Conflict in Sudan

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, Dr Allin-Khan, to serve with you in the Chair for this vital debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing it.

It is a sad fact of life in Parliament that we have not debated this issue enough, including on the Floor of the House of Commons, because the death toll in Sudan dwarfs anything else that is going on around the world at the moment, despite the amount of time that we spend discussing issues other than this one. I absolutely agree with the figures that the hon. Lady cited about the terrible death toll in Sudan, which is something in the order of 400,000, yet I suspect that even that is an underestimate. If it is, perhaps between 1 million and 1.5 million people in Sudan have been killed or wounded just in the direct conflict. Then, of course, there are all the people who have been displaced; she also gave those figures and I absolutely agree with them, too.

Today, I will focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop the war. In particular, I will focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. Frankly, the UAE’s Administration is a disgraceful one anyway, and I will go on to say why.

It is now absolutely clear, from the work of the prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets that have conducted investigations into RSF fighters, that those fighters are using weapons supplied by the UAE. If not manufactured in the UAE, the weapons are certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis and in vast numbers, along with ammunition.

Furthermore, Colombian mercenaries have arrived in Sudan, who were no doubt recruited from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of the UAE. In September 2025, the Government of Sudan estimated that the number of Colombian mercenaries in Sudan was getting on for 500, but other estimates suggest that the real number is between 1,500 and 2,000, and growing.

We believe that that is the direct result of what has been happening in the UAE. The Global Security Services Group is the organisation contracted to hire those people, and it is also involved in the supply of weapons. The GSSG is owned by an Emirati businessman, Mohamed Hamdan Alzaabi, who has business interests in security firms jointly with Ahmed Mohamed Al Hameeri, the secretary-general of the UAE’s Presidential Court. The links to what is going on in Sudan have been very clearly established. GSSG continues to be closely tied to the Government of the UAE. Its website states that it is the preferred security provider for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Presidential Affairs, and there is evidence that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for mercenaries—the list goes on.

My question to the UK Government is this: why in heaven’s name are we not sanctioning key operatives in the UAE now? I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and I say that it is high time that we imposed sanctions on those key UAE operatives.

We can also look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who has well-documented ties with the leader of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has even been described as Hamdan Dagalo’s closest ally in the UAE. In March 2023, Premier League clubs, apparently unanimously, that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses to own clubs, yet Mansour is still in charge of Manchester City. The question is, why, and why are the Government so determined not to pursue these individuals? I suspect that the reason involves a lot of money in investments and the ownership of football teams, but that should not stop the Government from pursuing these people, because the UAE would be very suspect in that.

Even if that were not enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. British citizen Ryan Cornelius has spent 18 years incarcerated, even though the UN has claimed that that is completely wrong and unjudicial and that he should be released. The Abu Dhabi bank has continued to pursue him, and he has not seen his family for close on 19 years now. He is a British citizen, but how often have representatives of successive Governments, when they have visited the UAE, named him or said anything about him? The answer is “Very rarely.” All they do is tokenistically raise the issue and move on, as they pursue more money.

We know that Mohammed Ibrahim al-Shaibani, who is the chair of the Dubai Islamic bank and head of the Dubai Ruler’s Court, is responsible for Ryan’s detention for 18 years and is very close to the leadership of UAE. It is time that we cracked down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is. It is behind all that is going on in Sudan and the abuses of British citizens who should be released. Unless the Government are prepared to step up, sanction key individuals, and prevent them from owning football teams, investing in the United Kingdom and enjoying their shopping trips here, we will not be the nation that we should be.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his service. We are confident that the situation that we have in place with defensive capability is adequate for the threats faced.

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

When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his sustained and continued advocacy on behalf of his constituent, which is deeply powerful. I know it is of concern to many Members across this House. Despite some progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding. We continue to raise concerns about his detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, emphasising the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of his cases within India’s independent legal system. The former Foreign Secretary raised the case on 4 June. The Foreign Secretary’s envoy for complex consular detentions met Mr Johal’s brother on 7 August, and I can confirm that we will meet the family in due course. Consular officials most recently visited Mr Johal on 29 July.

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

I raise the cases of Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai—both United Kingdom citizens—to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who I welcome to his position. Ryan Cornelius has been incarcerated for 19 years—trumped-up charges by a corrupt regime that is supporting a war in Sudan at the moment. In his case, will the Government first bring sanctions against that regime to persuade, or force, them to release this man, as he should have been? In the case of Jimmy Lai, would the Foreign Secretary also threaten clear sanctions? I now know that Sebastien Lai wants to see the Prime Minister. Would the Foreign Secretary please say to the Prime Minister that he should see him because, again, Jimmy Lai has been wrongly incarcerated by a despotic regime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman knows how diplomacy works: we do not announce a summit until it has been agreed with our partners. I turn to his substantive question. Are we ambitious to go further and faster? Yes, we are. I said that in Europe yesterday and we have said it repeatedly. We are making every effort that we can make to ensure that there is a partnership that works for both the UK and the EU, and that we are advancing quickly towards it.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep sorrow for the flooding on the Nepal-China border that has caused widespread death and devastation. There are 987 confirmed deaths and 3,916 people still missing, of whom 36 are British nationals. From the moment the tragedy unfolded, we have sought to provide all the help we can to the Nepalese authorities and to support British nationals, including £5 million in additional humanitarian assistance. Our humanitarian and consular specialists are on the ground in Nepal, and FCDO crisis teams are working around the clock to support relatives of those missing. My deepest condolences go to all those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, particularly British nationals and their families.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law? The Secretary of State will know that Hong Kong has trashed the Sino-British agreement and decoupled the concept of common law from rights and responsibilities. All Joshua Wong has done is to ask for the same rights and privileges that we in this country hold dear. Will the Secretary of State take up that case with the Chinese Government and say to them, “Enough is enough. It’s time to stop chasing peaceful protesters?”

[Ed Miliband]

I absolutely will take up that case. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest on a whole range of such issues. Because of that interest, I say to him that we will be forthright on human rights when it comes to China, and we will be strong in relation to foreign interference, espionage and on any threats to this country that we find.

Sudan

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

We work constantly on Sudan. Almost every official in the FCDO, regardless of department, has a Sudan focus on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, who could not be more clear in how she leads this work, including with the Prime Minister, on protecting aid support in-country and providing more support across the wider region.

I must repeat that we do reject the allegations that were made yesterday. Our actions on this speak very clearly: we have been at the forefront of trying to find a peaceful resolution for this conflict across the four years—across this Government and the previous Government—whether at a multilateral level or by engaging and working with partners, and we will continue to do so. As I said earlier, I was in conversation with the Angolan Foreign Minister just yesterday, talking about evidence gathering in relation to the atrocities taking place in Sudan. This is an absolute focus of the Foreign Office and its Ministers, and Government Ministers more widely.

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

It seems that whoever comes into government, the Foreign Office’s weak policy on the UAE persists. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the UAE has incarcerated a British citizen for more than 19 years—illegally, according to the UN. The UAE provides the rebels with significant amounts of arms and weaponry, without which they would never be able to continue this brutal war, with so many dead and wounded as a consequence. Surely it is time for a British Government to stand up and say that enough is enough, and that we are going to sanction all those individuals responsible for decision making in the UAE and in other countries providing arms to the rebels. If we do not do that, all the talk is worthless.

[Chris Elmore]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the diplomatic engagement of the Foreign Office with all foreign partners goes on day in, day out and year in, year out. I do not agree with him that nothing happens; there are plenty of examples across the board in various conflicts taking place where British involvement makes a meaningful difference. He is an experienced former Cabinet member, so he will know, as I have said, that no Government will debate sanctions on the Floor of this House, and nor should they. We will continue to keep them under review and keep challenging and working with colleagues internationally to bring about a peaceful resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I described our work on an Iran human rights resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, and on 12 January the Foreign Secretary spoke to her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Araghchi, setting out the UK’s total abhorrence of the killings, violence and repression, and urging the Iranian authorities to change course urgently. We continue to support negotiations between the US and Iran for a lasting resolution to this conflict.

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

Lindsay and Craig Foreman are incarcerated in Iran in brutal circumstances, and are being tortured in many ways. They are not my constituents, but their family approached me. May I be clear to the Government, and have them be clear to us in their response? Are the Government saying publicly that they are not spies, but innocent tourists? Will they formally declare the detention to be arbitrary? What else can they do to try to draw attention to the plight of these two innocent tourists?

[Mr Falconer]

I have been in regular contact with the family of the Foremans. This is a terrible case, and it is absolutely obvious that they are innocent tourists—that is clear to all concerned. We have made that point repeatedly to the Iranian regime, and I have raised it countless times with Iranian representatives, as the Foreign Secretary has done with her counterparts. We will continue to pursue this case; it is an injustice.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for his continued engagement in good faith throughout the process. I can absolutely assure him that in due course we will return to the issues that he and his colleagues discussed with us and the concerns that they expressed in amendments in this place and the other House, but I have to reject his assumption that the process has somehow met its demise. It has not been abandoned. We have always been clear about the need for agreement on the US-UK exchange of notes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Chapman in the other place on 18 November:

“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 713.]

We have always been clear about the processes that need to be followed in parallel. It is regrettable that there has been a delay and that we have run out of time in this parliamentary Session, but the facts have not changed as to the need for the treaty or the need for the processes and legal provisions to be put in place.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises concerns about the Chagossians. He and I have discussed those concerns on a number of occasions. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community; there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by the delay with the treaty, not least for the very reason to which he refers, which is that we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement. I re-emphasise our commitment to restarting, at an appropriate time, the heritage visits, which are so important. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the current situation does not allow that, but we will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for heritage reasons.

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

The test of bad legislation is always whether it contains carte blanche Henry VIII powers—in this case in a thin and flimsy Bill—that grant the Government the right to do anything they like with the legislation, even after it has passed. That made it a dog of a Bill, but now the Government have paused it—or returned it, or U-turned, or whatever they are calling it. The Chagossians’ rights lie at the heart of this matter, so can I take the Minister back to the statement he made about the Chagossians? He talked about them wanting to come to some conclusion about their ability to return to the islands. The BIOT Supreme Court ruled that section 9 of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which barred the right of abode to Chagossians, was illegal, so why have the Government mounted an appeal against that, to ensure that it is illegal for them to go to their islands? Does he think the Chagossians have no right to go to the islands, or that they do have a right? Which is it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar with the history, so he will know the judgments in the courts of England and Wales on the matter of the right of abode. I am not going to comment on ongoing legal proceedings, save to say that we were disappointed by the position that was taken. Our understanding is that the BIOT is appealing that judgment and we have taken an interest in that matter.

Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The devil is in the detail. When it comes to China, everything is very complicated; there are no simple arguments or solutions. This is not an outright communist regime like North Korea. In theory, if someone is a Catholic, they are allowed to practise their faith, which is why my hon. Friend saw the church overflowing, but they have to practise in a way that is approved by the state.

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

The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. As I develop my speech, I will say that the Church and our leadership were perhaps naive in trusting the communist regime. The agreement is, frankly, proving to be worthless. That is often the case with China, as our own Government found in relation to Hong Kong.

Clergy are more or less required to align with the state body—the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association—in order to function properly in their parishes. The patriotic association has many levers of power at its disposal to use against those who refuse to conform to it, like those principled people mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) who for years were in underground churches. It is a case not of administrative oversight but of the direction of religion by the communist state. The Chinese Communist party has spent three quarters of a century attempting to effectively create an independent national church in China that will conform to the will of China’s secular rulers.

The Vatican-China agreement has resulted not in liberalisation but in stricter controls. Its full details have not been released—it is unbelievable—which prevents us from knowing its actual provisions. We do know from Chinese Catholics on the ground that institutional surveillance is continuing and increasing. State officials are now embedded into dioceses to monitor church life and report on it. In some areas, children are even banned from attending mass and other services. Seminarians are subject to political vetting, and clergy who trained abroad are often required to submit to the approval of the authorities and to retrain. Priests and religious personnel are required to surrender their passports. Surveillance, harassment and even imprisonment are normal.

The United Kingdom’s deal with China over Hong Kong gives us all cause for concern. The People’s Republic of China has continually run riot over it and made a mockery of it. Experience is showing that China is now doing the same with the Vatican’s agreement. We look to Pope Leo XIV for leadership and guidance. The agreement is up for periodic renewal. It has not been successful. We must be honest with ourselves and the world, even if that means not renewing the agreement.

Chinese Catholics and fellow Christians, as well as other persecuted minorities in China, should not have to suffer at the hands of the state. The United Kingdom must be vigorous in raising these subjects in diplomatic conversations. I say to the Minister that this must not just be an obligatory embarrassing aside, but a headline item in our interactions with the communist Chinese state.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter.

Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem.

The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping.

In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine.

That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten.

The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone.

By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs.

What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See, and therefore I go regularly to the Vatican to talk to Archbishop Gallagher, the Foreign Minister of the Vatican. He is an extremely clever, subtle and charming man, but it is very difficult to understand, despite having those personal conversations, what has actually been agreed. My view is that the Vatican is full of principled people who live in a moral dimension, and they are up against intellectual thugs, frankly. We have been sold a pup with this agreement, and we should reconsider it.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. Openness sometimes is a far better disinfectant for a problem than keeping it behind closed doors. As we know, the reality, even under the agreement, is pretty appalling. The Chinese get to appoint the bishops they want. People cannot have church house meetings. All the Protestants and other free churches now suffer massive persecution; they can be closed down because the umbrella of the Catholic Church has moved away from them.

What do we know about China? China is petrified about what happened to it, to Poland and eventually to the Soviet Union: the Catholic Church eventually broke down the whole adherence to communism in Poland; that infected pretty much the rest of the Soviet Union, which then collapsed. China is petrified that it will face the same. The only reason it did a deal with the Catholic Church at all was to try to put off the idea that it would be influential, and it has succeeded in that respect. I am very sorry that the previous Pope and the current Pope did not take it upon themselves to pursue this issue and sort it out. I take no pleasure in criticising the Church that I am a member of, but we have to be honest about this. The situation in China for Christians is appalling. We could have done more, and the Catholic Church could have done more, but we forget the Buddhists, we forget the Muslims, and we forget the others whose right to practise free faith has gone as well.

Before anybody says that I am only on the attack against the Labour Government, I want to say that I am not: when my party was in government, I was as much a thorn in their side as I am now in the side of the Labour Government. It is just the reality, and we have to face up to the facts. The recent visit by the Prime Minister to China was a problem. I simply say this to the Government. When the Minister responds to the debate, he must understand what has already been said by one of his colleagues: does economics trump freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech? If it does, we have gone down a bad road. If it does not, then why are we doing this right now?

Strait of Hormuz

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a swift resolution. We all want peace, stability and security in the region. Of course, Iran could end this by ending its reckless attacks on shipping, on allies in the region and on civilians, and it could do that right now.

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

Surely the problem we have is that the Government, having decided not to be involved in this, and then literally a day later deciding that they would be involved by granting America the use of our bases, have brought us into a war. Like it or not, that is where we are. I do not understand what “the wider war” means, when we are in the war; that is what is happening with the strait of Hormuz right now. The Government are playing with words in a sort of tautological tap dance because they have no idea what they should be doing, as they did not want to be here in the first place, but they are. The Minister should be honest: we are in the war. The question for him really is: what are we going to do about the strait of Hormuz, and what assets will we put there?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear: we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market, but that is not a simple task. To suggest that it is simple would not be doing it justice. [Interruption.] No, I mean the tenor of the questions that have been asked. As I have said, we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable, collective plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Any attempts by foreign Governments to intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the United Kingdom are protected by law. Ministers have raised those issues—including the arrest warrants placed on individuals in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong police—with the Chinese authorities. It is important to note that training and guidance on state threat activity is now being offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom.

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

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member will be aware that our concerns in relation to China’s breach of the Sino-British declaration are laid out clearly in our six-monthly report on Hong Kong. There will be a further report coming shortly, but Hong Kong is required to ensure, for example, that national security legislation upholds rights and freedoms, as is set out in the Basic Law. Indeed, we have repeatedly called on Beijing to repeal the national security law and release all individuals charged under it.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question on this serious matter. He will know that the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78-year-old man. We remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.

Sadly, this sentence is not a surprise. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing precisely to silence China’s critics. That is why the Government have long called for the repeal of the national security law, and for an end to the persecution of all individuals charged under it. It is also why the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. The Prime Minister’s visit allowed us to open up discussion with China. Making our case directly to the Chinese President is an approach being taken by the USA, Canada, France, Ireland and many other allies. In relation to private conversations that have happened, the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Mr Lai’s family, and I know that many in this House will want to express their support for the family. We recognise their fortitude at this incredibly difficult time.

This Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Hong Kong. That is why today the Home Secretary has announced the expansion of eligibility for the British national overseas visa route. The UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021, and we will unequivocally continue to uphold our commitments to them.

This Government’s utmost priority is to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, an elderly and unwell British citizen. He has endured an extraordinary ordeal for five years, and we call for it to end now. That is why we are focused on the action that will help him the most: sustained engagement with China, so that we can make our case consistently and directly. As the right hon. Member knows, we should not sit outside the room, refusing to engage and unable even to have that conversation. I am grateful for this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly.

I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is?

Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy.

The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there.

Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.

The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.

On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.