Sarah Champion MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a proud steel MP, so it has pained me to watch my business wither on the vine under the last Government. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for acting so decisively to save British Steel, but in the steel strategy, can she commit to look at the underlying problems affecting Liberty Steel, a speciality green steel producer, including high energy prices, business rates and other countries, particularly China, dumping their dirty, inefficient steel in our market?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After much chasing in October last year, the Foreign Secretary committed to give oral evidence to my International Development Committee early in the new year. He has not done so to date and we do not have a date in the diary, despite repeated requests from my Committee team. Can you advise me on how I can encourage the Foreign Secretary to give evidence? Much is going on in the world that we need to discuss.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On 23 March in Gaza, eight medics in the Palestinian Red Crescent, five responders from the civil defence and a UN staff member were killed by the IDF while responding to casualties. Their bodies have been returned today. International humanitarian law is clear: medical personnel, ambulances, humanitarian relief workers and civil defence organisations must be respected and protected. International humanitarian law is not something for debate. The Foreign Secretary understands the importance of upholding the law and holding to account all who breach it, including our friends, so why is Israel seemingly allowed to act with impunity when it comes to the protection of medics, humanitarian workers and civilians?

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

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery. Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels. On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me: “We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains” —[ Official Report , 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.] But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise. The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses. Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further. Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability. Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods. Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible. Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security. Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending. The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA? The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely. There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily. This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years. The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again. From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage. I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told: “Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.” The speaker continued: “Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[ Official Report , 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.] That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Committee member. As he is well aware, the Committee is doing a value-for-money inquiry, and Gavi is one of the best ways to get value for money by vaccinating children around the world. It is not just that the House wants that commitment to Gavi and all other bodies. Do the British public really want us to step away from the international stage, and to lose all our soft power and ability to support the most vulnerable in the world, so that they can lead a healthy, prosperous life?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and express my deep regret that some were unable to do so, but there are many avenues in this House for Members to make their voices heard. I end by saying that I am very concerned about those who might step in, with less generous intent, if we leave the international stage. Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for this very timely debate, which is in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I also thank the members of the International Development Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in securing it. Let me start this debate by welcoming the Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending; that is long overdue and much needed. However, there was no need to announce a decision on where the funding was coming from before the spending review or, indeed, before the defence review concluded. It will not surprise the House to learn that I will use this debate to argue that the decision to take all the defence uplift from official development assistance was wrong. When the former US Defence Secretary General James Mattis was asked in Congress whether it was wise to properly fund international development work, he replied: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”. It pains me to say so, but the Prime Minister is setting exactly this dangerous course for the UK. By planning to take 40% out of ODA, he is taking the axe to our most effective tool for reducing global conflicts and for increasing our national security. Do not take my word for it. Instead, consider this warning given last week by General Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff: “Every pound we cut from development aid today risks costing us far more in future military operations…slashing aid further to fund defence spending is not just shortsighted—it is dangerously counterproductive.” He added: “we are setting ourselves up for greater instability, which will require even more military spending in the long term…If we cut aid, we will be forced to deploy military resources in areas where we could have mitigated instability through targeted development.” I urge the Prime Minister to recognise that if we abandon our commitments to the world in this way, we will see greater numbers of people displaced from their homes as a result of climate disasters, poverty and war. More people will lose hope, and will instead look to extreme ideologies for the answer, and civil societies will no longer have the skills to hold rogue Governments to account. It concerns me greatly, as it should the whole House, that the Government have yet to carry out an assessment of the impact of their decision, which has been rushed through without proper scrutiny. I urge Ministers to study carefully an analysis by the ONE Campaign, which demonstrates the real-world impact of cutting ODA assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income. It has calculated that if the 40% reduction in UK aid is distributed evenly across global health and food programmes, there will be nearly 40 million fewer children immunised; 600,000 fewer lives will be saved because of reduced support to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria; and almost 300,000 fewer school children will receive nutritious meals and essential food assistance through the World Food Programme. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has pledged to protect what he considers to be the most vital areas of spending—Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, vaccinations and climate—but as the powerful resignation letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the former development Minister, lays bare, that is, sadly, a delusion. As my right hon. Friend, who knows the reality better than anybody else, has written: “It will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut; the effect will be far greater than presented…It will likely to lead to withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank; the UK being shut out of numerous multilateral bodies; and a reduced voice for the UK in the G7, G20 and in climate negotiations.”

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government procurement budget is around £300 billion. Can the Minister please tell us what percentage of his allocation will go to British businesses? Will he confirm that where we have to import, no modern slavery will be imported into this country?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I rise happier than when I sat down. I thank the Minister for clarifying that. The sector has legitimate concerns that the DRS will lead to poor environmental outcomes, with less recycled glass going back for remelt, as it will likely be crushed in the process, thus rendering it unsuitable for its purpose. The DRS could also cause storage and safety issues for both consumers and retailers, especially smaller shops. The Republic of Ireland did not include glass in its scheme. It is important to point out that the DRS is not a reuse scheme; it is a collection scheme. Many people reminisce about the UK’s old deposit scheme, but that was a deposit refill scheme, which is completely different from the proposed DRS. Wales has achieved a 90% glass collection rate from kerbside collections without the need for DRS, and is ranked second in the world for recycling. Following the Welsh Government’s recent announcement that they will withdraw from the four-nations DRS and re-examine its scope, it seems to me and many others that the scheme will be ineffective across the UK. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the Welsh blueprint for collection, which would be the simplest way to improve recycling rates? Given that local authorities receive money from the extended producer responsibility, it is a shame that the Government are not encouraging them to use it to improve collection quality. The glass sector supports the principle behind the extended producer responsibility, but it sees the excessively high EPR fees on glass packaging as punishment for speaking out. The arrangement in Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as a good example of an EPR scheme, yet its glass fee is more than 10 times lower than the UK’s, at €28 per tonne. According to the indicative figures recently announced by DEFRA, the fee will be £240 per tonne in the UK. In my discussions with the Minister last Monday, she confirmed that the final EPR figures were unlikely to be finalised until June. How is a business meant to budget on that basis? I urge her to take a serious look at the indicative figures to see if they can be reduced dramatically; otherwise, we will lose the most recyclable sector. Currently, per unit, glass is facing significantly higher fees than less recyclable, less circular materials. That goes against everything that other Government policies are trying to achieve, and I ask the Minister if they are really confident that the EPR policy and other waste policies will lead to more recyclable packaging in the UK. Further, the delay to the DRS means that there is a two-and-a-half-year period when glass beverage containers will be paying EPR fees while competing beverage containers will not, due to being in the DRS. Put bluntly, this Government are driving businesses towards less recyclable packaging such as plastic in those two and a half years. It was never intended that EPR would be in place before the DRS, and this leaves glass at a huge competitive disadvantage in the beverage market, which makes up 80% of the glass market. Given the history and the uncertainty that still exists around the DRS, it is vital that all materials pay EPR fees until the DRS is fully functional, to create a level playing field for all beverage packaging. There is a backstop for 2028, but can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the backstop fees will be backdated to April this year when EPR launches?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am very proud that Beatson Clark manufactures glass right in the heart of my constituency and has done so for 270 years; it employs 200 people directly and a further 2,000 in the supply chain. Glass can be recycled almost infinitely. Currently, almost 74% of glass is recycled, and 80% of that comes from kerbside collections. I recently met representatives of Beaston Clark and British Glass, and they all expressed grave concerns about the impact of this Government’s current policies on the glass sector. DEFRA’s latest figures show that the number of glass containers placed on the market in 2024 was 23% lower than earlier estimates. With increased pressure from imported glass, the outlook for UK manufacturers is indeed grim. UK glass manufacturers are already under severe pressure. The failure to introduce tariffs on imported glass, predominantly from Turkey, has left the industry facing punishing competition from overseas producers, who have significantly lower energy costs and no carbon charges. Although the move towards a circular economy as part of environmental improvements is laudable, it will ultimately be futile if the outcome is dependent on foreign imports, with no environmental impact mitigations in place. Can the Minister confirm whether imported glass will face the same EPR, and who will be liable to pay it?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and support every word that he has said. No one wants a ceasefire more than I do. I cannot describe the tears that I and others in the House have shed for all the innocent civilians who have been murdered and maimed. I cannot think what the families of the hostages are going through, and, to be honest, I do not want to think of what the hostages themselves have endured. But the ceasefire is far from certain, the peace following it is far from certain, and the two-state solution is very far from certain. What is certain is that on 28 January the Knesset’s legislation that effectively bans UNRWA comes into force, and I am unable to see how the aid, the stability, the health systems and the schools can be implemented if that happens. My Committee will publish a report on this subject tomorrow, but can the Foreign Secretary speak now about what he is doing to urge Israel to ensure that that legislation does not come into force and that aid can flood in where it is needed?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I think I heard the Home Secretary adopting my five-point plan, so I thank her for that and thank everybody across the House who has been campaigning on the issue. If I could ask for some clarity: did the Home Secretary say she will adopt all 20 of the IICSA recommendations or just those in the grooming gang strand? Do local authorities as well as police forces have to do a review into their cases of CSE? She cites Telford, which was victim-focused—that was why it was so important, because we must have those victims’ and survivors’ voices—but what Telford and Greater Manchester said they lacked was the ability to compel witnesses. A big strand of what we need to do is ensure that there have been no cover-ups, and we can only do that if requirements are on a statutory footing. With respect, Telford cost £8 million and the Home Secretary said she was providing £5 million for the whole inquiry across the country. Why do we need another inquiry in Telford when we know this is happening nationally? Can she assure us that there will be transparency of the findings of all the inquiries, reviews and audits? Is it possible that the inquiry could be UK-wide, because I do not believe this is only happening in England and Wales? It needs to be across the whole of the UK.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The inquiry the hon. Gentleman seeks was part of the overarching inquiry. There were 12 separate inquiries. One of them lasted two years, and resulted in a 185-page report that was specific about grooming gangs. What more information do we need? We know who the perpetrators are, we know the model and we know the victims. What we want is prosecution, and support for the victims.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill because it addresses a lot of the underlying problems we have in our schools and education and, indeed, in the protection of children. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to make this a child-centred Bill. I feel disgusted by what the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has just said. Can anyone imagine listening to that as a victim or a survivor? I am sure his intent is to get to the truth and get justice, but the language—I ask him please to think about who hears our words. On 26 November 2024, in her letter to the chair of the child safeguarding practice review panel, the Secretary of State for Education said: “The forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill is a vital mechanism for improving the lives of vulnerable children… there is a renewed government focus on tackling child sexual abuse… which will necessarily include our response to the IICSA recommendations.” I want to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State which of those recommendations fall squarely within the Bill. I hope, with cross-party support, that we can encourage the Secretary of State to adopt them. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published 20 recommendations, trying to address the whole of child sexual abuse in this country, to get support for those victims and survivors and early intervention to prevent the crime, and to get the prosecutions we all desperately want. Recommendation 1 was that there should be a core dataset. Currently, the Bill’s single unique identifier number is not the same as a core dataset. There is a need for a unified set of data that allows authorities to understand better the prevalence of abuse, to identify patterns and to inform evidence-based policymaking. We have a patchy, fragmented data system that hinders effective prevention and intervention. IICSA asked for the creation of a single core dataset that includes the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, vulnerability factors and the settings and contexts in which the abuse occurred. Recommendation 2 is for a child protection authority for England and Wales. Recommendation 3 is for a Cabinet Minister for child protection, and that needs to be someone who cuts across all the different Departments, because that is where we are failing children right now—we do not have a joined-up approach to child protection. Recommendation 4 is for a public awareness campaign, and cultural awareness is included throughout the recommendations. We need to make children aware of the risks they face, but we also need to tackle cultural insensitivities and much worse wherever we find them. That is particularly pertinent to me, because I am proud that I got the previous Government to ensure that every child, from primary school, had relationships education. However, in September 2024 the Department for Education published an independent evidence review on “Teaching relationships education to prevent sexual abuse”. It found that teachers were still not receiving adequate training. There are not adequate resources for those teachers, so I urge the Secretary of State to use the Bill to do something about that. Specifically, will she ringfence relationships, health and sex education training budgets?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely echo what the hon. Member says; that work is so important. Recommendation 13 is on mandatory reporting. I was keen to hear the Home Secretary say that it will be one of her objectives, but it also needs to cover those in all positions of trust. I am very concerned that if we have mandatory reporting without the resources for the administration to act on that, it becomes no more than a tick-box exercise, and that the very teachers and training staff who should be protecting children get penalised and, worse, prosecuted as a consequence? IICSA took seven years and cost £186 million. It had over 2 million pages of evidence and 725 witnesses. Over 6,000 victims and survivors put their trust in the process and gave evidence. They did all this and we spent all this money so that the recommendations would be implemented. There was also a Home Office report. Again, I spent a year of my life putting into the Home Office report in 2020, which gave the solutions. I spent two years in the IICSA inquiry specifically around grooming gangs. The recommendations have not been adopted. I say with the deepest respect to all those calling for a national inquiry to instead put all their energy into getting the recommendations adopted. With the best will in the world—you all know me; I am not making a party political point—another inquiry will mean another 10 years of waiting. What I want to see, and what I truly believe we all want to see, is child protection right now. I urge hon. Members please to consider what they are doing and to use Report as the time to make the amendments to get the changes they want.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Northern Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this question. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work that she has done trying to highlight the horrors that are going on in the region. What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s action in the Netzarim corridor, which Israel has cleared of Palestinian civilians in order to construct military roads and positions. One senior Israeli official told Haaret z that the area had been designated as a “kill zone”, with anyone who enters being shot. The same officer told Haaret z that civilians were knowingly killed and later designated as terrorists. With competitions between military units regarding who can cause the most casualties, what assessment has the Minister made of these alleged war crimes, and can he tell me what we are doing to document and to stop them?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Labour committed in our manifesto to phasing out animal testing—a goal that is not only widely supported by the public, but critical to advancing scientific innovation. However, that achievement requires cross-departmental work. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate that issue so that Parliament can explore how to turn that commitment into concrete action, and will she join me in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  Since 28 November, almost a million Syrians, most of them women and children, have been displaced internally due to the recent violence. More than 7.2 million Syrians are internally displaced and around 6.2 million are long-term refugees, mostly in neighbouring countries. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Assad’s fall could allow millions of refugees to finally return home, but what comes next could also escalate the country’s displacement crisis. Will he tell us more about what steps he is taking with our partners on the worst-case scenario, and will he commit to continuing, and indeed increasing, our support for host refugee countries, for example, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon?

• 3 Dec 2024 · UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, but, with the greatest respect, what he has described is clearly not working. Yesterday’s “Blood on the shelves” BBC investigation has rightly shocked the British public. Tomato products sold in UK supermarkets, with labels informing British customers that purées were “Italian made” or “produced in Italy”, were actually linked to slave labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. Our weak and confusing product label regulation has allowed linguistic sleight of hand to occur with, one can only assume, the aim of misleading consumers. I have to push the Minister: what more evidence is required to prove that we need stronger labelling standards that give consumers more information on the sourcing countries of pre-packed products? In the Uyghur region, egregious human rights abuses are taking place every single day, all underpinned by a system of state-imposed forced labour. It is estimated that several hundred thousand people are involved in the production of tomatoes against their will. The United Nations has reported forced labour, torture and abuse. Survivors of the tomato fields cite having to meet impossible daily quotas, with physical torture such as electrocution used as punishment for failing to meet those targets, yet tomato products created using these barbaric practices line the shelves of our supermarkets and are sold as if they had been produced in a completely different country. Sadly, this investigation is just the latest in a long line of reports showing that UK supply chains are awash with Uyghur forced labour products. Clothing, steel and solar have a serious dependency on Uyghur forced labour. The Modern Slavery Act is itself currently unfit for purpose. Current laws mean that companies are legally allowed to self-regulate, as human rights due diligence is optional for UK companies. We are now an outlier on legislation to prevent human rights abuses. The United States has enacted important legislation, as has the European Union, but the UK, once again, is a global outlier when it comes to slave-made goods. I urge the Government to work with me to implement stronger legislation, improve our labelling standards and champion human rights. To supermarkets, I say, “All of you are complicit in putting profits above human rights, and I hope that the British public do the right thing and make their mark through their pockets and their wallets.”

• 3 Dec 2024 · UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the links between the UK’s supermarket supply chains and Uyghur forced labour.

• 2 Dec 2024 · North-West Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot process that this conflict has been going on for 13 years. From where I am sitting, I have a direct line of sight to the memorial shield for our former colleague from Batley and Spen. When she came to the House, she did so much to draw hon. Members’ attention to the plight of civilians, but things have only got worse since then. It is already the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with nearly 17 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and 90% of families living in poverty. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the most recent escalation on the levels of need of those in Syria and those who have fled? Will the UK urge the UN to activate its emergency response plans? And—this is the bottom line—are the Government prepared to increase official development assistance on humanitarian support?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his contribution; it is always a pleasure to follow in his wake. The work you have done to make this House aware of the very real threat that China poses to us is astounding—you have been very dogged in making that happen, and I am grateful for that. I also thank my new hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for his contribution. In your short time in Parliament, the work you have done to show how China is exploiting the most vulnerable and committing egregious human rights violations has been deeply appreciated. I turn to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—now I can actually use “you” appropriately, for once. What you have done in your time as a parliamentarian to campaign for and champion the rights of the Uyghur people, who are being so egregiously exploited in the Xinjiang autonomous region by China, is admirable. We regard the sanctions China has put on you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a badge of honour for defending human rights, and we are very proud of what you have done. Can I say, quite simply, that I love Taiwan? I love the people, I love the food, I love the culture. Most of all, I love its vibrant democracy, which is one of the strongest in the world. In this speech, I will share how its democracy actively tries to help others around the world, and how it is something we all need to stand with. It will therefore come as no surprise that I must draw Members’ attention to the fact that I co-chair the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group and to my financial declarations in relation to that. Over the years, I have witnessed at first hand how Taiwan actively contributes its expertise to support global partners, which we should celebrate. Taiwan is a leader in the fields of public health, technology, clean energy, net zero and so much more. However, despite all that Taiwan has to offer, it finds itself barred from international organisations. Since 1971, China has repeatedly used UN General Assembly resolution 2758 to justify its efforts to exclude Taiwan from the UN system, which it has done hugely effectively. With a population of 23.5 million, Taiwan is the most populous self-governing state not represented at the UN. Its exclusion undermines critical global co-operation efforts, in particular around public health, climate change and the realisation of the sustainable development goals. Take SDG 3, on promoting good health and wellbeing. Taiwan maintained some of the lowest case rates in the world throughout the covid-19 pandemic. However, while it had notable success in suppressing the spread of the virus, its exclusion from the World Health Organisation meant that it was unable to share this expertise with the world. The official record shows that when the resolution was passed 53 years ago, its intent was merely to make a judgment on who should take up China’s seat at the UN—that was it. The resolution bears no mention at all of Taiwan; it does not state that Taiwan is part of the PRC, nor ascribe any right for China to represent Taiwan in the UN system. Most importantly, there is no evidence that the resolution establishes, as a matter of international law, the One China principle. For all those reasons, the resolution cannot be used as a reasonable justification to preclude Taiwan from participating in international organisations. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can to contest the narrative that China’s territorial claim over Taiwan is a settled issue. It is not. It is not an issue at all. China has no sovereign right over Taiwan. Resolution 2758 is one of the many grey zones used by China to encroach on Taiwan’s sovereignty, and we must not collude with it in that. We have recently seen increased incursions into Taiwan’s airspace, as well as large-scale military drills and advances close to Taiwan’s contingency zone. Operations by the Chinese coastguard have challenged Taiwan’s right to control the waters around its own territory. As China continues to challenge the boundaries and disrupts the rules-based international order, I am deeply concerned by the silence of the international community, and that that silence will be interpreted by China as tacit consent. We must call out any attempts by China to establish a legal basis for a future armed invasion of Taiwan. We all hold a shared interest in the freedom of navigation through the Taiwan strait and the South China sea, which is one of the world’s most important trade routes. As others have said, Bloomberg economists have estimated that a potential invasion of Taiwan would cost the global economy around $10 trillion—that would come out of our pockets. That is equal to around 10% of global GDP, which would dwarf the costs of the war in Ukraine. Safeguarding the Taiwan strait and protecting the rules-based order is in both our national and our international interests. I understand but do not appreciate diplomats and UK civil servants dancing on the linguistic head of a pin on this topic, and I therefore urge the Minister and the House to solemnly refute China’s arguments on UN resolution 2758, and to curb the PRC’s ambition to unilaterally change the status quo across the Taiwan strait and across Taiwan itself.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If anyone wants evidence of what a Labour Government can do, they need look no further than the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Within weeks of coming into office, the scheme got £1.5 billion returned, which has made a huge difference to nearly 1,000 of my constituents. Yet the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is subject to similar arrangements, has not seen such a return of funds. Could we have a debate in Government time to get to the bottom of this crucial issue?

• 28 Nov 2024 · UK Leadership on Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, in the Committee’s session on Sudan, Dr Eva Khair, director of the Sudan Transnational Consortium, made it clear that we should regard this not as a civil war but as a war on civilians, and she is right. Since April 2023, when the war started, 61,000 people have been killed, with 11 million people internally displaced—nearly a quarter of the population. Fourteen regions are at risk of famine, and the UN’s fund is only 57% funded. I welcome the personal involvement of both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Development, but I seek assurances that that commitment will continue, because we are the penholder and a former colonial administrator, which means that we have special duties when it comes to Sudan. Will the Minister give assurances about how she is convening the international community to stop the war and, importantly, to involve civil society in the debates?