Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in. However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter. Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem. The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping. In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine. That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten. The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone. By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs. What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. Openness sometimes is a far better disinfectant for a problem than keeping it behind closed doors. As we know, the reality, even under the agreement, is pretty appalling. The Chinese get to appoint the bishops they want. People cannot have church house meetings. All the Protestants and other free churches now suffer massive persecution; they can be closed down because the umbrella of the Catholic Church has moved away from them. What do we know about China? China is petrified about what happened to it, to Poland and eventually to the Soviet Union: the Catholic Church eventually broke down the whole adherence to communism in Poland; that infected pretty much the rest of the Soviet Union, which then collapsed. China is petrified that it will face the same. The only reason it did a deal with the Catholic Church at all was to try to put off the idea that it would be influential, and it has succeeded in that respect. I am very sorry that the previous Pope and the current Pope did not take it upon themselves to pursue this issue and sort it out. I take no pleasure in criticising the Church that I am a member of, but we have to be honest about this. The situation in China for Christians is appalling. We could have done more, and the Catholic Church could have done more, but we forget the Buddhists, we forget the Muslims, and we forget the others whose right to practise free faith has gone as well. Before anybody says that I am only on the attack against the Labour Government, I want to say that I am not: when my party was in government, I was as much a thorn in their side as I am now in the side of the Labour Government. It is just the reality, and we have to face up to the facts. The recent visit by the Prime Minister to China was a problem. I simply say this to the Government. When the Minister responds to the debate, he must understand what has already been said by one of his colleagues: does economics trump freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech? If it does, we have gone down a bad road. If it does not, then why are we doing this right now?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I have known the Secretary of State for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for him and for the position that he is in. The key thing here, as I observe it, is that one of the big problems is the competition between younger people with no experience and older people. He is focusing on younger people. One of the things that we learned the hard way on this matter is that we also have to do something that moves older people through the system faster. We put up the Work programme at the time, which did not cost the Government any money, because it was based on payment by results. May I suggest that when the Secretary of State goes back to the Department and has a look at that, he is focused on the longer-term older people and moving them through jobs? The second point is on the criticism of national insurance. I recognise that this is not the Secretary of State’s decision; it comes from the Treasury—he will have endless disputes with the Treasury. The threshold does not apply to those under the age of 21, but lowering that threshold puts a block in the system, because the risks to those who want to hire younger people are at the same time blocking older people from coming into work for the same reason. May I suggest that he says, “Let’s do a proper set-up so that we understand this issue”? We have to get older people and younger people into work, not just the younger people.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  Surely the problem we have is that the Government, having decided not to be involved in this, and then literally a day later deciding that they would be involved by granting America the use of our bases, have brought us into a war. Like it or not, that is where we are. I do not understand what “the wider war” means, when we are in the war; that is what is happening with the strait of Hormuz right now. The Government are playing with words in a sort of tautological tap dance because they have no idea what they should be doing, as they did not want to be here in the first place, but they are. The Minister should be honest: we are in the war. The question for him really is: what are we going to do about the strait of Hormuz, and what assets will we put there?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Ukraine Air Defence: UK Support · Hansard source

  More

  In the last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been very clear about what he considers our role to be, under international law, if we believe that allies are being attacked. Does he see Ukraine as having exactly the same status as an ally? Does he believe that we are, of necessity, directly involved, given that it is under attack?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Small-volume business manufacturers in the automotive sector are having a terrible time at the moment. They rely on exports, and exports to the US are critical. Although I welcome the agreement the Government struck, costs are still four times what they were before President Trump introduced his tariffs, and those businesses are also being squeezed by business rates and national insurance at home. Will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to the Chancellor? The market is very delicate, and something must be done to reduce costs.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I do indeed. I am going to be careful about taking an intervention unless the Member nods their head to suggest that they are prepared to stay for the rest of the debate. I am like a spider at the centre of the web, but I promise I will not trap anyone if I do not have to; I have great confidence in Sir Roger’s stewardship. Some 20 years ago, I visited the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow, which was one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. At that time, the people there no longer looked to Government as their safety net from poverty; instead, it was local charities that stepped forward. People at the grassroots were present every day, patiently helping people into work and out of debt and addiction. The lifespan of individuals there was incredibly low, much lower than the UK average. That visit stayed with me throughout the latter part of my time as party leader. I saw deprivation and problems, but I also saw innovation at a local level to solve key problems. Innovation is critical, and that is what the small charity sector is about. For that reason, I founded the Centre for Social Justice in 2004 to create a bridge between local poverty fighters and policymakers here in Westminster; we described it as connecting the back streets of Britain to the corridors of power. The work that the organisation does now is informed by an alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots charities. Today it is led by former charity leader and CSJ award-winner Andy Cook. This is all about real people doing things away from Westminster and achieving things that are never exalted enough; nor is experience of them ever transferred to central Government. The CSJ harnessed the experiences of those charities to identify five distinct pathways to poverty, which it could then change; that idea still holds as true today as it did when I set the organisation up. Those pathways are worklessness and welfare dependency; addiction; educational failure; debt; and of course family dysfunction and breakdown. What I learned about the impact of worklessness and the other pathways helped to shape some of my thinking later on. Every year since 2004, we have had an awards programme that recognises outstanding small community groups and charities that work quietly but effectively across the country. To see what they have achieved is one of the most moving things. They will not be known to many people, but what they do is remarkable and the lessons from their work ring out to policymakers. Instead of inventing new ways of doing things, we should look at what these groups do, see whether we can bring it to Westminster and, if necessary, make legislation that shapes lives along the same lines. I want to refer to some community groups and charities that I know about—I hope other Members will do the same, to give a cross-party sense of what is going on in our communities. The first I want to talk about is Ripple, a suicide prevention charity based in Portsmouth. After the tragic suicide of her brother Josh, Alice Hendy dedicated herself to preventing harmful online internet searches from leading others to the same fate. We face a growing nightmare out there, with many people committing suicide as a result of what they see online. It is a real problem. From her bedroom in Portsmouth, Alice created a browser extension that intercepts crisis searches, offering a calming breathing exercise before signposting people to accessible local services. I have seen it myself, and it is quite brilliant—the members of the Government who saw it were also taken aback by how remarkable it is. What began as a response to personal tragedy has become a lifesaving tool that has now been downloaded—believe it or not—more than 2 million times. This is a small idea, from a small set-up in a bedroom, that is now being used more and more widely. That is why we need to learn from what these groups are doing, pick it up and see what we can do centrally. Many individuals will not have committed suicide as a direct result of that particular initiative, but there are many other examples. With the right Government engagement, tools like Ripple’s could be made available in schools, hospitals and jobcentres across the country, for example, yet Alice and her team still have to approach institutions one by one. I say again to the Minister: these are the kind of huge, life-changing things we can take from this debate—I am sure colleagues will give similar examples—and we do not have to invent them from scratch, because they already exist. Another shining beacon in our charity network is the BAC—the BAC O’Connor centre in Staffordshire; I first encountered it some years ago during my visits to grassroots charities. For 30 years, BAC O’Connor has been helping people to recover from addiction. We have long argued that, for obvious reasons, addiction is a reinforcer of poverty. BAC’s founder, Noreen Oliver, who sadly is no longer with us, was a much-loved member of this family. I was lucky enough to visit the centre again last year with the hon. Members for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). Some still new to political leadership in various other parties think that simply legalising drugs is a single-stroke way of ending the drugs problem and saving lives. BAC O’Connor believes in changing and transforming lives; its rehabilitation programmes remind us that recovery, not normalisation, remains the desired outcome. BAC O’Connor does groundbreaking work, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will want to explain further. It created its own restaurant for those coming out of addiction and is a very good example of what I am talking about. In my constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green there are some remarkable small charities, from which the Government could learn important lessons. They include the Dream Factory, founded in 2008 by Avril Mills BEM. It supports children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions or with severe disabilities by making their dreams—the things that they hoped or wished to do but have not been able to—a reality. It is a simple device: no matter what their situation is, Avril wants to hold them and say that they are worthy of achieving some of their dreams, although they may not be around long enough to see all of them. Wanstead and Woodford Migrant Support, a Christian charity based in Woodford Green, offers free immigration advice, housing support, advocacy and social spaces for refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants. By providing community-based advice early, it helps prevent homelessness. Immigration and housing policy should recognise and learn from its preventive work and the savings created by local and interactive support. There are others. Read Easy Waltham Forest offers free, confidential one-to-one coaching for adults who want to learn to read. One of the main reasons why people—mostly young men—end up in prison is that they simply cannot read and write. We discovered that they are too embarrassed to go into jobcentres, where they will be confronted by things that they need to read and write. They will probably be sitting in front of an efficient woman who is trying to help them, and they are embarrassed about admitting that they simply cannot read what she is putting in front of them. They will leave the jobcentre and fall into a life of crime because, without reading and writing, there is nothing out there that people can do for regular work. Many people who cannot read and write struggle; that is an often overlooked barrier to employment and to a straightforward, well-lived life. The central issue that I hope this debate will address is this: the Government take grassroots charity too much for granted—they did before and still do now, to a greater or lesser degree; this is not party political, as I said. The Government fail to listen when charities are delivering what works, and I urge the Minister to raise that point with her colleagues. They ought to be looking with MPs at what is going on in their constituencies and seeing what we can bring forward. The Government should rise up to serious, lifesaving policy work that does not need degrees or involve people writing new policies on the backs of envelopes and everybody getting excited about them. The programmes of these charities have been tried and tested, and they work—in life, it is always a good start to look at what works and copy it. That is what most of us would want to do. We need to foster a stronger culture of philanthropy in the UK that is closer to the American model. In its “Supercharging Philanthropy” report, the CSJ proposed practical steps to get us there. It suggested unlocking matched funding schemes to drive philanthropy and creating an evidence fund, so that smaller organisations can prove their impact and compete on a higher-level playing field. I want this debate to focus on how the Government can better learn from charities. There is a clear policy pipeline through which Ministers and Departments can systematically learn from grassroots charities working on the ground. The problem is that larger charities have public affairs teams and a lot of money, so they can fill up the inboxes of the Government on a daily basis, which they do—I have experience of that. I am not attacking them; I am simply saying that the real innovation is in smaller charities. It is the same in the economy—job creation in the business sector is all about small businesses. They are the ones that take the risks, are dynamic and produce the most employment in the United Kingdom. Small charities and community groups are exactly the same: they are innovators that see a problem, want to solve it and innovate to do that. When it works they really grow, but it is difficult because there is a glass ceiling that they must get through to reach the Government. That is what the Centre for Social Justice is trying to enable, but the issue needs to be recognised on a wider scale. That innovation must be harnessed to produce solutions. I remain proud of what the CSJ has done to bring these voices to the national debate. The CSJ Foundation has now given more than £25 million to grassroots charities and hopefully will raise more. I hope that, as this debate continues, the Government will listen and recognise that, through discussions with groups such as the Centre for Social Justice and others, we can harness and recognise the issues. There are a significant number of colleagues here for a debate such as this on a normal day, and they all work with local community groups and charities. Let us find a way to show what is really good about what those do and get the Government to act, once and for all, on things that we know work, rather than doing experiments in public policy. I rest on the basis that those charities are the lifeblood of what keeps society going, and we do not recognise them fully enough. I know that colleagues do, but the Government never do.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the small charity sector. It is a great privilege to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I am astonished and happy to see that so many Members take the small charity sector seriously, because it is a serious issue. As you will specifically know, Sir Roger, the sector is critical to everything that we do. The Government can do only a certain amount; the two other groups that aid the people and support the natural fabric of society are families and small community groups and charities. Small charities do much more than even the large charities that we hear all the headlines about. The charities that do the most are the ones about which we probably know the least. The purpose of this debate is to find out about them and discuss what we can do to help them. I want to start with a few facts and figures that may astound colleagues from all parties. First, the “UK Charity Insights Report” found that 30%—fewer than a third—of charity leaders think that the sector is in a healthy position. Some 44% of charity leaders cite cost rises as one of their main challenges, up from 14% four years ago. We know that that is the case for many charities. Demand for charities’ services is growing, with 83% of charities recording an increase in demand over the last 12 months. Only one in 10 charity leaders said that they have been able to smoothly meet the rise in demand. The “UK Giving Report 2025” said that although donations from the public to charity increased to £15.4 billion in 2024, which is quite remarkable, really, only half of people say that they donated to charity in the previous 12 months. That, obviously, is to do with levels of income. I am not making a party political point; this is just a statement about the situation for these small community groups. The downward trend is evident across all age groups, but it is especially pronounced among young people. A little more than a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they donated or sponsored in the past 12 months, compared with 52% in 2019. The small charity sector has been doing fantastic work, but it has been healthier. I hope that it can become a focus for us and the Government. It is a delicate flower and we need to nurture it in everything that we do.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an excellent debate, not least because all parties have been represented in it, and all parties have spoken with one voice. We value the incredible efforts made by local community groups and charities, but all of us also recognise that much more can be done to release them and to recognise some of the incredible schemes that they have come up with—I named a number of them. There have been many suggestions about the best way to do that. There have been comments about the need to modernise gift aid, and to uprate the thresholds of the gift aid small donations scheme, so that charities that receive small cash donations can get gift aid-style repayments of tax. That is a useful idea that has been put forward. There is also the whole idea of placed-based giving. Small charities are embedded in communities throughout the UK, and it is important that local and placed-based giving is encouraged so that smaller charities are supported and can continue delivering their vital services. I also picked up a general concern, which is quite right, about the fall-off of corporate giving in the UK towards the small charities sector. The big problem is that—forgive me, I cannot remember who made this point—something in the order of 80% of charitable giving goes to about 20% of all charities. They are the big charities that are staffed up with lots of people to lobby us and to always come in and see us. The small community groups and charities, however, that do 80% or more of the work often do not get access to that. Rewarding companies for supporting charities and community groups in their local areas would be a very good way of increasing corporate giving. Only 25% of British businesses donate to charities in the form of time, cash or goods. An estimated £4.26 billion was donated by British businesses in 2024, and that was flatlining. I say to the Minister that we need to do more to encourage a greater level of local support and giving, because philanthropic giving is vital. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we need to look at what the USA does in its tax structure for charitable giving. Particularly, we want to look at small community groups and charities benefiting from that, and raising more money given directly by those individuals, who are rewarded for that because it is a common good. This debate has been an excellent opportunity. I recommend that anybody who wants to inform themselves more about the policy work speaks to the Centre for Social Justice. All parties are welcome to look at this. I hope to have a chance at some point to meet the Minister to discuss with her any possibilities that we can raise. I have one abiding thought. Recently, we held another of our annual awards where we give out money to winning charities in six categories—money matters to small community groups and charities. I have to say that it was one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I listened to people who have grown their support groups out of tragedy in their own families and communities, and have risen to that and overcome it. Alone among all other reasons, it is not the structure or organisation, but the beating heart of small community groups and charities that helps us survive out there. It is time that we motored on in recognising them and making sure that they get a proper fair crack at what is out there to help them deliver their great services. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the small charity sector.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I will indeed.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Chair, it is a great honour to speak to this packed Chamber on my amendments, and it was good of you to call me so soon—there are so many people ready to speak. I rise to speak in support of amendments 1 and 2 that appear in my name and those of my colleagues and friends, and it is my intention to press them when the time comes. Why is this necessary? In this particular area, I refer to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) as my hon. Friend, because she has been stalwart in campaigning against slave labour and forced labour. I bow to her because of her stalwart support. As she said of the amendments, it is vital to safeguard UK export finance and ensure it is legally protected from any exposure to forced labour and human trafficking. We have been through this issue again and again, and I just hope the Minister, who has been a stalwart supporter of this drive, can give me a very clear sign when he responds to the debate that the Government want to adopt the amendments, which are critical to cleaning up what has essentially become a supply chain too often full of the products of slave labour. I am in favour of the Bill, not against it. In principle, I think it is right basically to raise the limit to £20 billion and the aggregate limit to £160 billion to account for inflation. However, it is also absolutely right to ensure that this increased financial firepower is not used inadvertently to fund modern slavery. Together, the amendments would ensure that, if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery is present in a recipient’s supply chain, the permitted financial assistance for that export drops to zero—in other words, no finance. For those who may not have followed what has been going on, we had to amend the original Health and Care Bill to stop slavery being used in relation to the NHS. Last year, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston said, we had to amend the Great British Energy Bill. The Government decided to vote down that amendment, but the Bill was amended in the Lords. Many Labour Members suddenly realised that they were going to be asked to vote in favour of slave labour in the supply chains of Great British Energy, and they said no. The Government then decided not to oppose the amendment, which was absolutely the right thing to do in the end. However, I wish we had not had to go through all of that. Surely there is a moral purpose in all this, which is that if we have any suspicion that a product or a supply chain has elements of forced labour—we know China does it endlessly, and Russia and other countries use it—we should not allow that. When we compare ourselves with the United States, the reality is that its Governments, no matter who is in power, have a very simple rule: it is the responsibility of companies importing to check their supply chains, and the excuse that they did not know or could not find out is simply not good enough, so they are prosecuted if there is slave labour in the supply chain. The amendments are all about trying to shut down another possible loophole, in this case on finance. We believe that UK Export Finance is currently exposed to forced labour. For instance, in 2022-23, it supported businesses involving a subsidiary of AVIC—Aviation Industry Corporation of China—a company sanctioned by the US as a People’s Liberation Army entity. This is something that nobody, if they really ask themselves, on either side of the House wants, and I am sure that the Government do not want it, so the question is: how do we shut this down? I want to quote a couple of really quite senior people in the Government who have spoken about this in the past. The Prime Minister has said: “We’re not going to raise human rights standards if we ignore it in trade.” He said: “It shouldn’t be up to the consumer…to research every product and work out every ethical aspect of it.” I say yes, because of course it is impossible to do so as an individual. When I had a row with Amazon and other companies, I said, “Why don’t you make it easy to find out what the route in your supply chain is? People don’t know where something was made until they actually have the product land on their desk. Why can’t they see that on their computers and be able to identify that?” However, those companies do not want to do that, because they think people may not buy the products. In May 2025, when he was the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said: “We are very clear on our position regarding the abhorrent practice of modern slavery. It is a terrible crime which we are determined to eradicate. I assure you that this Government takes this issue seriously and is continuing to assess and monitor the policy tools available to ensure we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains.” The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), has also said that “our clean power mission should not come at the expense of human rights…This involves confronting human rights abuses, including modern slavery, in energy supply chains”. That is absolutely right, although I do not understand why it took so much for us to get those on his side of the fence to agree, finally, to take such abuses out of the supply chains for Great British Energy, given his stated views.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What!

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand what the Minister is saying very clearly, but a couple of the examples I gave where things had slipped through the net show that the system is not perfect. Does he think that the Government are likely therefore to deliver, as that said they would, on taking the Modern Slavery Act and beefing it up to such an extent that companies importing and exporting have a responsibility to check their supply chains, and if they do not it would be a criminal offence?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Lady’s ambition, but where in all this will she retain the power to do something about councils that simply fail completely? An Ofsted report of my local council referred to it as disjointed and having weak co-ordination and limited accountability. It also talks of services falling short, parents being ignored and EHCPs never being granted when they should be. This is the reality for many of the parents that I meet. They are petrified. Will the Secretary of State explain what can be done about local councils’ failure? She speaks about EHCPs, but I have talked to parents recently and they are very worried. They struggled to try to get an EHCP, and now they are worried that somehow they will lose it. Could she reassure those parents that that will not happen?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is this: everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me—this is right, but not right now. The point is that all this stuff about Mandelson was known in conversation and discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in Government office. He ended up on Deripaska’s yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium—improper again. All this stuff leads to the final question: why him? Then, of course, the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been, had they bothered to check everything. There is a big question to be asked here. Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister’s judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly. I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is? Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy. The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there. Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.