International Update

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We already have the AI Security Institute, and to be fair, I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was instrumental in the establishment of that institute. It is because of that that the president of Microsoft was on the radio this morning saying that Britain is now regarded as the world leader in AI safety. What we must not be, however, is complacent, which is why I am putting AI at the top of the agenda for Britain’s presidency of the G20. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and Members from across the House to ensure that Britain brings together a global code of standards and principles that can capture the benefits of AI while guarding against the risks it poses.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his speech at UNGA, in which he committed, or recommitted, the United Kingdom to be a consistent and stable partner in upholding the shared values of the UN charter. That will be increasingly important as we enter the G20 presidency.

I spent last week with the chairs of the Ukrainian Parliament’s British friendship group, Deputy Speaker Korniyenko and Lesia Vasylenko, and they talked to me about how this El Niño winter is going to be the hardest ever winter in Ukraine. Just this week, Kyiv’s sewerage system broke due to electricity outages because of Russian attacks. What additional support can we give, particularly to Kyiv, in terms of generators, solar panels, thermal batteries and other humanitarian support to ensure that they can get through the exceedingly hard and difficult winter that is coming to Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think any Member of this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support Ukraine through its darkest hour. On the issue of protecting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as helping it with renewable and sustainable energy systems, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Ukraine last week and talked about these very issues. He also visited the site of one of the bomb attacks that killed children—people may have seen the photos. We are as engaged as my hon. Friend, and we will not waver in any way, shape or form. We will be there till the end, as I know will he.

Preparedness for National Emergencies

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. Agility and long-term planning are two essential cornerstones of our preparedness for national emergencies. There are two types of national emergency where we must instil those traits: climate and nature, and artificial intelligence and data centres.

The UK’s food system, economy, water security, flood protection and public health all depend on functioning ecosystems, yet the Joint Intelligence Committee has warned that every critical ecosystem that the UK depends upon is on a pathway to collapse, posing huge risks to our security, prosperity and way of life. Restoring nature is vital to avoid national emergencies.

A functioning, healthy ecosystem reduces flood risk; protects our homes, hospitals and transport systems from overheating; sustains soil so that we can grow food; and cleans the very air that we breathe. By legislating for a strategic nature network and recognising it as national infrastructure, we can restore, connect and maintain a system of key functional ecosystems that strengthen our national security, protect communities and build resilience across the UK.

Furthermore, in terms of the preparedness of our infrastructure for national emergencies, Britain is not truly sovereign as long as we are helpless to act in an AI emergency in our country. Data centres are now part of our critical national infrastructure, but the UK does not have the sovereign capability to pull the plug in the case of a dangerous AI cyber-attack or the takeover of Britain’s data centres.

My amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill would change that. This kill switch would be a last resort, allowing the Government to pull the plug when things go wrong or where there is sufficient evidence that things will go wrong. It would cover two threats: AI-driven cyber-attacks and the development of superintelligent AI that is utilising UK data centres. Most of the public would be surprised to find that kill switch powers do not already exist: there is no big red button to shut down a data centre that poses a risk to people, the economy or our national infrastructure. Kill switch powers are an essential first step in preparedness, and Parliament should seize this opportunity to truly prepare for such a national crisis.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent opening speech. I agree with the statement in the petition, which 168 of my constituents signed:

“We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK”.

However, I emphasise that that influence is being exercised throughout the world, not just in the west.

I agree with the e-petition, not only from my constituents’ point of view but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, and as chair of the APPG on Ukraine. Russian influence and interference is the converging issue at play between those groups. We must listen to and learn from Ukraine, as the Ukrainians are on the frontline defending Europe. We are in a hybrid war with Russia—that is not a new phenomenon. It is trying to erode our democracy on home soil. I will guide Members through the historical influences on our politics and democracy; address what we already have on the table with the Rycroft review; and conclude with what we must also place on the table, especially via our upcoming elections Bill, in order to ensure that we protect the freedom and fairness of our democracy for evermore.

Russian influence—or should we say interference?—in UK politics is here. Reform’s Nathan Gill was guilty of eight charges of accepting bribes from the Kremlin. The Kremlin exploited legal loopholes to influence the Brexit vote, as ex-MI6 spy Chris Steele revealed just last week here in Parliament. For at least 15 years, the Kremlin has exploited loopholes in political finance rules, with anonymous donations through Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh limited partnerships, unincorporated associations, cryptoassets and parapolitical ecosystems such as think-tanks, opaque media organisations and political movements not formally classified as parties. Evidence of Russian election interference was described as “overwhelmingly clear” as early as 2017 to 2019, with its

“utterly disruptive and malign presence”

in British national life.

If we do not resist, act and legislate now, how can we ever expect to be rid of Putin’s influence and to live in a legitimate democracy? Foreign influence is not a new challenge to democracy, especially during wartime. We are, I emphasise, in an ongoing hybrid war with Russia. During the second world war, the British Ministry of Information, in co-operation with the War Office and the Ministry of Home Security, issued a guidance pamphlet on disinformation. It detailed how foreign powers may seek to:

“make use of the civilian population in order to create confusion and panic. They spread false rumours and issue false instructions. In order to prevent this…do not believe rumours and do not spread them…make quite sure that it is a true order and not a faked order”—

that is disinformation.

Disinformation is fake news. It is created and spread deliberately by someone who knows full well that it is false. Disinformation is vast. It is a technique, like dark money and manipulation, as old as nefarious actors themselves. The distinct difference between that guidance published in the 1940s and today is that the digital realm we are operating in is evolving minute by minute. Our regulation must evolve alongside it.

The Rycroft review, the independent review launched in response to the shocking case of Reform’s Welsh leader, Nathan Gill, is a good first step. I wish to give the review the opportunity to uncover events and make substantial recommendations going forward. Former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft will assess finance and bribery rules and how to reduce the risk of foreign interference, and will build on new rules set out in the election strategy to guard against foreign political interference.

I will welcome Mr Rycroft’s report, which is to be sent to the Home Secretary and Security Minister at the end of March. It will focus on the effectiveness of UK political finance laws, as well as the safeguards in place to protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including cryptocurrencies. I look forward to hearing about how it will examine the rules governing the constitution and regulation of political parties, and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement powers, as well as exploring the role of the checks-and-balances system. That being said, to keep up with the technological developments that enable Russian influence in UK politics, we need a multitude of regulation and recommendations to ensure that the Kremlin keeps out of Westminster.

The elections Bill will be a vehicle for that. As chair of the fair elections APPG and Ukraine APPG, I look forward to seeing such firm regulatory action being taken. First, on dark money, we must stop corrupt, foreign state-sponsored money entering our political system. One way to better restrict that would be to outlaw both crypto donations and those from unincorporated entities. Furthermore, there should be a ban on all overseas donations. All known loopholes and political funding architecture must be closed, including Northern Ireland anonymous donations, Scottish and Welsh limited partnerships and so on. That must be tackled through new laws or legislative instruments.

Secondly, on disinformation, we need to rapidly improve our transparency in the UK to make a free and fair digital environment for elections. Without transparency, we get populist information dynamics. That means elections with information disorder, trust erosion as political terrain and narrative amplification over institutional debate. Simplified, reductionist and emotionally resonant narratives are how the predator of big tech preys on the electorate. We must learn from international leaders such as Estonia, which has whole-of-Government electoral threat monitoring, real-time co-ordination between security agencies and electoral authorities and public transparency during interference incidents. We can also learn from France with its election period intervention, which includes legal powers to act rapidly against co-ordinated foreign disinformation during elections combined with rapid attribution and public exposure.

Overall, foreign disinformation thrives where public trust is weakest. A voting system that leaves millions without meaningful representation actively undermines that trust. There is more to do to ensure that our elections are free and fair. These three pillars—eradicating dark money, disinformation and misinformation, and overall electoral reform—are the pillars of the APPG for fair elections. If we work together, we can have a free, fair and democratic future.

China and Japan

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.

Chinese Embassy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion, and he is entirely within his rights to do that, but I hope he understands that I am also entirely within my rights to point out that his opinion is not backed up by the intelligence services or the security agencies, which have looked incredibly carefully at the detail of the proposal. He states baldly that the proposed embassy site will deliver additional capability to China, but I again make the point about consolidation, and about the security advantages that we think will accrue from this proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I will not get into the timeline today, not least because I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, given the likelihood of further legal proceedings, but I am very happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want first to make it clear that I do not agree with this decision. It will have a chilling effect on Tibetans, Hongkongers and Uyghurs, and other Chinese people who merely dissent from the regime in Beijing. I have three questions about the application. First, what guarantees do the Government have that the seven other sites will be closed and disposed of? Will the new site be built by British construction companies hiring workers in the usual way, or by Chinese construction companies bringing in their own labour? What forms of building inspection control will be present during and after the construction?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has a long and proud track record in this area, and I listen carefully to what he has to say. He will forgive me if I disagree with his analysis of the chilling effect of this decision, not least given the points about consolidation and the security advantage. He has asked about the seven sites. Let me give him and the House an absolute assurance that that is part of the deal agreed with China. The deal is that the seven diplomatic sites forming the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be consolidated in the individual site.

In terms of the precise details about construction and other activities, my hon. Friend will understand that there are agreed procedures for these kinds of activities. I think a point was made earlier about the relationship with the United States and the concerns that they might have expressed—which I do not recognise—but it is useful to note that China built a new embassy in the United States not so long ago, so this is not a particularly uncommon occurrence. However, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will keep a close eye on the points he makes.

G20 and Ukraine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I once more thank the Prime Minister for his unstinting support for Ukraine, and for saying that nothing can be done for Ukraine without Ukraine. In the last few moments, a media source in the US has reported that Ukraine has agreed to the peace proposal brokered by the Trump Administration. I know the Prime Minister will not have the detail of that, but if that is the case—I know that he is making a statement now—will he come back and give the House the full details of what has been agreed by Ukraine, the US and potentially Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I did notice that the Leader of the Opposition went to Scotland, I think, this week to announce that if she ever became Prime Minister, which is extremely unlikely, she would pull down £50 billion of investment in renewables in Scotland. This is good, secure jobs of the future—absolutely reckless behaviour. The Opposition have not learned anything.

The Greens have a new leader—unfortunately for the hon. Lady—and we can now see what they really stand for: withdrawal from NATO at a moment like this; totally unfunded spending that would blow up the economy; and blocking all planning proposals. They also have a leader who has made—to say the least—some very strange comments about women. There is only one party delivering fairness and tackling the climate crisis and that is the Labour party.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Prime Minister, in September 2021, you met ex-Arsenal player Michael Thomas in Portcullis House alongside other former footballers of the V11, when I hosted them in Parliament. Last night, the BBC broadcast the V11 documentary, exposing the fraud perpetrated against them and the financial abuse that they have suffered within the footballing system. They have all suffered terrible financial loss, but His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is still chasing them for taxes from funds that were defrauded from them. Prime Minister, will you join me in meeting Michael Thomas and other players to see how we can protect victims of fraud and, instead, go after the perpetrators of fraud?

[The Prime Minister]

I will, and I have met Michael Thomas a number of times. Of course, he has a special place in my heart, having scored that winning goal at Anfield when we won the league—although the less said about winning at Anfield at the moment probably the better. The serious point is that these are sporting heroes who have brought us so much joy, and they should have proper support from their sporting bodies on both health and welfare. Michael Thomas and others are running an important campaign to bring this to our attention. We do need a trusted system that takes the wellbeing of our sports people seriously, particularly those in vulnerable positions. I know that the Minister for Sport is in contact with the campaigners.

Ukraine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the unity across the House, and he is absolutely right. It sends a message to those who want to challenge our values when they see this House united, whether on Ukraine or defence spending. We have to face this era with confidence and with unity across this House, wherever we can. It has been good to have him agreeing with me—we should do this more often.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in pulling together all our allies yesterday in London and for acknowledging the bravery and sacrifice of the people of Ukraine. I was in Ukraine last week. I met the mayor of Kharkiv, a frontline city of 2 million people undergoing daily attacks and blackouts from Russian forces. He told me that a power project funded by the United States Agency for International Development had been cancelled at short notice. It would have generated 11.2 MW, shoring up their energy pipeline. Where others have stepped back, will we step forward and support such projects, using either Russian assets or our own aid budget?

[The Prime Minister]

Power supply is hugely important in Ukraine. Let us face it: power and energy have been weaponised by Putin; that is why he is attacking the power supplies to communities across Ukraine. We will work with Ukraine to ensure that its people have the security and power supplies they need as we go forward.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to affirm and confirm all of that. I did raise those issues—[Interruption.] I said I condemned it a moment ago and I am happy to say so. [Interruption.] I just did and I will say it again. These are serious issues that the right hon. Member has consistently raised, and I recognise that and we have discussed the matter between ourselves on previous occasions. It is important that where we have these significant differences, particularly on issues of human rights, we have frank, open discussions about them. That is why these matters have been raised repeatedly, and I myself raised them in the meeting I had earlier this week and will continue to do so. I am happy to be clear about that condemnation and to repeat that for him.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know the Prime Minister shares my disappointment at the weakness of the G20 statement on Ukraine, compared with the G7 statement. When he met President Xi, did he raise China’s support of Russia in the war in Ukraine and ask him to step back and join us in trying to end the war in Ukraine on fair terms for the Ukrainians?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I did raise the position of China’s stance in relation to the conflict and there is a clear read-out of the meeting. It is not the first time that has been raised by this Government or, in fairness, by the previous one.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I did not mean to patronise the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). I was being paternal or avuncular, rather than patronising, in how I dealt with him. It is a known fact, proven by events, that I have tended to encourage new Members to this House, perhaps to a greater degree than many other senior Members, and that includes Members from across the House. One of the things that one learns here—I spoke about the learning curve we all face—is that the relationships that pervade across this House are as important as the relationships we form on our own Benches.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been here a little while—seven years—and the right hon. Member has never encouraged me, although he has scolded me once or twice. He has talked about democracy and democratic reforms on several occasions in his speech. Democracy emanates from Athens and the Greek republic. That is the origin of demos, and what does that mean? It means the common people. We are talking exactly about giving common people the right to sit, not the uncommon people of the hereditary peerage. That is the point we are talking about. Demos means universal rights for everyone, not the select few.

[Sir John Hayes]

Ms Nokes, you will not allow me to go into immense detail about Athenian democracy, although I did study ancient philosophy. The hon. Gentleman will know that Athenian democracy was very far from the democratic principles that we hold dear. Only citizens had the vote in Athens, and the assembly there was a very partial affair, and certainly it would satisfy neither you, Ms Nokes, nor other Members.

I will return to the subject in hand for a few moments before I give way to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies). Having made the case that the Bill does not afford greater legitimacy or efficacy, I want to speak about the authority of this place, the authority of the constitution, and the authority of Government. The authority of this place, as the hon. Member for Bolton West and others have argued, essentially derives from the fact that we are elected, but not just from that. It also derives in part from the balance in the relationship between this House and the other place.

Bicameral systems that pitch democratic chambers one against another are often less successful than the model that has evolved in this country. Although the upper House sometimes chastises this House—it certainly scrutinises us—and although it might clash occasionally with this House in its role as a reforming Chamber, in the end it defers to the elected House. A bicameral system borne of two Houses of Parliament, one of which is elected and one which is not, seems to me to be more desirable for that very reason: we do not have competing democratic legitimacies between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why I disagree with the amendments in the name of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).