Brian Leishman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  It is 100 days until Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the last 15 to 20 minutes we have just had a little glimpse into pantomime season. Let me move on to business. Decades of Governments taking wrong political decisions have made climate change not just an environmental emergency, but a crisis rooted in social and economic inequality. Major oil and gas corporations made nearly $93 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2026. Saudi Aramco made $33 billion in net income. ExxonMobil made $14.5 billion in profit. Shell’s net income was just under $10 billion, and BP made quarterly profits of nearly $6 billion. This is an international oligarchy benefiting from war and conflict, holding Government and citizens hostage just so that record profits can be made. That rampant capitalism has created dire economic inequality and growing poverty, and it is ultimately leading to climate destruction. Companies that want to frack care only about making profit and pursuing shareholder dividends; they certainly do not care about workers or communities. The need for a change in political direction could not be greater. Climate protection, environmental sustainability and the provision of a genuinely just transition for workers and communities all demand the restructuring of our economy. We absolutely do not need fracking; we need a green industrial revolution, and Grangemouth in my constituency is the ideal location to house it. I am in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister’s diagnosis of the societal consequences of mass deindustrialisation and deregulation. We have seen working-class communities and ex-industrial heartlands decimated. I have been heartened in these last couple of weeks that the Prime Minister has made enthusiastic contributions at the Dispatch Box about a future for sustainable aviation fuel in Grangemouth.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is 100% correct. That is exactly the sort of action we all need at Grangemouth and in the wider Forth valley area, which he so ably represents. Let me focus just on my community, which has been the victim of corporations amassing phenomenal wealth on the back of the talent and skill of workers. Those corporations then decide to move on, which means mass redundancies, and leave behind an asset-stripped community. I say to the Minister that our Labour Government have the chance to change that. Let us move away from fossil fuels and fracking and instead accelerate building the renewables industry in Grangemouth. Let us use state funds, such as the £200 million dedicated from the National Wealth Fund and set aside to finance the green industrial revolution. Quite frankly, that money has sat untouched for far too long. We could do something amazing in Grangemouth. We could combine the pressing need of the environmental agenda that is upon us with providing genuine social justice. Now it is time for a little more socialism: the Government could take some form of ownership of these new industries, which is a popular policy among the general public. We could create new, green, well-paid, secure jobs, and apprenticeships that would transform the life chances of local young people. With public ownership, we could reinvest profits back into the local Grangemouth community, regenerating and re-energising life in the town and lifting living standards for generations to come. That is the sort of corporate social responsibility that has been so missing in recent times from Grangemouth industry. I have said many times—and you have heard me say this many times, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Grangemouth is a blank canvas for us to build something truly special. The crucial question is: what kind of country do we want to live in? Is it one that continues to allow oligarchs and international capital to exploit people, place and planet, or do we use politics—our opportunity in government—to be bold and transformative? I say to the Minister: let us build Grangemouth for the future in the image of a Labour Government who want the best for workers and communities, let us make Grangemouth the example—the shining example—of what can be done and let us do it quickly.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice System: Royal Commission · Hansard source

  More

  Just a fortnight ago, the Justice Secretary said that “we have to build a new criminal justice system.” —[ Official Report , 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 86.] After the damage done by a decade and a half of austerity, I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody knows how far our justice system has fallen better than the hard-working frontline workers who are desperately trying to hold it all together, and who have watched and warned about this dangerous situation coming down the track for years. Will the Department listen to the leaders of the six national justice trade unions, who are calling for a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice System: Royal Commission · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of establishing a royal commission on the criminal justice system.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate, and introducing it ever so comprehensively and well. One of the first emails I received when I was elected in 2024 was from Tillicoultry residents who had been told that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was present in their roofs. I remember being really moved by how those people have been affected in so many different ways. They have experienced immense stress and uncertainty at being evacuated at short notice. Three years later, they are still separated from their personal possessions: family heirlooms passed down through generations, photo albums, souvenirs and jewellery—items that cannot have a financial price put on them. Some people have had to move to temporary accommodation, such as hotels or rented properties that will never feel like home. The feeling of being unable to put down roots has taken a toll on their mental health, and having to still pay mortgages on uninhabitable properties has taken a toll on their financial health. These people’s lives have been turned upside down, but the most heartbreaking and scandalous part of their story is them feeling like they have been ignored. Confusion over repairs and the cost of them has been a hallmark of years of substandard communication from the council. Homeowners have struggled to get responses to emails or phone calls about their ongoing situation, meaning that people have been unable to make informed decisions—and these are huge decisions to make. Some homeowners have ended up selling their property at a vastly reduced price just to get it all over and done with in an attempt to move on with their life. After a recent meeting at the start of this month, the council accepted that information in some instances could have been presented more clearly. That was welcomed, but it is not enough. I have to say that the SNP administration that run the council need to reflect on the lack of leadership displayed during this whole sorry saga. Both the council leader and the local Clackmannanshire and Dunblane MSP, who is deputy leader of the Scottish National party no less, have been found utterly wanting. They have been so ineffective at getting the Scottish Government to step up and do the right thing for Tillicoultry residents. The SNP Government have utterly abandoned Tillicoultry residents. It is a disgrace that it took two years for the Cabinet Secretary for Housing to meet with the residents, and the outcome of that meeting was a dereliction of duty. Instead of taking meaningful action to sort this mess out, they just wanted to blame Westminster, but the Tillicoultry residents know that housing is a wholly devolved matter. This is the Scottish Government’s responsibility. The Tillicoultry RAAC residents just want the council and the Scottish Government to treat them with empathy, compassion and fairness. That is not too much to ask. These people are in their hour of need.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), I believe that historical context is essential when it comes to this debate, because Britain has been an important participant in creating the situation that Palestine and Israel are in. Our country’s role as the former colonial power in Palestine—issuing and implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917 and presiding over the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people—is an awful stain that has got deeper with the failure to stand up for the inalienable rights of Palestinians in the decades after the Balfour declaration. Britain was an architect in establishing Israel, but over time the relationship has changed. Britain and Israel have become a partnership largely defined by imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, and the oppression, apartheid and poverty that those traits have created. Co-operation between the British and Israeli Governments goes beyond the “normal” relations that most nations have. It was a year ago that the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, welcomed the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, to No. 10 Downing Street. The House should remember that President Herzog is the man who said that an entire nation was responsible for the October attacks perpetrated by Hamas, and that the collective punishment of Palestinians was right. President Herzog came to protest against British positions, including the potential—at the time—recognition of a Palestinian state and Britain supporting humanitarian efforts. The result of the meeting was not a resounding condemnation of Herzog’s abhorrent views, but instead the Government stressing that Israel is a long-standing ally and the importance of our ongoing partnership with Israel. The appeasement of the president of a state that carries out a genocide is a much more recent stain on our nation. The time for the UK to show international and moral leadership, as we did last week, was long overdue. Like many others in this place, I welcomed the change in outlook from our new Prime Minister and our Government with the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It was a real change and a massive step towards Israel being held to account for its blatant, flagrant and repeated violations of international law, but it must be just the start. Our Government must act much more quickly, because Palestinians cannot wait six to nine months. They are still subject to human rights abuses because of Israeli state-sanctioned settler violence. The UK should not be financially facilitating that a day longer. I say to the Minister that the UK Government must target the infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel’s unlawful occupation and impose measures on key entities, including Israeli Government Ministries that are implicated in establishing, maintaining and providing material support to illegal settlements and settlement infrastructure. The UK Government must end any political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s serious and systematic violations of international law. The Government should suspend the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement and impose targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Katz, Orit Strook and all Israeli officials directly implicated in ethnic cleansing and the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank. There is no doubt in my mind that we have witnessed a genocide take place, so the UK must now act swiftly in response by ending all political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The UK must sanction the Israeli officials most implicated in the commission of genocide and commit to executing ICC arrest warrants. Finally, the UK must support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the ICJ, just as the UK has done in support of The Gambia v . Myanmar case. To finish, I wish to reiterate that our Government have done the right thing in shifting our position, but we must go further and quicker if we are to repay the historical debt that we owe the Palestinian people.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My sense of patriotism does not come from a flag, an anthem or the royal family. Instead, my patriotism comes from things like our national health service; movements such as that of the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality and religious tolerance; and how Britain stood up to and defeated the evil of fascism, both abroad during the second world war and at home in places like Cable Street, where Jewish residents, Irish dockers, trade unionists, socialists and others united to stop the British Union of Fascists movement from marching through Jewish neighbourhoods. That is the sort of patriotism I love. I have the utmost respect for any citizen who believes that the royal family is a fundamental part of British life. I have no issues with that opinion; people are entitled to it, but it is simply not one that I share. There were many reasons why I joined the Labour party. One was to change—

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will just put a red pen—a very dark red pen, obviously—through some of the comments that I wished to make. I will accelerate my remarks. It is clear that we are a nation of persistent inequality. I fully appreciate that the role of the royal family is way down the list of pressing issues that my Government have to deal with, but when looking at the intense suffering that millions of people are experiencing, I cannot help but feel that the sovereign grant money could and should be directed elsewhere, and not to a family worth an estimated £21 billion.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing the debate. Sudan now faces the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, largest hunger crisis and biggest internal displacement crisis. History has taught us that war always drains resources into armed conflict, instead of directing them towards manufacturing, development and raising people’s living standards. The war is a counter-revolutionary conflict between two military factions that has left Sudan’s infrastructure largely destroyed. Sudan’s agriculture, industry and domestic and foreign trade have all been severely disrupted, with approximately 13 million people displaced, 19.5 million people facing acute food insecurity and hundreds of thousands of people living in famine conditions. As well as the war, there have been years of failed politics, a lack of development, a weakening of production and widespread corruption. This has all led to the collapse of state institutions, mass unemployment and intense poverty. According to the latest estimates from Sudan’s Central Bureau of Statistics, 82.8% of the population now live below the poverty line. The war has created an economy in which military interests, commercial networks and smuggling converge, for which both sides bear responsibility. Both sides are using gold, once a national resource, for financing. The revenues are used to purchase weapons, ammunition, drones and other military supplies. Sudan’s gold production reached 70.15 tonnes in 2025, while officially recorded exports amounted only to approximately 14 tonnes, so 56 tonnes of gold did not enter official channels through the Bank of Sudan. The war is being used to pass highly questionable agreements on projects with international capital, and with countries that have appalling human rights records. That has far-reaching economic investment and strategic consequences. For example, the Sudanese-Saudi co-ordination council operates away from the gaze of public scrutiny and grants long-term economic investment and strategic concessions involving land, agriculture, ports and other natural resources. Only last year, the Sudanese Foreign Minister confirmed that a final understanding had been reached that would see a Russian naval base on the Red sea, with up to 300 Russian personnel and four warships. Collectively, the international community must try to bring this war to an end, guarantee humanitarian access, press all parties for safe, unhindered aid delivery to every part of Sudan through all available channels, and back efforts to prevent famine. The arms pipeline should be cut off, with the UK actively monitoring and using every available measure to end foreign military support to the warring factions, including the UAE’s support to the RSF, and UN Security Council resolution 1556 should be enforced. There must be accountability, not impunity. The UK should support independent monitoring, documentation and prosecution in respect of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by all perpetrators. There should be a democratic, Sudanese-led civilian transition, with the UK backing a genuinely inclusive process that excludes the warring parties and the former regime, with no return to power sharing with the military, and the introduction of a single national army under civilian oversight. The decisive factor here is internal. The resistance committees, the trade unions and the displaced people’s committees should help to shape Sudan’s future, with the UK and wider international community supporting democratic forces on the ground and backing bottom-up participation and leadership that leads to sovereignty and the reconstruction of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Sudan.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  When a Reform UK councillor says that Nigerians should be “melted down to fill in the potholes”, and an ex-Reform councillor had to resign because they used racial slurs against a black family, I am disgusted at their overt racism. Does the Minister agree with me that the racist Reform UK and the ethno-nationalist Restore Britain are contributing to the scenes we have seen in Dover and Portsmouth?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  On that note, after two decades of failed SNP governance, 29% of children in Clackmannanshire are living in poverty. The Labour Government have lifted the two-child benefit cap, which will reduce that figure and help life chances. Improving economic growth is, of course, laudable, but could we go for some classic Labour redistribution of wealth, and also look at taxing multimillionaires and billionaires?

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  That is a reasonable, candid and honest assessment, and I agree with it. It is up to us, now that we are in government, to raise living standards and give people faith and hope. If we do that, the spivs and speculators of Reform and Restore will be rejected. So I say to the Minister: can we properly analyse why right-wing parties are convincing people that they are the ones who will turn people’s lives around? They are conning people again, even after the lies that they told about Brexit. Referendums have a vital place in our democracy, but let us acknowledge that they can create uneasy bedfellows and awkward alliances. The impact of that is clear when I look at the fortunes of my Scottish Labour party. I am afraid that Scotland is still dominated by the constitutional question. Painting everyone as either nationalist or Unionist has distracted Scots from the real political issue that affects us: whether you are from Alloa or Aldershot, Stenhousemuir or Stoke, politics is always about class. Class must be put back on the political agenda. Many people back home do not know what we in Scottish Labour now stand for or who we stand with. We must appreciate that campaigning alongside Tories, who did so much damage to Scotland, was seen as a betrayal of our class. If we ever want a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood again, we must appeal to what was once a large chunk of our Scottish Labour vote, which has found its political home in the Scottish National party. Do we not see that competing for just a small, diminishing Unionist vote is swimming in shallow, crowded waters and will never lead to us being in government again? I am not saying that we should back independence, but we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum. If we do that, we will be speaking to a huge number of Scots who left us. Who knows? They might even listen to us again. Scotland needs to break the constitutional deadlock and Scottish Labour needs to shift from a position of dogged inflexibility, otherwise we are heading for the irrelevance of perpetual opposition. That would mean we would never be able to put Labour values into a Government that Scotland so desperately needs.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. The behaviour of the right-wing media outlets that peddled the views of their billionaire owners about the Brexit referendum was a perfect example of the wealthy and powerful influencing our politics and, ultimately, striving to maintain the existing class structure of our country. Much of the multimillionaire and billionaire class saw the Brexit referendum as a business opportunity and, through the media, they latched on to and exploited the despair that many working-class communities felt. It is incredibly frustrating that politicians refuse to accept why millions of working-class people voted for Brexit, but it really should not take too much analysis. Communities felt demoralised and desperate, and people needed something to change—so much so that they grasped on to the notion that leaving the European Union was the answer to improve their lives. I do not blame them, because places have been asset-stripped and abandoned. MPs arrogantly preaching to people that they were wrong to vote for Brexit will not cut through in marginalised communities. That only drives people into the political extremes of the right.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the British company, Dana Petroleum, is involved in a consortium that has been granted licences for oil exploration in Palestinian waters off the coast of the occupied Gaza strip? Does he agree that it is illegal and amounts to the war crime of pillage? What does he intend to do to challenge this illegal action by a British-based company?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  Our society is grossly unequal. Local councils have been hollowed out by years of austerity, people need food banks to survive, kids go to school hungry and people are trapped in low-wage, precarious employment, all while corporations make record profits and the super-rich become even wealthier. Inequality destroys society and ultimately reduces people, places and systems to nothing more than commodities and assets to be used and exploited by the wealthy. That is obvious in our legal system. With SLAPPs, the law can be used as a weapon by the powerful and wealthy, making a mockery of things we like to believe are the foundations of our justice system: fairness, equality, transparency, and the notion that money should have no bearing on someone’s receiving justice. Every debate that we have in this place comes down to the fundamental issue in British politics and society, the same issue we have had for hundreds of years: class. SLAPPs are the embodiment of capitalism and the inequality it creates, because SLAPPs are used to intimidate people, restrict activists and campaigners, and exhaust their time, energy, emotions and, crucially, as we have heard from so many hon. Members, finances—all to suffocate freedom of speech. I wish now to speak about Lucy and Verity Nevitt, who in 2018 reported allegations of sexual assault and rape to the police. Following an investigation, at the end of January 2019 the police decided that they would take no further action due to insufficient evidence. After Lucy and Verity’s cases were dropped, the ladies decided to speak out online to warn others about him. Specialist Metropolitan police officers encouraged them to speak out online, but told them not to name him, to say “alleged” and to call it serious sexual assault instead of rape. However, the sisters decided to say who he was and what he had done. Their attacker responded by bringing a legal action against the sisters, based on accusations of misuse of private information, harassment and defamation. As legal action continued, the sisters became aware of cease and desist letters being sent to CrowdJustice, where they were raising money for the defence, and to supportive MPs. In May 2020, the High Court decided on a number of applications made by Lucy and Verity and by the claimant. The sisters were allowed to lift their anonymity order to allow themselves to be publicly identified, while the court allowed the claimant to remain anonymous. However, the court rejected his application for reporting restrictions. In its intervention to oppose this application, PA Media, then called the Press Association, argued that “the main thrust of the claimant’s application for anonymity is to protect his reputation rather than his privacy”. In her rejection, Justice Steyn stated that “a reporting restriction order is a peremptory order affecting the right to freedom of expression of the press and the public. It is a form of censorship.” After numerous hearings and, obviously, hugely increasing legal costs, all parties agreed on a settlement, allowing Lucy and Verity to speak about what happened to them, as long as they did not name their abuser. Lucy said, “It was a really difficult decision…If we had the money we would have gone the whole way…This wasn’t just about us, there are so many other victims out there.” After founding the Gemini Project in 2018 and fighting back against their attacker’s attempt to shut down the organisation during the legal battle, the sisters’ campaign in support of survivors against SLAPPs and other abusive tactics continues today. As legislators, we in this Chamber are not exempt from blame. We, the state, allow this practice to happen. Our inaction makes us complicit in this inequality. I say to the Minister tonight that we must stop wealth, both corporate and personal, from buying silence and evading accountability and justice. We must do everything in our power to equalise the legal system and wider British society. An end to SLAPPs would be a big step forward towards achieving that.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Prime Minister announced a £200 million fund to create a green industrial revolution in Grangemouth. My constituency needs to be reindustrialised, and my communities need to be re-energised. I know that the Prime Minister is as passionate as I am about both those things. Will he make it a top priority to reindustrialise Grangemouth, get good, secure jobs into the town, and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and all of Scotland need?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Fuel is being transported hundreds of miles from Stanlow in Cheshire to Scottish airports, increasing emissions and undermining our local fuel distribution industry. What will the Department do, alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade and the Scotland Office, to protect fuel security and Scottish jobs, including those of tanker drivers?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Trump is absolutely throwing his weight, his heft and his influence politically and militarily across various parts of the globe. His behaviour is in contravention of international law. It is heinous in the extreme, and he is a danger to—to use a broad phrase—world peace. There is no doubt about that. However, Ukraine and other parts of the world, such as Kashmir, are very much on the brink. We have seen mass displacement and ethnic cleansing of millions. We have seen—I may be wrong, and pardon me if I am—the biggest humanitarian disaster in Sudan. When we amalgamate all those crises in various bits of the world, we see that the world is on the brink—it is on a precipice. I have often quoted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in this place, and it says: “It is now 85 seconds to midnight.” That is the closest the world has ever been to annihilation. A lot of that is down to environmental aspects, but it is also down to politics, politicians and the political decisions that are made in various parts of the globe. I would like to think that there would be the international leadership to say, “No.” The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of my position on military spending: I think we have higher priorities than that because our nation has crumbling infrastructure, some 3.5 million people and rising using food banks, and 14% of children living in food insecurity. Those are the issues in my inbox and those are the things that I want to tackle.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far—he is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the actions of Trump and, therefore, Netanyahu are not born out of a passion for the liberation of the Iranian people but are an imposition of imperialist forces, and with imperialism naturally comes capitalism? It is ordinary Iranian people who are suffering on the back of that.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Life for ordinary Iranian people is getting ever more difficult. Right now, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. There is the brutally repressive and theocratic regime’s systemic economic mismanagement and rampant corruption, and an inhumane and suffocating package of US sanctions that hurt the Iranian people long before any regime official feels the pain caused. The two devastating waves of US-Israeli military strikes in just over a year have pushed the country to the brink, making virtually every aspect of daily survival an enormous struggle for most ordinary Iranians. The latest developments in relation to the rapidly re-escalating conflict between Iran and the United States are incredibly alarming. This could easily become an all-out full-scale war with devastating consequences, not just for the people of Iran but for the wider middle east region and, of course, for hundreds of millions more, with the economic and environmental impacts reaching across the globe. By actively seeking to assert unilateral US hegemony, the Trump Administration are dragging the middle east and the wider world into a perilous situation that is worsening by the day. It is abundantly clear that diplomacy and international law are in tatters. We can see this by three recent developments. The first is the illegal and indiscriminate US-Israeli 40-day military bombardment of Iran. That was following the equally illegal and unwarranted 12-day barrage of the country in June 2025. Both were launched when the Iranian Government were sat around the negotiating table. Secondly, there is the rapid unravelling of the subsequent ceasefire under Trump’s maximalist attitude, with his having stopped the military campaign which his Administration had started in the first place without agreement or approval internationally. Thirdly, there is US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring the launch of a campaign systematically to dismantle the International Criminal Court under the pretext that that global tribunal is interfering with US military and law enforcement operations, and thereby threatening US sovereignty. There is no doubt that we are entering a phase in which the US feels emboldened. It is giving short shrift to the basic tenets laid down in the UN charter and in international law. Iran is the arena in which it can wage war at any time, all while demanding that independent and sovereign countries such as the UK fall into step and provide direct support without question. If there is no consideration of entering a protocol of diplomacy, that is the abandonment of international law and basic humanitarian principles. Despite the rhetoric of those on both sides of the conflict claiming some sort of major victory, the reality remains that Iran, and primarily the beleaguered Iranian people, have suffered immense loss and devastation, while the Trump Administration have clearly failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives. We now witness a new cycle of rapidly worsening tit-for-tat military action, with the Islamic Republic Government targeting commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and US assets in neighbouring countries, and the US launching blunt-force bombardments, primarily of cities and areas along Iran’s southern coast, but also elsewhere in the country. Innocent Iranian civilians are the casualties of war. The Trump Administration on the one hand cite the illegality of Iran’s attempt to exact a toll on the strait of Hormuz—“It’s an international waterway”—but on the other talk about exacting their own 20% tariff on traffic through the strait. That blatantly demonstrates the US imperialist aims regarding control of the strait and the wider Persian gulf. It is completely in line with the various recent stances the US has taken with regard to Venezuela, Greenland, the Panama canal and even neighbouring Canada. This should serve as a stark warning to all countries, particularly those attempting to appease Trump by accelerating their own militarisation in compliance with his diktats, as was recently demonstrated at the NATO gathering in Turkey.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend touches on something that I want to expand on further: spending for defence is not limited to weapons, drones and so on. I regret that my Labour Government have cut overseas development aid, which is an echo of what Donald Trump did with the US Agency for International Development package. Even the most marginal, minute bit of analysis appreciates that overseas development aid is an investment in more dangerous, volatile parts of the world to combat another hot political topic in this country at the moment: immigration. There is more than one way to spend to secure our borders. The UK must join the moral and principled calls for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, to be followed by a swift resumption of negotiations. We must also openly denounce and separate ourselves from the Trump Administration’s dangerous and hypocritical tactics, specifically Trump’s willingness to initiate and pursue illegal wars while claiming to negotiate. Above all, we must keep it in our minds that the vast majority of Iranian people desire peace and wish to rebuild their shattered country. This devastating war has set back the vital efforts of and the painstaking progress made by civil society and trade union activists, who have been valiantly struggling to achieve genuine freedom and social justice and to steer Iran towards a democratic, popular, fair and progressive transition. The future of Iran remains the sole preserve and remit of the long-suffering and long-struggling people of Iran themselves—and absolutely only them.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about quality not quantity?

• 13 Jul 2026 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  Climate change is upon us, and it is costing lives. We must change society to try to stop the situation from getting even worse. Even with the smallest amount of analysis, we know that extreme weather hits the poorest in Britain the hardest. What steps are the Government taking to close inequality gaps, as an essential way of improving our resilience to climate change?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I took the underground to Westminster this morning, and at the bottom of the steps at the entrance into Parliament there was a homeless man sleeping against the wall, lying on the cold, dirty floor of the tube station. He was the last thing I saw before coming into this grand palace where we sit as legislators, taking decisions and making political choices that impact that man and everyone else in the country. Last week, £15 billion was found for weapons that will get us ready for a conflict that many politicians, much of the media, and various think-tanks and lobbyists say is imminent. That hawkish rhetoric is ramping up—of the 22 questions asked at Defence questions on Monday, three contained mention of Russia, and two were about defending the High North. A consistent theme ran throughout, pushing the narrative that we must spend on defence above all else. Of course, I appreciate that the first duty of Government is to keep our citizens safe and to defend the realm, but what about that man at the bottom of the tube station steps? Who is keeping him safe? What about the children who are going to school with no food in their bellies—do they feel safe? Over 3 million people need a food bank to survive—people who, when the winter comes, will have to decide whether to eat a meal or put their heating on. How safe do they feel because of political choices that have seen other departmental budgets cut? I do not think it needs to be this way. Tony Benn used to say regularly in this place that if we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. When I watch the news on television or scroll through my phone and I see conflict, ethnic cleansing, the displacement of millions, the destruction of Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran—remember, a girls’ school got bombed—I do not think, “You know what the world needs? We need more weapons. We need more death.” I think that what we need is obvious. We need diplomacy, we need the de-escalation of tensions abroad, and we need a domestic agenda not of war, but of prosperity and peace. I want us to invest in health, education and public services—all the good stuff that keeps communities together. I want better wages, the reindustrialisation of forgotten heartlands across the country, and the redistribution of wealth and power to create equal opportunities for people. I want a social security system that is a genuine safety net, one that stops people from descending into poverty. We are at war right now with poverty and inequality, and our people are dying because of it, so I urge Members not to look the other way the next time they are in Westminster tube station.