Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister going to give way or not?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The interesting point, which I raise because the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead said that we should remember that this is also about the security of Ukraine and others—I fully agree—is that three of those judges voted against censure of Russia when it invaded Ukraine. We have to be very careful, because that ulterior motive is quite different from what he claims, quite legitimately, is part of our reasoning; I fully agree with him on that basis. On obeying the law, this is the law, and we do not have a judgment from a court that can be held by other United Nations bodies as standing. If that is the case, all the other legal points, which the Government started raising only after they realised that the ruling was advisory, do not stand either. It would be ultra vires of bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union suddenly to claim that there was a judgment against us and to act on that basis, as that would be a transgression of the original agreement. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made some of these points, but I want to raise this quickly with the Minister. The Chagossians I have spoken to have all said that they would rather be UK passport holders, and they just want to go home—and “going home” means turning around that bad judgment from the ’60s so that they can go back to their territory. I would love that to have happened from day one; that would have solved this. The Chagossians do not want to be under the suzerainty of any country other than the UK; and they want their possessions back. The reality is that we did not really ask them about that, but we should have done from day one. It would help the Government’s argument that they are acting in the public interest if they were much more open about what has been going on in these negotiations. There is a legitimate question about that. We all unite behind the idea of the Prime Minister raising defence spending, and we wish him the best when he goes to Washington; that is in our public interest. As I made clear at the statement yesterday, I would stand behind nobody in my support for him on that. I therefore ask the Government why they simply will not answer the question about where any money in the agreement is going to be taken from. Surely that would end the debate. They do not have to say what the amount is; they simply have to say that it will come from the defence budget, or whatever budget it is. If they said that, that would look open. Will they please also open up about what they have been discussing? It is all stalled now, so maybe they should reflect on the difficulties. The reality is that this whole process has been ill-thought through. What we need to do now is ensure that the Government stop, rethink the process and do not search for excuses that are not legal at all, but accept that our security and that of all the trade routes that cross through the area are under threat if they proceed with this process.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The reality is that the present Prime Minister of Mauritius has publicly stated—by the way, he also mentioned that the cost would be up to £18 billion—“Interestingly, we would have happily looked at joint sovereignty where it was clear, but the British Government did not want it.”

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I made this point earlier: the Government’s position throughout all this has moved. First, we were told that this was an absolute legal requirement under international law. When it was demonstrated that there was a get-out for Commonwealth issues, they moved to talking about legal uncertainties, but there can be no legal uncertainties unless they have waived their right to have the Commonwealth overrule the judgment and it becomes an advisory position. Does that not make one understand that they simply do not know what they are doing?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I just wanted to prompt my right hon. Friend to pursue one other matter, which is quite important. I was looking at the list of the judges who sat on the ICJ panel. It is quite interesting. Apart from there being a Russian who was fully supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, it turns out that Vice-President Xue, who wrote the whole case, also voted to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and was heavily involved in the Chinese Government previously. To what degree does that represent balanced and informed judgment—here internationally—as we would have in the UK?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  We are short of time and other Members wish to speak, so I will try to be as brief as possible. I follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), whom I know and respect very much. I do not agree with him fully on this, but he made his point forcefully. I want to come back to legal uncertainty. The point is whether it is unclear if the original ICJ judgment stood as an absolute judgment. We know very well that the agreement said clearly that any dispute with a Government of any other country that has been a member of the Commonwealth is therefore beyond it. When the court made its ruling, it was clear from the very beginning that it was an advisory judgment and not based on a legal position. I remind Members of what I said earlier: many of those who were part of that judicial process are not the long-standing judiciary in the sense that we would understand it here in the UK. Many of them are political. Vice-President Xue wrote this from the word go. She has been heavily engaged with the Chinese Government for some considerable time. The Chinese are not so stupid as to publicly welcome something, to give us an excuse to say that it is terrible—I say that as someone who is sanctioned by them—but the reality is that they are the major threat. China watches and knows that it is in a far better and stronger position if there is considerable doubt here about what is going on with ownership. We faced that problem from the word go. I asked the Minister a very important question. I do not believe that the last Government, when they entered into discussions, waived the requirement that Commonwealth issues cannot be touched by this court. Under that agreement, they have to waive submitting themselves to the judgment of that court. I ask her again, and I will happily take an intervention— [ Interruption. ] Before she starts giving us that lecturely look, let me say to her— [ Interruption. ] No, she does. Instead of putting on the “tut-tutting” face, could she just answer this question? Did this Government, at any stage during these negotiations, waive their right for the ruling to be seen as anything other than advisory? Have they waived that exemption?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, excellent. I want to bring the right hon. Lady back to her statement that there was an imperative to resolve the situation. She knows very well that in the original advisory opinion by the ICJ it is very clear, as has been made clear by the ex-Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that nothing regarding the Commonwealth falls within the directive, so by definition it is advisory. At the bottom of that agreement, the Government have a waiver that says that if they want to dismiss the advisory opinion, they can go ahead on that basis, so I ask the right hon. Lady: have this Government issued a waiver on the provision that nothing has to be a directive from that court? Have they issued a waiver?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  If she is not careful, I might ask her to share a drink with me later. [ Interruption. ] I know, it’s irresistible, isn’t it? The main point is that she did not. That is as clear as mud. I asked a very specific question: did they waive their right over this particular agreement? That makes this, from the word go, not inconclusive and not, therefore, a mysterious judgment. It is an advisory judgment and the Government are under no pressure to accept it.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement. I personally think it is a start, not a finish—I think we will find that we have to raise defence spending further—but I welcome it none the less, and on behalf of all of this House and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I will support it. The Prime Minister is due to go to Washington. One problem we have there is that they seem to have reached the conclusion that peace is simply the absence of war. Can he remind the President that a peace without justice, the right to freedom and choice in democracy is not peace, but a partial ceasefire? He might also remind the President that the last great test we faced united the United Kingdom and America, with Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan taking decisions that moved Europe in the right direction. Can he appeal to the President that, instead of running around making adverse comments, he should link hands with the United Kingdom to persuade the rest of Europe to step up, as we are now stepping up?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I will obey your strictures and try to keep this brief. I want to focus on a very narrow aspect of special educational needs. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this debate. As we can see, many Members have issues with the supply of SEND education support. I want to focus on something that originated in a special educational needs school in my constituency called Whitefield, which has calming rooms. I have been to see the Education Secretary about this issue, because I discovered, thanks to a BBC programme, that there is no regulation as to the nature of calming rooms in special educational needs schools and what happens in them. For the most part, those schools are very good, but when it comes to calming rooms there is a big variety of capability and, for that matter, quality. Children in that school were locked away in calming rooms. I would have thought that that was illegal, but it is not in special educational needs schools. What happens in those rooms makes the children’s behaviour worse. If they are suffering in one way or another, that suffering gets worse, particularly when they suffer from autism. What happens in those rooms becomes abusive, as has been captured on video. A survey has shown that more than 500 schools use this kind of lock-in for children with severe autism. The videos I have seen show some of them in cages, and some of them being put in what we would consider to be padded cells, with no visits for long periods of time. I simply want to put this point to the Minister. I have seen the Secretary of State and put it to her that this issue needs to be looked at and embraced in some kind of guidance or regulation, so that the rooms, if they have to be used, are used sparingly, and that there are regulations about the times that people should visit, to make sure that children are okay in them. Frankly, the rooms should be an absolute last resort, and should be used only very briefly. They are now definitely being abused in different schools. That is the one point I want to make. I ask the Minister to take this issue up again with the Secretary of State, so that at the next legislative opportunity, Ministers can sit down and figure out how we regulate this. These children often have no voice for themselves, for obvious reasons, and their parents now find their behaviour even worse, and do not know whether their children have been locked into a calming room, such as I have seen and been horrified by. We must make that change so that those with very severe autism who go to special needs schools will not have to suffer as though they were criminals or prisoners—and in ways that we would not even treat those.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Whatever the question about energy is, China is not the answer. First, we know the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have raised objections about the Treasury’s push to bring Mingyang Smart Energy into the circuit to bid for this. Secondly, China is determined to involve slave labour in its products. We are investing under this Government in solar arrays, which use a huge amount of slave labour in producing polysilicon. Do the Government not recognise that their tilt towards China to get it to invest runs the real risk of utter dependency on China and serious threats to our security, which have been highlighted endlessly by the security services, and will they now stop?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Military Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  7. What his planned timetable is for the annual provision of £3 billion of military support to Ukraine.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Military Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I came back from Ukraine a week and a half ago. I was very close to the front and talked to many of the military commanders there, and they made it very clear to me that they were desperately short of artillery pieces, 155 mm, and, most importantly, munitions—they could hardly respond to the Russians. As I understand it, they are also short of C-RAM—counter-rocket, artillery and mortar—defence missiles, which are desperately needed to protect Ukraine’s energy sites and its civilians’ flats and houses. That hardware has been promised by many European nations, and of course by the USA—and I must say that when you are that close to the front, Mr Speaker, you realise how desperate it is there. In the light of this delay, will the Government commit the UK to at least provide the sort of weaponry that it can provide to alleviate that problem as far as humanly possible, but mostly to push our allies to do what they promised to do? From what I heard, without that hardware, Ukraine runs the risk of losing this war.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Turner, it is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in one of these debates, even if you are not speaking on the subject. It is great to have you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on obtaining this debate. It is great to see so many Government Members taking part; there have been times previously when it was a lonely business for Members on both sides of the House to push this issue. The APPG continues to do its work because, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know as a member of the group, there is a continuing demand to bring this industry under better control. It is massively well understood that the harms this industry is capable of need to be checked. It started when we campaigned to get the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals reduced to £2. That was attacked, but we got it through, and it has led to a dramatic improvement in behaviour in betting shops and among those who use those machines after having far too much to drink in the evening. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was right to say that the number of betting shops that proliferate around housing estates is something to be seen, and it is because those companies want to get people who have picked up their benefits or their wage packet en route home. Some of them never make it home because they end up in the betting shop. Of course, that makes poverty even worse, because the families do not get the money, and it is wasted. That is a real issue. I will not repeat all the points that the hon. Member for Halesowen made, but he is right that the original legislation is completely out of date, because it was made for an analogue world when it was either the betting shops or nothing at all. Gambling has now proliferated in cyber-space. During lockdown, there were huge problems with gambling harms. People were sitting in their rooms for hours on end, spending money they did not have and ending up in massive debt. Suicides took place. The hon. Member mentioned his constituent, and my heart grieves for the family. I have met far too many families who have been in that position. If anybody disagrees with us about this subject, they should go and meet those who have lost their sons and daughters to the terrible scourge of gambling online late at night—on the slots, for the most part. The argument is put to us endlessly: “This will close down horseracing. This will close down sport.” This work has nothing to do with that, because betting on a horserace is not the same as someone sitting in their room late at night on a slot, constantly pounded by the desire to bet more, bet faster, immediately. It will never damage horseracing—its purpose is not to damage sport—but some gambling companies are now pursuing children through various algorithms used in online games, and that has to be stopped. Although the online stake limit has been reduced to £5, we think that is too high. The limit in betting shops has been reduced to £2, so why not have both at the same level? It seems a peculiar last-minute cop-out to the gambling industry to keep it at £5. It should be brought into line with the betting limits on fixed-odds betting terminals—that would make complete sense. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues and to those in the Treasury, whose hand is always seen in this debate because they are worried about the revenues. There are revenues and then there are revenues, and this particular set of revenues needs to be received with a very careful eye. I welcome the introduction of the levy, which we campaigned for, and congratulate the Government on bringing it in, because it is vital. It does not just go to charities for their work in supporting those who have suffered as a result of gambling; vitally, it also goes into research so that we can look at what is happening. This is a fast-moving area online, and with the amount of money being spent by gambling companies, it is wholly feasible that they will find ways around what we are trying to do and use it in a pernicious way to increase their profits. I have nothing against gambling companies. In a free world, they are more than welcome to give access to people who wish to bet on different things, but the real problem lies in the lack of any sense of remorse shown in conversations we have had with the gambling industry. The simple fact is that they make money when those who gamble lose theirs. One of the areas we noted was those companies’ pursuit of people who have got into the habit of losing sums of money. Although there was great talk about how they should step back, and about the ways in which they were going to help them, that was, by and large, not the case. They pursue them right to the bitter end on the basis that that money is going into their profits. When we hear that an individual—who I shall not name —who heads up one particular gambling company was able to give themselves a bonus of £1 billion over three years, we must ask: what is the price of human life? Is it only about profit? In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and hon. Members in the Chamber. The sooner we get these measures on the statute book, the better. There is room for improvement in what the Government are proposing, but I wish them well on that, and I will certainly be supporting them.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make a very simple point. I do not agree with the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has taken. We spent a number of years debating this question with our Government, and we eventually came to this conclusion and the proposal went into the White Paper. Yes, of course there are issues, but are they worth our trying to block the idea of the statutory levy? The answer is no. Research will be vital to understand how many people are affected, how they are affected, and the extensions in effect on those that have suffered. I have met an endless number of families who have been ripped apart by early suicides, by problems and by bankruptcies, because, unbeknown to them, somebody in the family was addicted to gambling to the extent that, late at night, they basically trashed their own family. This is where we intended to go. It was my whole original drive, and it was backed by the evidence-based findings of the then all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I understand many of the points that my hon. Friend made, some of which have been reiterated endlessly by the gambling industry, but may I say one thing about trusting the gambling industry? I would not place much store on that. It had years to get the voluntary levy right. The good ones contributed; the bad ones did not—or when they did, it was peanuts. The statutory levy was required, otherwise the money was not going to many of those community groups and charities—I have met very many of them—who disburse the money and work to get this done. I would simply say to my hon. Friend that I hope that Her Majesty’s Opposition will think very carefully about today, because it is important to get this legislation through. Yes, it is not without its faults. I recognise that there is an increase in the percentage it will raise that will affect high street betting shops, which are not the wealthy, massive offenders. We know that—that is where the pressure should come. I am in principle supportive of this legislation, because of the evidence we found. I want to make one final point; I really want to press the Government on this. Will the Government confirm that GambleAware will have no role in influencing the future work, framework or shape of the research undertaken by UKRI under the statutory levy? GambleAware is far too close to the gambling industry. We need to make sure there is independence, based on the evidence we have of the harms, and more evidence that we can gather. I urge the Government to make sure that GambleAware is not party to that, so that this research will therefore be clearly independent.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep my intervention short. First, it is a significant pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, it is a great pleasure to be here when the regulations will hopefully be brought in at last. I welcome the long-awaited establishment of a maximum staking limit for online slots, a measure for which the all-party parliamentary group has long campaigned. It is long overdue, and, while we welcome its introduction, the one point I would like to make is that £5 is simply too high. We have a problem here, because we have physical shops on the high street where stakes will be limited to £2, yet we have a £5 limit for online. The online side will grow rapidly, and it has the greatest attraction for those who get hooked on gambling. Online slots are available anytime, can be marketed to every current and potential account holder and offer unrestricted access to high-speed and addictive products. That was clear in all the evidence. Although I welcome this move, I make clear that the stake limits will have to be reviewed quickly, because we cannot have two different stake limits that will at the end of the day punish those on the high street while supporting those online. That is the wrong way round. The facts are clear. Online slots account for more than half of gambling revenues online, and 45% of those who engage with them are classed as either problem gamblers or at risk. A report on harm to national gambling treatment service clients by location shows that 38.1% report harm online. There is a multitude of evidence about the great harms of online slots gambling, and I therefore suggest to the Government that while they are doing the right thing, they should get it perfect, rather than just doing it. The truth is that the stake limit has to be at the same level as the existing £2. What scope will the Minister build into these regulations to adjust the maximum stake, given the risks of the £5 limit? Will she review the limit, given the clear indication that it is too high? That is a cross-party view of the all-party parliamentary group, and not mine alone. The draft Gambling Levy Regulations are important. That levy was an important feature of the previous Government’s White Paper, and it is a damning indictment of the gambling industry that this levy—

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I have.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  The economic and financial dialogue was stayed because of the brutal imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. When the Chancellor and the Government go back to engage and reopen that dialogue, they do so on the back of things getting worse, not better. The reality I put to her is that while she was away, Shein refused point blank at a Select Committee hearing to answer the question of whether it has slave labour in its supply chain, but the Government want it to list here in London. We have solar arrays being imported by the Government into the UK that demonstrably involve slave labour. Can the Chancellor be clear with the House about the Government’s position on slave labour? Can she explain whether this Government will allow any products or services, or allow companies to align themselves here or import goods here, that contain any slave labour, no matter how important that import is?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others. I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  President Trump has already said that he will continue with the payments and support. May I ask a simple question? We know from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill that recently passed through the House that using the profits of assets will help to bring up to $50 billion of support to Ukraine. A previous legal commitment has been broken, which could not have been done before without prior legislation; assets have never been separated from profits. The Minister does not have to answer the question now, but will he go back to the Foreign Office with a reminder that the assets are now left available for seizure?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I am sad that it has been reduced from three hours to an hour and a half, because it is an important debate, and I hope that the Minister has time to answer some of the questions. In reality, we are in a peculiar position—I do not blame this Government, because the previous Government were in the same position—whereby we are, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) just said, trapping ourselves in the same arguments that are meant to release us to get after those who have done egregious harm to others through an illegal invasion of another territory. That is clear, and it is why we should be permitted at this stage, where necessary, to seize those frozen assets—it is very simple. There is not time to go through all the legal arguments, but there are good reasons why we would be able to act in that way, and I would be happy to write to the Minister about them. First, instead of claiming that international law prohibits us from doing those things, it is important to remember that the basis of international law is pretty fluid, because it is hugely influenced by the politics of the day—otherwise, we would still be trapped in what happened in 1950, even though things have moved on. That is another point: the British Government should not use those arguments against action; they should lead on making the necessary changes where possible. My main point is that when it comes to freezing and sequestering assets, there is a good point at the end of it all. Hopefully, we will soon face an end to this war and the brutality, executions, murder and ghastly damage that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine. Ultimately there must be reparations by the country that invaded Ukraine, which is Russia. The trouble is we know very well that if we impose those reparations, Russia will never pay any of them, so the only hope we have is to seize state and oligarch assets and to say that they can be held in payment of the necessary reparations, and will be released as reparations are paid in accordance with what the UN says at the end of the war. That is one way of using frozen assets: seizing them and saying, “You will get these back, but only when you have stood up and done what you’ve been told to do after this aggressive war.” If Members look carefully, they will see that we are already considering taking the money earned from assets in banks. That set of assets and their income cannot be separated. At the moment, we are talking of separating the income from the assets, as if there is some fundamental difference between who owns what. While the state has an asset banked, it also owns the money earned from it. We cannot just say that we might do one but not the other. If we seize what is earned, we should recognise that that allows us also to seize the asset that is earning that money in the bank. There is no reason why we should not pursue that, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that point in due course. I do not believe that there is in international law any obligation or block on doing any of this. These arguments are being had at the moment in various court cases. By the way, we are not talking about the UK unilaterally seizing assets. Canada, which has already been mentioned, and the US have already passed legislation to give them permission to seize those assets—the Anglosphere is beginning to come together on this one. There is foot-dragging in Germany and France, and very much in Belgium. We know why: Belgium has a huge number of Russian assets and seems to be somewhat troubled by the idea of taking them over. I say this in cross-party spirit. Surely now is the chance for the United Kingdom Government—my Government, because they were elected—to take the lead in arguing now for us to use these assets against future reparations and mend what has gone on so appallingly in Ukraine. I urge the Government to step up, take that lead and give the rest of the developed world the chance to get that money into the places where it can do the most good.

• 16 Dec 2024 · United Front Work Department · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I apologise if that was the case. Yang Tengbo—H6—was, in fact, not a lone wolf. He was one of some 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department, which, as the Government know, the Intelligence and Security Committee report last year said had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, including by spying, stealing intellectual property, influencing, and shaping our institutions. Our agents say they are now frustrated by the lack of action, but they do not seem to have the tools they need to deal with the issue. One of those tools is staring us in the face. Will the Government commit to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and will they do it now? There is no need for delay. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC, found that H6—Yang Tengbo—is already well known as a United Front member, and that he is known to others who are already deep in the political establishment. Parliamentarians are exposed to the United Front on a regular basis. Will the Minister remedy this today, and accept that China is our most prominent security threat and that all action must take priority? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was the previous Security Minister, has said publicly that the Home Office was ready to name China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which would have forced United Front members like H6 to register or face serious consequences. Given that doing so is an available option, why have we not done it yet? Is it true, as is being reported by papers, including The Times , that behind the scenes the Government are now under pressure from banks, the wider business community and Government Departments not to do it? When it comes to a member of the royal family, I simply say this: how was it that somebody who was known to the security forces was allowed to get so close to a member of the royal family without proper scrutiny exposing them? Finally, I note that the Prime Minister said today in response to the issue that we will “co-operate where we can”, particularly on environmental issues, and “challenge where we must”, particularly on human rights issues. If the Prime Minister means that, why are we still buying from China huge numbers of solar arrays that have demonstrably been made using slave labour? Surely his statement is clearly incorrect; far from challenging China on human rights, it now appears that we are turning a blind eye. Why is that?

• 16 Dec 2024 · United Front Work Department · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Government if they will make a statement on the extent of the operations of the United Front Work Department within the UK.