Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Today is 1,435 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has been nearly 12 years since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which many would say is when the war really began. The same fact stands as it did back in 2022 and back in 2014: we do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as Russian. That is why the policy of non-recognition is as paramount today as it has ever been.

Ukraine is a sovereign state with established borders, including Crimea and the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Those borders are recognised by the United Nations and the majority of states worldwide. All the partially occupied regions voted in a nationwide 1991 referendum for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. We must preserve the principle of territorial integrity. Ukraine’s borders are internationally recognised and any changes achieved by force have no legal validity. That protects a core principle of international law: the prohibition on acquiring territory through military force. The policy of non-recognition prevents the creation of a dangerous precedent that would allow other states to change borders through military aggression, undermining the UN charter and international treaties. Non-recognition matters because resolutions and official statements on non-recognition provide the legal and political foundations for imposing sanctions, internationally isolating the aggressor and holding it accountable for violations of international norms.

Furthermore, maintaining the status of those territories as part of Ukraine protects rights related to citizenship and legal protection, as well as the future processes of de-occupation and restoration of control. Non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories would send a clear signal to Russia, and other states willing to change borders by force, that there is a price to pay for aggression. It is crucial to remember that the weak international reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 enabled the current wave of Russian aggression, which is much more extensive and violent.

I will address the immensely human side of why non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is vital, as well as the horrors of occupation for children, civilians and detainees, and the eradication of Ukrainian identity through Russification. I will also address how there are shocking beliefs and disinformation about these atrocities not being true. Finally, I will detail the asks needed to uphold the prospect of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Non-recognition sends a single to the Ukrainian state and army that the international community supports its legitimate self-defence, including attempts to de-occupy all of its territory. Historically, non-recognition of illegal occupation made the reverse of such occupation easier, for instance in the case of the Baltic states’ occupation by the Soviet Union. It also sends a signal to our allies that international law matters, a signal to Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories that the international community cares about their fate, and a signal to Ukranians who had to flee the occupied territories that they might be able to return.

There are some significantly grave atrocities being committed against Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories. According to Freedom House, the index of civil and political rights in the Russian-occupied territories is minus 1. For comparison, North Korea’s index is 3. The Russian-occupied territories are the least free place in the world. More than 100,000 people in the occupied territories have been killed as of January 2026. If not killed, there are heavy efforts to engineer ideological control. In 2022, the Russian Ministry of Education dictionary instructed teachers on how to “re-educate” Ukrainian children based on Russian “spiritual and moral values”.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.

[Alex Sobel]

The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. There is no part of the occupied territories of Ukraine where the standard of living is anywhere near what it was prior to the occupation. People in those territories are being systematically deprived of their livelihoods and there has been a material decline in their standard of living. Obviously, those who object to the occupation have been tortured, mutilated or killed, as Freedom House has evidenced.

I would like to be the first to congratulate and celebrate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for this week being awarded the Ukrainian Order of Merit by President Zelensky. Since coming to this place, she has dedicated much of her time to working towards the return of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he speaks to my fundamental point about capitulation, surrender and the way that the Government have worked against Britain’s interests. We see that night and day, and it is unforgiveable.

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

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent start to this attack on the Government, but I will ask her a simple question. Should we not also dig a little deeper on the links between the Prime Minister and some of his earlier colleagues? That way, we would learn that Phillipe Sands, who was representing the Mauritian Government, had a deal done with the Russians over Crimea, in which he assured them, I understand, that the granting of independence and ownership for Mauritius would not impinge on their right to stay in Crimea. That was what brought their vote, and their support for this deal. Does that not look to my right hon. Friend as though it was absolute method traitorship?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. This Government are not standing up for our values or interests. Nor are they making any effort to demonstrate that they are on the side of our national security. Fundamentally, that is what this debate is all about.

It is diligent work and scrutiny by Conservatives in this House and the other place that has led to the Government being forced to pause this surrender. That has been achieved by our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US Administration, by asking for over 400 parliamentary debates, by securing two Opposition day debates, and thanks to you Mr Speaker, by asking urgent question after urgent question. We are here to demand answers that they never provide, but only hide, all thanks to their shameful outright contempt for Parliament and the British public.

The Opposition have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people, who have not only been betrayed but are being threatened in Britain. Their families are being intimidated by people associated with the Government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from their friends in the Chinese Communist party. This Labour Government will go down in history for many terrible things, but they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink its deeply corrosive policy, which is putting at risk our security and the safety of the Chagossian people. Instead, we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister, currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal—a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left-wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community.

We all know how this has gone completely wrong, although the Prime Minister could still take a different course. It has gone wrong because this surrender is completely unnecessary—because, as the Opposition know, it is based on an advisory opinion. Ministers have failed to give a convincing answer as to why we should accept it, and there is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the International Telecommunication Union. So tell us today, please.

We have not only a Government of incompetent politicians, but a Government of incompetent lawyers. In the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty “for no reason whatsoever.” Given this Labour Government’s obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking that they are not just misinterpreting it, but have overlooked essential detail in the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes. This is now the third time I have brought the exchange of notes to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, Mr Speaker. For the avoidance of any doubt in the House or any ignorance on the Government Benches, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia, states that the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

It goes on:

“Subject to the provisions set out below the islands”—

all the Chagos islands, not just Diego Garcia—

“shall be available to meet the needs of both Governments for defense”.

This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the British Indian Ocean Territory, and any attempt by the UK to surrender sovereignty over BIOT violates international law. Yet when the Government signed and published their treaty on 22 May last year, and then published their surrender Bill, there was not a single mention in either the treaty or the Bill of the need for the exchange of notes.

On Monday, in response to our urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said:

“we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration”,—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 599.]

but this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty. When we have questioned this in both Houses, Ministers have merely said:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters”,

but the exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of the documents accompanying the legislation.

I think this House deserves an explanation. When did the talks begin? What is the status of the talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US Government last year, when the Prime Minister said that the US supported the treaty? Why did the Government try to force through their surrender Bill without confirming the future of the exchange of notes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On that point, will the hon. Lady take an intervention?

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a little progress before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that

“taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. [Interruption.] I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition—some might not remember who she is, but she is still in post, I believe. She may have defected to Reform.

What I will say—this is a serious point—is that there has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), debated it for more than two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday in an urgent question. Baroness Chapman of Darlington has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including during an urgent question on Monday. We have committed to this deal and to these hours of debate because it is important that we do so. Courts had already begun to make decisions that undermined our position in relation to the security of the base.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The answer to that question has been set out by Lord Coaker, and I will be laying it out—[Interruption.] The answer is yes, and it has been set out by Lord Coaker in the other place. I will come on to that in my remarks.

There have been questions from the Opposition today about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius’s legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I understand that the Prime Minister of Mauritius made it clear yesterday that he would not allow or agree to the placing of any nuclear weapons on the islands. Can the Minister please answer the question of how the Government can reassure the USA?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will be coming on to that point in my remarks. That is important.

I want to finish my point on the legal matters that have been raised. What the International Court of Justice said in its advisory opinion carries significant weight and is likely to be influential on any subsequent court or tribunal that considers the issues arising out of disputed sovereignty and whose judgment would be binding in international law. The ICJ—

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

I did indeed. My point is that when the Conservatives had the opportunity to provide the bases for their objection to the Bill, they did not once mention the rights of the Chagossian community.

It is clear that those rights are just as low a priority for the Conservatives as they are for the Government. When the Liberal Democrats proposed, in Committee of the whole House, an amendment to the Bill that would have provided for a referendum of the Chagossian people, the Conservatives failed to back it and the Government opposed it. Even at this late stage, however, I want to encourage the Government to reconsider their position. There remains a window of opportunity for the Government to support the rights of Chagossians and buck the historical trend of this community being left out of decisions about their future. Will the Government therefore support a second Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that would require binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius on the rights of Chagossians?

Another outstanding issue is the question of money. The Government are proposing to send billions of pounds to Mauritius, despite having what appears to be zero monitoring, evaluation or recall mechanisms built into the treaty. It is inconceivable that the Government would oppose the introduction of such measures or fail to support the principle that the UK should be able to cease future payments to Mauritius if the treaty were deemed no longer to support the UK’s security, so will the Government back a third Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place introducing meaningful and effective safeguards around the proposed vast sums of public funds due to be sent to Mauritius?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

This is a really important point, because the Government say that they have cleared this with the Office for Budget Responsibility, but the actuaries have been clear that we cannot calculate this on the basis of what happens in Mauritius, given its social issues and inflation—that would be ridiculous—and that we have to calculate it on the basis that the agreement we have made gives a total at the end, which is £34.7 billion. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that dodging around that really is a low position for the Government to take?

[Calum Miller]

The way I think about it, the Government are proposing to write 99 years-worth of cheques to Mauritius that the Mauritians will be able to cash over that period. It only stands to reason that this Parliament should be able to scrutinise such large expenditure during the duration of the treaty, in order to have some accountability for these funds.

As things stand, this deal appears to be going the way of the dodo—another redundant creature that originated in Mauritius. I implore the Government to listen to the concerns raised across this House and recognise that the Bill in its current form is not fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to be called so soon, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am very grateful.

My goodness me! I do feel sorry for the Minister, being wheeled out to defend the indefensible. I have to say, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has done a Trojan piece of work on behalf of the Government, and it is only fair that he should be given the day off.

Every day is a school day when it comes to Chagos, is it not? We learn something new every day of the week, it seems. Perhaps the Government might like to reflect on whether, in that wonderful Keynesian way, when the facts change, we change our mind—apparently not. The facts have changed. The ground truth has certainly changed, not least the attitude of the United States; that is clear beyond peradventure. In February last year, the then Foreign Secretary said that without US agreement, the deal would be dead. But in recent days, the US commander-in-chief, no less, has said that the deal is “stupid” and “weak”. There cannot be any ambiguity in that. That is the contemporaneous view of our greatest partner and friend. Surely to goodness, that is justification for pausing the deal.

We have learned about the Pelindaba treaty. I have to say that I was not aware of it until very recently, but it is a showstopper. Paul Bérenger, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, recently said that there will be no nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. He has been very helpful to the Government by laying out exactly what things will look like when Mauritius takes control of Diego Garcia. The Minister says, “Well, we cannot comment on that because it is operational,” but that is precisely what it is not. We are not talking about precise B-52s or Ohio class submarines going into Diego Garcia—I do not want to know about that. What I want to know about is the legal structure within which it is possible for these things to be in Diego Garcia and Chagos in general.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I made this point to the Minister earlier, but perhaps my right hon. Friend might also explain it. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius made it clear as recently as yesterday that—as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said—there is no ambiguity at all: no nuclear weapons on Chagos for any Government.

[Dr Murrison]

That is precisely the case; it is as plain as a pikestaff, yet the Government persist with the policy.

It is perfectly reasonable and respectable for the Government to say, “The facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, so we will pause this. There is no hurry in this matter, nor any dishonour in saying that we need to consult on it more widely—potentially indefinitely. Nevertheless, we will continue the process and keep it open.” I appreciate that, to save the Government’s blushes, we cannot simply can it, but we can pause it.

If the Minister wants more evidence that the Chagossians have been trampled all over during this process, she need only refer to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which said in December 2025 that we should pause the deal in order to ensure that the Chagossians’ voices are properly heard. She is being attacked from all quarters, and the unifying message from all those quarters is, “For goodness sake, let’s pause this—just think again.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is right. From memory, I think he is referring to article 3 of the 1996 treaty, which explicitly talks about researching and so on. The Government need to set out the implications and how that treaty interacts with this treaty that they are signing or want us to ratify.

Let us step back a bit further. We are in this position, the Government argue, because of a non-binding ICJ judgment. I will ask the Minister again: with which court does he believe there would be a problem? The Government have said time and again that we could be brought into conflict with several courts. The Defence Secretary was worried about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, but we already know from a 2015 ruling against the UK over Mauritius that they cannot judge sovereignty, so that one is out the window.

Earlier, I asked the Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) about this issue, and she mentioned the 2021 special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. As she will know, the UK was not party to give information to that, and it rested on the non-binding judgment of the ICJ, which is already contested. There is an opt-out, because it is a Commonwealth interaction. Months on, the Government still cannot answer these simple questions.

Another body that is often referred to—we will go over this again—is the International Telecommunication Union. We know from the Government’s own written answers that article 48 of the ITU constitution states that it cannot judge sovereignty. The Government know that, and I do not understand why they will not just stand here and say that.

On finances, the figures and what they are made up of is contested. The Government are right on their figure, and the Opposition are right on our figure, but how can that be? It is because of the mechanism being used to judge that value. The Opposition contest that the best way to work out the figure is the nominal value used by the Government actuaries. The deal is over 100 years, and we have to take into account what things will look like and other factors. The Government actuaries say that the cost is £34 billion, yet the Government are using net present value, which gives us £3.4 billion. I am glad that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is here, because I posed this question to him in the last debate, and his answer was that the figure is in the Green Book. I retorted:

“Can the Minister point to any other country in the world that has used NPV to give away sovereignty?”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 748.]

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I ran the Department for Work and Pensions, which spent the whole time looking at net present value. The key problem is that we do not use net present value when dealing with a foreign country for a very simple reason: we have no idea what social issues will erupt or change. While we have control in the UK, we do not have control of a foreign country. That immediately distorts the payment amount, plus net present value strips out relevant inflation, which makes it much cheaper, officially. The real cost that we have to bear is the £34.7 billion that the actuaries have stated, not this nonsense of net present value.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will try to keep my words brief, because so much of this has already been laid out by my colleagues, although I see no reason why I cannot repeat it.

In essence, this whole thing falls on to a couple of stools, but there is an intervening issue. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and I have been to Ukraine together, and I have a very high regard for him. The Government ought to put him on their Front Bench as soon as possible, because he will make less of a mess of it than the others. [Interruption.] It was a compliment. Having been in government, I have to tell him that it was quite a compliment.

The hon. Gentleman talked, quite rightly, about ambiguity—sometimes determined ambiguity, and sometimes inadvertent ambiguity. What China is doing in the South China seas is against international law and has been condemned by the United Nations, absolutely and clearly. China has no right to that area, historic or otherwise, but the Chinese have ignored that, and are now putting defensive forts in the area. We have seen them threaten the Philippines, barge their boats out of the way and fire shots over them. The same goes for Vietnam. They are threatening Taiwan as well. All those countries lay a certain amount of claim to the area, but the Chinese have ignored that.

The one thing that the Chinese want to do is extend their position to the trade routes. If the Chinese Government could gain control of the east-west trade routes—which, strangely enough, flow right past the Chagos islands—that would be an absolute win for them. They would be able to choke the trade going from east to west whenever they wished to do so. People might say, “Well, they wouldn’t do that, would they?” Oh yes, they would. They are now talking about blockading Taiwan as part of that process.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a realist, and on that basis I simply say that we need to look at the Chagos islands, and to look at this treaty, in the light of the threat to the free world from this unbelievably brutal but enormously growing power—a threat that is itself growing in plain sight. It is worth our reminding ourselves that the Chinese are building a navy that, as even United States experts accept, will outgrow US naval forces within two years. That is really important. Any one shipyard in China today builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States of America and probably Europe as well, and China has many naval shipyards.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I spoke earlier about the naval problem, but China has also built an incredible number of intercontinental ballistic missile silos. It is hugely increasing its nuclear arsenal and refuses to come to the table for negotiations on non-proliferation treaties. Is this not the most ridiculous time to give up the certainty of being able to house nuclear weapons at a strategic site?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will come on to that, but my right hon. Friend is right. I just wanted to provide the background information on what the problem is. The problem is China. Remember that China supports Russia, so the very idea that a British citizen—Philippe Sands in this case, representing Mauritius—should actually negotiate with and talk to the Russians about how this would not make it difficult for them to hold on to Crimea strikes me as astounding. It is astonishing that a British citizen should even engage with them on this. That tells us that the nature of some of the people who are involved in this is questionable indeed.

The background, then, is “What is the threat?” It could be argued, I think, that the threat is now greater than it has been at any time since the second world war, and certainly since the end of the cold war. We are in a new environment, and that new environment requires us to understand the nature of our assets and how we would maximise those assets, not minimise them. My argument here is slightly different: we have taken the wrong decision over Chagos for the wrong reasons. If we had stepped back and then asked ourselves about this in 10, five or even two years’ time, when China is estimated to have a more powerful fleet in the Pacific than the United States can muster at any stage, would we really say that we ought to let the Chagos islands go and put them in the hands of Mauritius, which China lauds in almost every announcement that it makes and with which it has a very good relationship?

[Dr Mullan]

Even if we accept the Government’s position that Mauritius does not get on particularly well with China, are we really leaving in the hands of fate the question of whether the Mauritians might change their minds 50 years from now and seek to line up with China’s sphere of influence? It is a huge gamble to take.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I fundamentally agree with him. In a way, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is not here—that is not to say that I have a detrimental view of the Minister now on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—and I worry about why he is not here. I hope he is not suffering from “long Chagos.” Maybe we should send him a “get well” card very soon. We miss him, because we are definitely seeing studied ambivalence at the Dispatch Box as a master strategic plan.

I will repeat what has been said by a number of colleagues: we know from yesterday, if we needed to know it at all, that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it categorically clear that there will be no allowance for nuclear weapons, either parked or landed, on the Chagos islands while the treaty exists. The hon. Member for Macclesfield rightly spoke about studied ambivalence, but there was no ambivalence in the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. He is completely clear, yet we are ambivalent. For us, ambivalence is a mistake, because it allows the statements of fact to be presented by those who will take control of Chagos. That is not just a mistake, but a disastrous mistake.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I think there is a further twist, because the Pelindaba treaty not only prohibits the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of Mauritius, which the Chagos islands would become, but requires an inspection regime. I understand that the country that would carry out the inspection is South Africa, which is somewhat closer to China and Russia—particularly where naval co-operation is concerned—than it is to America or the United Kingdom.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he normally is. The reality is that the treaty to which he refers is very clear that its signatories cannot modify it; they must categorically agree not to have nuclear weapons on their territory. We are in the business of giving that territorial right to Mauritius, so there is no question but that the treaty will apply to Chagos.

That brings me to the other thing that the Government simply do not want to face up to: the 1966 treaty between the USA and the UK is absolutely clear. The Government obfuscate by calling it an “exchange of letters”, but it is actually a treaty. When we talk about an exchange of letters, it sounds like a “get well” card or something that one puts in the post. The Government say that this is not a big problem and that we can just exchange a few letters to each other:

“How are you getting on?”

“Fine. What about you?”

“We’re just going to give the islands away. Are you okay with that?”

“We’re okay with that—no problems. Can you give us a bit more detail?”

“We will when it is all passed. Don’t worry about it. We’ll be with you on this.”

No, it is a treaty. It has the substance of being a treaty, and that substance states categorically:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

We cannot arbitrarily change that; we have to have full agreement from the USA. I do not believe that the United States really understood that it would not have sovereign rights over the base. I do not think the Government ever bothered to explain that, because I seem to recall that when this whole debate began, it was never mentioned. The Government did not come forward and say, “Yes, we’re going to get this Bill through. It’s not in the Bill, but we’ll exchange letters with you afterwards, because although it’s relevant and it’s completely sovereign, we don’t want to talk about it.”

The Government have to explain why they have never made any significant mention of that at all, because it now has a massive bearing on what happens to this really poor treaty, which is badly drafted, hurriedly written and only a few pages long. I sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty—rebelling, of course—and the reality was that it was huge. Every aspect of our arrangements was in there and was debatable and amendable. It has been horrific to see how quickly the Government want to get the Bill through. I honestly think that it is madness.

I come to the cost. The other bit that is completely wrong is the Government’s desire to show how little they have had to pay under the treaty to get what they consider to be a reasonable lease. Is it not ironic that the Government are now moving against leaseholders here in the UK? They do not like leases. Apparently, people do have enough power over their leases. I simply say that the Government should learn from their own views about what is happening domestically. The lease is a terrible thing at times, because it gives people so little control. This is going to be a lease.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and if he was not already sanctioned by the Chinese, he would be by the end of it. Does he recall that Disraeli said in opposition, “We may not win the vote tonight, but we can win the argument?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are we winning the argument, but the Government are failing by not answering any questions or making any argument at all?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Indeed. In fact, rather than us winning the argument, the Government have simply lost the argument. That is even more powerful, because they are making no effort to explain it. I honestly feel sorry for Ministers. I have sat in government, and I know that Ministers are sent out to bat and to defend the indefensible, which they have to do well. I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, as he knows, but good luck to him on this one—he will need to make his speech brief, because we will intervene.

I simply say that the cost is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) brilliantly laid it out, so I will not repeat the specifics. As I said to him, having sat in government, I know how these figures are put together. There is no way on earth that a Government should use net present value for a foreign treaty that covers a period of over 90 years—it is an absurdity. We have no control over the social obligations in Mauritius, which may shift and change. We have no control over what the Mauritians’ economic policy will be and the impact of inflation. The treaty can only really be used for domestic issues, and I think this is a shimmy by the Government to try to get the cost down, absurdly, to £3.4 billion, when in fact it is £34.7 billion. That figure is probably wrong, because I think it will be more than that over the long term. This is another absurdity and an excuse to be got rid of.

All the other points have been made, so I will not dwell on them, but I do want to dwell on this point. It was wrong to have chucked the Chagossians off their islands in 1966—it was a bad decision and an immoral one, and we need to own up to that fact. My Government should have done so, and we should own up to the fact that we owe the Chagossians something better. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, has talked about a referendum, and that is one of the possibilities, but I will tell the House what I would do if I was in government. I would say to the Chagossians, “Listen, we’re not going to do the deal with Mauritius; we’ll do the deal with you. You’ll be allowed back to the islands, with full rights, and we’ll negotiate with you on how we will work together, with British control overall but with you being paid.” I would rather pay the money to them, so that they can live their lives better, than to Mauritius. We know that many of the Chagossians have had terrible problems in Mauritius and have been treated like second-class citizens. For that reason, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has come out and said that the treaty should not go ahead, and I agree with that.

There is both a factual problem and a human rights problem with the treaty, and there is an overarching threat to our freedom and to the freedom of those elsewhere in the free world. If we give way, let the treaty go through and do not end this nonsense, we will forever have it over our heads that we lost control of the most critical area in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

It is a curious position to hold: the previous Conservative Government started negotiations because they wanted to act like a trade union. I think that is a poor example.

I was asked a number of important questions in the debate, and I am happy to reply to some of them, but I will start with some context. It is staggering that the Conservatives in government held 11 rounds of negotiations—85% of the negotiations were conducted with them—and yet seem to have collective amnesia. They seem to think that they stopped the deal, but according to a statement on gov.uk on 29 April 2024, the then Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister

“discussed the progress made in negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on the exercise of sovereignty”

over BIOT. It went on to say:

“Both leaders…instructed their teams to continue to work at pace.”

A general election was called less than a month later. It is staggering that the Conservatives are doing this.

Let me be absolutely clear: when we came into office, we inherited negotiations on this matter that had already had 11 rounds. We reinforced our terms, adding a 24-nautical mile buffer zone, so that no activity can take place there without our say so, and an effective veto on all development in the Chagos archipelago.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I completely and utterly opposed my Government when they started this, categorically—[Interruption.] Oh, I did. I have been in opposition no matter who is in government. I have to say to the Minister, though, that it is not what you start; it is what you finish. Even though I was opposed to the negotiations, when I spoke to Lord Cameron and said that he had to stop it, he took the decision to finish it. Why will this Government not see the evidence and stop this now?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not really understand the premise of the question. We have always been clear that we would work closely with our key defence and security ally the United States in securing the base on Diego Garcia. We have set out on a number of occasions the processes by which we would need to bring this treaty into force. There is simply no gotcha moment here. This has been clear, and it was made clear to those in the other place, but perhaps Members have not been reading the answers to the questions.

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

Is it not clear that the Minister, who is normally very benign, is now rather tetchy? If he was so sure of what he says, why did he not make a statement rather than be dragged to the Floor of the House by the Opposition? When the previous Foreign Secretary made the clear statement that, if the US says no, this deal is off, was he referring to the 1966 arrangements or was he just doing it off the cuff?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have always been clear that we would work closely with the United States to put in place the agreements to protect our national security and the operations on Diego Garcia. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what this Bill and this deal secures. I have set out clearly the importance of updating the exchange of notes. That has been clear throughout and it was made clear in the other place before Christmas. It has been made clear on a number of occasions. Really, there is nothing new here.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.

I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.

The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.

Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know this subject is very important to him. He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.

On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.

I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.

Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.

Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.

The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.

Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.

There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.

I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.

There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, together with widespread grand corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment; notes that global human rights and anti-corruption sanctions, commonly known as Magnitsky sanctions, remain an essential mechanism for accountability and redress, yet their implementation by the United Kingdom is inconsistent and insufficient, and lacks oversight; regrets that numerous individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned, that enforcement and transparency around decision-making remains inadequate, and that sanctioned individuals continue to exploit evasion methods while victims receive limited support; further notes the absence of a long-term strategy for the management of frozen assets and a lack of clear criteria for delisting, alongside growing concerns that sanctions are becoming politicised internationally; urges the Government to strengthen the credibility of the Magnitsky sanctions regime through consistent and impartial application, enhanced enforcement, and by ensuring greater Parliamentary oversight and expanded measures to support victims, including developing pathways for compensation; and holds that, relevant to this, those involved in the arbitrary detention of British nationals should face Magnitsky sanctions, including those involved in the detention of Ryan Cornelius, Jagtar Singh Johal and Jimmy Lai.

I rise to speak to the motion in my name, which is supported by 17 hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, I welcome the advent of the growing use of Magnitsky sanctions as a major development in accountability for human rights abuse and corruption.

These sanctions are named after Sergei Magnitsky, a tax adviser killed in a Russian prison after exposing fraud by Russian Government officials. Magnitsky sanctions freeze perpetrators’ assets and stop them travelling internationally, and they are now used by the UK, the US, the EU and Canada, which together represent over one third of global GDP. In the UK, Magnitsky sanctions stop perpetrators accessing London, the world’s second largest financial centre and the world’s largest luxury property market. Sanctions are most effective when the various jurisdictions work together to close perpetrators off from, and drive them away from, financial markets.

Looking at the comparative picture, the US has sanctioned 608 individuals and entities under its Magnitsky-style regime, though 20 have been delisted. Of those designations, 17 relate to Russia, with one since delisted, and 34 are against China and six against the United Arab Emirates for corruption. By contrast—and this is the point I really want to make—since introducing Magnitsky sanctions in the legislation passed in 2020, the UK has imposed 164 designations under its global human rights regime and 65 under the global anti-corruption regime. That makes a total of 229 Magnitsky-style designations, of which 60 relate to Russia, eight to China and none to the UAE.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend so early on, but he has mentioned Russia several times. He will be aware that there has been much talk about ceasefires, but there is no sign of one yet, because Putin still thinks he is winning in Ukraine. Would he agree with me that, if we really want to compel Putin to stop killing Ukrainians, we need to increase sanctions on the Russian Government, particularly on their hydrocarbons, which means action not just by us and Europe, but further sanctions from the United States?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a tool here that can be used to drive back those who act badly—in this particular case, against a country illegally invading a neighbouring democratic state—so we should use this ability to sanction those involved and to increase such sanctions dramatically. I know Labour Members will be raising this issue, but they will have noted what he has said.

The UK and the US have imposed extensive additional sanctions on Russian individuals and entities under the Russia-specific sanctions regimes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to note, those regimes use broader designation grounds and, crucially, do not usually acknowledge an individual’s direct involvement in human rights abuses in Ukraine or elsewhere. That distinction matters, and this should be rectified by the UK Government. The symbolic and moral force of the Magnitsky sanctions is precisely to name perpetrators and link consequences directly to human rights abuses, and that is what sets them apart. In sheer volume, the contrast is stark. The US has imposed well over 5,000 such Russia-related non-Magnitsky designations, and the UK about 2,900. Yet despite this scale, the absence in most cases of any explicit human rights attribution in such regimes means an important opportunity for accountability is being missed.

As a mechanism in the Government’s foreign policy toolkit, Magnitsky sanctions have a huge potential. However, important gaps remain in their implementation, raising serious concerns about their overall effectiveness. There is no publicly available information on the number of Magnitsky sanctions evidence dossiers received by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, based on estimates since the inception of the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, the FCDO receives on average about two or three dossiers of evidence per month from civil society organisations, which often identify between three and 15 individuals or entities alleged to be implicated in human rights violations. This means that since July 2020, the FCDO has received evidence on anywhere between 360 and 3,000 alleged perpetrators of serious human rights violations. In stark contrast, only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under the global human rights regime and global anti-corruption regime, to date.

The limited number of Magnitsky sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. Designations tend to overlook broader command structures, instead focusing on isolated actors, excluding key backers or enablers and failing to adopt when sanctioned entities rebrand. For example, Chen Zhi is one of the many leaders of scam networks with bases in south-east Asia trafficking and torturing vulnerable individuals to compel them to scam citizens here in the UK and abroad. The news that the UK and the US sanctioned some of those responsible is always welcome, but those sanctions fail to target Cambodian Government figures who are themselves implicated in the practice, or who turn a blind eye to those violations.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining the debate and on highlighting how the Magnitsky sanctions could be used more effectively. Could he explain to the House, and for my benefit, what effect, if one applies sanctions to some foreign leader, dictator or person who is in a completely different jurisdiction, does a sanction actually have and how can it be made to bite on the interests of that person so that the sanctions are actually felt by that person?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It has two effects. First, anything to do with any finance or movement or visitations to the United Kingdom are immediately ruled out and the seizure of financial entities can take place. Secondly, it influences other countries to do the same. America may work with us on that, too. Two of the greatest financial markets are then shut to an individual, who may be part of a Government, thus making it highly difficult for them to operate, or to come and enjoy themselves—a lot of that is done. They become pariahs internationally and that has a huge effect, because it influences what others near them will do when they realise they are about to lose their access to very important areas—cities and financial markets. It has already shown to have had a massive knock-on effect.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House who actually does the research that leads to people being identified for sanctioning, whether there is resistance in such places as the City of London, which no doubt could make enormous financial profits from having illicit money deposited there, and whether such places are incentivised to turn a blind eye when attempts are made to camouflage the real sources of the dirty money flowing in?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Many groups are doing that research at the moment, some of them private and voluntary organisations, but the Foreign Office itself is meant to be doing it. I am struck by the fact that it does not always check everybody’s backgrounds. The reality is that it must be much more intense and we must start going after these people. The City of London had a bad reputation for dirty money. A lot of that has stopped now as a result of the Russian sanctions. More importantly, individual sanctions also helped to end that. We need to be much more particular about where that money is coming from and how, and who are the individuals who are behind the use of that money. My right hon. Friend is quite right about that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

If I keep giving way, I will end up losing time. But I will give way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to bring this issue forward. Some 229 people have designated by the United Kingdom, and 3,000 Russians have been designated after the invasion of Ukraine. However, weak enforcement risks hollowing out the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of the UK’s Magnitsky-style sanctions. If this House is serious about protecting life and dignity, we must ensure that these tools are used consistently and enforced credibly. I am often reminded of the example of Jesus Christ, the greatest leader and yet the greatest servant. He protected lives by giving his own. We, as leaders, should echo his example by diligently helping those who cannot help themselves.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. It is important to get justice and to make sure that others who would be tempted to go down that road realise there will be real penalties to pay.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate on Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses. There are numerous ways that sanctioned individuals have attempted to evade UK authorities, in particular when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Does he agree that co-ordination with our international allies, as well as being at the cutting edge of technology, is key to ensuring that increasingly evasive individuals are brought to heel?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is the whole point of today’s debate. My feeling is that this Government and even the previous Government have to a degree dragged their feet. I often say to the Minister, who I know very well—we have debated with each other endlessly—that it seems not to matter who is in government, because the Foreign Office retains its reluctance over many sanctions. He will deny that, of course, because it is his job to do so, but I see him as a very decent individual and he must know in his heart of hearts that there is more that we could do. I will leave that for the moment, until he has the chance to wind up the debate.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a perception in my constituency and across the country that the money laundering checks on individual consumers going for a mortgage or buying something expensive such as a car seem to be more stringent than those for the millionaire- billionaire foreign investors who are investing in the City of London?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The whole point of the debate is to ensure that we know where the money comes from, that we know how it has been gained, and that the individuals must pay a penalty if they are involved in what is illegal or inhuman. The key point is that all those matters can be picked out by the Magnitsky sanctions.

I mentioned Myanmar earlier. Despite historically leaning on sanctions against Myanmar’s military junta for its role in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its civilian population after the 2021 coup, the UK has failed to target the State Security and Peace Commission, the military’s successor to the UK-sanctioned State Administration Council. Without additional sanctions, the State Security and Peace Commission, which was established in an attempt by the military to rebrand itself and rebuild financial ties with international partners, has effectively succeeded in its mission. That is exactly what we should have been tackling through the sanctions available to us, but we have not done so.

Finally, last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. However, no action was taken against their key military and diplomatic backer, the United Arab Emirates, or their chief commander. That highlights a broader, troubling trend: to date, only a fraction of Magnitsky sanctions have ever been applied by the UK Government to perpetrators from countries considered strategic allies of the UK. That is a very important point to make; politics have an awful lot to do with this issue. As reported by REDRESS, several of the most notorious human rights abusers and corrupt actors, including in Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Eritrea, the UAE and Egypt—we have mentioned Russia, too—have not been sanctioned by the UK.

I will now come to some examples of individuals and contexts that remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of involvement in corruption and serious human rights issues. Let me deal now with China. While the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in China’s violent repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from human rights organisations. REDRESS— I know, because I have seen the evidence—previously submitted it to the FCDO, calling for targeted sanctions on the following individuals and entities for their involvement in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang.

All of the following are sanctioned by the US—our ally—but not by the UK. The persons recommended for designations are: Chen Quanguo, party secretary of the Xinjiang Chinese Communist party and the key driver of the policy of genocide; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissar of the XPCC, who was sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; Peng Jiarui, deputy party secretary and commander of the XPCC, sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Public Security Bureau, sanctioned by the US on 9 July 2020. As somebody sanctioned by the Chinese Government myself—like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for raising the issues of Xinjiang at the time, I think that that is a major omission. These are the key people—close almost to President Xi himself—who, when sanctioned, will really feel it. They are locked out of America, but have not been locked out by us. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps the FCDO will take to ensure that sanctions are consistently applied to all actors involved in human rights abuses and corruption?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Why is there no transatlantic co-operation on this? What does my right hon. Friend think is the cause of that lack of co-operation ?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I really do not know the answer to that question. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we act individually and are supposed to co-operate, but that does not always work. We have seen with the Chinese and others that America leads the way and we half follow, or do not follow at all. My concern is that we do not champion such action in the way that we could and should as an upholder of human rights and freedom. This country has a huge record in that area and we need to use it much more.

I am not the only Member of this House to have raised concerns about the relationship between the Government of the United Arab Emirates and the activities of the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan. What is going on in Sudan is brutal, bloody and huge, even in comparison to what is happening in somewhere like Gaza. It is an astonishing abuse of human rights and the value of life. The RSF is responsible for brutal murders, rapes, attacks on hospitals and significant numbers of killings, and yet this organisation has been supported heavily by the UAE. It is said that without the support of the UAE, there would not now be a major war going on in Sudan. There are really big questions to be asked here, because without those arms shipments and other support, there would not be the fighting and terrible consequences that we see in Sudan.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to reporting by The New York Times in June last year, which, citing US intelligence sources, references the involvement of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Deputy President of the UAE, in co-ordination with the RSF and in his role as chair of two charities funding hospitals in Chad that have allegedly been used in the distribution of weapons to the RSF. The investigation further reports that the US envoy to Sudan confronted Sheikh Mansour personally in 2024 about his support for General Hamdan of the RSF. As the ultimate owner of Manchester City football club, Sheikh Mansour is possibly the most high-profile UAE investor in the UK economy. What are we going to do about that? That is a signal and serious problem for us.

Will the Minister confirm that, given the appalling crimes of the RSF, which fall squarely in the purview of the global human rights sanctions scheme, the Department has carried out a full assessment of whether representatives of the UAE Government may meet the criteria for sanctions, given the significant role the UAE is alleged to play in support of the RSF and the substantial influence of the UAE on investments in the UK economy and public life? If such an assessment has not been carried out, will the Minister say whether it is the Government’s intention to do so?

Individuals arbitrarily detained abroad are particularly vulnerable to torture, ill treatment and other serious human rights violations, from the moment they are detained. The Government’s own figures show that in 2024 the FCDO received 186 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. Arbitrary detention and related human rights abuses have long-lasting effects on those who experience them; following release, survivors must bear the physical, psychological and socioeconomic toll of their captivity.

This makes it all the more concerning that the list of British nationals currently subject to arbitrary detention abroad is long. I am going to read out the names on it: Jagtar Singh Johal; Ryan Cornelius, whose family are with us today in the Gallery; Jimmy Lai; Nnamdi Kanu; Christian James Michel; Matthew Alexander Pascoe; Ramze Shihab Ahmed al-Rifa’i; Charles Ridley; Mehran Raoof; Craig and Lindsay Foreman; and Ahmed al-Doush. I want to focus on two particular cases that exemplify the FCDO’s reluctance to use Magnitsky sanctions to challenge arbitrary detention: first, Ryan Cornelius; secondly, Jimmy Lai.

A case that underscores the ongoing failure of the UK Government—and, I have to say, that of their predecessor—to effectively employ Magnitsky sanctions to deter and punish those responsible for arbitrarily detaining and mistreating UK nationals is, of course, that of Ryan Cornelius, who has been arbitrarily detained in Dubai for more than 17 years. I want to mention the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who has raised this issue on a number of occasions. I congratulate him on his support for the Cornelius family. This arbitrary detention also applies to Charles Ridley, Ryan Cornelius’s business partner, but I will focus today on Ryan.

Unlike the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ryan’s plight has been met with deafening silence, despite well-documented evidence of an unfair trial and the inhumane treatment that has been meted out to him. His detention has been found arbitrary by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. Ryan’s original 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years at the behest of the Dubai Islamic Bank, which has used his imprisonment as leverage to seize his assets, rendering his family essentially homeless.

The FCDO has been reluctant to engage fully with the detail of Ryan’s case from the very beginning. Even now, Ryan’s family—who, as I said, are with us in the Public Gallery—are repeatedly forced to set out the basic facts of his case at every single meeting with the FCDO or Ministers, despite the fact that they are fully known to them. Despite repeated calls from Ryan’s family and from MPs for sanctions against Dubai officials, the UK Government have taken no action. Not a single individual has been sanctioned for their role in this case.

I urge the Minister to look at imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizure. I am going to list just eight people who are involved in the board of the Dubai bank: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, vice-chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, also a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi; Dr Hamad Buamim; Javier Marin Romano; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb; and Dr Cigdem Kogar. I offer up the names of these people, all of whom are involved in this case, for the Government to think carefully about taking action. Unfortunately, Ryan’s case appears to be a clear example of economic interests taking precedence over human rights, largely because the UAE is such a major financial investor and trading partner.

I am afraid that that double standard is not limited to Ryan’s case. India—another country with a recent trade deal—continues to hold a British citizen in arbitrary detention without consequences. Jagtar Singh Johal, from Dumbarton, Scotland, was violently arrested in 2017 while in India to get married. He was tortured and has endured eight years of detention, which the UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled

“lacks legal basis and is arbitrary”.

After lots of hearings—hundreds of them—prosecutors in India have failed to produce credible evidence against Jagtar, and the UK must now use every diplomatic lever to bring him home.

I want to return, finally, to the case of Jimmy Lai. The time has come, surely, for the UK to wield its sanctions authority against the officials responsible for repression in Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai’s guilty conviction for “foreign collusion” and “sedition” on 15 December, which paves the way for Hong Kong’s courts to sentence the 78-year-old British citizen to life in prison, is the final straw.

Beijing has trashed the Sino-British joint declaration, crushed the freedoms it promised Hongkongers and the world, and imprisoned nearly 2,000 political prisoners, including Jimmy Lai. I have long called for the Government to hold the Hong Kong authorities to account for their persecution of the pro-democracy campaigner, who is guilty only of performing his duties as publisher of Hong Kong’s Apple Daily newspaper by speaking to diplomats and other overseas officials.

Not a single Hong Kong individual is named on the UK sanctions list, which sets out all the people, entities and vessels sanctioned by Britain. In comparison, the US has sanctioned 11 officials from the top of Hong Kong’s Administration downwards. How is it that this country, which used to administer and run Hong Kong, has not sanctioned a single person in that process? The three judges responsible for Jimmy Lai’s outrageous guilty verdict—Esther Toh, Alex Lee and Susana D’Almada Remedios, two of whom were called to the bar in London—should be immediate targets, as should the prosecutors: Maggie Yang, Anthony Chau, Ivan Cheung, Crystan Chan and Karen Ng Ka-yue.

Despite the clear role that Magnitsky sanctions could play in these cases, the Government do not treat them as a core foreign policy tool for protecting British citizens abroad. They should not be reserved for politically convenient situations but applied consistently, particularly when we have economic leverage over the perpetrating state. The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally recommended the use of Magnitsky sanctions to deter state hostage taking, and survivors themselves have repeatedly called for their use.

I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say, as I think the House wants to get a sense of where the Government are moving on this and whether they intend to increase the level of sanctions or speed them up. If they do so, they will receive my support and, I believe, the support of the Opposition side of the House. These are important moments, and this debate is important.

When this House passed the Magnitsky Act, we did so in good faith. This singular tool would help us in the fight against the abuses of powerful people, particularly in the defence of British citizens who have been wrongly detained and are without the ability to defend themselves. It will help our fight against the powerful people who have control over others who have no redress and no hope for their future.

With the rise of totalitarian states and their satellites, who threaten our very belief in freedom and due process, and who are tearing apart what we call the international rules-based order—such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran—this facility is needed more than ever. Its use is to deter others as much as to punish those who have acted without the law, and such action should be co-ordinated among our allies.

This House has to hold the Government to account—that is our task—and that is what today’s debate is all about. If we do not speak for those languishing under the control of others and the power of powerful states, then who will? I say to the Government simply: this is not parti pris, and nor is it personal; it is an idea that originated here in this place. It is the idea of freedom—freedom of the individual and their protections under the law. For those who carry out the most heinous crimes, there has to be some kind of sanction. The Magnitsky sanction is the best tool that we have. We should surely use it, and use it well, and we must make sure that those out there realise that if they get up to these most disgusting and debilitating acts, they will face a consequence and that consequence will last as long as they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will indeed be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who all made speeches, for their support in this debate.

In winding up, I have some points on which I want to press the Government. First, why not have an annual report? I simply raise that as a question, because it would stop us having to bid for a Backbench Business debate, and—who knows—we may even mean we get more Members to attend.

I would raise questions about Sudan and the UAE, because the fact is that they are now complicit in the most brutal of murders, rapes and everything else. I would couple that with the holding of Ryan Cornelius as a hostage—and I call him a hostage—whose family have been without him for 17 years and are in penury as a result. Surely this gives us the opportunity to say that, unless he is released, we will put sanctions on individuals at the bank and elsewhere, which would certainly be very helpful.

It is the same with Jimmy Lai. It is now time for us to say that the country that used to administer Hong Kong can no longer put up with the trashing of the Sino-British agreement, the terrible behaviour over legal systems and, basically, the ending of English common law in the territory.

Those are some of the issues, but many others were raised. I must say that I have the highest regard for the Minister, as he knows. We have spoken endlessly about different aspects of this, and I take him as a very honest individual. I hope he will take these points back to the Foreign Office and say that we have done well, but we could do an awful lot more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, together with widespread grand corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment; notes that global human rights and anti-corruption sanctions, commonly known as Magnitsky sanctions, remain an essential mechanism for accountability and redress, yet their implementation by the United Kingdom is inconsistent and insufficient, and lacks oversight; regrets that numerous individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned, that enforcement and transparency around decision-making remains inadequate, and that sanctioned individuals continue to exploit evasion methods while victims receive limited support; further notes the absence of a long-term strategy for the management of frozen assets and a lack of clear criteria for delisting, alongside growing concerns that sanctions are becoming politicised internationally; urges the Government to strengthen the credibility of the Magnitsky sanctions regime through consistent and impartial application, enhanced enforcement, and by ensuring greater Parliamentary oversight and expanded measures to support victims, including developing pathways for compensation; and holds that, relevant to this, those involved in the arbitrary detention of British nationals should face Magnitsky sanctions, including those involved in the detention of Ryan Cornelius, Jagtar Singh Johal and Jimmy Lai.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do everything we can to provide consular support for all those affected by the national security law, and in particular Jimmy Lai. May I also reiterate the tributes to Sebastien Lai, who I know is in the Gallery today?

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

I agree with the right hon. Lady in her comments about the terrible attacks in Bondi, and I congratulate her on raising that now, but I rise to express the view again that this case is not only about Hong Kong, but about this Chamber. I have been named nine times in the prosecution case against Jimmy Lai. Others have been named more than that. It is appalling. I would have loved to have met him and spoken to him, but I never have done. It is trumped-up nonsense from the CCP.

The second thing I say to the Foreign Secretary is that I agree with the strength of her statement about the appalling nature of the Government in China over this issue, but it is no good just meeting people to say they are wrong or calling in the ambassadors. Surely what we have to do is show them a ratcheting up in the things that we will do. First, we need to tell them that there will be no visit in January by our Prime Minister to an organisation that is so corrupt and indecent. Secondly, we should surely start imposing sanctions on those members in Hong Kong who run the place. We have done none of that. Every other country has sanctioned them, but we have not. Finally, there is the idea of allowing this regime to have a huge embassy with 200 extra spies brought in. At this point, they surely need to be told that it will not happen until they release Jimmy Lai.

Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

We are working with the African Union as best we can on ensuring that aid is delivered. There was a statement on 18 November, and there were oral questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office at the beginning of the month. The fast pace of this work in Sudan, as a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, means that it is under constant review and dialogue with various partners, including as recently as last week with US Secretary of State Rubio.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this urgent question. Although there have been two recent sanctions—[Interruption.] All right, four, if we add in the other two. In reality there are 21 other Sudanese, many of them RSF, operating here in the United Kingdom. They are well known to the authorities, they are involved in the financing of this, but they have not been sanctioned. Is it not the reality that this fighting is still going on, with the brutality of the RSF, because the UAE finances and supports what they are doing? Without UAE involvement, there would be no further war. When will the Government turn around, notwithstanding ideas of wanting to get business contacts in the UAE, and start placing Magnitsky sanctions on individuals in the UAE until it stops financing this brutal war?

[Chris Elmore]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in government and opposition that we do not comment on individuals in relation to specific sanctions, but I confirm to the House that we will not rule out any additional sanctions. On the work of the Quad, the statement on 12 September is a significant development, and we remain completely focused on pushing for the humanitarian pause, the wider ceasefire, and supporting the Sudanese-led political transition. It is for all sides as part of that Quad to ensure that they can do that work—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman pushes me on sanctions for UAE. As he knows, we do not comment on individual sanctions decisions. He is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows that. We will keep this matter under constant review, and keep working with the Quad towards the cessation of violence.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.

May I say what a pleasure it is to have you invigilating our proceedings, Mr Twigg? This debate is about North Korea, but it is also specifically about the 75th commemoration of the Korean war, in which we took part. I have just discovered that this morning North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East sea, just a week before President Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. I think North Korea may well also have done so because it had heard about this debate. [Laughter.] I pride myself on that, rather than APEC, being almost certainly one of the greater reasons why it did so.

It is a great privilege to open this debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The world today is yet again at a crossroads between democracy and the axis of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as we have not been since the fall of the Berlin wall. Over 81,000 British servicemen fought in the Korean war, providing the second largest military contribution to the United Nations Command after the United States, which is something that people rarely talk about. Over 1,100 of them never came home, which is more than the total British losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined.

Among their most heroic stands was the battle of the Imjin river in 1951. There, 652 men of the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment faced three Chinese divisions, numbering at least 42,000 men, in one of the most courageous defences in British military history. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will no doubt share in detail, those brave Gloucestershire men held the UN line for three days against the overwhelming Chinese spring offensive. When the battle ended, of the 652 men who fought there for those three days, 67 walked away. The rest were killed or captured, and the name Gloster Hill was etched forever into history, although too often schools do not remind everybody of the sacrifice that they made for those who now live free.

Today, only a few veterans of the Korean war remain with us here in the United Kingdom. One of them, Mr Scott, shared a story later recounted by his son in Stockport:

“Of all the campaigns I fought in, Korea was the one that affected me the most. One night, I was called out on a reconnaissance mission I didn’t want to do. But when I returned to my platoon, they had all been wiped out.”

His son, Mr Steven Scott, reflected:

“My father was deeply affected by the Korean War. He had served in the Army during the Second World War and was called up from the reserves for the Korean War.”

Their sacrifice, courage and service secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula, a freedom that the democratic world still cherishes today. The other half remains in darkness, suffering under the most brutal regime on earth; it is hard to imagine the brutality of that leadership. We must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered by generations to come.

Many young people around the world today enjoy K-pop, K-dramas and the vibrant culture of modern South Korea, yet without the sacrifice of those who secured its freedom, none of that would be possible. In stark contrast, totalitarian Pyongyang denies its people access to the internet, mobile phones, YouTube or social media, and those who are caught watching anything from the south or from the outside world face imprisonment or even execution.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is worse than he says in North Korea. If someone is caught committing any of these minor crimes, such as listening to a memory stick from the west, it is not only they who are imprisoned; it is their entire family. That is almost invariably a slow death sentence, because they will then be worked terrifically hard without adequate food.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures.

It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes.

Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea.

In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones.

What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year.

Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world.

To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea.

All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said:

“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices.

I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent, poignant speech. In 2013, as the then Veterans Minister, I had the great honour of going to South Korea with His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester to represent the Government at the 60th anniversary of the armistice. As my right hon. Friend knows, the South Koreans refer to this day to the countries, like ours, that sent them aid as the sending states. I was very struck by the tremendous lengths to which the South Koreans went to look after our veterans who attended the commemorations. They were treated with immense reverence. Will my right hon. Friend allow me to place on the record today my great thanks to the South Koreans for everything that they do to remember the sending states and those troops who came to defend democracy in their land?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the need to pay tribute to the South Koreans and their Government for their acknowledgment of the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our fellow countrymen in the defence of liberty and democracy in the Republic of Korea. They paid for and helped to establish a war memorial to the British fallen; that memorial now stands outside the Ministry of Defence. That point backs up what both right hon. Members have said. Will the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reflect on what measures our country and our allies need to put in place to support South Korea in its security and to work towards a peace on the Korean peninsula?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea.

I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet. We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld.

This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold. My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment.

At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency. It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction.

Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it. We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think this will be a consensual debate, in which we come together to show our solidarity with South Korea and, above all, our respect and gratitude to British servicemen who gave their lives to defend freedom and democracy all those years ago.

We should remember what was happening in our country at that time. We were recovering from the devastation of the second world war. Families had made huge sacrifices, but we were prepared to make further sacrifices. In that context, it was an even greater achievement, as the hon. Member for Gloucester just outlined. It is important to remember that, and I urge colleagues to go and spend a moment looking at the war memorial outside the Ministry of Defence.

I have the pleasure to represent many Koreans. Half of the 40,000 Koreans in the UK live in south-west London, mainly in my constituency and Wimbledon. Indeed, New Malden in my constituency is known as Little Seoul; it has some fine Korean restaurants, should hon. Members wish to partake. I am also proud to be the chair of the APPG on the Republic of Korea. We are particularly grateful to the embassy staff for their support in engaging with our Korean friends.

South Korea is a fantastic country. The democracy that was won through that sacrifice has given back multiple times over to its own people, to south-east Asia and to the world, including our country. We should all be proud to say that our country is a friend of South Korea. We are able to enjoy their wonderful culture, with the K-wave—Korean wave—going across the world. I, for one, have BTS and Blackpink on my phone.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Show us!

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey]

I could not agree more. I think that is a cross-party view, and all the stronger for it. It is important on the occasions that we agree on foreign policy to send out that message, because it is heard in other parts of the world. They know that together, as a country, we support our friends in South Korea.

Returning to the commemoration, I will concentrate my final remarks on the threat from North Korea, because it is a real one. We have seen how North Korean troops are supporting Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine. No doubt it is sending its technology. I am not on top of all the details of the things it is sending, but I know that it will be sending ammunition and missiles. That shows us that we need to be on our marks against North Korea today; it is a threat to the world order today.

Although I am no great fan of President Trump, I hope that he can succeed in any talks that he has with the North Koreans. It is essential that they are brought to their senses. That is a very difficult task, as he found the last time he attempted it, which did not go terribly well. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says from a sedentary position, President Trump christened the President of North Korea “Rocket man”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

“Little rocket man”.

[Ed Davey]

“Little rocket man”—as always, a double-edged sword.

Let us hope that President Trump is more successful this time. There are many ways he and our Government can take that forward. I have spoken with US politicians, and in particular Congressman Brad Sherman, who has put forward the idea of trying to move on from the armistice—let us remember that the war has not actually finished—to a formal peace treaty. I think that is an interesting concept. Arguing for a formal peace treaty, difficult though it may be with the current Government in North Korea, who are shocking and appalling in all the ways that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, could show that we want to engage. It would be a difficult and tricky route, but trying to establish a peace treaty is one way that we could commemorate the 75th anniversary of the start of the war and, more importantly, commemorate and strengthen the peace that there has been so that people on the whole peninsula can live in peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

This has been a remarkable debate, Mr Twigg. We have demonstrated the best of politics in Westminster, as we can when we choose to. We have come together to commemorate and celebrate the actions of our forebears and the results in the present. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because they all brought something unique and special. Some spoke for those honoured in their constituencies who never came home. Others, such as myself, honour the memory of the sacrifice that our forebears made, its purposes and reasons.

We recognise and commemorate today the fact that 75 years ago British troops fought for Korean freedom, in a country and for a people far, far away, about which many if not all those troops knew next to nothing. Ordinary men—some who had fought in world war two, others who were young and inexperienced—fought for a concept of freedom, esoteric in some senses perhaps. As Gladstone once said, during the dispute over Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 19th century, there is no greater bulwark against tyranny than the breasts of free men and women. He was right, for that concept has made South Korea prosperous and democratic, giving its people the right to live in freedom—a right that their families and colleagues in the north do not have. It is surely for us to recognise and pick up that torch of freedom, and stand today with those around the world who yearn for freedom, not least those in North Korea.

I finish with this thought. While we watch the despotism of North Korea carry on unabated, what do we say to those British troops and others of the United Nations force—the Glosters and the other brave men who died? What do we say to those who did not come home? Was it all in vain? The answer is no. For them and their spirit, all I will say is “Southward, look, the land is free.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

When we look at the UK armed forces’ decline, and then we start looking at ceding our sovereign bases, that brings us to the table; that brings us to a foothold. Without them, we would not have the capability to stand in the Indo-Pacific and support our allies. A report released in the last two weeks by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to which I contributed, talks about the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic. They are intrinsically linked. It is not a question of going to one space and leaving the other for the Americans. The rise of China and its defence industrial base is phenomenal, and the speed at which it is growing is huge. There are so many concerns and uncertainties at the moment. Key strategic locations include Cyprus, Hawaii, Svalbard, the Ascension Islands, and Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands.

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

I just want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making about the growth of the threat. Is he aware that China today has 130 times the capability to build naval ships that America does? One shipyard in China in this last year has built more naval ships than the whole of the United States. We talk about the threat to the South China sea. It is done.

[Stuart Anderson]

My right hon. Friend makes a great point. I spoke to one of the submarine commanders from the US navy only about six weeks ago. He told me that 15 years ago he would see one Chinese ship or submarine per week, and now he sees 100 a week. The whole area is full of them. When we start looking at the security of buffer zones, we see that we cannot move in this area for Chinese submarines. The whole space is swamped with them.

We are doing a deal that will remove our ability to sit at the table where we used to have such strength. Our armed forces now would have trouble supporting our allies in any area, particularly the Indo-Pacific—[Interruption.] The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry says that is not true. We have HMS Spey and the carrier strike groups, but we have no permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific. With our current commitments, we would need a brigade strength or more to enable us to have a permanent base, to rotate troops through and to have a credible offering without burning out the UK armed forces, given the numbers who are currently on sick at the moment and the strength of the military. I want to see larger armed forces, but we do not have the ability to offer the level that we want.

We believe that the world is playing by an international rules-based order, but not all countries will do that. An international rules-based order is a set of rules set out by, normally, the largest countries around the world. When countries such as Iraq or Kosovo do not adhere to them, they expect everyone else to accept it, but the rise of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is throwing everything into the mix. I believe that this will be a huge loss for us strategically. I reiterate my point that the ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that, in the next decade, we will come to regret.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was setting the context for the amendments to the Bill that we are rightly proposing to ensure that the Government report back on the money that they plan to spend and to ensure that the Mauritius taxpayer is not the only taxpayer to benefit from this.

As I say, the amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants and pubs, and amidst the expense grifting, tax dodging, scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a stand-out disaster for this country, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know it. That is why not a single one of their 400-odd colleagues—bar one, glued to his iPad—has been prepared to come to this Chamber tonight and speak in favour of the Bill.

That is why there is no provision to allow a vote on the £3.4 billion—sorry, not £3.4 billion; the £35 billion that has now been set out. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly says, that is based on a rather small c conservative estimate of the interest, but that is what the Government themselves have said it is likely to cost. This Labour Government decided to give away UK sovereign territory and the location of a critically important military base to another country, and to pay £35 billion for the privilege.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On the argument about the money, which comes up throughout all this and which we had in the last debate, the Government have used a dodgy system to calculate it. It is called the GDP deflator. Their own actuarial department has dismissed that completely because, of course, it is all about a forecast of where social issues will go on an island that will never have anything to do with us after all this, so we have no idea how to predict it.

Finally, clause 5 makes this whole debate meaningless, because the Government can change anything they like whenever they wish to, so what the heck are we doing debating this even now?

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. The Henry VIII powers in the Bill are not limited at all. I heard so many complaints when I was a Minister from the Labour party about Henry VIII powers. The Bill literally gives Ministers the ability to change any existing piece of legislation in any sphere whatsoever if it is necessary to implement this deal. There can never have been a Henry VIII power as powerful as that given to Ministers by this legislation, which is all to do with the surrender of Chagos and the transfer of tens of billions of pounds to a foreign power—a foreign power that is in a strategic partnership with China and in close workings with other countries that are not on our side. What on earth was the Prime Minister thinking? As the Minister lay in bed last night tossing and turning in anticipation of the debate, I am sure that that was the question that went round and round in his head.

So many questions remain to be answered. Why did the Prime Minister say that the payment would be £3.4 billion when the Government’s own offices now show that it will be at least £35 billion? Is this the most important strategic base in the Indian ocean? Can the Minister confirm that Diego Garcia is effectively a US base, manned by thousands of Americans, with at most a few dozen Brits there in liaison? If this is in fact a United States base and not operationally—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not often compared to the noble Lord Cameron, but it is absolutely right that as the geopolitical environment changes, so should our policies. We on this side of the House are realists.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

As I was in government at the time, I can answer the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane): the golden decade proposed by the then Chancellor, with whom I did not get on very well, was a disaster. If anything should have been learned by that, his Government should have learned that when you sup with the Chinese, you better have a very long spoon, because they suck you in. We got nothing out of those 10 years, and now look at us.

[The Chairman]

Order. Mr Mayhew and colleagues who hope to intervene, let us remember the scope of the debate in front of us.

Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at different, innovative ways of providing the financial support, and the commitment and investment, that Ukraine will need. Obviously, there are immediate issues around defence equipment and support, including support for the energy infrastructure that we are providing, but there will also be issues around longer-term investment and we should look at innovative ways to support that.

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

I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it. Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Member for his long-standing commitment on sanctions, and on Russia and Ukraine. The impact of the sanctions is that any company or any UK company or resident that transacts with, as well as trades with, those sanctioned bodies, will therefore be covered by the sanctions as well. We will continue to look at what further we can do to keep increasing the pressure on Russia. On the Chelsea football club proceeds, I strongly agree that this needs to move as swiftly as possible, and I can assure him that it has been something on which I have focused significantly since I arrived in post. We will continue to do all we can in those areas to support Ukraine.