I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.

I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I can remember the time I spent with my boys watching David Attenborough on TV, and now I spend it with my grandchildren, so the tradition carries on. The information and passion are shared between generations through the timeless quality of David Attenborough’s environmental work. Does the hon. Lady agree that now is the time to recognise this national treasure and that he deserves a permanent recognition as the best of British?

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments. It is little wonder that, in poll after poll, the British public have voted for Sir David as one of the most trusted voices in our country and one of the 100 greatest Brits. It started with a fossil. In the 1930s, Sir David found an ammonite that sparked a curiosity for the wonders of our natural world that still exists in him today. After winning a scholarship to the University of Cambridge in 1945, Sir David obtained a degree in natural sciences, before embarking on his long and remarkable career at the BBC. When he first completed his training programme in 1952, television was a luxury for the few. Indeed, Sir David had never owned a television set when he was hired, yet by 1954, he had co-created and launched the “Zoo Quest” series, with the aim of showing animals live in their natural habitats, starting with the quest for a picathartes—a little bald African bird. That quest shifted the public’s imagination of what television could achieve and the wonders among which we live. Sir David has gone to the ends of the earth, to the depths of the ocean and into the upper atmosphere to capture those incredible images that have stunned and enthralled us all.

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I can remember the time I spent with my boys watching David Attenborough on TV, and now I spend it with my grandchildren, so the tradition carries on. The information and passion are shared between generations through the timeless quality of David Attenborough’s environmental work. Does the hon. Lady agree that now is the time to recognise this national treasure and that he deserves a permanent recognition as the best of British?

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments. It is little wonder that, in poll after poll, the British public have voted for Sir David as one of the most trusted voices in our country and one of the 100 greatest Brits. It started with a fossil. In the 1930s, Sir David found an ammonite that sparked a curiosity for the wonders of our natural world that still exists in him today. After winning a scholarship to the University of Cambridge in 1945, Sir David obtained a degree in natural sciences, before embarking on his long and remarkable career at the BBC. When he first completed his training programme in 1952, television was a luxury for the few. Indeed, Sir David had never owned a television set when he was hired, yet by 1954, he had co-created and launched the “Zoo Quest” series, with the aim of showing animals live in their natural habitats, starting with the quest for a picathartes—a little bald African bird. That quest shifted the public’s imagination of what television could achieve and the wonders among which we live. Sir David has gone to the ends of the earth, to the depths of the ocean and into the upper atmosphere to capture those incredible images that have stunned and enthralled us all.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves. His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward. Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.

The hon. Lady was talking about how Sir David has had a number of species named after him. Does she agree that, going forward, we should do more to name our green spaces, such as Rotary Wood in Harrogate, which was planted by children, after legends like Sir David Attenborough?

That is a lovely idea. In more recent years, Sir David’s voice shifted from one of wonder to fierce advocacy. He transitioned from our guide through the natural world to its ultimate champion on the world stage. For his historic address to COP24, the UN climate change conference in Poland in 2018, Sir David took up the People’s Seat, standing before representatives from nearly 200 nations to act as the voice of global citizens. His message was blistering in its clarity. He told world leaders: “Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” He did not mince his words, nor did he hide behind diplomatic niceties. He used the trust that he had built over half a century to force the world to look into the abyss of its own inaction.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves. His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward. Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that seeing British leadership on the world stage like that fills us with such pride? We look forward to working together on that point. Perhaps a British monument by a British artist might be something to consider as we look to celebrate Sir David’s incredible achievements?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a monument, it should be by a British sculptor. We are filled with pride in Sir David every day. He took his message even further in 2021, when he addressed the UN Security Council. Sir David reframed the climate crisis entirely, moving it from a scientific debate to an existential security threat. He warned the council that “climate change is the biggest threat” to global security “that modern humans have ever faced.” He told the council that if the natural systems that support us collapse, everything we take for granted—food and water security, social stability and international peace—will collapse with them. He challenged the most powerful leaders on earth to recognise that the map of the world is being rewritten by our own carbon emissions. Speaking at COP26 in Glasgow, he gave a stark warning on climate change and asked the haunting question: “Is this how our story is due to end? A tale of the smartest species doomed by that all too human characteristic of failing to see the bigger picture in pursuit of short term goals.”

The hon. Lady was talking about how Sir David has had a number of species named after him. Does she agree that, going forward, we should do more to name our green spaces, such as Rotary Wood in Harrogate, which was planted by children, after legends like Sir David Attenborough?

The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says: “Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.” The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.

That is a lovely idea. In more recent years, Sir David’s voice shifted from one of wonder to fierce advocacy. He transitioned from our guide through the natural world to its ultimate champion on the world stage. For his historic address to COP24, the UN climate change conference in Poland in 2018, Sir David took up the People’s Seat, standing before representatives from nearly 200 nations to act as the voice of global citizens. His message was blistering in its clarity. He told world leaders: “Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” He did not mince his words, nor did he hide behind diplomatic niceties. He used the trust that he had built over half a century to force the world to look into the abyss of its own inaction.

I thank the hon. Member for those words. A living monument is a fantastic idea and Sir David certainly deserves our recognition and thanks. He has taught us that humanity’s greatness is found when we act as caretakers to our environment rather than consumers of it. He showed us that true leadership lies in what we choose to protect, understand and preserve. Yet when facing a cost of living crisis, the easy temptation for some is to fall back on the status quo and focus narrowly on drilling our natural resources. There is a danger in ignoring the warnings he delivered on the global stage and here on our doorstep.

Does my hon. Friend agree that with such division and discord across many of our communities, this initiative crosses the political spectrum? Does she agree that Sir David Attenborough’s life’s work should be celebrated by all?

Does my hon. Friend agree that seeing British leadership on the world stage like that fills us with such pride? We look forward to working together on that point. Perhaps a British monument by a British artist might be something to consider as we look to celebrate Sir David’s incredible achievements?

I absolutely agree. Despite the sheer scale of his global contribution, there is currently no permanent national monument dedicated to Sir David in the United Kingdom’s civic landscape. That is why I have secured this important debate. I am calling on the Government to work with me to address that absence through the creation of a carefully designed sculpture that will be installed in a prominent public location. Over recent months, I have been working on this campaign with an incredibly talented sculptor, David Mitchell, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing us and for working alongside me. To be clear, the proposal would be entirely privately funded, with fundraising undertaken by cultural institutions, by charitable organisations and through voluntary public contributions. I have built support among the public and colleagues across the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at 38 Degrees, who have worked with me on the campaign. The petition I launched with them has now received more than 89,000 signatures and the support of many colleagues. I have received many welcome suggestions on how best to pay tribute to Sir David. All of them have been incredibly thoughtful, illustrating the deep affection in which he is held. I have had suggestions to rename national forests and parks, and I am entirely open to working with all Members to explore those opportunities. It is important that we permanently recognise Sir David’s legacy in a way that truly reflects the broad national admiration for his life and work. Some may ask why we require a physical monument in an increasingly digital world. The answer lies in what our public spaces say about our collective conscience. Civic statues are the ultimate expression of a nation’s values. Who we choose to set in stone and elevate on plinths tells our children and future generations who we want them to emulate. For generations, our public squares have rightly honoured great political leaders, monarchs and military figures who have guided our nation through the tumultuous chapters of our history. Those monuments tell a vital story, but as our society evolves, so too should the stories we choose to tell in our public space. Today, our national pride is defined not just by how we navigated history, but how we are leading the world into a more sustainable and enlightened future. To have a monument to Sir David would be to enrich our civic architecture with symbols of modern British values: our deep respect for scientific truth, our love for the natural world and our shared responsibility to our planet. It would be an honour to a giant of education and conservation. When a child looks up at that monument, they will see our values: the defence of our natural world and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as pillars of our national character. It would stand not only as a fitting tribute to an extraordinary individual, but as a lasting, visible symbol of Britain’s enduring commitment to science, education and environmental stewardship. For more than 70 years, Sir David has used the power of his voice to show us the breathtaking beauty and terrifying fragility of our planet. He has spent a lifetime looking out for our world; it is time this nation looked up to him.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a monument, it should be by a British sculptor. We are filled with pride in Sir David every day. He took his message even further in 2021, when he addressed the UN Security Council. Sir David reframed the climate crisis entirely, moving it from a scientific debate to an existential security threat. He warned the council that “climate change is the biggest threat” to global security “that modern humans have ever faced.” He told the council that if the natural systems that support us collapse, everything we take for granted—food and water security, social stability and international peace—will collapse with them. He challenged the most powerful leaders on earth to recognise that the map of the world is being rewritten by our own carbon emissions. Speaking at COP26 in Glasgow, he gave a stark warning on climate change and asked the haunting question: “Is this how our story is due to end? A tale of the smartest species doomed by that all too human characteristic of failing to see the bigger picture in pursuit of short term goals.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and an absolute pleasure to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who made a fantastic speech. She was exactly the right person to make it: no one in this place is more of a Sir David Attenborough superfan than she is. To confirm that, all anyone need do is to look at her Twitter history, her bookshelf or her DVD collection. I cannot hope to match her wonderful, in-depth speech, so I will just take a minute or two to make a couple of points. The UK has a long tradition and a long history of recognising those who make a great contribution to public life. If there were no curtains on the windows of this Chamber, we would be able to see some of those figures outside. There are 12 statues in Parliament Square of some outstanding people who have made massive contributions to our national life, like Millicent Fawcett with the Suffragettes, Winston Churchill, who needs no explanation, and Nelson Mandela, whose achievements likewise need no explanation. I believe that Sir David Attenborough fits within that bracket. In his centenary year, we should be thinking, “How do we honour and recognise that?” He has made an unbelievable, perhaps irreplaceable contribution to the way we think about animals and the natural world. He has given us a greater understanding—one that we did not have before. As I say, he is irreplaceable. Sir David has encouraged us all to play our part in stewarding the natural environment. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, there are estates run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, which is creating one of England’s largest areas for nature. I encourage people to get behind the trust’s campaign, for which it is fundraising right now. I am delighted to be partnering with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on this project, and I look forward to making it a success. I urge everyone across the House and across society, including the Government, to get behind this campaign to ensure that ultimately we can create a lasting and permanent memorial to Sir David Attenborough as our national treasure.

The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says: “Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.” The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.

I remind hon. Members that a vote is expected at 4.30 pm.

I thank the hon. Member for those words. A living monument is a fantastic idea and Sir David certainly deserves our recognition and thanks. He has taught us that humanity’s greatness is found when we act as caretakers to our environment rather than consumers of it. He showed us that true leadership lies in what we choose to protect, understand and preserve. Yet when facing a cost of living crisis, the easy temptation for some is to fall back on the status quo and focus narrowly on drilling our natural resources. There is a danger in ignoring the warnings he delivered on the global stage and here on our doorstep.

Does my hon. Friend agree that with such division and discord across many of our communities, this initiative crosses the political spectrum? Does she agree that Sir David Attenborough’s life’s work should be celebrated by all?

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.

Is “dinosaurs” the word you are looking for?

Your words, not mine, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there. Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today. Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors. Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change. Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation. We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling. I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom. Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls. This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story. Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words: “Is this how our story is due to end?” I very much doubt it.

I absolutely agree. Despite the sheer scale of his global contribution, there is currently no permanent national monument dedicated to Sir David in the United Kingdom’s civic landscape. That is why I have secured this important debate. I am calling on the Government to work with me to address that absence through the creation of a carefully designed sculpture that will be installed in a prominent public location. Over recent months, I have been working on this campaign with an incredibly talented sculptor, David Mitchell, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing us and for working alongside me. To be clear, the proposal would be entirely privately funded, with fundraising undertaken by cultural institutions, by charitable organisations and through voluntary public contributions. I have built support among the public and colleagues across the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at 38 Degrees, who have worked with me on the campaign. The petition I launched with them has now received more than 89,000 signatures and the support of many colleagues. I have received many welcome suggestions on how best to pay tribute to Sir David. All of them have been incredibly thoughtful, illustrating the deep affection in which he is held. I have had suggestions to rename national forests and parks, and I am entirely open to working with all Members to explore those opportunities. It is important that we permanently recognise Sir David’s legacy in a way that truly reflects the broad national admiration for his life and work. Some may ask why we require a physical monument in an increasingly digital world. The answer lies in what our public spaces say about our collective conscience. Civic statues are the ultimate expression of a nation’s values. Who we choose to set in stone and elevate on plinths tells our children and future generations who we want them to emulate. For generations, our public squares have rightly honoured great political leaders, monarchs and military figures who have guided our nation through the tumultuous chapters of our history. Those monuments tell a vital story, but as our society evolves, so too should the stories we choose to tell in our public space. Today, our national pride is defined not just by how we navigated history, but how we are leading the world into a more sustainable and enlightened future. To have a monument to Sir David would be to enrich our civic architecture with symbols of modern British values: our deep respect for scientific truth, our love for the natural world and our shared responsibility to our planet. It would be an honour to a giant of education and conservation. When a child looks up at that monument, they will see our values: the defence of our natural world and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as pillars of our national character. It would stand not only as a fitting tribute to an extraordinary individual, but as a lasting, visible symbol of Britain’s enduring commitment to science, education and environmental stewardship. For more than 70 years, Sir David has used the power of his voice to show us the breathtaking beauty and terrifying fragility of our planet. He has spent a lifetime looking out for our world; it is time this nation looked up to him.

At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber? Question put and agreed to.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and an absolute pleasure to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who made a fantastic speech. She was exactly the right person to make it: no one in this place is more of a Sir David Attenborough superfan than she is. To confirm that, all anyone need do is to look at her Twitter history, her bookshelf or her DVD collection. I cannot hope to match her wonderful, in-depth speech, so I will just take a minute or two to make a couple of points. The UK has a long tradition and a long history of recognising those who make a great contribution to public life. If there were no curtains on the windows of this Chamber, we would be able to see some of those figures outside. There are 12 statues in Parliament Square of some outstanding people who have made massive contributions to our national life, like Millicent Fawcett with the Suffragettes, Winston Churchill, who needs no explanation, and Nelson Mandela, whose achievements likewise need no explanation. I believe that Sir David Attenborough fits within that bracket. In his centenary year, we should be thinking, “How do we honour and recognise that?” He has made an unbelievable, perhaps irreplaceable contribution to the way we think about animals and the natural world. He has given us a greater understanding—one that we did not have before. As I say, he is irreplaceable. Sir David has encouraged us all to play our part in stewarding the natural environment. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, there are estates run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, which is creating one of England’s largest areas for nature. I encourage people to get behind the trust’s campaign, for which it is fundraising right now. I am delighted to be partnering with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on this project, and I look forward to making it a success. I urge everyone across the House and across society, including the Government, to get behind this campaign to ensure that ultimately we can create a lasting and permanent memorial to Sir David Attenborough as our national treasure.

I remind hon. Members that a vote is expected at 4.30 pm.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are on the horns of a dilemma, because we expect a vote fairly imminently, but there is another wind-up speech to follow, so we will get started. There are likely to be three votes on the Floor of the House, then a pause before a fourth vote on Third Reading, and then possibly—sheer joy!—something after that, but let us get cracking and see how we go.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the illicit finance summit 2026, although it might be more accurate to say that we are debating the illicit finance summit that is just about in 2026, or the illicit finance summit that will probably be in 2026 if we are not too busy. I am glad that this debate is an excellent opportunity to remind the Government that they are supposed to be hosting this summit and to break the radio silence of the past few months. Hundreds of billions of pounds of illicit finance flow through the UK annually. This is a major drain on our economy and a driver of criminality across society. Illicit finance touches every one of us and, on a daily basis, makes our lives that little bit worse. For those who are fed up with a dying high street in their town, with an endless stream of neon-clad vape shops, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are furious about dodgy donors ploughing money into political parties, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are tired of hearing politicians tell them that there is no money to keep our basic services functioning, illicit finance is making it worse. The phrase “illicit finance” might not come up much on the doorstep, but “fairness” does. When it comes to people and organisations paying taxes, it does not get much more unfair than a system that makes it trivially easy for wealth to be hidden offshore but, bafflingly, still within His Majesty’s jurisdiction. It is not just tax that we are missing; illicit finance is funding criminality around the world. That is why I find it particularly difficult that this Government have put the summit six months into the future and that they sneaked out the news on a quiet Friday after the House has risen. My first ask of the Minister today is that he commit to greater engagement and candour with Members relating to the summit from now on. All that aside, we must now look ahead to the summit. If the Government are to delay it, they had better make sure that it is effective and delivers real change. So far, we have heard very little from them on specific aims and priorities. The Minister told the House that he was personally committed to tackling illicit finance, and I hope that in today’s debate he will get some welcome support in finding some areas to report on. I am pleased to remind the Minister that this debate is attended by MPs across the parties with serious expertise and experience in this area. The Government can see that this is a truly cross-party effort. We are not here to score points or win votes; we are here in the belief that we can make Britain better and free it from the scourge of illicit finance once and for all. I might briefly note that I am looking carefully and there is one particular party that is not represented here, and its Members’ attendance may or may not have indicated their interest in getting dodgy money out of our country and our politics, but I will do my part in helping the Government with a few ideas as to what could constitute a successful summit—[Interruption.]

Your words, not mine, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there. Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today. Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors. Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change. Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation. We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling. I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom. Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls. This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story. Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words: “Is this how our story is due to end?” I very much doubt it.

Order. There is a Division on the Floor of the House. The sitting is suspended until 15 minutes after the start of what is likely to be the third Division in that group. Please do come back, because we think that there will be a pause between those Divisions and the vote on Third Reading.

Sitting suspended.

A quick recap: a gentle jibe at the Minister, a sharp poke at Reform and a commitment to doing my bit in helping the Government with a few ideas that might constitute a successful summit. First, when many think of property in this country, they might think of the words of my predecessor as a Norfolk MP, Sir Edward Coke, about how an Englishman’s home is his castle. I am not sure whether Sir Edward foresaw so many being owned by a complex and secretive array of companies and trusts, lacking clarity about their ultimate beneficial owners. Properties under secretive ownership are not only multimillion-pound mansions in Kensington; in fact, if many of us looked closer to home, we would be shocked by what we found. The Tax Policy Associates’ “Who secretly owns Britain?” map says that an unassuming cottage near the centre of the village of Cley next the Sea in my constituency is ultimately owned by a faceless company called Claystone Investments Ltd, registered in Switzerland. A Companies House search finds a similarly named company registered in the British Virgin Islands, which in turn gives its beneficial owner as a company registered in Panama. A search of the Panamanian company register gives no indication of who actually owns that cottage. That level of complexity and layers of ownership for a cottage in a quiet Norfolk village simply cannot be right. This summit is a chance to call this out for being as ridiculous as it seems. The Government need to work with international partners to bring an end to anonymous property ownership. If an Englishman’s home truly is his castle, it cannot be a castle registered through multiple trusts, bouncing the legal rights halfway around the world and back again. If someone owns a property, they need to declare who they are and face the music, not hide behind shell companies and legalese. It is also important that we get our own house in order on this. We have laws around beneficial ownership and property transparency, brought in under the last Government, with the help and hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and others. However, “Who secretly owns Britain?” indicates that rule-breaking is rife, and little seems to be being done to crack down on those flouting their obligations. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is looking into the wealth of publicly available evidence of companies not doing what they are required to do, and will take action.

I commend the hon. Member for this debate. He is absolutely right that we must aggressively pursue and prosecute the wealth managers, the lawyers and the accountants who mask dirty money through loopholes. Does he agree that, when it comes to corporate transparency, we must go as far as the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, that we need to take an aggressive stance, and that the Minister and this Government need to follow that?

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, a past Government wrote to all those revealed by the Panama papers to ask them about their financial affairs. Might the Minister perhaps commit to doing the same for those shown not to be fully complying with beneficial ownership registration? Speaking of getting our own house in order, naturally, I must turn to the overseas territories. When looking into opaque property ownership in my own area, I was sadly unsurprised to see that the British Virgin Islands were partly culpable for obscuring true beneficiaries. It is all well and good running a big international summit and talking a big game on transparency and fair taxation, but when we are allowing hundreds of billions in illicit finance to keep rolling through countries that fly our flag, rely on our defence and are citizens of our King, it looks as though we are not taking this issue seriously. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are part of our British family, but part of being a family is calling them out when they are doing wrong. So many are taking positive steps towards financial transparency, and their work will allow us to fight corruption and illicit finance more effectively, but there remain bad actors who are letting the side down. Their progress has been achingly slow, with deadlines missed, promises broken and beneficial ownership registers half delivered. The Government’s own anti-corruption champion recently said: “I think we’re coming to the end of the road trying to do this through agreement”. Such registers need to be free and publicly accessible. Restricting registers, or those behind payrolls with claims of legitimate interest, prevents journalists or non-governmental organisations—or even the interested public—from seeing who is truly behind these companies. We know that, in corruption and tax abuse, sunlight is the best disinfectant. For those malign actors who want to use existing secrecy to hide their ill-gotten gains, we have to smash that ability by ensuring that this information is freely available, just as is expected of anyone setting up or holding significant control in a company in this country. I hope that the Minister can build on what Baroness Hodge has said and give a clear signal to us of the next steps that he is expecting to take if he has also, finally, run out of patience with these regimes. I can tell him and the House that most people ran out of patience long ago—hard-working, honest people who pay their way in what feels like an ever increasing tax burden. All the while, criminals, billionaires and dictators are seeing their dirty money flowing and growing, letting them live a life of luxury while we cobble together any penny that the Treasury can find to keep our public services afloat. For those of us who are supporting the brave Ukrainians in their fight against Putin and his illegal war, we should be sickened that hundreds of private yacht transactions went on in overseas territories since the war began. Putin’s cronies, awash with blood money, are sunning themselves while Ukrainian people fight for their very future as a nation. While the Iranian regime represses protests and attacks our allies in the Gulf, the new Ayatollah has a multimillion pound mansion by Kensington Palace Gardens, just a short tube ride from here, which is one of the many ways he can launder wealth plundered from the people of Iran. Illicit finance is a poison and cancer spreading through our country, infecting everything it touches. We have to get serious on this, and fast.

For most people, illicit finance is most prevalent on our high streets, when they see illegal vape shops or barbershops that do not have any trade but seem to be doing quite well. Does my hon. Friend agree that illicit finance is not necessarily always in big mansions, and can often feel very close to home?

I completely agree. This issue goes two ways: fighting crime overseas and tackling illegal activity in this country are both hindered by illicit finance. The message from Government that those benefiting from their dirty money can have another six months of fun before we hold our summit is disappointing. I hope the Minister can take steps to correct that today by setting out an ambitious, far-reaching and impactful programme of work leading up to this summit, which will culminate in international agreement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the international summit to crack down on fraudsters and scammers abroad? I have a constituent with disabilities who lost £70,000 to a romance fraud, with no checks having been done by the bank. Does the summit not also need to look at that issue?

While there are certainly corporate victims of international illicit finance, it also affects us as taxpayers and as individuals. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for raising that case. Turning a blind eye and washing our hands of responsibility has gone on too long. Britain has been a world leader in so much, so let us step up to the plate and lead the world once again in tackling this scourge, cleaning up our financial system, making the crooks and corporations pay their fair share and delivering justice and a fairer system once and for all.

Order. I am looking around the room and at the time. I will not set a fixed time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to under five minutes, everybody on the list who wishes to speak will get in.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this vital debate, and on his comments about opaque property ownership. I said that this is a vital debate, but let us remind ourselves of the figures: £325 billion flows through the UK in illicit finance every year, which is more than 10% of this country’s GDP, and that figure rises to £780 billion annually when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are included, according to the Finance Innovation Lab. In the short amount of time available, let me say this: when the summit comes, it will be a measure of our convening power with global south countries as we look to build to chairing the G20 in 2027. It will be an opportunity to harness the private sector’s technical expertise as a leading financial services hub. It will be a chance for our law enforcement agencies to share their knowledge, whether the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police, who I had the pleasure of visiting in their Guildhall offices only last week. On crypto, it will be an opportunity to encourage like-minded partners to roll out sanctions packages similar to the one that the Foreign Office recently launched for the A7 in Kyrgyzstan. I must commend the Minister for his leadership on that. Illicit finance touches more or less every facet of our lives and is a national security issue. Some £10 billion is laundered through the UK each year, by people traffickers, drug gangs and organised crime groups, and £6 billion of trade with Russia has been facilitated by UK overseas territories companies since 2022, including through sanctioned goods. It is also an economic issue, though. Let us remember that £325 billion is linked to corruption cases involving UK-connected services and that, each year, £33.4 billion is lost by the UK and almost $500 billion is lost globally to tax abuse. Illicit finance also distorts our property market, as we have already heard. Some £11 billion of suspicious wealth has been identified in UK property, and £1.5 billion of that was linked to individuals accused of financial crime or with connections to the Kremlin. It is also a transparency issue: £190 billion-worth of property has no clearly identified beneficial owner. We heard of the Norfolk cottage, but we all have properties in our constituencies up and down the country that are affected by this issue. There are 236,500 properties across England and Wales that are held through opaque trusts, and there have been £6 billion-worth of suspicious property purchases made via overseas territories shell companies, of which more than 90% went through the British Virgin Islands. That speaks to the scale of the issue at hand. Illicit finance damages our global reputation, too. Unless we tackle the issue both here in the UK and in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, we will not address it in the full manner that it deserves to be addressed by all of us in this Chamber in order to do the right thing by my constituents. Let us recall the figures I mentioned at the start: each year, £788 billion flows through UK-linked systems, £10 billion is laundered and £33.4 billion is lost in UK tax revenue. The Minister knows those statistics and has heard me mention them time and again, but I am repeating them to drive home just how important this summit is, both to our country and around the globe, and to reiterate how crucial it is that we get the appropriate buy-in across Departments at the very top of Government. Therefore, set against the backdrop of a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, a new economic crime plan being published later in the year and the Crown dependencies implementing greater transparency around their company registers in the coming month, I have two asks for the Minister. What can he say to reassure me that the rescheduled illicit finance summit will be the genuine cross-Government priority it deserves to be, and that this Government will drive global leadership on the all-encompassing issue of illicit finance? Secondly, somewhat at a tangent, after some concerning reporting by Bloomberg about the potential return of golden visas, can the Minister reassure me that his Department will work with the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office to ensure that this Government never introduce a loophole that allows oligarchs and kleptocrats to buy their way into the UK?

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)—I agree with every word of his speech—and to congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who introduced this debate, on what he had to say. There is a feeling of all-party agreement on this issue, which is perhaps not surprising, because we will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the decision made by Parliament that, unless open registers of beneficial ownership are accepted and implemented by the overseas territories, the British Government will enforce them, as is their right. It has taken nearly 10 years; I think that it was 2018 when I and others led a rebellion against our own Government to get this in, and the Government conceded. It was the right thing to do, and it is all taking far too long. The reason we have not made progress is partly a mixture of inertia, crowded agendas and vested interests, but the Government need to confront it at this summit with all possible vigour.