Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, before we go to the political knockabout, let me say that I have spoken critically on this issue no matter who was in government; let us settle that before we go on. I want to give the Foreign Secretary a quick audit of exactly what should have been said. China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China seas and is having massive disputes with the Philippines. There is genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting and transnational repression. There have been attacks on Hong Kong dissidents here, and Hong Kong dissidents are constantly under threat. There have been cyber-attacks on the UK. China supports Myanmar’s repressive military regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also supports North Korea and Iran. It has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, arrested Jemmy Lai and placed sanctions on UK MPs, and it thieves all the intellectual property from private companies. What a record! And what would we balance against that? Some potential trade? This question has already been asked, in a way, but it is worth repeating. On the embassy decision, it was said clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal from Tower Hamlets unless it received assurances from the UK Government. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me that China has not received any assurances? Or has it received private assurances from the Government that it will get what it wants, and will get this embassy?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Before the most recent election, the Intelligence and Security Committee produced a very comprehensive report on China, making it very clear that it considers China to be one of our greatest threats. I am therefore astonished that, in the whole of today’s strategy, there are three paragraphs that deal with China, and that it raises one or two issues and then proceeds to take a different decision. It talks about there being a problem with human rights—which is genocide—and the cyber-security attacks on the UK, as well as China’s espionage, interference in our democracy, sanctioning of people like myself and undermining of our economic security, and its being guilty of transnational repression. China also ships arms to Myanmar, keeping that brutal regime in charge, at the same time as building the largest navy. To what degree do three paragraphs satisfy the idea that China should surely be in the list of threats?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I make this intervention with your indulgence, Mr Western, because I am engaged in another debate in the main Chamber, and I apologise to the hon. Lady because my intervention deals with another individual, although I fully support her and congratulate her on raising the Jimmy Lai case, which I have argued many times. I hope she makes her case, and I am sure she will—it is a terrible thing. However, there are other cases, and the person I want to mention, who is often forgotten, is Ryan Cornelius. He has been incarcerated for 17 years in the United Arab Emirates. The UN has said exactly the same: this is an illegal incarceration for which there is no legal basis. He has often been in solitary confinement. The British Government—not this one, necessarily, but all Governments—have too often failed to raise his case in the way they should. I mention the case because the Foreign Office needs to do its duty in raising it, regardless of the business deals that it wants to make.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to be here with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. Some people might look at this debate and think that this is not really the most important thing in life, but our constituents want to be able to go down their shopping streets without the fear of any threats. They want to shop calmly without seeing the shelves stripped of goods, being threatened and watching shop- keepers pinned against walls. What they want is policing, which is their right. With the time limit there will not be enough time to cover everything. Police numbers are always the issue, but we should look at what took place in New York at one particular point. The key rule is not just more police, but more effective police. It is the effectiveness that I want to dwell on. Even when we have the police numbers, effectiveness is often not the priority. I have had a series of issues over the high streets in my constituency. One is in the Broadway in Woodford and the other one is in Station Road. A key element in a lot of these shopping areas is the position of the larger shops such as Boots, the Co-op or Tesco—the shops that bring people on to local shopping streets to get things. But then people go off to the smaller shops, so it is important for trade to get the balance right. The problem is that there are gangs now on the street sending people in—they walk in; they do not run. I have seen them strip between £3,000, £5,000 and £10,000 of goods off the shelves in Boots, or the Co-op. They go into all the big shops and they are photographed, but we discovered the other day that the shops had given up on sending that data to the police. As a result, the police said they did not think that this was a priority area because they did not get a full record of the crime. If the shops do not go to the police, the police do not record the crime and do not put police on the street. Without police on the street, crime increases and the likelihood of it being reported gets less and less. That is not down to the small shops, because they are the ones that bear the brunt of the violence. It is the big shops and the chains. We held a meeting the other day with three or four of the big shops in Station Road. When I say “big”, they are small, local versions of Amazon and other shops, such as Boots and so on. We discovered that not one of them was bothering to record any of the crime or to get it to the police. When we spoke to the police, they said, “We have had no record of this.” That is not to say they do not know that crime is taking place—they do—but the reality is they work on the statistics. We asked the shops, “Why are you not reporting the crime?”, and a manager said, “We are not rewarded for it by the big shops. The truth at the end of it all is that we do not see any return.” We have now instigated a system where we have set up a WhatsApp group for shopkeepers on the street so they can report the crime in the small shops. They say they will report the crime, provided the police actually react to it, come on to the street and make arrests. There is a third element to this. The police often get disenchanted about it, because when they arrest these people and take them away, they get released pretty quickly as there is no space for their case—they are often back on the streets the same day as they were arrested. The issue is more effective policing. We asked them to go on to the street in civilian clothes, because the offenders just move around when the police are there in uniform. The police did that and they made a series of arrests, which sent a shockwave through the gangs. The point that I will end with is that there is a huge amount to be done, but antisocial behaviour—of which shoplifting is a critical component—is arguably the most dangerous element on our streets. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington said, if we lose control of that, drug dealing and gangs take over. Shoplifting should be the priority. Make our streets safe and there is fair chance we will be able to catch the big criminals later on.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Way less than us, and less than most of the others—it is at the bottom of the scale. I simply say to the Government that the Prime Minister is right to press on defence, to get the European nations to step up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said earlier, we have a mechanism for that. The Prime Minister is right to do it through NATO, and we must not allow Europe to slide away from NATO as its means of defence. I watched, as did many of its leaders, when Vice-President Vance lectured the European Union in Munich. What he said shocked the European leaders, as it was meant to—he laid into Europe quite vindictively—but fair enough. However, where we are now heading, towards somehow encouraging those countries peculiarly to form some kind of European Union defence organisation, is exactly what will give the American Administration permission to say, “Well, you can do this yourself.” We are already halfway there, by the way, because we are forming a coalition of the willing but America is not willing, and we are at odds with it over its relationship with Ukraine. We agreed about the ceasefire, but America has now changed its position and will now be holding negotiations before a ceasefire. I think that that is wrong, by the way. Although I am personally a big supporter of America, I think it is mistaken on that particular point and the Government are right. My point is that we are putting the whole of NATO at risk for a phytosanitary and fishing deal. In what world does anyone do that? What are we doing it for? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are too desperate to curry favour with an organisation that, when push comes to shove and when it comes to defence, needs us more than we need it. It needs the UK to be locked into this because we are the key to so much of what it needs to do with defence. I say to the Government, “You have much stronger tools in your hand than you may think.” We have key persuasive powers on defence, and we should not sell them on the basis that they should become European and we should destroy NATO, or damage NATO, simply because we want to make some kind of adjustment or improvement which includes dynamic alignment and the loss of the possibility of future trade negotiation.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I just wanted to check on something. We can debate whether a trade deal can be improved—I am sure that all trade deals can be improved, whether it is the American one or what is an extensive one with Europe, and probably the greatest one negotiated in the past—but one area, as the Government go back into this discussion, needs to be very clear. I was looking at a paper produced by the Centre for European Reform, which makes one point very clear, as the Government go into the negotiation. It states: “Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.” Is that correct? Is that the position of the present Labour Government?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has a little while to go before he stands at the Dispatch Box. I am after the Minister, not him, but we will get to that in due course. The reality is that the Government could agree to dynamic alignment—there was no denial of that. Essentially, the Government are going into this negotiation knowing full well that they are so desperate on phytosanitary matters that they will give way on dynamic alignment. That is exactly what the EU wants. My real worry in all of this, however, is that we know what is going on—I will just move on to another topic, and then I will sit down and give other Members a chance to speak. Most of all, I am worried about bad faith. When we talked about improvements—which, to be fair to the Government, they did with the European Union—what did France do almost immediately? The Prime Minister is showing some leadership over Ukraine, trying to galvanise the other nations, which is his role. His role is to haul America and keep it with us, and he has been doing that. I do not have any criticism of that, but when the Prime Minister got involved, saying that Europe should form a coalition of the willing and that he wanted to drive that further forward and get some kind of agreement on it, what did France immediately say? “Not before you give us access to fishing.” That was it. In no world does fishing have anything to do with defence, yet France weaponised fishing to block off the UK, which had taken the—I think—generous position of saying that it wanted to galvanise Europe to do more. The problem here is that if we take out the countries that joined since the Ukraine war, Europe across the board spends half of what the United States does on defence in dollar terms. We have more people and more industry in Europe, yet we spend half of what America does on weaponry and defence. That is a shocking position for a member of NATO to be in. We have not stood up. We have done better—still not good enough—but what the rest of Europe has done has been shocking. By the way, the country that just told us that we will not get any discussions unless fishing is on the agenda has been one of the worst spenders on defence in the European Union, let alone in global terms.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and to be reminded of how old he was when I first came here; I hope he stays here as long as well, or maybe I do not hope for that as it might mean we Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches forever. Today’s debate is on an important topic and there have been some very good contributions already, but I want to get to the bottom of what the Government really want out of this negotiation, because they have been a little bit tepid in coming forward on the key issues. I welcome the Government’s negotiations in India—finishing off a trade arrangement deal or whatever it is with the Indian Government. I welcome too that they have been able to begin to negotiate with the United States, although they have not secured a full trade deal. By the way, they would not have got a trade deal if the Democrats had got back into office because they rejected it for four years. In fact, President Biden said that there would be no trade deal with the UK. Let us not just observe that because the Democrats are not Trump, somehow they were going to give us a trade deal. I have my problems with the current President, but President Biden absolutely did not want trade with us; it was as simple as that. That was a mistake on his part. He had a real opportunity, because the trade deal was pretty much all done—and then it was binned. There is also the question of the reason we are able to do these trade deals with the rest of the world, to which we export more than the European Union. We should do more of those trade deals. The Conservative Government did 73 after Brexit, although some of them were mopping up the ones that we had before. I stand ready to congratulate the Labour Government if they use the freedom Brexit gives them to get more trade arrangements, because that is what we are here for. I might want to press them further and say they could get a lot more out of the US, but that is another debate all together. I do not disagree with the idea that the deal we did with the European Union is capable of being improved. Of course it is, because the EU put up many barriers in the course of that negotiation; it weaponised Northern Ireland distinctly, and that was a grave error on its part. It risked some of the process of peace in Northern Ireland by making it a critical negotiating tool that could be used as leverage later in the rest of the negotiations, and as a result we have been left with a problem in Northern Ireland. I encourage the Government to have a very good look at that. I did not vote for the Windsor agreement because I thought it did not solve the problem by a long chalk, and it has left Northern Ireland in the same position as before, with a couple of small modifications. This debate is really about getting into the issue. I say to the Minister that the European Union did not play straight about phytosanitary from day one in the negotiations, and it still does not play straight. The fact is that our standards in animal welfare and product health are, and always have been, above those of the European Union. The European Union knows that. The reality is that somehow it decided that there had to be all these phytosanitary checks and changes, and it is desperately keen to get dynamic alignment now, because that means that there will be a rules-based order coming from the EU. That is what it has always wanted to do. The truth is that the European Union does not have that arrangement with other countries around the world. For example, it is quite happy to have New Zealand vets check their products before departure. Those products go in through Rotterdam without any checks, other than checks that they came from the area specified. The EU knows which vets it authorises, so it does that. It could have done that here in the UK. I sat down with Monsieur Barnier and a group of people to have a long discussion when the negotiations broke down as a result of what was going on here in Parliament, and I very much remember that we talked about trusting each other’s regulations and working with that trust to get an arrangement that made it as easy as possible to get goods across the border. He accepted that then, saying that, provided we could trust each other’s veterinary authorities, we would not need to have the phytosanitary rules as proposed at the moment. It was only later, when my party in government came back and did a terrible shimmy with him, that he thought he had it all, so he took it. The reality is that the EU knew all along, from the word go, that it was easier to put in place these arrangements than it made out. I have always found the phytosanitary objection peculiar, because it could be sorted out very quickly. Our standards are higher than the EU’s, and our vets are quite capable of checking different producers to see whether they fit European standards. That is all it is: are they up to European standards, and are European standards up to ours when the EU exports to us? It is very simple. That can be done in every trade deal, and the EU already does it with other countries that are not, and have never been, part of that Union. There is an idea that to get this issue sorted, we would have to go into dynamic alignment and accept the EU’s rules over our products, but it would make it more difficult to make future trade arrangements if we were rule-takers from the European Union and could not negotiate these areas ourselves. That brings me back to my previous point. Before I return to that issue, I want to raise another point. The trouble is that the argument I heard made—that a phytosanitary agreement involving dynamic alignment would address the price of food—is patently absurd. If SPS checks concerned the price of food, we could unilaterally relax them. They do not have to be where they are: that is our decision to take. It would not change or lower the price of food. If anything, it would be more likely to block us from doing a number of things, such as gene editing in food and work that we want to do that the European Union does not want to do. All these things put at risk where we may be in future trade arrangements and the direction in which we may want to develop farming here.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to draw something out. Dynamic alignment is not a small thing; it is huge, because it is rule taking. Can my right hon. Friend imagine our engaging in any other trade arrangement—with the United States or Australia, for instance, or the trans-Pacific partnership—and being in a position where we had to say, “We will accept your rules and your adjudication”?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  If damage has been done to exporting to the European Union, as I said earlier, that is about the attitude of the European Union to protectionism in the EU. Its trade with us has not fallen away on that basis, because we did not set up those barriers in the first place, so my argument to the hon. Gentleman is very simple: the European Union wants it all. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It wants it all, and it negotiated in bad faith from the word go. We have an agreement, which is a pretty good agreement as trade agreements go. It is one of the largest trade agreements that we have. It can always be improved—I do not disagree with that—but the reality is that we need to deal with an organisation that is as relaxed about being fair to us as we are about being fair to it. That has been our biggest problem from the word go. Returning to phytosanitary issues, I have had debates and discussions with the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in the past, and we have agreed with each other many times. I laud him for his stance on Russia and everything else—there is no question about that—but I want to quote from a little document that I came across from the Centre for European Reform. By the way, it is very complimentary to say that I read things that I do not agree with. I tend to do that quite a lot, strangely—it is a bad habit of mine, I know. That document is very close to how the European Union’s heads of department all think, and it says: “Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.” As such, I ask the Minister this simple question: is the Centre for European Reform correct? Do the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment, or do they not? I will give way to the Minister right now, because I am generous like that, and he probably wants to answer that question. I tempt him to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment. Could they, and will they, agree to dynamic alignment and ECJ rules? I will give way to him now, because I see that he is beginning to move.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I fully understand the nature of what the right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward. I also understand some of the requirements for speed in this case, and we can argue about whether this should have been done before. Having quickly looked through the Bill, I do not see a sunset clause. I ask about that not because I want the Government to set a particular date, but because such a clause would bring them back here to debate whether the process should be extended. It would therefore put a reasonable limit on Government activity without debate. Can he explain why there is no sunset clause in the Bill?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to be brief and stay focused on the Bill. Let me start by saying that we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. In fact, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that 2,500 people have already received a redundancy notice, and they will be very worried at the moment. Our thoughts should be with them today. Coming in on a Saturday is right if it saves their jobs. I am certainly prepared to vote for that. The Bill does give vast powers to the right hon. Gentleman the Business Secretary and the Government. As others have said, I trust him personally—this is not an attack on him—but we in this House should never trust Government more than we have to. I have said this on both sides of the Chamber, by the way. I therefore urge him to have another look at the sunset clause, which I raised earlier. It is not saying, “We don’t trust you”; it is saying that sometimes Governments are taken down sidetracks, and before we know what has happened, the powers are beginning to be used for the wrong purpose. I urge him to introduce the sunset clause, or even to do so in the other place, to give the House real powers to come back. For everyone’s sake—even those on the Government Benches—I think that would be worth doing, because it would allow us to have a strong debate on how the powers are being used and would perhaps even enable us to influence what is taking place. The reason for this debate is clearly the massively changed needs of this country, particularly after the event that we never thought would happen: Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. As a result, weapons and arms are needed on an unprecedented scale, there is a plan to build up the armed forces, and they need the very high-quality virgin steel that is produced in this plant. Without it, we would have to import it. Frankly, China does not produce that quality of steel. The other reason is the tariff war now taking place, which has introduced 25% tariffs on the car industry, which is one of the biggest purchasers of steel. All those things make the Bill very much necessary. We have another problem, which I hope the Government will deal with in the context of the Bill when they talk to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Things have changed. The Prime Minister himself has said that the world has changed. We have been operating in what we considered to be a global free market. I have argued for some time that this is not a free market. Far too many countries such as China have abused the rules of the free market, subsidised their industries ridiculously and used slave labour to produce their products. When that happens, the free market is dead. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy and of whether we need to rush to China for investment. We need to ensure that we deal with our industry at home and that we produce things again. One problem is the energy costs our industry faces, which are really quite stark. Our industry is not just in competition with China; even the costs in Europe are far less now. I will give a short list. The costs in the UK are now the highest in the world, at $400 per megawatt-hour. Germany, which has the highest costs in the rest of Europe, is at $250 per megawatt-hour, while France and the others all have lower costs for producing energy. That energy is critical for the steel industry, and that is one of the big issues that the Secretary of State has to deal with. China, with its subsidies and broken free market rules, is at $60 per megawatt-hour. We should not attempt to compete with it; we must say that it is not competitive at all. [ Interruption. ] Exactly right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) says. Others are complaining about China right now. Countries in the far east, such as Vietnam and South Korea, are accusing it of dumping. What we have in China is something that will really hit us hard and make the Secretary of State’s job even worse: very simply, China is now suffering from the over-production of steel. Its housing industry has gone static, and that was one of the biggest users of the steel it produced. Where will that steel go? By the way, it is no surprise that a Chinese company, Jingye, is involved. In pushing to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, it knows that we will have to buy slab steel from China. That is not a coincidence; it is all part of the plan. That company is linked directly to the Chinese Communist party, and it is high time that we called that out. In his negotiations, the Secretary of State needs to remind Jingye that the reality is that it is not a private company. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point. There is much to be dealt with, and I urge the Government to listen to the House and to check all of this. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On net zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make sure that my right hon. Friend puts the record straight: some of us on the Opposition Benches warned the then Government that it was wrong.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that, because it allows me to say something that I had not been planning to say: we sit on an island of gas, so why, for goodness’ sake, are we not drilling for it? We need it, and we will need it strategically. There is a need for strategic industry, and I agree with the Secretary of State on that. However, the issue does not stop there; it stops elsewhere, in the production of energy. I simply leave that point for him, and he can argue it with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I want to say one final thing. In the course of this Chinese company’s operations, I have talked to a number of people involved in the business, and its record on health and safety and on the abuse of the workers in the blast furnace area has been shocking. We should look into that much more carefully. The company has brought in cheap Chinese workers and pays them nothing like what it pays the British workers. Many of those workers have ended up burned and in great difficulty. I simply say that this is not a company we should be doing business with right now.

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows the regard I have for him, but when he says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? Can he guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase?

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but this is not just about human rights abuses. There is a reason that China uses slave labour—and it came from nowhere 10 or 12 years ago to now be the dominant player in the business. It is because it does not pay salaries, which makes the arrays cheaper. British companies go rushing over to get them because they are cheaper, and the Government do not mind too much because they do not have to pay so much. The key is that it has to be proper and functional.

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK-China Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I need to deal with this point through my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Government already accept something on which I worked with them when they were in opposition, which is to get to exactly the same position as in the Health and Care Act 2022. The NHS is not allowed to buy anything made by slave labour—it encompasses everything. The amendment to the Great British Energy Bill would have done the same. To those who say, “It’s too narrow because it’s only one sector of the economy,” I say that we have already done it with health and care, and Labour voted for that at the time. I was rather proud of that.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My condolences to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Interestingly, his comments and his eulogy to his father at this particular time bring into stark relief the absence in too many families of positive male role models for many young boys growing up. We all ought to be concerned about that. We have a real problem at the moment, because we have not really debated the use of slave labour in products in the UK. There is a really interesting point here, because in America right now companies that have failed to interrogate their own supply chains are being sanctioned—not knowing is not good enough. Many of them are actually in use in the UK, including three in particular. A parent company, Donghai Jaisolar Technology, is being used at the Ministry of Defence; Hongyuan Green Energy, which has been sanctioned by the USA, is in use over here, and so is Jiangsu Micoe Solar Energy. Other companies, such as Jinko Solar and Canadian Solar, are ever present, and they are all essentially guilty of the use of slave labour. Can we have a proper debate about how we can stop that, as the Americans have been doing for some time? Surely we now need to sanction companies that use slave labour to get cheap advantage.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The Treasury always says to every new Government, “We have this jolly good idea. Just get rid of the winter fuel payment and save yourselves a lot of money.” We looked at that when I was in the Department and eventually rejected it based on two elements of the impact assessment. First, there was the point about those who were right on the cusp of poverty—80% of them, as has been mentioned, will be damaged by the policy. Secondly, there is pension credit take-up. We get hammered either way, because if we push for pensioners to take up pension credit, the savings are lost and we spend more, but if they do not take it up, they end up in poverty. That was why we rejected the idea and, I think, every other Government up until now have too. Will the Minister have another review of that and ask his team at the DWP whether they should reject this policy now, because it will not work?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I think President Trump is being reminded of that now in America, because arguments are taking place about this issue, but I do not think that he has forgotten. What we have to get lined up is the real nature of what Putin wants. It is not territory, but sovereignty. We know that he has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia. The war with Ukraine is not about getting 20% of its territory. For him, it is about getting all of Ukraine. If we have a peace deal that is not stable, he will be back. He will build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of countries like North Korea, and he will be back in double-quick time. Who is to say that Ukraine will be in any fit state to be able to defend itself? It was only able to defend itself because in the period between the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the war, we and the Americans set out about training and arming Ukrainian troops in a way that made them much better when the Russians came in the next time round, which is why they did not take Kyiv and were driven back. That was because we had got ahead of the game with the Ukrainians, who had much better armed forces than they did when Russia walked into Crimea. The reality for us is that there need to be guarantees on anything that happens, and I do not think that we can separate the Americans from the guarantees. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) says, America is the ultimate guarantor at the end of the day. By the way, I agree with the Americans that the west has ridden on the coat tails of the United States for far too long—we have been guilty of that. We have lived a life that has allowed us to say, “We’ll claim that defence spending is this amount,” but it is not really. That is one of the reasons why President Trump is angry about the idea that the Americans should be expected to take on this matter, so we have to step up. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has started the process, and I wish him all the best in Washington, but increased defence spending absolutely has to happen. The last time we spoke, I pointed out to him that we faced the greatest threat that we have ever faced when the Soviet Union put SS-20 missiles in Europe. It was Reagan and Thatcher, supported by Helmut Kohl and others, who helped lead western Europe to take the tough decision to put Pershing and cruise missiles in order to counter the threat. That was a brave decision by the leadership, and it centred on the UK and the US. The Prime Minister needs to remind President Trump that when the UK and the US come together for a just cause, the world is a safer place. When we are divided, it is less safe—I do not care what anybody else says. That relationship is critical to peace and justice in the world, and I hope that he succeeds in achieving that. We know that President Putin is keen only on sovereignty, and the reality is that this is critical for our understanding of what peace would amount to. We must not lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is important. It is important to the Americans in a way that sometimes I do not think they fully understand. I spoke earlier about the road to Taiwan and the threats to Taiwan. The war in Ukraine has damaged the global economy, at a cost of about $1 trillion, but any seizure of Taiwan would cost the economy nearer $10 trillion. To those who say, “Why should we in this country be worried about Taiwan?”, I say that 72% of everything produced in the world today is made in the area around Taiwan. People cannot tell me that Taiwan is not as important as Kent is to the United Kingdom—it is exactly the same. Why does the road to Taiwan run through Ukraine? It is because if we fail Ukraine and it gets a terrible deal, China will look at the situation and say, “Do you know what? They’re never going to step in here, because it’s too far away. They won’t do it—they never do. They fell out of Afghanistan. They didn’t do anything when Crimea was taken. They’ve given in completely over Ukraine, and they will do the same over Taiwan.” That is why the road goes to Taiwan, and we will be left behind, because we will not have taken the right decision. I hope the Prime Minister reminds President Trump that if we fail on Ukraine, it will open up the world again to the rule of totalitarian states, which will come again and again. As Churchill said, the “bitter cup…will be proffered to us” again and again. Every time we fail, and every time we do not stand up for those who struggle for freedom, democracy or justice, they will take that and move on. We have learned this lesson so many times, but we seem to forget it and have to learn it again. We must stand with the brave Ukrainian men and women, who have lost so much and are going to lose even more. If we are not with them and do not find a way for Ukraine to remain a free nation of free people and of choice, we are not worth the thousands of years of experience that we have gained from the fights that we have put up previously. All will become naught, because totalitarianism will rule the day.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.