Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I do have concerns about the last of the three organisations covered by the order, in relation to the application of the criminal law. There might be another way of doing it, but I support the Government’s position. However, this debate has cast into light the fact that we have taken no action to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Given all the elements that we are discussing today, this question sits like the elephant in the room: why are we not proscribing the IRGC? Why have we resisted doing that? That would have a huge impact on terrorism, or aspects of terrorism. Let us look at it carefully. The IRGC deliberately exports the Islamic revolution. It uses proxies and has been sponsoring terrorism—as has been demonstrated without dispute all over the world. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied them with huge amounts of weapons. On whichever side of the arguments one sits, the fact is that this terrible killing would not have happened had that not been the case. The IRGC was heavily involved in that. It is sanctioned but not proscribed. Sanctioning does not give us enough powers to deal with its proxies and those who work for it. When in opposition, the Government campaigned to proscribe the IRGC. I remember quite happily working with various Members who were then on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. The Foreign Office endlessly says that we would lose all possibility of forming diplomatic relations or getting through to Iran, but how is that going? How has that gone over the past year? Not at all well. One cannot reason with these characters. A huge number of global attacks are rooted in IRGC money and training. It has high levels of activity in the UK, such as propaganda to try to build arrangements here, sometimes in plain view—there are even links on Facebook. It could be trapped, but it does it openly because nothing can be done to it at all. Of course, the IRGC supports Hezbollah, which is also proscribed. If we keep following this chain around and around, we come back to the IRGC. That should be the subject of the debate today. That should be the decision. That should be considered on the Floor of the House. The IRGC should be proscribed, because it is at the root of all terrorism that exists here and in the middle east. If we do not do that, it prompts the question of what we are doing here with these other three organisations.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  These bikes often accelerate fast, and only someone who is used to riding something that can move quickly on two wheels can do that. If not, they will go off the back. In a car, they would be restrained by the seat, but that is not the case on a bike or motorcycle. Knowing that does take some instruction—being ready, leaning into it and all the rest of it. My main point is that that is a good illustration of how we are being a bit too casual about these modes of transport, and too many young kids do not understand that they should have some training. For their sake, we should do more on this issue.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am all in favour of public campaigns and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a very good idea for people to know that what they were buying was illegal. I suspect many of them already do so. That notwithstanding, if such a campaign could be backed up by a penalty for selling illegal bikes in shops, that would be a far better way of dealing with it. Right now, lots of kids do not know that the bikes are illegal, and they go and take these things and they can pay for them, and that is where the danger comes from. We are shutting the door too late. These kids have gone on to the roads, they have created an accident and they have killed themselves. That is too late for us. What we need to do is get ahead of this and try to figure it out completely. The final bit of this issue is the fact that people can change the monitors inside the boxes, even on the legal bikes, and lots of them do so. We see them going down the road at 30 mph, which is incredibly dangerous. I am a motorcyclist, I have to say, but Members should not go looking for the leather jacket; I left it at home.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name and is supported by hon. Friends in different political positions across the House. But, before I do so, I want to congratulate the Government—that is unusual from the Opposition, but I will do so anyway. I think that the Minister will know what I am about to say. The cuckooing amendment, which was moved in the last Parliament—the previous Government and she, in particular, were in discussions on that—has been passported through, as it were, so that cuckooing will be a criminal offence. That will hugely help those who have their houses taken over—the vulnerable and the elderly—and, where crimes are committed from those houses, the police will have a reason to go in without explicit knowledge of the crime being committed other than the cuckooing. To that extent, I thank the Government for making that a law. Hopefully it will go through without too much problem in the other place. I and many others appreciate that enormously. New clause 5 is consequential to an amendment to an earlier Bill on reckless and dangerous cycling, because there were no offences that were relevant to that and people were being killed and injured as a result of cyclists’ bad behaviour on the roads. One person in particular who campaigned for that amendment was Matt Briggs, and he was the reason that I brought that amendment forward. The Government accepted that amendment and it is now bound into legislation. However, there was an issue at the time about the danger of e-bikes. We know from talking to the police that e-bikes are now becoming responsible for some of the worst crimes on the streets, involving antisocial and threatening behaviour. They are silent and they can creep up on people rather quickly, and a lot of things that were being snatched by people on motorised scooters are now being snatched using e-bikes.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I bow before my right hon. Friend’s greater knowledge in these matters, having headed up the Department. I simply say that for this particular purpose, I agree with her. I am urging the Government to take this matter away and look at it in the other place. Although I will not press my amendment, because legal bikes are incorporated in the earlier cycling amendment that I put forward and the Government accepted, we need more work on illegal bikes and e-scooters. My worry, as I have said again and again, is that people can buy these things without any qualification whatsoever, whereas if I as a motorcyclist buy a bike, I have to be able to demonstrate that I am qualified to ride it away from the shop. People are not required to do so with e-bikes and e-scooters, so there is a peculiarity. Everywhere else in our legislation, we follow through. This one has dropped through the grid, and I therefore urge the Minister and the Department to look closely at the matter and see whether we can define that better in the other place and ensure that shops are unable to sell those bikes. I will not press this new clause because I think we are at the right place so far with the Government.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not a toolmaker?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Don’t get excited—it’s not that great! Motorcyclists have to be tested even more than car drivers. There are balancing tests and they have to know everything like that. This is absolutely critical, because it is a slightly more dangerous mode of transport—more exciting, yes, but more dangerous. Someone cannot buy a motorcycle in a shop and take it away unless they are able to show their licence and that they are qualified to ride that bike, and that really requires instruction, but people can buy e-bikes—these electric vehicles—without any sort of licence. It seems bizarre that that should be allowed. Even though we want people not to use petrol, diesel and all the rest of it because of the environment, this goes beyond that.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and I hope the Government will respond to that. However, she will forgive me if I focus on the essence of new clause 5, which is e-bikes. The definition of a legal e-bike is one that uses pedals and also uses electricity to assist the cyclist. All the other ones are illegal. This brings me to the problem that, if this measure is going to go through into law, as it will, will the Government press the police to start arresting and prosecuting not only the people who deliberately use e-bikes for nefarious purposes but more importantly, those who just cycle dangerously on footpaths? E-bikes are now more dangerous than bicycles in the sense that they are e-bicycles and therefore get up to higher speeds. Even though the speeds are supposed to be governed, they are still higher than most cyclists will get up to in the normal act of pedalling their way to work.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is funny that my hon. Friend raises that point, because I was just about to get on to it. I am glad he has pinched my speech, but we are on the same side, so let me thank him for getting ahead of me. I reinforce that point: the Government now need to decide whether to do something about that issue in the other place. All non-bicycle electricity-supported cycles are legal, but all the others are either illegal or have to be used on the road and therefore have to qualify for road use, which means in many cases taking instruction and passing a test, or treating the e-bike like a car or a motorcycle. The problem is that most people do not know that. They are either ignorant of it or they deliberately do not care, and they can buy these illegal bikes in lots of legal shops in the UK. It seems bizarre that we are allowing people to buy these bikes—many are not bikes; they could be boards or all sorts of contraptions—and they then think they are able to use them. Most people do not check up on the highway code or the law; they just get on and use them. They are deeply dangerous to themselves, but also to other road users. I would press the Government to look at this again in the other place—it is too late to do it here—to see whether there is some way in which selling these things to people without proper licences could be made illegal.

• 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

  Does the hon. Lady recognise that if we make that a criminal offence, those cases will go to the Crown courts, which are all completely blocked? That allows people more time and is more likely to incentivise them to plead not guilty, because they know that buys them time. With shoplifting, we want to get them in quickly and ensure that they are prosecuted immediately, which I worry will not be the case unless we find another way—perhaps upping the magistrates courts.

• 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.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 10 tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), in my name and that of others. I congratulate him on the amendment, as it is worth talking about. The amendment is quite simple, in a way, as its key point is that it prevents the transfer of UK user data to jurisdictions where data rights cannot be enforced and there is no credible right of redress. The core principle of data protection law is accountability, yet current UK law allows UK companies to transfer user data to their international partners in jurisdictions where there is no credible appeals process and no predictable rule of law. That basically puts power in the hands of those who have signed contracts containing standard data protection clauses. Those contracts create the illusion of protection, but in reality the data transfer is unsafe, either because the prospect of state interference is real or because the conditions for protection of data transfer simply are not present. We rely too much on the idea that, somehow, contract law in the UK will protect the data being transferred across to other countries, but this is about countries where such rules do not apply. Transferring data to regimes such as China, for example, is not just a threat to UK citizens’ privacy but a national security risk. British citizens’ personal information, health records, financial details, biometrics, genomics or location data could be accessed under China’s national intelligence law, which compels organisations to co-operate with state intelligence work in secret. That is not speculation; it is the well-known and established law in China. This is not only about China, but I use that country as a good example because it is a regular abuser of data. We have been unbelievably stupid across the board, in companies and so on, in assuming straightaway that the rules would apply to Chinese companies and they would enforce them. They cannot, because under the national intelligence law, they are told, “You will provide data as and when we require it from whatever source you have access to.” The situation right now in Ireland is interesting. The Irish Data Protection Commission recently fined TikTok the not inconsiderable sum of €530 million and found that the company had illegally transferred data from users in the European economic area to China. The commission determined that Chinese law offers no essential equivalent to protection on GDPR due to state surveillance laws and the lack of judicial oversight. That is not a lone example. I have written on a number of occasions about the stupidity of the contract law covering things such as pregnancy tests and covid tests, which were dominated by a Chinese company called BGI. It is the biggest genomics company in the world and it was allowed to hold about 15% of the data gathered for tests for use back in China. We now know that China is using that data, working with AI companies, to develop tests and to reference weaknesses in certain ethnic groups. We see what is already going on in Xinjiang, where a troublesome ethnic group is being deliberately targeted through genocide to get rid of it, but it is also looking at areas and weaknesses in Europe that may well in turn be usable. We have allowed it under this contract to have that data presuming that it would be protected. It is not protected at all; it has simply been transferred and is now being used for military purposes. Those are just two examples, but it is interesting that Ireland has already taken action. Let us not forgot the Shanghai police database leak in 2022 in which the personal data of over 1 billion Chinese citizens, including criminal records and biometric details, was left openly accessible online for over a year without any enforcement action or Government accountability. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling the amendment, because it goes to the heart of what it means to be a democracy that values the rule of law, privacy and the dignity of the individual. It rightly states that no third country can be considered adequate if it lacks credible means for judicial protection, administrative redress or statutory legal remedy. It aligns closely with the high threshold set by the Schrems II judgment, and it ensures that the standards do not fall below those we uphold, and are upheld among our friends in the European Union.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate before the House, and for the quality of his exposition. Does he agree that this case highlights the single biggest problem that we face, which is that the IRA kept no records at all, and if it did have any, it destroyed them? Many IRA members got letters of comfort from the then Government, quietly and secretly, which ended up killing any chance of prosecution. Soldiers who served have none of that; they are left out in the open, and can be prosecuted, while many IRA members have disappeared and can live a life without further charge.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  As we have a little more time than expected, I want to say a few words in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). I served in Northern Ireland, as many others did, during the troubles. We did not ask to go there; we were sent there, and we were given real restrictions through the yellow card on how we were allowed to behave. In fact, all the soldiers with whom I served were so fearful of loosing off their rifles at any stage that they would probably have erred on the side of bringing themselves into danger, because they were so certain that they must not make a mistake. Not a single soldier I ever met thought that this was some kind of game to be played. It was a life-and-death issue, and all those whom my right hon. Friend has described were fully aware of what was required of them under the yellow card provisions. They would not have loosed off their weapons had they not genuinely feared for their life, given the cases that had gone before, and the deaths that happened—the IRA did not give any warnings before they fired. Those issues are critical in all this, and when we sit in judgment over what happened then, all these years later, it is not justice. It becomes a pursuit by those who, as my right hon. Friend said, want to change the history. We gave away a lot in the Good Friday agreement, and many of those who lost family members—we will all remember various individuals—had to put up with this requirement so that we could get peace. It takes a lot to get peace, and it takes a lot of suffering thereafter to find out what happened. In many cases in which soldiers served bravely and died, there are questions to be answered about the manner of their death. I think of Robert Nairac, and I make no apology for raising his name again. He was captured by the IRA, tortured, beaten and killed. No one knows where his body lies. His parents died not knowing what happened to him. We do not know whether he had a proper burial. We certainly know that his parents are dead, but we will never find out what happened to him, and many others like him. They served their country because they believed, as my right hon. Friend said, in upholding justice and freedom. I put it to the Secretary of State that the key to this whole debate is our duty to protect those who put their life on the line to protect our freedoms and our justice, and our duty to make sure that things are fair. If we forget about them for just one moment, we are not worthy of being here, for they do not have a voice and cannot say no when they are ordered into situations where they could die. Only the British Army could have done what we did in Northern Ireland. We put up with so much and restrained ourselves with such dignity. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to my right hon. Friend, and to ensure justice for those who fear pursuit for only one reason: political purposes. It is time to end this.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be called at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Others will want to speak, so I will be as brief as I possibly can. As I said earlier, the Minister is incorrect in believing that the Procurement Act gives any protection at all against modern slavery in the supply chain. That is a fact of life that we have known for ages. I was one of those who brought the Modern Slavery Act into being 10 years ago, but at that time we did not understand how bad the situation was in China. Over 90% of polysilicon is made in China, and we know for a fact that 97% of all the solar arrays being sold here contain polysilicon from Xinjiang, which will have been made by slave labour. There is no dispute at all about that. The question facing the Government is not— [ Interruption. ] I would be grateful if the Minister could listen. The question facing the Government is not whether they think that modern slavery is good—I do not for one moment accuse them of thinking that. What has gone missing, and what Lord Alton’s amendment focuses on, is recognition that there is no requirement on the Government to deal with slavery in the supply chain, and no way for them to do that. As has been said, America has turned the burden of proof upside down and said, “We assume you have slave labour in your product. You must prove to us that you do not.” That is the only way to deal with this. The Americans then sanction offending companies, but under our legislation, the Government do not have such measures available to them. The Procurement Act does not even do a whisper of that, because it needs a prosecution to have been mounted under the Modern Slavery Act, and that cannot happen because a company that is an agent for a Chinese-made solar array will not be prosecuted. Under the present laws, only the Chinese company that makes the solar array can be prosecuted. That means that no prosecution will take place; no company in China will be prosecuted by the Chinese Government, because the Chinese Government are the ones who set up this ghastly process. Why? Because it makes their arrays cheaper than anybody else’s in the world. That is how they have pretty much wiped out all other array production in the world. Let us ask ourselves: where will we get our arrays from? The answer is that we cannot get them anywhere else, but if we had to, we would have to pay a lot of money. I understand that there is probably a debate going on in Government about whether we go down that road, which would make arrays awfully expensive. In conclusion, the Government know the facts. I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2; I support the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who brought it forward for the right reasons; and I support the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) brought forward her amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. The Government must act. If we do not act, make forced labour illegal and punish the companies involved in it, directly or as agents, then we will be guilty of increasing slavery in China—that is what tonight’s debate is about. I am sorry that the Government will get rid of this Lords amendment. They could have done a deal to enhance it or whatever, but now they will have to commit to coming forward with legislation to increase and improve the Act that they already have, which will take another debate. I say to the Government: for goodness’ sake. By the way, I had this issue with my own party when we were in government, and I voted against it; I voted with the Labour party to put this provision in the Health and Care Act 2022. We did that together. I hope nobody thinks that I am being party political, because I am not. I am sanctioned by the Chinese Government because we raised this issue originally. I say to them that I and many in this House will not stop until the Government face up to one thing and one thing only: not one life through modern slavery is worth a lower cost on a solar array. That should be the epitaph of the ridiculous position that the Government are in.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I take my right hon. Friend’s point into consideration. The point I was making is that we have had deaths on the street yet cyclists could not be prosecuted for having killed someone, because we are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century to address offensive and wild carriage driving. That is not acceptable and it hardly ever convicts anybody, so I encourage the Government to look again at dangerous cycling, because people genuinely abuse the Road Traffic Act 1988 and nothing ever seems to be done to them. That is particularly true for e-bikes, which are very dangerous when used on pathways. Even if people are not committing a criminal offence, they are causing major danger. Antisocial behaviour is a big thing which our constituents notice; they feel threatened by people who ride those bikes on the pavements. It may seem a small thing, but it is not. I will end by congratulating the Government on introducing the offence of cuckooing. The Home Secretary will know that I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill, and I am pleased that the Government have picked that up and put it into this Bill. There are big issues regarding people who feel threatened by brutal individuals who take over their houses and commit criminal offences from there. In the end, some of those threatened people get arrested themselves, having had no control over that house. Many of them have mental health problems; many are stuck in backrooms and abuse themselves. Having such an offence allows the police—I have said this all along—to move into the house if they have a suspicion that such things are taking place and deal with the issue straightaway. I congratulate the Government on that. The previous Government accepted my amendment. Hopefully, we can all join forces. I have one question for the Minister responding to the debate. Offenders often use coercion, grooming and manipulation. The Bill refers to an absence of consent. Does she think that an absence of consent alone will be good enough to convict people who have carried out coercion, grooming and manipulation? That is the point I am slightly concerned about. I raise it with the Minister and I hope she can respond at the end of the debate. At the end of it all, a criminal justice Bill is a good thing.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be as brief as possible because I know that others want to get in. Let me start with a general point. I have sat here long enough—not today, of course, but over the years—to know that every Government come in with a criminal justice Bill, then another a year later, and then another, before the next Government come in and start with a criminal justice Bill. I will not get into a political knockabout on that, but, as Members who have been here long enough will know, the reality is that there is always a reason why we need another criminal justice Bill, and so it goes on. To be a little more rational about it, if passing laws did the job of ending crime, we would have managed it long ago. This is about how we deal with the things that get behind the crime. The Centre for Social Justice recently published a good report called the “Lost Boys”. It is about the generation, particularly post-covid, of young boys who have become dysfunctional with serious mental health problems, and who often end up on the street being sucked into gangs. The attitude and behaviour of those boys gives rise to the violence and subsequent murders that take place on the street. Putting a knife into someone’s hand does not make them a murderer; putting a knife into the hands of someone who has already been broken in the wrong attitude—that is where murder and violence come from. I recommend that Ministers read that report, because it makes staggering reading for us all. Those young boys are becoming men. They will live in and out of prisons, and violence, drug taking and drug abuse will be a part of their lives, as will abuse towards women. It is boys and men who are responsible for the crime. Young women and girls are a tiny proportion of the criminals—the problem lies with men and boys. That is critical. If we want to get ahead of this problem and solve knife crime, we must understand that crime is committed in the heads and brains of those young boys, who are subsequently men, and the knife is only the final act. I say to those who recommend the rounding of blades, well perhaps, but a young guy will just go and grind that rounded blade into a sharp point and get on with it if that is what they want to do. Nothing will get in the way of that. I simply make that observation. It is right that the Government are tackling assault on retail workers. I have struggled endlessly to get the police on to the streets and to arrest people who are shoplifting. People are not shoplifting for a sandwich; they are stripping stores of thousands of pounds’ worth of goods. It is a serious offence of antisocial behaviour, and anything more that the police can do to crack down on that is important, because it is the first crime that most of our constituents notice, and indeed fear. Shoplifters threaten people in the shops and those serving them, and it is important that we get on top of the issue. I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill on cycling and dangerous cycling. Has that gone? I have also spoken to the Department for Transport, and we need to sort out e-bikes and those dangerous fast bikes and cyclists on the road who commit offences.

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

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That justice will take time, but part of the point that I made is that we cannot have a peace, if it is a peace without justice. Justice has to prevail, because if it does not, we encourage everyone else to think, “Whatever we do, we will get away with it next time, because they do not have the courage to pursue the justice angle of peace.” We know that, and we have known that over the past 60 or 70 years. It is what the Nuremberg trials were all about, where the idea was for the first time to pursue the aggressors. That stands in the hon. Gentleman’s case. I served in Northern Ireland, as he knows, and I lost good friends. I still wonder what happened to them, even to this day. Justice for Ukraine will take a long while, and I accept that. The most interesting thing about the sanctions is that some of the LNG shipments were done by UK firms. I see that Shell was involved, which made it peculiar why we did not step in earlier. I will bring my speech to a close, because I know that others wish to speak. The problem is that there is an incorrect view and assumption about the importance of defending Ukraine that has got lost in the back-and-forth row that took place over the past week and a half. The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory that he may or may not have at the moment will somehow appease him and satisfy his requirements is completely wrong. I note that in the telephone call between President Trump and Putin, that is what President Trump said was important. The truth is that Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB. He is not interested in territory; he is interested in sovereignty, which is a key difference.

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

  More

  It is great that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two and a half years ago you came out to Ukraine with me and the charity, as others have done, and you were fantastic talking to troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They remembered that when I saw them again later, so I thank you on their behalf. This has been an excellent debate. It will send a message of unity to the President of America. It will tell him that this House is united in its support for Ukraine and believes that if we have faith in Ukraine it will succeed, and that there is no peace that is not durable that is worth the word peace. We need to make sure it has freedom and justice at the same time. To finish the debate, I will give one small quote—if the House will forgive me; it is very short—from the man who, in 1941, was also appealing to the President of a nation of 130 million that was in isolation and not likely to enter a war on our behalf. This is the sign that we must send to the man who has a bust of Churchill sitting in his office. This is how Churchill appealed to the President of America, and, on behalf of Ukraine, I repeat it: “Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and, under Providence, all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” Slava Ukraini. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable. The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war. It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did. On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them. I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that. There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem. Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.

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

  More

  Of course it is. Article 5 has been the reason that western Europe has been able to grow and settle, and America has also been able to pursue its own ends because of the mutual defence pact that exists between us. I remember that Sir Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister at that stage, did not waste any time; he came out immediately to support America, so much so that he was able to get into the debate that took place in the Congress and was welcomed as a friend, which was quite right. The reality is that the UK was the first to push for article 5 to be invoked, and George Robertson was the head of NATO at the time and moved it for the first time. That was very much the right thing to do, and that is what underpins this. Before I continue, I want to come back to some of the after-effects. I went to see those who are looking after, and are responsible for, prisoners of war in Kyiv. What is fascinating is that the abuses that are taking place in Russia trash the Geneva convention on support for prisoners of war. Russia spends its time moving Ukrainian prisoners of war around and does not allow the Red Cross full access at any stage. That is against the convention, and the Red Cross has complained—although I do not think it has said it loudly enough—that some Ukrainian prisoners of war are being used as human shields. Some are being used to clear mines in certain areas, which is also against the rules. We also know that in a number of cases, after serious interrogation of those prisoners of war, which is also illegal, their families in Ukraine are being bullied and threatened. They are told that unless they start spying or carrying out damaging acts in Ukraine, their loved one—their husband, son or daughter—in the prisoner of war camp, if such a thing exists, will be tortured and dealt with. This is going on quite regularly now and has been discovered by the Ukrainians. It is illegal under the Geneva convention, and I urge the Government to speak seriously to the Red Cross about making a much more public statement about how prisoners of war are being treated, because it really is quite shocking. There is a lack of accountability on this and the Red Cross needs to do much more. We must not underestimate the fact that there has been a change of regime in the United States, and that President Trump has made it very clear that he wants the war to end and that we have to drive to that. I think all of us in this House would support that position; we want to see an end to war. In fact, the Ukrainians want to see an end to war. Nobody wants to carry on fighting if there is a possibility of a good peace deal that, as I have said, contains justice and freedom for the Ukrainians. However, President Trump sees this as a sideshow; he says that he is more focused on China, Taiwan and other issues, and I think he wants to make savings on the United States’ spending in some of these areas, which is reasonable. However, the problem is that, for all our support for Ukraine, the reason why this war has gone on for three years is that we, the allies, quite honestly have dragged our feet on supplying the weapons and equipment that Ukraine needed from day one. In fact, there was a period in 2023 when Russia was on the rack and having real problems. It was short of munitions, it had lost territory to the Ukrainians—certainly in the east, around Kharkiv—and that was the moment at which Ukraine might well have been able to deal properly with Russia and push it back. Strangely enough, at that stage two things seem to have happened. First, I do not believe that the attack on Israel by Hamas was just a stand-alone item; I think that Iran, China and others had realised that Russia needed a distraction. The Americans, of course, immediately moved to support Israel—which is what they will do—and supplied arms to the Israelis. I was in the Congress around that time, looking to see whether America could get the money through. Some of the Republicans did not agree with the Bill and were blocking it. We did manage to persuade a few and they did push it forward, but my point is that they said, “The war in Israel is our war; Ukraine is your war, not ours; and we are keenly concerned about Taiwan.” The point I made to those Republicans, which I make again now, is that, in reality, we cannot separate Taiwan from Ukraine, or in a way from Israel. My personal view is that China’s hand is in all of this, and that distraction—that moving of equipment—has meant that Russia has been able to regain its strength and reach a rapprochement with North Korea. Interestingly enough, the scale of weapons that North Korea is now supplying is breathtaking—I think that well over 5 million artillery shells have been supplied since it signed the agreement with Russia. It now has thousands of troops in Russia who are defending the Russian position, and it is planning to supply even more weapons and missiles. This is a chain of totalitarian states that is working to support each other, and we are losing on this, because we ourselves do not focus on that linkage between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. I give one small warning. It is something the Americans need to face, and I hope that the Government will raise it with them. It is simply this: Russia in reply is giving significant technology to the North Koreans, particularly for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The security services here know about that, but it is a serious and significant shift. If the North Koreans have that technology, they will be able to take their nuclear weapons out to sea, which will bring all the American continent directly under target from those missiles. That will change the whole nature of the Pacific in terms of how we see geostrategic defence. It is a major change, and Russia has been giving the North Koreans that technology. It would be useful for the Government to say that this matter is not separable. Ukraine is the reason for that move. The road to Taiwan runs right through Ukraine, and we cannot and must not separate them. I make the simple point that when we speak about the money, it is a huge amount. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) will want to speak on this, but the reality is that we have had debates before on the huge amounts of money we have sitting here. Those are assets belonging to Russians—not just the oligarchs, but also the state. Some $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen within the G7 and the EU. Some $25 billion of Central Bank of Russia reserves are frozen in the UK alone. That is managed by Euroclear, and there is Euroclear money in Canada and other countries. The Government said the other day that they are prepared to use the money earned from that capital for Ukraine. I argue that if they are to use the money earned from the capital, they also have a right to use the capital. We should not just freeze the capital sitting in the banks, but seize it and use it for reparations, damage repair and the work that is necessary. I think we would see a major change immediately.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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