang at the UN. In October 2020, 38 countries joined the UK in a robust statement at the UN Third Committee. This diplomatic action is vitally important. More countries than ever are speaking out about Xinjiang. China has already been forced to change its narrative about the camps, and its denial of these violations is increasingly hard to sustain. The Foreign Secretary has made clear the extent of our concern directly to his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and I have raised the issue with the former Chinese ambassador in London.

On the specific allegations of forced birth control, we have raised these with the Chinese authorities and used our national statement at the UN Human Rights Council last September to draw international attention to this deeply concerning issue.

I can assure the House that we will continue to work with our international partners, including with the new US Administration and through our G7 presidency, to hold China to account for its actions. The UK has called repeatedly for China to abide by the UN’s recommendation to release all those who have been arbitrarily detained, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members will join me today in reiterating that call.

I thank the Minister for his powerful statement. Yesterday, the BBC broadcast harrowing footage of Chinese state-orchestrated abuse against Uyghur women on an unprecedented scale.

“They had an electric stick, I didn’t know what it was, and it was pushed inside my genital tract, torturing me with an electric shock.”

That is the testimony of Tursunay Ziawudun.

“They did whatever their evil minds could think of. They were barbarians. I felt I had died. I was dead.”

Then there are the gang rapes of Uyghur women by the police in front of other camp detainees, as a form of re-education, seeking out those who look away to punish them even further.

These horrifying stories add to the huge and growing body of evidence detailing atrocities perpetrated by the Chinese authorities in Xinjiang—atrocities that may even be genocidal. These horrors have led the Board of Deputies of British Jews to compare the plight of the Uyghurs to the Holocaust. But as everybody in this House knows, there is no prospect of China being held to account through the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. So I ask the Minister: how will the Government get the court judgment they need to act when all international routes are paralysed by China? We cannot be bystanders to the deliberate attempt to exterminate a group of people. Not again.

Will the Minister make a promise today that no further deepening of ties of any kind will take place with China until a full judicial inquiry has investigated these crimes? Will he commit himself to a meeting with Rahima Mahmut, a Uyghur survivor, who is known by so many in this House? Rahima is a brave woman, risking her safety to save her family and her people. The United Kingdom cannot stand by and do nothing about the extermination of the Uyghur—mass rapes, scalping and forced sterilisations. We can act and we must act.

May I thank my hon. Friend again for her powerful questions and her speech? I know how important this is to her. I reiterate that the Foreign Secretary announced a series of measures on 12 January in response to the human rights situation in Xinjiang. This will help to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in human rights violations. We are leading international efforts to hold China to account, and of course I would be delighted to meet with Rahima, the Uyghur lady whom my hon. Friend referred to.

Importantly, we will continue to work on this incredibly crucial issue alongside our international partners, pulling together, including making the statement that we did late last year alongside Germany and 38 other countries. We will work with the new US Administration, under President Biden. May I thank my hon. Friend again for bringing this incredibly powerful testimony to the House? Anybody who has seen the report by the BBC—I congratulate the BBC on producing it—cannot help but be moved and distressed by what are clearly evil acts.

The Chinese Government’s brutal campaign of oppression in Xinjiang is a scar on the conscience of the world. The Labour party stands shoulder to shoulder with the Uyghur people. We already know about the forced labour camps, and yesterday we heard utterly heartbreaking testimonies from Uyghur women who have been systematically raped, sexually abused and tortured. This follows last summer’s harrowing accounts from Uyghur women who are victims of forced sterilisation and forced intrauterine device insertion. The Chinese Government’s own statistics show that birth rates in Xinjiang fell by a third in 2017-18—further evidence that what is happening may meet the international legal definition of genocide, which the new US Administration have already acknowledged.

Last month the Foreign Secretary rightly condemned the events in Xinjiang as

“barbarism we had hoped was lost to another era”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

Surely the time for tangible action has now come. First, where on earth are the Magnitsky sanctions that the Opposition and Members across the House have been calling for since last June? The Foreign Secretary said that the body of evidence in Xinjiang is “large, diverse and growing”, and we know the names of the senior Chinese officials who are responsible for these atrocities. The US sanctioned them last summer. Who in Government is holding this up?

Secondly, 20% of the world’s cotton comes from Xinjiang. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken to help UK business cease being complicit in forced labour, but they did not go far enough. Companies must be accountable, not simply transparent. Rather than tinkering around the edges of the Modern Slavery Act, will the Minister commit himself to bringing forward legislation that moves us to a system of mandatory due diligence?

Next Tuesday, when the Trade Bill returns, the House has the chance to send a united message to the world that genocide can never be met with indifference, impunity or inaction. This should not be a partisan issue. Given that it is a long-standing Government commitment that courts, not the Government, must rule on genocide, will the Minister join with us and colleagues across the House to give UK courts the powers to determine genocide and therefore prevent the UK from ever doing trade deals with genocidal states?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which raised a number of issues. He mentioned the US announcement regarding genocide. It is worth pointing out that the US has a different process for determining genocide that is not linked to a court decision. With regard to sanctions, we have had targeted measures in response to this matter. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of robust actions to ensure that no companies profit from forced labour and we will target in a forensic way those companies that are doing so, whether deliberately or otherwise. Of course, we are carefully considering any further designations under our global human rights regime. We keep all evidence and potential listings under review.

Let us head south to the Chair of the Select Committee, Tom Tugendhat.

I very much welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). She is raising a central point on the humanity that we share with people around the world, including with citizens of China. I was very keen that the Government should assist companies here, because we heard only yesterday that Manchester University is in partnership with the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation unaware of its connections with the surveillance state that is going on in Xinjiang. Will the Minister commit to helping British institutions, academics or, indeed, companies to make sure that they are not complicit with any genocidal regime or any autocratic state using data or technology that they have provided together to oppress people? Those institutions cannot always know such information themselves, but the Foreign Office can certainly assist them.

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, is right to raise this matter, especially around academia. UK universities are open to the world and we warmly welcome overseas students, including, for example, from China, but we will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security. We do work with academia to make sure that any links are closely monitored —whether that is with students or foreign military organisations—and we also work with British companies over the measures that the Foreign Secretary announced in January.

We now head to SNP spokesman Alyn Smith.

The plight of the Uyghurs is a well-trodden path within the House, and evidence of the dreadful situation just keeps mounting. I really commend the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for bringing this forward today, because it is important that we keep the matter very much on our radar. I do not regard the Minister as part of the problem here. We are all supportive of his efforts that are under way, but we would like to see more. I have three particular points. I have raised before the academic links that the Chinese state has with UK institutions. Much greater clarity is needed there. On EU co-ordination, there are measures within the EU-China trade deal that could be activated. Frankly, the EU could be a bit sharper in activating them over this to trigger a dispute resolution. The most fundamental thing that the UK Government could do is to change their face on the genocide amendment, which is before the other place in the Trade Bill. At a stroke, that would change how the UK does business on this and would be a really positive sign. The time for the Government to reverse their position on that is long overdue.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured questions. On that last point, may I be absolutely clear that we understand fully the strength of feeling on this matter with regard to the Trade Bill? We agree that there must be enhanced scrutiny for Parliament on both the issue of genocide and also the Government’s response to this most serious crime. As a result, the Government are looking to see how we can ensure that relevant debate and scrutiny can take place in Parliament in response to credible concerns about genocide. I know that Ministers have been reaching out to colleagues across the House in this regard. We want to work with Parliament to find a credible solution—a parliamentary solution—that is both robust and properly accountable to the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her question and the BBC on its programme. A litany of terrible, terrible abuse —rape, mass internment, people going into concentration camps, people being sterilised, people being maltreated, abused and tortured—which sounds like something from 75 years ago, but it is not; it is today. With respect to the Minister, it is no good anymore coming to the Dispatch Box to say that he agrees with all this. Where are the Magnitsky sanctions on individuals? We have all the evidence necessary. Finally, why, oh why are the Government going out of their way to block this amendment that is coming back to the House of Commons, which will give the courts the power to decide that this is genocide? The Minister has just said in his statement that only the courts can say it is genocide, so let us stop this nonsense, please. Allow the amendment to go through and get the courts to make that decision. It will be a leading position from a British Government—that is the way to go.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued interest. I know how strongly he feels about the issue. Again, to be absolutely clear, we understand the strength of feeling, in particular around the Trade Bill, and we believe that there must be more enhanced scrutiny by Parliament of genocide and our response to the crime. That is why we will work with him and other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard.

As we have said, competent courts include international ones, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process. On sanctions, we have already come up with targeted measures in respect of UK supply chains. Those are direct actions. Nobody should be any doubt. We are being very clear in our public statements about what is going on in Xinjiang. As I have said, we are carefully considering further designations.

I echo the words of the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for obtaining this important urgent question. The best thanks that we could give to the hon. Lady and others in this House would be to actually act. What we saw on the programme was shocking, but it can no longer be any surprise. Nobody can say now that they do not know what is happening there.

The Minister has said it twice now: genocide is a matter for the courts, unlike in the United States. Surely the logic of his own arguments is that, when Lord Alton’s amendment to the Trade Bill comes back to this House next week, the Government should be supporting it or, at the very least, finding a form of words that they will bring forward to achieve the same end. I am afraid that warm words and hand wringing are no longer enough.

The right hon. Gentleman always talks in a measured and passionate way about this issue. I reiterate the comments that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock): the US has a different process for determining genocide, but it is not linked to a court decision. Our long-standing policy is that any judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court.

We are looking to work with right hon. and hon. colleagues to ensure that the relevant debate and scrutiny can take place here. That work has been going on while the Bill has been in the other place. No doubt there will be further such conversations over the weekend as we lead up to the Bill coming back.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the urgent question today. It is right to shine a light on the vile atrocities being carried out in Xinjiang. The official denials by the Chinese state today are a humiliation for China on the world stage. I, too, would welcome stronger Magnitsky-style sanctions against individual officials, but is not the bottom line that we have to face up to the fact that, when totalitarian regimes become established, there is a limit to what we can do from outside? Therefore, there is all the more moral responsibility on us to confront China’s strategic aims in other parts of the world and to give support to Governments around the world who believe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

Again, my right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the UK Government are leading international efforts in this regard to hold China to account. We led the first two joint statements at the UN on this issue at the Human Rights Council in June 2020 and at the Third Committee in October. The growing international pressure on China reflects the diplomatic leadership that the UK has been giving, not least in bringing together a total of 39 countries, alongside Germany, to express our concern at the situation in Xinjiang.

As the case of the horrifying treatment of the Uyghur women outlined by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) demonstrated very well, women and girls from marginalised religions or belief communities often encounter unique persecution and challenge due to their religion and gender. Other examples, such as the sexual violence suffered by Yazidi women and kidnapping and forced marriage of young Christian, Sikh and Hindu girls in Pakistan, like 14-year-old Maira Shahbaz and 13-year-old Arzoo Raja, serve to emphasise the scale and severity of this problem. What action are the Government taking to tackle issues at the intersection of gender violence, inequality and freedom of religion or belief violations?

The hon. Gentleman raises two or three horrific cases, and he is right to refer to the issue of sexual violence suffered by Yazidi women and young Christians, Sikhs and Hindus. We absolutely recognise that women and girls from religious minorities can often suffer because of their gender and faith. That is why we ensure that our human rights policy work considers the intersectionality of human rights—for example, the importance of addressing the specific issues that may be experienced by women from particular religious minority communities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the plight of the Uyghur community in China, and also the abuse, oppression and undermining of international agreements that is taking place in Hong Kong. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to support freedom of religion in China?

My hon. Friend is, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), right to raise this issue. We are deeply concerned about the persecution of people because of their beliefs or their religion. The freedom to practise, change or share faith or belief without discrimination or opposition is a human right, and that is something that all people should enjoy. We are working very hard on this. The Prime Minister recently appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as special envoy on freedom of religion and belief. We work with and meet officials around the globe. Specifically, we met Chinese officials in 2019 and expressed our concerns, for example, on the pressures that Christians are facing. We raise cases directly. My ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad, continues to work in this regard as the Minister responsible for human rights.

Will the Minister explain the Government’s strategy for the G7 in Cornwall? The UK has the opportunity to work with its democratic allies to send a very strong message that China’s treatment of the Uyghur women in Xinjiang is completely unacceptable to the international community. Does he agree that actions speak much louder than words?

The hon. Lady raises the G7 and the opportunity we have as chair this year, and she is right to do so; ensuring that multilateral fora are at the forefront of holding China to account is really important. As I have said many times at the Dispatch Box, we have raised the situation in Xinjiang many times. We work very closely with our international partners, and I am pretty confident she can rest assured that the issue we are discussing will be brought forward as a matter of urgency with our G7 colleagues.

It is more important than ever that we work with allies around the world to protect the values we share. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners, so that we can both monitor and combat China’s clear human rights abuses?

My hon. Friend talks about what we are doing internationally, which is really important. We have taken a leading international role, and the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries that have joined our statements. We will continue to try to get the widest caucus of support, to ensure that measures brought forward hold China to account, as long as they are as effective as possible. We will continue to work with international partners, including Muslim and Arab countries and those in the region, as well as the traditional Five Eyes and European partners, to try to expand this caucus of like-minded states.

Given that the evidence of industrial-scale human rights abuse, including mass rape, torture and cultural genocide, is incontrovertible and known to the Chinese Government and the Chinese President, will the Government now give the UK courts the power to judge genocide; instruct our industries to ensure that we source our cotton not from the slave trade of Xinjiang but from democracies such as India; and instruct our pension funds and institutions not to invest in companies that are complicit in abuse, including surveillance companies? After all, our actions will be judged; our words will be ignored.

Again, I want to be absolutely clear: we are committed to ensuring that our trade policy is consistent with our international obligations. Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. That is why the Foreign Secretary announced further measures on 12 January. We will continue to work in this regard. Our long-standing position on determining genocide is that competent courts include international courts—the ICC and the ICJ—and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question. The Minister may be aware that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. Does he agree that there is a need to set up a PSVI body to document crimes, support survivors and lead prosecutions and that China must allow such a body of independent observers unfettered access to Xinjiang—or East Turkestan, as it is also known —so that they can report on what is occurring there?

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative APPG, and I would like to wish her a happy birthday. We have made it clear that the UN human rights commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. We have called for that repeatedly in joint statements and national statements at the UN. It is vital that China allows such access without delay. If, as China claims today, these allegations are mere fabrications or fake news, how can it object to granting access?

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this urgent question.

In 2018, some 80% of all inter-uterine devices used in China were implanted in women in Xinjiang province, even though they account for only 1.8% of China’s population. Forced sterilisation, rape, sexual torture and violence are happening before our eyes and are clearly documented. We know we are not the only nation that is trying to speak up on this issue. The Minister has talked about the importance of human rights access; will he update us on the conversations he has been having with the Australians, who have also been leading on this issue at the UN, in order that we can show the world a joint economic and diplomatic approach to holding China to account?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to co-operate on an international level, and we are. I had a meeting yesterday with the Australian deputy high commissioner and we discussed Xinjiang. It is crucial that we work together in all sorts of different multilateral fora and bilaterally with like-minded countries. As I have said previously, the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries that have joined us in our statements.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this question. The BBC programme was indeed harrowing, and many Carshalton and Wallington residents have raised it with me. One of the most distressing aspects of the treatment of the Uyghurs is the sickening online propaganda suggesting that they are somehow happy with or, indeed, responding well to their so-called re-education. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and in tech about tackling this harmful online content?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Content that denies that these atrocities are going on should be judged as harmful content. We are developing an online harms regulatory framework, which will establish a new duty of care to ensure that companies have processes in place to deal with the sort of disinformation and harmful content to which my hon. Friend refers.

The public are truly appalled by the further horrific crimes that have now come to light. We cannot allow this situation to be tolerated. Will the Minister advise us on what more can be done to tighten the restrictions to prevent Xinjiang cotton and other goods manufactured by prisoners from entering UK supply chains and ending up in our shops?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise this issue; it is important that we take action in this regard. We believe that the measures announced by the Foreign Secretary in January are robust. We have led the international action in this regard. The measures in respect of UK supply chains are targeted and will help to ensure that no British organisation, whether in the public or private sector, is complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We all agree that nobody should profit from the abuse of others. Forced labour is a hideous crime. I welcome what the Minister has said regarding the use of the Modern Slavery Act, but will he consider introducing provisions similar to those used in the United States, where hot goods produced by forced labour are prevented from even entering the country, to stop perpetrators profiting from their abusive behaviour?

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she did when she was the Minister responsible for the Modern Slavery Act; it has had a huge impact. In respect of the US Department of Labour’s hot goods provision, we certainly do not rule out taking further measures. Xinjiang’s position in the international supply chain network means that there is a risk of businesses inadvertently or otherwise sourcing from suppliers that are complicit in the use of forced labour. That is why we have announced the package of measures to ensure that businesses that profit from forced Uyghur labour are not part of the supply chains. It includes the introduction of financial penalties for businesses that do not comply with the Modern Slavery Act and guidance for businesses operating in Xinjiang, and also support for UK Government and public bodies to exclude suppliers who are complicit in forced labour.

We have heard of the Chinese regime carrying out forced sterilisations on Uyghur women as well as carrying out forced abortions and tearing children from their mothers. As if it could not get any worse, we now know they are systematically raping and torturing women in their detention camps; nowhere is safe for them. As we approach the next stage of the Trade Bill, now is the time for the Government to accept Lord Alton’s amendment to finally call this programme of abuse what it is: genocide. If the Minister’s Department continues to refuse, what exactly is it waiting for China to do before it takes this action?

The hon. Lady is right to raise the deeply disturbing reports of forced sterilisation; we had a debate in this place late last year on the issue. It adds to the growing body of evidence about the disturbing situation that Uyghurs in Xinjiang and other minorities are facing. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government fully understand the strength of feeling on this matter; that is why we are looking to work to ensure that the relevant debate and scrutiny can take place in Parliament, where there are credible concerns about genocide in defined circumstances.

The news from Xinjiang becomes ever more horrific, so what can the Government do to help us as consumers know when we shop online exactly where our products are coming from? Are the Government having conversations with the big online retailers so that we will know if anything we are buying is coming from either Xinjiang or China? Can the Government help in this area so our collective power as consumers can be brought to bear?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It is important that we strengthen the measures that we announced previously on the Modern Slavery Act and that we announced in January on strengthening the overseas business risk measures, making it clear to businesses, whether online or otherwise, that if they are investing or have supply chains in Xinjiang they must not inadvertently or directly be complicit in the exploitation of forced labour. We are reviewing the export controls to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations, and, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), the financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with these transparency obligations will be severe.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for seeking this urgent question. I have a simple question that has been asked several times already this morning, but as I have not heard a clear answer I will ask it again: why do the Government continue to drag their feet on applying Magnitsky sanctions to Chinese officials in Xinjiang when the evidence of serious human rights violations is so compelling?

We have taken action. We have led international action; we have targeted measures, as announced in January; we will continue to work closely with our partners and lead international efforts to hold China to account, including by working with the new Administration in the United States; and I can tell the hon. Lady we are carefully considering further Magnitsky designations on the Chinese regime and keeping all the evidence and the potential listings under close review.

The treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese regime is beyond appalling. The Minister was right to say in his statement that the initial step we need to take to resolve the situation is for the Chinese to allow unfettered access for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What possible excuse could the Chinese regime have for preventing that, and how are Her Majesty’s Government going to bring that about?

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If China has nothing to hide and claims again today that these allegations are false, there is absolutely no excuse for unfettered access not being granted to the UN human rights commissioner, and we have constantly called for that to happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question, but it is the third urgent question we have had on the treatment of Uyghurs, and indeed the Foreign Secretary made a statement on the issue not three weeks ago. I reiterate the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that thoughts and prayers are no longer sufficient. What else do the Government and their international partners require to take action?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are taking action. We have taken action with regard to Xinjiang. We have raised this directly with the Chinese authorities; the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his direct counterpart, and I have raised it with China’s ambassador—now the former ambassador—to the UK. We announced a series of measures in January, and we funded the research that helped build the evidence base for what is going on in Xinjiang. We will continue to work not just on our own but with our international partners to ensure that China is held to its international obligations.

First, I thank the Minister for his work. He is a good Minister; it is a difficult brief, and he does his job diligently. However, does the Foreign Office believe that it is ethically right to sign preferential treaties with states credibly accused of genocide? Systematic rape, sexual torture, forced sterilisation, re-education camps, forced labour, Orwellian surveillance—this is a tragedy happening in our time and it demands moral recognition, so why are the Government blocking our meaningful genocide amendment to the Trade Bill? Will they please work with us to introduce a meaningful amendment to that Bill that recognises the criticality—the moral imperative—of recognising genocide, and a genocide that is happening now, in our age?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I knew there was going to be a “however” or a “but” at some point. I know how passionate he is about this issue. To his first question, of course it is not right that we should be entering into these agreements with genocidal countries. I can again be absolutely clear that we understand the strength of his feeling on this matter, and that of other hon. and right hon. Members. We want to work, and we are working, with hon. and right hon. Members right across the House—work that will continue in the run-up to next Tuesday, when the Bill comes back to this place.

The extent of these crimes of sexual violence can only be considered to be systematic and a further symptom of the genocide being carried out, using a whole armoury of appalling tactics, by Chinese officials. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are considering adopting an atrocity prevention strategy to ensure that the resources of all Departments always operate in a way that is consistent with our values?

We are working incredibly hard with our international partners to ensure that there is an effective response to the situation in Xinjiang. The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. We will continue to do that. I do believe that our diplomatic pressure is having an international impact, by virtue of the fact that the most recent statement had 38 countries joining us. We will continue to work both directly—bilaterally—and internationally to ensure that China is held to account for its international obligations.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), I was appalled by the statement from the Chinese embassy condemning the BBC report about the treatment of Uyghurs, including the systematic rape of detained women, as little more than fake news. This is another example of the Chinese state denying genocide, despite it being glaringly obvious that the Chinese Communist party is orchestrating the systematic eradication of the Uyghur.

Unlike some today, I believe that whether a totalitarian state is established or not, we must have the courage and confidence to resist inhuman despotism, as this country proudly has in the past. Will my hon. Friend tell me when and which additional measures the Government intend to employ in the light of the overwhelming and still growing mountain of evidence of human rights abuses and shameless lies by the Chinese Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Again, I know how passionate hon and right hon. Members feel about this particular issue. With regard to the measures, we have taken action, as he knows, both at the UN and with our statements bringing together our international partners. We announced further measures in January aimed at targeting companies that are potentially indirectly or inadvertently profiting from forced labour. We will continue to look and to lead international efforts to hold China to account. We will consider carefully further designations under our global human rights regime, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. It is important that sanctions are developed responsibly, and it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future.

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, I want to make a short statement about changes to the timings of Divisions. These changes will come into effect on Monday and reflect the fact that a large number of Members currently hold proxy votes. For the first Division, the doors will be locked after eight minutes, as normal. For any successive Divisions on the same business, the doors will be locked after five minutes. If there are Divisions later in the day, then again the doors will be locked after eight minutes for the first Division and after five minutes for any successive Divisions. If there is any problem, more time can be allowed before the doors are locked. I hope these changes will help us speed up our processes, without disadvantaging Members—we hope it will be to their benefit.

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

The business for the week commencing 8 February will include:

Monday 8 February—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021.

Tuesday 9 February—A motion to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Bill, followed by a general debate relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. The subject for this debate was recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 10 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 11 February—Consideration of a Business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill.

Friday 12 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 22 February will include:

Monday 22 February—A general debate on covid-19.

Tuesday 23 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 24 February—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 25 February—A general debate on the proposal for a national education route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 outbreak, followed by general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 26 February—The House will not be sitting.

May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for all his work? We now know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be taking over for him, and I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for him today.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Of course, we say thank you for the Opposition day, but the Government have abstained on the past six Opposition motions in a row. Even though they have been passed by the House, the Leader of the House and the Government seem to be ignoring the will of Parliament and indeed the sovereignty of Parliament; he will know that the Executive derive their authority from Parliament.

I do not know whether the Leader of the House has read Lord McFall’s account of reforming the Select Committee in the other place in The House magazine, but I can tell him that the Lords is to have a European affairs Committee and a sub-Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. The Northern Ireland Secretary told the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on 20 January that

“we are not at the moment in a position where we want to be looking at extending the grace period.”

However, on Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called for an extension of the grace period, which is due to expire in March. The Prime Minister has previously said that he has concerns about the protocol and that there were teething problems, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he would “not describe” them in that way. It sounds as though the Government are in disarray. Let us recall the Prime Minister’s election promise to businesses in Northern Ireland:

“No forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

Will the Leader of the House look at restoring our Select Committee along the same lines as what they have in the other place—unless the Leader of the House thinks that there is more accountability there than we have in this place?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Health Secretary will update the House on the Government’s failure of a policy on comprehensive quarantine. When are we likely to expect that—or did the Prime Minister misspeak again? The Leader of the House will know that the Road Haulage Association has said that 40% to 50% of trucks are going back to the EU empty. The Federation of Small Businesses has called for transition payments. They are saying the problems have not emerged because of stockpiling, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now having weekly meetings of the Brexit taskforce. How about a weekly update to the House? Our businesses in our constituencies are part of the supply chain, and they want to know what is going on.

More broken promises, Mr Speaker, and more hypocrisy. The 2019 Tory manifesto pledged to “safeguard our green spaces”, but we have allotments being built on and sold off in Walsall. Two hundred and fifty residents are on the waiting list. The Tory-led council has agreed permission for 15 new townhouses on one of the two green public spaces in Walsall town centre, with no consultation with residents on a house in multiple occupation in a built-up area in Redhouse Street, and no consultation on using up a green space—again, in a built-up area—for a Traveller site. The current mayor is looking to Sandwell about green spaces, yet he is not looking to Tory-led Walsall Council and how it is using up every single green space. Could we have a debate on local councils and the lack of scrutiny?

The Leader of the House did not announce Foreign Office questions, but he will know the major incidents that are taking place around the world. He will also know that this House has supported Burma in setting up its democracy by building a library and training its MPs. The leader of Burma is in jail—the Proud Boys seem to be the same as the generals. Kameel Ahmady has escaped from Iran. Again, I raise Nazanin and Anoosheh: it is not public speculation, but parliamentary scrutiny. The Foreign Secretary’s American counterpart, Secretary of State Blinken, has spoken to all the families of those hostages. Will the Leader of the House undertake that the Foreign Secretary will do the same? My constituents are distraught at the sight of farmers—their extended families—being tear-gassed in their peaceful demonstration, so could we have a debate on foreign policy?

Today is World Cancer Day, and I am sure there is not a single person who does not know of someone who has suffered. We send our condolences to the family of Captain Tom Moore. He wanted us to remember how lucky we were to have an NHS, because he remembered when it was not there. Clapping is not enough: the Prime Minister can do something, which is make a payment to all our frontline services and NHS workers now that the Budget is coming up. We also pay tribute to Maureen Colquhoun. It is absolutely amazing that, in her five years, she managed to do so much. Perhaps the intranet and digital services can pay tribute to the work she has done, given that it is LGBT+ History Month.

I wish our hard-working shadow vaccine Minister, who is coming in later, a very happy birthday. Finally, welcome to the world, Henry George Elmore-Sedgebeer, who was born on 28 January.

Indeed: welcome to the world, Henry. There is a great joy in new life, and we must also celebrate the life of Captain Sir Tom Moore, who was an inspiration to so many people in this country. I am glad that the right hon. Lady mentioned World Cancer Day. Macmillan Cancer Support provides hotline services for those who need help and support, and I encourage people to use them if they need support. People should go to the doctor if they have any symptoms they are concerned about.

I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for his participation in these exchanges, and for the exceptionally courteous dealings that I always had with him privately. Our public dealings may have been occasionally rambunctious, but privately, the dealings were extremely civilised. I welcome back the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for him at short notice today. He is a very distinguished member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and asks me difficult questions there; I hope he will ask me easier questions in a moment’s time. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says not—oh, dear. We shall wait and see.

Let me come to the right hon. Lady’s key points. First, the Government have made Opposition days available in the proper course of events, in accordance with Standing Orders, and the Opposition have brought forward important matters to debate. They have been debated, and the Government have set out their view during these debates. However, she knows that there are different functions within this House and different motions that have different effects, and motions that are passed by the House on Opposition days are not the law. They are different from the legislative processes that we have and are therefore treated in a different way. The reason that the Government, under Standing Order No. 14, have the right to order business in this House is because they command a majority. It is always open to the Opposition to ask for a vote of no confidence or to use an Opposition day for that, but I do not think that it would get them very far, so I think the House is being treated courteously, in accordance with the constitutional norms.

As regards various Select Committees, there are Select Committees that can look into all the matters relating to our departure from the European Union. It is the general position of this Government and predecessor Governments that, by and large, Select Committees should reflect the Departments that they cover. Anything relating to Northern Ireland can be looked at by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is so wonderfully chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—one of my oldest friends in the House—who does it with great distinction and can carry out any inquiries that that Committee sees fit. There are plenty of opportunities for scrutiny, as there are of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has been the most assiduous appearer at this Dispatch Box to set out what the Government have been doing. There will be a statement later on the vaccine, but he has been second to none in his courtesy to the House and his frequency of appearances, so I think criticising him is, dare I say it, a bit unreasonable.

I think the right hon. Lady showed her characteristic courage in suggesting that the Prime Minister may have misspoken the day after the Leader of the Opposition had to make a rather embarrassing public admission of having misspoken in this Chamber, when he forgot what he had said previously. I was not going to raise this private embarrassment for the socialists until she said that the Prime Minister had done this, which he has not. He has been completely accurate in what he said, but the Leader of the Opposition—oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It was rather awkward yesterday, and who knows what was going on behind the Speaker’s Chair later on? [Interruption.] Oh, it was the other end, was it? They kept safely away from Mr Speaker. If you were to read the MailOnline, it was a very interesting state of affairs to have going on in this House of Commons.

The right hon. Lady raises her wonderful local council, Walsall Council, brilliantly run by the Conservatives, whom I had the pleasure of visiting last year. They are doing amazing work in developing brownfield sites, which is of fundamental importance. It is a great local authority and I hope that, when it has the local elections, everybody in Walsall will vote Conservative, because that is how they get good local government.

The right hon. Lady is right to raise foreign affairs. As she will have noticed, we are having a Back-Bench debate on 9 February—the general debate relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy—but we must encourage countries around the world to respect democracy. What has been going on in Burma is deeply shocking, and the Government are working with other countries to try to pressurise those who have done wrong to do right. That is what this Government must continue to do. They have been doing the same in relation to other countries where there are these abuses.

Once again, the right hon. Lady raises the dual nationals who are held improperly by Iran, and I will, as always, take this up with the Foreign Secretary on her behalf. It is a matter of the greatest importance, and a primary duty of the British state is to defend the interests of its nationals abroad.

I start by echoing the comments from both Front Benchers in regards to Captain Sir Tom Moore. This week is Children’s Mental Health Week. With the closure of schools and the impact of the pandemic on all children, it is more important than ever that we consider this particular issue. I commend the work that the Government have been doing, in particular, with the Department for Education on the catch-up programme to help to tackle the attainment gap. However, mental health issues are becoming more prevalent across the country. Can I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate or a statement on the effects of the pandemic on children’s mental health and what we can do to tackle this issue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that has I think been raised with all of us in our constituencies. Children’s Mental Health Week is an opportunity to keep raising awareness about the importance of looking after our mental health. The Prime Minister announced a new youth mental health ambassador, Dr Alex George, who will be working with the Government to promote the importance of mental health education and support in our schools to help young people to build resilience. We are making sure that support is available for any children who may be struggling with their mental health currently. Schools have the flexibility to offer a place in the school to vulnerable children, which might include those for whom being in school helps them to manage their mental health. Schools will continue to offer pastoral support to pupils working remotely, supported by £8 billion of taxpayers’ money that the Government are providing for wellbeing, training and advice. There is also the increase in public expenditure on mental health to help to support many hundreds of thousands more children and adults who have mental health problems. I can also tell my hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity to debate this issue relating to covid on 22 February.

I thank the shadow Leader and the Leader of the House for their kind comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I know he certainly enjoyed his exchanges in these sessions, and I am sure the Leader of the House will be looking forward to the return of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I am hoping that this transition period is slightly smoother than the Brexit one.

The Oxford Internet Institute recently published a report on industrialised disinformation. Given the importance that I know the Leader of the House places on confidence in democracy, he will I am sure be worried at the report’s finding that

“industrialized disinformation has become more professionalized, and produced on a large scale by major governments, political parties, and public relations firms”,

and that the UK is listed among the 81 countries in which this is a permanent situation. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can tackle and regulate this issue, as a number of firms are springing up—65, in fact—offering this service to clients?

Yesterday, I tried to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State for Wales on the financial powers for devolved nations in tackling the pandemic and, looking forward, tackling climate change. As part of that, I was looking to see why the Treasury continues to impose unfair and unreasonable limits on the devolved nations’ borrowing powers. I would be very grateful if we could have a debate in Government time to further consider what steps we could take to consider those implications and their impact on the devolved nations, and to untie the hands of the devolved nations so that we can tackle all the challenges that face us.

With sitting Fridays currently suspended, I am sure the Leader of the House will be keen to look at the number of private Members’ Bills there currently are and to consider which could be brought forward, perhaps in Government time, or adopted by the Government. I might even take this opportunity to make a plug for my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which I am sure the Leader of the House would be keen to see adopted, as it would further ensure confidence among Members.

Finally, as well as being World Cancer Day, today is Time to Talk Day. To support the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), I ask the Leader of the House whether he will join MYPAS—the Midlothian Young Peoples Advice Service—in my Midlothian constituency, which, among others, is having conversations about mental health with so many. This is such a challenging time that these conversations are so important.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling the House that today is Time to Talk Day. This is a really important thing to do; we should all try to do more of it. I commend him for what he is doing in his constituency. If he wanted me to talk to his constituents, although I am not sure they want to hear from me, I would be honoured to do so. This is a very important initiative.

On the question of industrialised disinformation, I think that people are wise enough to know which sources of information are reliable and that people—our voters—understand that much of the information on the internet cannot be accepted at face value. However, sometimes it goes further than that, and it is right that the Government will bring forward proposals in the online harms Bill in due course to try to ensure that the internet is properly regulated. The question of whether the internet companies are in fact publishers is a very important one to bear in mind. They seem to have many of the aspects of publishers, though they are keen to avoid any of the responsibilities of publishers.

I am extremely keen to find a way of bringing private Members’ Bills back before the end of this Session, whenever that may come. They are an important way in which Back Benchers raise issues of concern to their constituents and have them debated. I gave the commitment to bring them back as soon as is possible and practicable. That remains the case, and I am working with people throughout the House to try to find suitable time to do that, but I cannot give a date at the moment.

On the most contentious matter that the hon. Gentleman mentions—the fiscal arrangements—it is worth reminding him that £8.6 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to help Scotland during the pandemic. It is the strength of the United Kingdom that, throughout this pandemic, has provided the support needed. He may chunter behind his elegant mask, but that means 779,500 jobs in the furlough scheme. It means £1.13 billion in the self-employed scheme. It is a really important Unionist level of support. We know now that the Unionist Government are helping the devolved Scottish Government to roll out their vaccine programme, and more people will be going from the British Army to help set up more vaccine centres. This is our UK Government bailing out a devolved Government. That is what we do, and we should be really proud of the United Kingdom, which has such strength as one country.

In 2018, a terrorist plot would have meant that Members of Parliament from a UK cross-party delegation and from around the world who were attending the free Iran rally were murdered. Fortunately, the French and Belgian police co-operated, and the plot was foiled. This morning, the Belgian court announced its verdict, and the Iranian diplomat Assadolah Assadi was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, together with his accomplices. That has severe implications for our relations with Iran and for Iranian diplomatic services across the world. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the implications of this verdict for diplomatic relations with Iran and its embassies not only in the UK but across Europe?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Her Majesty’s Government are deeply concerned about this incident and continue to work closely with our European partners on security and counter-terrorism issues. We are closely monitoring reporting on the trial taking place in Belgium. We expect diplomatic and consular missions in the UK to respect our laws and regulations in line with their obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, the Vienna convention on consular relations and UK law. Who in this House can forget the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher by somebody with diplomatic immunity from Libya? Only the worst states abuse diplomatic immunity to plot acts of terror. The Iranians surely do not want to put themselves in the same category—the same class—as Mr Gaddafi’s regime.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business programme. It is obviously regrettable, from the Backbench Business Committee’s perspective, that we have lost the previously proposed time on 11 February, but I thank him for the time now proposed on Tuesday 9 February. Could we have three hours’ protected time for that general debate on 9 February relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, to make sure that it gets a good airing?

On 25 February, we propose debates on a national route map out of the pandemic for schools and colleges, and a Welsh affairs debate to coincide with a date as close as possible to St David’s day on 1 March, which is the following Monday. We propose those debates on 25 February as we are highly unlikely to get any time the following week, due to the probability that the Budget and the Budget debate will take place during that week. Both the debates we have proposed for 25 February are very well subscribed, so can we have as little additional business as possible from the Government and from yourself, Mr Speaker, to give as much time as possible for those debates to be aired properly?

I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would ask for protected time on 9 February, and I will certainly consider it. However, he has asked me on previous occasions whether the Government would be willing to schedule Backbench Business time when Government business may fall short. If we then made that protected time, that of course would extend the day, which is a different request from the Backbench Business Committee. I am saying as gently as I can that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, but I will think about it next week, because the Government changed business from the Thursday to the Wednesday due to the important Bill on the Thursday.

As regards 25 February, Mr Speaker, you and I did what we could to protect time for the Holocaust memorial debate. That has to be exceptional. There are important statements and urgent questions on Thursdays as there are on other days. Although there is a gentlemen’s agreement on Opposition days—[Interruption.] A gentlemen’s agreement is an inclusive term!

No, it’s not!

Yes, it is. Although there is such an agreement on Opposition days, that cannot be extended to all days, otherwise we would lose time for important statements and urgent questions.

Once again, homes and businesses in the northern part of my constituency, particularly the area around Barrow Haven, are threatened with flooding. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to update the House and my constituents on the Environment Agency’s plans to alleviate flooding in that part of northern Lincolnshire?

My hon. Friend, as always, is a champion for his constituents to ensure that they are properly protected and looked after. The sympathies of the whole House go to those affected by flooding, and the Government are determined to tackle the risks. Flood defences will have £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money devoted to them over the next six years to protect 336,000 properties better than they are currently protected.

In Lincolnshire, there has been expenditure of £296.8 million on flood defences since 2010—which coincides with my hon. Friend becoming a Member of this House—providing better protection for around 77,500 homes. There is planned further expenditure of £57.8 million of taxpayers’ money on flood defences for the period 2020-21, protecting around 22,800 homes. A great deal is being done, but none the less for those whose homes have been recently flooded there is no better compensation than one’s sympathy and the hope that things can be done to stop it happening in future, because the pain and distress that they bear is considerable.

A constituent contacted my office in tears this week about the uncertainty of their immigration status. She has worked for years as a community carer for the elderly in Westminster, which has obviously become incredibly difficult over the past year. She waited two years before her initial application was refused, and she is distraught at the prospect of another lengthy wait. Please can we have an urgent debate on prioritising visa applications for healthcare and medical workers?

The hon. Lady will know that the immigration system is being updated to ensure that we have a fair points-based system to help people. If there are individual constituency questions, they are best taken up directly with the Home Office, although if the hon. Lady is not getting answers as swiftly as she would like, I will certainly use my office to help her.

Now that Putin the poisoner has jailed Alexei Navalny for the “crime” of missing probation appointments while in a coma, may we have a statement about British policy towards Russia, so that the House can express its view on such issues as that outrage and the increasing reliance of our European friends and allies on Russian gas supplies through such follies as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project?

My right hon. Friend is so right to raise this important and disgraceful issue. The Government have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Navalny. It is a completely perverse ruling. To say that somebody who has been the victim of an attempted murder, with a poison that is usually only available to state actors, has missed an appointment and therefore must go to prison is peculiar and unjust. It shows Russia is failing to meet the most basic commitments expected of any responsible member of the international community. Russia should fulfil its obligations under international law to investigate this despicable crime and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.

[Inaudible.]

We cannot hear Chris Law. We will come back to him if we can.

I know we are all grateful, across this House and of course across the whole country, to the staff, teachers and everybody involved in keeping schools open over the pandemic for the children who need them most. Headteachers in Ousedale School and St Paul’s Catholic School in Milton Keynes have received particularly glowing praise in my inbox recently, and I am sure everybody here will join me in congratulating them on the hard work they have done. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate or a statement to inform the House on the efforts that are being made to recognise school staff, and the steps that are being taken to fully reopen schools as soon as it is safe to do so?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the Ousedale sixth form and St Paul’s Catholic School in his constituency. That is one way, and an important way, of recognising the contribution that people are making during the current pandemic in the education system.

We will return to face-to-face learning as soon as we possibly can, which the Government hope will start from Monday 8 March. However, before we increase attendance, we need to be confident that doing so will not increase the pressure on the NHS—not because schools and colleges are no longer safe, but because that may increase the level of contact all of us have with other households. While we are seeing signs of things starting to move in the right direction, case rates remain high across the country and the NHS is still under immense pressure, so it is too early to set out a precise timetable, but I think everybody wishes to see schools reopen as soon as it is safe to do so.

The climate and ecological emergency has the potential of becoming an even bigger crisis than the global pandemic. Countries across the world, including the UK, were woefully under- prepared for the global pandemic, despite many warnings. Here in the UK, we do not even have a Department dedicated to working towards the enormous challenges of getting to net zero. In the year that the UK is hosting COP26, can we have not just one but several debates on how this Government are planning for and working towards getting to net zero by 2050?

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, for her important question. The Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation. We cannot forget, after all, that it was Margaret Thatcher who led the world, with her foresight, in early efforts to tackle climate change in the late 1980s, and the Prime Minister aims to follow in her distinguished footsteps. This Government want to lead a green industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, levelling up the country, creating thousands of high-skilled green jobs and building back a greener economy, while helping to get to net zero by 2050.

The 10-point plan is the blueprint for a green industrial revolution. It combines ambitious policies with significant new public spending to deliver a vision for the United Kingdom as greener, more prosperous and at the forefront of the industries for the future. Spanning clean energy, buildings, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the plan will mobilise £12 billion of taxpayers’ spending and will support up to a quarter of a million green jobs. This year, with COP26, as the hon. Lady says, and our chairmanship of the G7, we are going to be leading international efforts in this regard.

Let us try to return to Chris Law.