Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for her local breweries, especially Moot Brew in Halling, which produces excellent beer—I know she visits regularly. We recognise the importance of independent breweries and pubs, and we are of course committed to ensuring that the sector remains diverse, competitive and rooted in local communities. We have reviewed the beer market to assess any barriers, and I will keep my hon. Friend updated.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

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

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is close to my heart. The Government and I care deeply about the future of the automotive sector. Exports are incredibly important to it, but so is the security of supply chains. I have raised this issue not only with our US counterparts and other export markets but with the EU, to protect supply chains. My ministerial colleague chaired the Automotive Council just yesterday; we are listening, gauging and acting on behalf of the sector. Automotive production fell by 50% when the Conservatives were running the country. We are trying to get it back up to where it deserves to be.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 1, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill is narrow, but it gives us an opportunity to raise this matter.

Thanks to the work of this House, public bodies such as the Department of Health and Social Care are legally required to eradicate slavery in their supply chains under the Health and Care Act 2022 and the National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. We also strengthened the safeguards to ensure that public money is free from forced labour in last year’s Great British Energy Act 2025. There was a little bit of fuss about that at the time, but no slavery or human trafficking is present in any part of Great British Energy’s supply chain.

UK Export Finance still lacks those protections, but amendment 1 would fix that inconsistency. If we are increasing the financial limits available to UK Export Finance, we should ensure that British support for business abroad is never tied to exploitation. It would make the protection much bigger by covering everything across Government. We tried something like that with the Great British Energy Bill, and I was told I was right that this would not have been covered, but the Bill then went to the Lords and came back pretty quick. I thank the right hon. Member for tabling his amendment.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Madam Chair, it is a great honour to speak to this packed Chamber on my amendments, and it was good of you to call me so soon—there are so many people ready to speak.

I rise to speak in support of amendments 1 and 2 that appear in my name and those of my colleagues and friends, and it is my intention to press them when the time comes. Why is this necessary? In this particular area, I refer to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) as my hon. Friend, because she has been stalwart in campaigning against slave labour and forced labour. I bow to her because of her stalwart support. As she said of the amendments, it is vital to safeguard UK export finance and ensure it is legally protected from any exposure to forced labour and human trafficking.

We have been through this issue again and again, and I just hope the Minister, who has been a stalwart supporter of this drive, can give me a very clear sign when he responds to the debate that the Government want to adopt the amendments, which are critical to cleaning up what has essentially become a supply chain too often full of the products of slave labour.

I am in favour of the Bill, not against it. In principle, I think it is right basically to raise the limit to £20 billion and the aggregate limit to £160 billion to account for inflation. However, it is also absolutely right to ensure that this increased financial firepower is not used inadvertently to fund modern slavery. Together, the amendments would ensure that, if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery is present in a recipient’s supply chain, the permitted financial assistance for that export drops to zero—in other words, no finance.

For those who may not have followed what has been going on, we had to amend the original Health and Care Bill to stop slavery being used in relation to the NHS. Last year, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston said, we had to amend the Great British Energy Bill. The Government decided to vote down that amendment, but the Bill was amended in the Lords. Many Labour Members suddenly realised that they were going to be asked to vote in favour of slave labour in the supply chains of Great British Energy, and they said no. The Government then decided not to oppose the amendment, which was absolutely the right thing to do in the end.

However, I wish we had not had to go through all of that. Surely there is a moral purpose in all this, which is that if we have any suspicion that a product or a supply chain has elements of forced labour—we know China does it endlessly, and Russia and other countries use it—we should not allow that. When we compare ourselves with the United States, the reality is that its Governments, no matter who is in power, have a very simple rule: it is the responsibility of companies importing to check their supply chains, and the excuse that they did not know or could not find out is simply not good enough, so they are prosecuted if there is slave labour in the supply chain.

The amendments are all about trying to shut down another possible loophole, in this case on finance. We believe that UK Export Finance is currently exposed to forced labour. For instance, in 2022-23, it supported businesses involving a subsidiary of AVIC—Aviation Industry Corporation of China—a company sanctioned by the US as a People’s Liberation Army entity. This is something that nobody, if they really ask themselves, on either side of the House wants, and I am sure that the Government do not want it, so the question is: how do we shut this down?

I want to quote a couple of really quite senior people in the Government who have spoken about this in the past. The Prime Minister has said:

“We’re not going to raise human rights standards if we ignore it in trade.”

He said:

“It shouldn’t be up to the consumer…to research every product and work out every ethical aspect of it.”

I say yes, because of course it is impossible to do so as an individual. When I had a row with Amazon and other companies, I said, “Why don’t you make it easy to find out what the route in your supply chain is? People don’t know where something was made until they actually have the product land on their desk. Why can’t they see that on their computers and be able to identify that?” However, those companies do not want to do that, because they think people may not buy the products.

In May 2025, when he was the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said:

“We are very clear on our position regarding the abhorrent practice of modern slavery. It is a terrible crime which we are determined to eradicate. I assure you that this Government takes this issue seriously and is continuing to assess and monitor the policy tools available to ensure we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains.”

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), has also said that

“our clean power mission should not come at the expense of human rights…This involves confronting human rights abuses, including modern slavery, in energy supply chains”.

That is absolutely right, although I do not understand why it took so much for us to get those on his side of the fence to agree, finally, to take such abuses out of the supply chains for Great British Energy, given his stated views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I note that the creative industries have now achieved 5% growth in the last year, faster than any other part of the economy—and I think we have seen quite a creative industry this evening, with Members managing to get amendments into this very tightly constricted Bill. I am happy to address some of the issues that were mentioned, but I think some of them strayed somewhat wide of the mark of the Bill itself.

Let me turn first to the amendment from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He and I have participated in many campaigns on forced labour and other issues, and I am entirely with him on the aim of preventing all modern slavery. I will just correct him on one factual mistake that he made. He said that the UK was the first country to ban slavery, but it was Haiti in 1804. It could be argued that Napoleon abolished it, but then they returned to slavery afterwards. It was Haiti that abolished it first.

The right hon. Member makes the very good point that modern slavery is an abomination. It is morally wrong. Forced labour is morally wrong. It is also a taint on any kind of international trade, and it undermines fair practice from other countries that do not engage in forced labour. I am determined to do everything I possibly can, both in this role and in the future if I am not in this role, to make sure that we tackle forced labour in every single part of the way we run our economy. As a Labour Member, it would be shocking if I were not to say precisely that.

The right hon. Member knows that I am not going to accept his amendment—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

What!

[Chris Bryant]

Fake shock does not suit him as a look. It would be wrong for us in this country to feed ourselves, clothe ourselves, and house ourselves on the back of forced labour. At the moment we are engaged in a review of responsible business conduct, and I very much hope that that will move us in the direction of being able to tackle this issue comprehensively, rather than just in this particular area.

I reassure the right hon. Member that UK Export Finance takes these issues extremely seriously. It is very diligent in the way that it analyses and looks at any of the investments it makes to ensure that environmental and human rights issues are fully addressed before making any financial commitment. We intend to produce our response to the responsible business conduct review very soon. I cannot give a precise date, as Ministers rarely manage to produce dates, which the right hon. Member knows.

UKEF uses OECD standards and the Equator Principles. It also reports extensively on this area, as it is required to do under the two Acts that apply to it. It works with the Office for Responsible Business Conduct’s dispute resolution unit, which provides a non-judicial grievance mechanism for looking at precisely all these issues. I am not saying a long-term no to the right hon. Member’s request. I completely agree with the aim of what he is seeking to achieve, but I think we already do that under UKEF. If particular issues arise in the future, I hope the right hon. Member will write to me. I would be very happy to respond to him.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot say anything more clearly than that I want to make sure that we in the UK are not reliant for our economic prosperity on the forced labour of others. We need to make that as comprehensive and effective as we possibly can. I know the two cases that the right hon. Member referred to, and I am happy to write to him, if he wants, in precise detail about those rather than to delay the House tonight. Funnily enough, the precise processes that we went through in the UK with UKEF in relation to those cases would have been met by the US legislation as well, which is arguably not as effective as it would like to be. I am as interested as he is in being effective in this space.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) gave an exceptionally good speech, I thought, on why we should not have left the European Union and why we should never have accepted the deal that was put on the table. I note that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me and not with him on whether the UK should leave the European Union. I am afraid that—

Employment Rights Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the Government choose to make a statement is not a matter for the Chair; however, the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s concerns.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is

“significant frustration in the Met Police”,

as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate.

Corporate Businesses and Franchisees: Regulatory Environment

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Speaking long before I was born, G. K. Chesterton said that

“big business…is now organized like an army. It is, as some would say…militarism…without the military virtues.”

Heaven knows what he would say if he was alive now, as global corporations have such influence on all our lives.

Yet it is the small and medium-sized businesses in my Lincolnshire constituency and in constituencies across this country that are the backbone of our economy. They also provide the particularities—the colour and shape —of the places that each of us calls home. Those small and medium-sized businesses reinvest in the communities of which they are a part and provide opportunities for local people. We all know them from our daily experience as customers, but we also know them from the representations they make to us as Members of Parliament. Today, I speak in the interests of those small businesses, those entrepreneurs, those people who devote so much of their time, skill and energy for the common good—for the national interest and the common good drive all that I do in this place.

Small and medium-sized businesses employing up to 250 people make up about 99% of businesses, but just think of the influence and effect of the other 1%. When SMEs are accused of wrongdoing or even of breaking the law, they often have little in the way of resources to defend themselves, so they are at the mercy of powerful regulators and the caprice of giant competitors. In contrast, the big multinational companies, which have come to dominate too much of our economy, have armies of compliance officers, lawyers and spin doctors to bat away legitimate concerns.

The fear that many of us in this Chamber have about two-tier justice runs parallel to our certainty that there is a two-tier economy. Faceless, heartless multinational firms often have little in the way of roots here, and many tech firms use such rootlessness to justify decisions to pay little, if any, tax. Corporate behemoths have grown ever larger, ever more dominant in their sectors, ever more detached from their customers, and ever more determined to bend rules and evade justice. In recent years, we have seen profiteering by, for example, the major supermarkets, which very often give their suppliers—primary producers such as the farmers and growers in my constituency—a raw deal. We have seen them distort the food chain, yet take advantage of the disruption brought by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Indeed, the pandemic exacerbated the power of greedy globalists. Following research on 17,000 big firms, the trade union Unite has highlighted that average profit margins have soared by 30% compared with the pre-pandemic period. In 2022, the profits of the 350 largest companies in Britain increased by about 89% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Contrast that if you will, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the plight of smaller businesses, which face ever greater costs and ever more unfair competition from their giant competitors.

What of the claims of the enthusiastic globalists that the world would be a better place as a result of their activities? Do you remember the globalists—those people who were addicted to modernity and change? Who has really benefited? In an economy in which standards of living are falling, productivity has stalled and the state grows ever bigger in the face of rising worklessness, it seems to me that the only beneficiaries of globalisation are a few people at the top of those corporate businesses. We need not monopolies, but a multiplicity of businesses, such as start-up firms, local firms, and firms that innovate and engage in new activities in the economy, rather than cement existing practices. Let us give those businesses what they need, which is greater freedom, while the big corporate monoliths need to be regulated so that they do not exploit the marketplace they dominate.

Think for a moment of the banks. I have a vision of banking—I hope you might too, Madam Deputy Speaker—rooted in a sort of “Dad’s Army” approach: a Captain Mainwaring figure committed to his community, in close touch with his customers and caring about the businesses they run. That was not just a fiction in my younger years. I well remember going to a bank as a young man and asking if I could borrow £500 to buy an old car—I was a student at the time. The manager, a bit like Captain Mainwaring in character, invited me in, gave me a glass of sherry, interrogated me for half an hour and eventually said, “Yes, I think we can probably lend you the £500.” Imagine that scene now. At best, you would have an online connection with someone remotely situated—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

You wouldn’t get a car for 500 quid though, John!

[Sir John Hayes]

I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the £500 he still owes me from the days when I used to work for him.

The point is that nowadays the connection between customers and suppliers has become at best detached and at worst remote. As I say, now you would have a conversation with some remotely situated person who knows nothing about you or your circumstances, and probably cares less.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way. Is it about the £500?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes—without interest. I agree with my right hon. Friend. I also agree about something else, which is that people do not realise that the really big global multinationals, for example Amazon, do not really make their profits on what they sell. They hold your data and that is what they really sell, subsequently. That is where they make their money and their profit. You derive no income from that data, but they make a lot of money off the back of it. To try to break that process down and make things more local, we have to start with what we have all been complicit in, which is the idea of getting something for nothing. It is not for nothing—there is a cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I need not detain my right hon. Friend for long, but I very much supported the unions’ position on this, as I thought this was wrong at the time. Without straying into the issues of the bids, we should consider organisations such as CK from China. It now has links with and control over UK Power Networks, Northumbrian Water, Wales and West Utilities, and Eversholt Rail. The network it has now is intriguing, which is hugely around the power and communications networks. All of those are now falling into the hands of conglomerates that have nothing to do with the UK, but that are linked to Governments of a different country. This is the big problem we face: it is not that we do not like big businesses; it is just that so often now they operate from outside our legal empowerment.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters, and that is precisely why I posed the earlier question to the Minister about how closely he and others had looked at that merger. I will say no more about it than that, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate question to ask: were those things considered in this particular case, and how are they generally considered? If my right hon. Friend is right that there are threats that result from this, under existing legislation and regulation it is perfectly possible for the Government to become involved in these kinds of commercial affairs.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member and his party for their presence today. He will not draw me on the other principal issue that we have been dealing with at the Department for Business and Trade over the last few days, but to be clear, the issues around British Steel are about more than the imposition of tariffs. The tariffs are not welcome, and I do not think there is justification for them to be put in place. I believe that it is in our interests, but also in the US’s interests, to agree a position that removes those tariffs in the interests of steelworkers.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I am, because I just said that. I have just admitted that it was a mistake, but I ask everybody what they were saying at the time. Of course, there is silence. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I am worried about my steelworkers—I am worried about their future.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I give way to our former leader.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There we are: some of us apparently warned the Government. I do not know how many.

We now know the true nature of our Chinese friends. We support the Bill. Let us make our steel industry really competitive again and let us make Great Britain great again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will try to be brief and stay focused on the Bill. Let me start by saying that we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. In fact, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that 2,500 people have already received a redundancy notice, and they will be very worried at the moment. Our thoughts should be with them today. Coming in on a Saturday is right if it saves their jobs. I am certainly prepared to vote for that.

The Bill does give vast powers to the right hon. Gentleman the Business Secretary and the Government. As others have said, I trust him personally—this is not an attack on him—but we in this House should never trust Government more than we have to. I have said this on both sides of the Chamber, by the way. I therefore urge him to have another look at the sunset clause, which I raised earlier. It is not saying, “We don’t trust you”; it is saying that sometimes Governments are taken down sidetracks, and before we know what has happened, the powers are beginning to be used for the wrong purpose. I urge him to introduce the sunset clause, or even to do so in the other place, to give the House real powers to come back. For everyone’s sake—even those on the Government Benches—I think that would be worth doing, because it would allow us to have a strong debate on how the powers are being used and would perhaps even enable us to influence what is taking place.

The reason for this debate is clearly the massively changed needs of this country, particularly after the event that we never thought would happen: Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. As a result, weapons and arms are needed on an unprecedented scale, there is a plan to build up the armed forces, and they need the very high-quality virgin steel that is produced in this plant. Without it, we would have to import it. Frankly, China does not produce that quality of steel. The other reason is the tariff war now taking place, which has introduced 25% tariffs on the car industry, which is one of the biggest purchasers of steel. All those things make the Bill very much necessary.

We have another problem, which I hope the Government will deal with in the context of the Bill when they talk to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Things have changed. The Prime Minister himself has said that the world has changed. We have been operating in what we considered to be a global free market. I have argued for some time that this is not a free market. Far too many countries such as China have abused the rules of the free market, subsidised their industries ridiculously and used slave labour to produce their products. When that happens, the free market is dead. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy and of whether we need to rush to China for investment. We need to ensure that we deal with our industry at home and that we produce things again.

One problem is the energy costs our industry faces, which are really quite stark. Our industry is not just in competition with China; even the costs in Europe are far less now. I will give a short list. The costs in the UK are now the highest in the world, at $400 per megawatt-hour. Germany, which has the highest costs in the rest of Europe, is at $250 per megawatt-hour, while France and the others all have lower costs for producing energy. That energy is critical for the steel industry, and that is one of the big issues that the Secretary of State has to deal with. China, with its subsidies and broken free market rules, is at $60 per megawatt-hour. We should not attempt to compete with it; we must say that it is not competitive at all. [Interruption.] Exactly right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) says.

Others are complaining about China right now. Countries in the far east, such as Vietnam and South Korea, are accusing it of dumping. What we have in China is something that will really hit us hard and make the Secretary of State’s job even worse: very simply, China is now suffering from the over-production of steel. Its housing industry has gone static, and that was one of the biggest users of the steel it produced. Where will that steel go?

By the way, it is no surprise that a Chinese company, Jingye, is involved. In pushing to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, it knows that we will have to buy slab steel from China. That is not a coincidence; it is all part of the plan. That company is linked directly to the Chinese Communist party, and it is high time that we called that out. In his negotiations, the Secretary of State needs to remind Jingye that the reality is that it is not a private company. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point.

There is much to be dealt with, and I urge the Government to listen to the House and to check all of this. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On net zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This is such an important point, and I will be exceptionally brief, but the right hon. Gentleman knows from debates that he and I have been in that I am obsessed with the issue of industrial energy prices and by the very substantial rise from 2010 to 2024—a 50% real-terms increase. As I think he knows, the two fundamental issues are: first, our network charges and how we do those, which is different from other countries; and secondly, fundamentally, the marginal cost is set by the price of gas—the fossil fuel price—for the overall system. I am not completely rejecting everything that he is saying, but we must understand that key point: it is the gas price.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for that, because it allows me to say something that I had not been planning to say: we sit on an island of gas, so why, for goodness’ sake, are we not drilling for it? We need it, and we will need it strategically. There is a need for strategic industry, and I agree with the Secretary of State on that. However, the issue does not stop there; it stops elsewhere, in the production of energy. I simply leave that point for him, and he can argue it with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

I want to say one final thing. In the course of this Chinese company’s operations, I have talked to a number of people involved in the business, and its record on health and safety and on the abuse of the workers in the blast furnace area has been shocking. We should look into that much more carefully. The company has brought in cheap Chinese workers and pays them nothing like what it pays the British workers. Many of those workers have ended up burned and in great difficulty. I simply say that this is not a company we should be doing business with right now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Clive Betts)]

We will go to the Front Benchers at 1.40 pm, so if Members who are called could be as brief as possible, that would be appreciated.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am more than happy to make that clear. We see that in a number of areas—it is the case across the whole field of regulation. Let us look at AI, which is topical right now: we have chosen a different regulatory path in the UK from the European Union, which is to our economic advantage. I am very confident in the approach that we are taking. I am sure that when I get to the provisions of the Bill, and in particular when it comes to weights and measures, the whole House will be united in being able to say that we believe that traditional British standards are particularly important to us.

I say again, however, that having the power to set standards in itself makes no decision as to how these powers are used. We can all clearly recognise the need to repatriate these powers to our own statute book.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

rose—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I was going to make a little progress, but I cannot resist the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just want to raise a small point. When I was doing some work on this matter for a previous Government, looking at what we could do with our regulations and standards on leaving the EU, it became apparent that the UK is behind only America and China globally in setting standards for the rest of the world. To what degree is the Secretary of State planning to enhance that, rather than returning to any European usage of standards, when we already dominate the field?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now that our intention is to cement the UK’s status as a world leader in product regulation and safety. I am sure we would all recognise the tremendous benefits for both consumers and businesses that come from being a jurisdiction whose consumer protections are widely recognised and where people have confidence that the goods and services they buy will be to the highest standard possible. Where we see gaps in our provision, because of the substantial change that has occurred with our leaving the European Union, we would surely want to fill those gaps so that we are in a position to continue our success in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern and his regard. I believe that if we were of the view that a product was a danger to the public, the right hon. Gentleman would expect me as Secretary of State in my Department to take action. If he is concerned about provisions in the Bill, he can look to the changes that have been made. It has been through an extensive scrutiny process in the other place, particularly in relation to the powers and delegated powers given to the Secretary of State. I think he recognises the case we are making for the safety of the public; indeed, it is why Opposition Members themselves recognise the need for a Bill of this kind.

The Bill will help to create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. Critically, we are able to protect consumers by reducing the number of unsafe and non-complying goods that are sold online. This could include asking sites to verify third-party sellers before allowing them to list their goods or to have a product safety reporting function for customers on their sites. One example is e-scooters and e-bikes, which like many products are reliant on lithium-ion batteries. These batteries have been attributed as the cause of a number of fires in recent years, both in households and on public transport.

While we know that the vast majority of products are safe, in recent years we have seen some goods mis-sold by a minority of unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers. As a result, low-standard, high-risk products have been able to enter the UK market. Some people have paid for this with their homes and, in some cases, their lives. I think we would all recognise that that is unconscionable.

I want to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte. Sofia tragically died when a bicycle that had been converted into an e-bike burst into flames. The bike’s lithium battery pack failed, causing a fire on new year’s day 2023. I know that the whole House will join me in recognising the bravery and courage of Sofia’s family in campaigning for change in memory of their daughter and in fighting for better regulation of e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them. I also thank the London Fire Brigade for its campaigning on this issue in recent years. It has been on the frontline, seeing at first hand the devastation that has been wrought by some of these products.

This Bill is about keeping the public safe. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has taken action in this area already. It has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 sellers. This has removed two dangerous models of e-bike battery from sale, and I am glad that the legislation we are discussing today will allow us to consider further steps on enforcement.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I have campaigned for greater regulation of bicycles, which have got away with killing individuals, not to mention e-bikes. I want to pick the Secretary of State up on a particular point. I do not disagree with him on the need for regulation, and it should have been done some time ago, so we are as one on that. However, I still do not think that he has quite answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just now. Why do we need to have a wide-sweeping Bill like this if we could do it already in the House by vote?

If we have a powerful enough argument to say to both Houses, “This must be done,” then they will see it through very quickly by the power of persuasion, but they would have the right to vote on it and to disagree. The Bill takes that right away and achieves the same result, but only by way of a diktat from whoever is in power—and, by the way, I agreed with what the Secretary of State said in opposition.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am sorry that we have not convinced the right hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that the Government need powers in this area. We need to be able to respond to fast-moving changes in technology and regulation. The public would expect me, as Secretary of State, as well as my Department and the Government, to have these powers to keep them safe. Perhaps we have not convinced him at this stage, but he can look at proceedings in the other place and in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Once again, the Secretary of State has failed to engage on the key issue, which is that British businesses—[Interruption.] It is not funny. British businesses are bleeding out, business confidence is at a record low, unemployment is rising, and all the Government have to talk about is the past, not what they are currently delivering.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend was asked just now whether the previous Government were likely to have introduced this legislation. May I set the record straight? Had we done so, the Secretary of State would have voted against it.

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend has great wisdom on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I welcome this essential and timely Bill, which upgrades our product safety, regulation and metrology—a word that I admit I had to look up, but it does not take much to understand it—framework, delivering a much-needed boost to protections for consumers and ensuring that every company in the UK, whether they operate online or on our high streets, upholds the high product safety and quality standards that working people in this country deserve and that have been absent for too long.

Whether it is faulty carbon monoxide alarms, dangerous children’s toys or the issue of spontaneously combusting e-bikes and scooters, which has been raised with me by my constituents in Worsley and Eccles, examples of hazardous products being on sale are far too common. Clearly, there is an urgent need to raise the bar on consumer product safety in this country. The Bill achieves that aim, establishing a modern safety regime that will enable companies to operate safely, while accounting for the post-Brexit regulatory landscape.

In an increasingly turbulent international trading environment, it is imperative that the Government update the UK’s product regulations. However, since our exit from the EU, the Government have not had the necessary powers to meet the challenges presented by the fast-moving global product safety standards environment. That has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I have been in this House for a little while; I have sat on both sides of the House, and I have been in government. I have never come across a Government who have failed to get regulation through when they feel it is necessary to do so, but it goes through with debate. We cannot just impose regulations because we think it is right. There has to be some measure of whether it is balanced and whether it works, and that is normally done by this House. Why give it to the Government alone?

[Michael Wheeler]

If the system we have in place was working, we would not be here debating this, and we would not see these shoddy products on sale or these fires. The only explanation is either that the system does not work or the last Government failed in their duty to the people of this country.

As I was saying, this has left British consumers vulnerable to falling behind with regard to protections in rapidly emerging areas of product safety that need reaction—for example, those related to new technologies such as AI and lithium-ion batteries. I therefore support the Bill’s provisions to enable the Government to meet the fast-moving challenges of the day in these areas.

UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed in the Chamber about the existing statutory framework, we need to send a clear and unequivocal signal that no company in the United Kingdom that operates under the existing statutory framework should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain. There are already rules in place to compel companies to publish statements demonstrating that they have met their very clear legal obligations, not least in relation to the exploitation of which my hon. Friend speaks.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—she is my hon. Friend in this case—on raising a really important issue. I also welcome another person on the Government Front Bench, who will remain nameless—I am sure that Hansard will pick them out.

The problem with all this is that it does not seem to matter who is in government; the Foreign Office and other Departments try to block everything to do with slavery. I was one of the people who drove through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we know is long past its sell-by date with regard to modern slavery. I tried to co-operate with the Government when they were in opposition, and we need to change the law, because we have real problems with net zero. Right now, we have polysilicon arrays coming in from Xinjiang in massive quantities, and nothing is being done about it. This is not just about Xinjiang; there are a quarter of a million people from Tibet in forced labour.

The only way to address the issue is to do what we did with the Health and Care Act 2022, which we amended to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care had a duty to eradicate slavery. In America, supply chains are checked using forensic science provided by Oritain, but we do not do any of that. Will we move towards checking all supply chains, and put legislation in place to make it a criminal offence to have anything to do with slave labour?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his sustained effort on, and interest in, these issues. It has come at some personal cost; he has received criticism from foreign Governments. He is an example to us all in this Chamber in his willingness to speak up for human rights without fear or favour.

On his point, first, I see the answer as involving enforcement of the current legislation. It is important to reaffirm that legislation is clear about companies’ mandatory obligations, regardless of whether they import from Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly, as I have said, we intend to look carefully at whether lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions, notwithstanding the good efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and many others in this Chamber at the time of the initiation of the Modern Slavery Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander]

The reset, of which we have spoken today, is fundamentally about turning the page and reinvigorating our alliance with our friends, neighbours and partners in the European Union. As well as securing a broad-based security pact and tackling barriers to trade, we aim to build stronger and wider co-operation in a whole range of areas including foreign and defence policy, irregular migration, law enforcement and judicial co-operation, while promoting climate, energy and economic security.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I ask this question on the basis that I am sanctioned by the Chinese Government for having raised the evidence of genocide and slave labour in Xinjiang. We know that the vast majority of polysilicon is now produced in Xinjiang using slave labour. Will the Secretary of State give the undertaking that, as required under section 54(11) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, there will be no use of any solar arrays that have polysilicon in them made under slave labour in Xinjiang?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that I would expect and demand there to be no modern slavery in any part of a supply chain that affects products or goods sold in the UK. He is right to say that under the Modern Slavery Act, which was put in place by a previous Conservative Government, any business with a turnover above £36 million needs to have a reporting regime around that. I promise him that, where there are specific allegations, I will look at those to ensure that. It is an area where we have existing legislation, and indeed we would go further if that was required.