Ambassador to the United States

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I am going to be very gentle. Let me just say that we are talking about a very serious issue, in which the national interest is engaged, and about somebody who in my view has used his public position to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of the state. That is not true of some candidate working in a junior role for the company, but it is true of the man who created that company and used it to promote his own interests.

To come back to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, from my point of view—and this is personal rather than political—even more worrying were the attitudes struck by Mandelson in February 2021 when, during a lobbying meeting on behalf of his rich clients, he told Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that the critics of Beijing’s human rights record would be “proved wrong”. That astonishing statement was followed later in 2021 by Mandelson being the only Labour peer to vote—against a three-line Whip—against a genocide amendment that would have meant this country had to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the High Court to be committing genocide, and most specifically China was in the crosshairs. Frankly, it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.

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

My right hon. Friend has mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. In case the House thinks it is a Conservative organisation, can I explain that it has Members of Parliament from all parties in this House, that 53 countries are involved and that it has co-chairs from both the left and the right? It is wholly above party politics, but is all about the threat from China.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.

We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.

[Mrs Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility.

Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us.

It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility.

This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters.

So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.

National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.

Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The point keeps being raised about the three-week gap that is coming, but the reality is that key Select Committees can continue to investigate this issue through the recess, which they should, and could call the Prime Minister to give evidence, so that we do not wait three weeks, with the Government hoping that it dies. That is the key.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on.

The Prime Minister said he would do things differently. If he wants to show leadership, he could come to the Dispatch Box himself. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who will have to defend this situation, but he is not the decision maker—he is not the risk holder when it comes to this decision. Therein lies the point. I am sad today, because the public will look on and see that a new Prime Minister came in on a landslide majority saying he would do things differently, by his own standards that he set, and he has chosen not to. He has ignored the questions. He has answered the media, saying in his one outing, “I wouldn’t have made the decision if I knew the information.” That is not good enough to allow the public to understand.

I finish where I started: today is a pyrrhic victory—a hollow victory—but I live in hope. On the day that the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister could still lead the change that he set out. He could still live by his own standards that he set for himself and his Government, and he could still clear up once and for all exactly what happened. I live in hope that that might be the case.

Points of Order

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of record that former Prime Minister May was considering matters that pertain to our nuclear capability. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was an adviser at that stage, and she had to withdraw her recommendations on the China General Nuclear Power Group. That is a matter of record, and anyone in this Chamber can google it.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the Foreign Secretary is sitting here, I thought it relevant to record that we have just heard that the American Government have put in a second disapproval, for security reasons, to the granting of a Chinese embassy in the proposed location.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has put his comment on the record.

China Audit

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing on the APPGs, and for pressing these issues. I said in my statement that we will co-operate where we can but challenge where we must. I have consistently raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims in meetings with counterparts, and I have encouraged them to implement the recommendations on Xinjiang from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Genocide is a matter for the international courts, but it is something that I and our allies in the G7 take very seriously indeed, and we will press this issue with the Government of China on every single occasion.

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

First of all, before we go to the political knockabout, let me say that I have spoken critically on this issue no matter who was in government; let us settle that before we go on. I want to give the Foreign Secretary a quick audit of exactly what should have been said. China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China seas and is having massive disputes with the Philippines. There is genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting and transnational repression. There have been attacks on Hong Kong dissidents here, and Hong Kong dissidents are constantly under threat. There have been cyber-attacks on the UK. China supports Myanmar’s repressive military regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also supports North Korea and Iran. It has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, arrested Jemmy Lai and placed sanctions on UK MPs, and it thieves all the intellectual property from private companies. What a record! And what would we balance against that? Some potential trade?

This question has already been asked, in a way, but it is worth repeating. On the embassy decision, it was said clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal from Tower Hamlets unless it received assurances from the UK Government. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me that China has not received any assurances? Or has it received private assurances from the Government that it will get what it wants, and will get this embassy?

[Mr Lammy]

Let me express my respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise on the China threat. I acknowledge that he is subject to sanctions; I have consistently raised that point with China, noting that it recently lifted sanctions against Members of the European Parliament. I pressed it recently to do the same for Members here. Let me assure him that there are no grubby deals on any issues, and certainly not on the embassy; I reject any suggestion to the contrary. He describes the context on China. I refer him to page 28 of the strategic defence review, which summarises the challenge better than he did. It states that China is

“a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order.”

We agree.

Political Prisoners

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally.

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I speak today on behalf of my constituent Jimmy Lai, who has been detained abroad since December 2020. Mr Lai was on trial for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition through his work as a newspaper publisher. The offence has been ruled unlawful and arbitrary by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. I called for this debate to draw attention to what Mr Lai has suffered over the course of his detention and to bring together parliamentarians from across the House to speak with one voice on the matter of his detention and the detention of other political prisoners abroad.

Mr Lai is a much-loved father and grandfather, and a British citizen. He is 77 years of age, and is being held in solitary confinement in the blistering Hong Kong heat. This will be his fourth summer suffering temperatures that regularly reach 40°.

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

I make this intervention with your indulgence, Mr Western, because I am engaged in another debate in the main Chamber, and I apologise to the hon. Lady because my intervention deals with another individual, although I fully support her and congratulate her on raising the Jimmy Lai case, which I have argued many times. I hope she makes her case, and I am sure she will—it is a terrible thing.

However, there are other cases, and the person I want to mention, who is often forgotten, is Ryan Cornelius. He has been incarcerated for 17 years in the United Arab Emirates. The UN has said exactly the same: this is an illegal incarceration for which there is no legal basis. He has often been in solitary confinement. The British Government—not this one, necessarily, but all Governments—have too often failed to raise his case in the way they should. I mention the case because the Foreign Office needs to do its duty in raising it, regardless of the business deals that it wants to make.

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our task today and for raising that important case.

Despite Mr Lai’s being told that his trial would last only 80 days, today marks the 1,630th day of his detention. Every day that he is detained, his health deteriorates further and his family rightly worry about his chances of survival in prison. The detention of Mr Lai is a human tragedy that undermines the very principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law on which our international order relies. The idea that a British citizen can be detained by a foreign Government for standing up and expressing the British values of democracy and freedom of speech is an affront to all of us in this House, and across the country, who hold those principles dear.

Mr Lai’s son Sebastien has campaigned tirelessly and admirably for his father’s release; I know that many hon. Members here have had the honour of hearing directly from him and Mr Lai’s legal counsel. At this very moment, Sebastien is addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and recently he has been in the United States and Canada to meet senior officials and lawmakers in both countries. Next week, he travels to Brussels to meet European parliamentarians and the European External Action Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

6. Whether his Department plans to introduce a statutory right to consular assistance.

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

18. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on introducing a statutory right to consular assistance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

We are committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad, including introducing a right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The Department is considering a package of measures, which we will announce in due course, alongside options for stakeholder consultations.

[Mr Falconer]

The safety and security of British nationals overseas is a top priority for the Government. This is a complex area of policy—the hon. Lady has described the wide range of different consular cases that the Foreign Office responds to, from kidnap cases to more routine cases. As I set out to the Foreign Affairs Committee, given the complexity of these issues we will come back to Parliament in due course with options for consultation.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I remind the Government that their manifesto promised a legal right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The Government have now been in power for close on a year. This is not something that should take a big shove; surely, we should do it straight away. Surely such assistance should be a legal right. People including Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai are still being held. Ryan Cornelius has been held illegally for 17 years, which the UN has criticised as a human rights violation. For ages we did not send anybody to see him; surely now we must act and call out these regimes. The first place to start is by giving those people the absolute right to consular assistance.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his commitment to these issues. Were it only so that passing a right in this place would secure the release of the people whose cases have been raised. In every case that has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the people concerned do receive consular assistance. I have met the families of Ryan Cornelius and Alaa Abd el-Fattah; they both remain very much in our minds. It is important that we get the rights correct. These are complex cases, and we are bound not just by what we decide in Parliament, but by the relevant conventions and diplomatic norms. We will take action to try to preserve the safety of British nationals overseas, but it is right that we take our time to ensure that we get it correct.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely can. Our national security, and that of our allies, has been at the heart of the agreement. There was a significant problem. The former Government knew that, which is why they started negotiating. We have completed the deal, with the full involvement of the United States and with consideration of all the important measures, which I have set out on many occasions, to keep the base safe.

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

The Minister knows the regard I have for him, but when he says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? Can he guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework.

UK-China Relations

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford]

I will come on to slave labour almost immediately, but to answer the hon. Member directly, I think the security concerns are too great. I welcome safeguards to remove slave labour, but there are still concerns beyond that that we should be looking at.

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

Of course, that is a wish, not a reality. We have no way of ascertaining whether suppliers are buying from slave labour, and there is no punishment available should they be doing so. The situation is quite the opposite in the United States, which sanctions companies that have been using slave labour. That has made a big difference. The Government have to get their head around this, otherwise we are just going to get slave labour-made products all over.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend, who has considerable and lengthy experience of dealing with China, makes a crucial point. There is no point in having a wish list if there is no sanction or enforcement to back it up.

Trade with China is tainted by human rights abuses. I will give an example. Over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps in Xinjiang; it is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Despite China’s denials, we know that UK industries, from textiles to electronics, remain dependent on materials from that region. Xinjiang produces between 20% and 25% of the world’s cotton and polysilicon, which is a critical component in solar panels. That is why Lord Alton’s amendment 18 to the Great British Energy Bill, which secured cross-party support, was so significant in ensuring that our supply chains align with human rights standards.

On 25 March 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, yet 218 years later, Labour MPs blocked a ban on buying solar panels from China.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but this is not just about human rights abuses. There is a reason that China uses slave labour—and it came from nowhere 10 or 12 years ago to now be the dominant player in the business. It is because it does not pay salaries, which makes the arrays cheaper. British companies go rushing over to get them because they are cheaper, and the Government do not mind too much because they do not have to pay so much. The key is that it has to be proper and functional.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I will make similar remarks later in my speech, but that is key. Not only is it the use of slave labour, which should be enough to get the Government to start thinking seriously, but it is a complete undercutting of our market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I fear that the hon. Member is dancing on the head of a pin there. To be frank, I do not agree with him on that. I think the Government should be really clear about what they are actually going to do to—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

Yes, but then I will make some progress.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I need to deal with this point through my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Government already accept something on which I worked with them when they were in opposition, which is to get to exactly the same position as in the Health and Care Act 2022. The NHS is not allowed to buy anything made by slave labour—it encompasses everything. The amendment to the Great British Energy Bill would have done the same. To those who say, “It’s too narrow because it’s only one sector of the economy,” I say that we have already done it with health and care, and Labour voted for that at the time. I was rather proud of that.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend should be very proud of that and everything that he has done to stand up to Chinese aggression, on trade and on a number of the other issues that we will touch on during the debate.

Let me move on to the security and rule of law elements that I have concerns about. Economic interdependence is only one dimension of our vulnerability. The UK must also confront China’s growing efforts to exert influence and repress dissidents on British soil. The proposed Chinese mega-embassy at Royal Mint Court epitomises that threat. Despite being firmly opposed by the previous Conservative Government, it is now likely to proceed, apparently due to lobbying by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and even the Prime Minister. Housing 700 diplomatic staff, the complex could become a hub for transnational repression and espionage, putting at risk Hongkongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Taiwanese individuals who have sought refuge in the UK. The brutal 2022 assault on Hong Kong protester Bob Chan in Manchester, perpetrated by Chinese diplomats who escaped justice under diplomatic immunity, should serve as a stark warning to us all.

Beyond our borders, China continues its assault on democracy and human rights. Some 2,000 political prisoners remain in arbitrary detention under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. One such prisoner, with whom I am sure we are all familiar—Jimmy Lai, a British citizen—has spent more than 1,500 days in solitary confinement without access to British consular support. The Government’s failure to assist him speaks of a broader pattern of weakness in standing up to the Chinese regime.

I therefore support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), which would legally enforce stronger consular protections for British journalists detained abroad. I hope that the Government will start to support it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow him, because I want to expand on some of the points he made about the dependence of our industry and economy on China.

I have worked in China and have friends there. I am certainly no Sinophobe, but I do think we need to be clear-eyed about the fact that we are in economic competition with China. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon described it as a relationship of dependency, and I fear that that is the position. An inter-dependent relationship would be fine, but we are in more of a dependent relationship.

I remember being in China in 2015, at the launch of the 13th five-year plan. I was shocked at what I saw as a big competitive threat to the UK. At that time, President Xi was in London—we had done a bit of a swap—and was meeting the Prime Minister here. The Prime Minister said he was enthused by President Xi’s plan for the belt and road initiative, and he directed the City of London to fund it. From where I was sitting, that seemed like an extremely bad idea.

I was talking to British engineering companies that had been told they would get three contracts in China. In the first contract they would deliver a machine, in the second contract they would deliver the drawing, and in the third contract they would supervise the Chinese company that would do the installation on their behalf. Many of those companies no longer exist because they have been competed out of the market by China.

It is the job of the UK Government to make sure that we site jobs in south Wales rather than Wuhan, and in Teesside rather than Tianjin. I fear that over the past couple of decades we have been too keen to pursue lower-cost goods rather than invest in our own industries.

The industry that I know best is materials. Some of the critical raw materials we need for our future are gallium, germanium and neodymium—I apologise to Hansard reporters for sounding like a Tom Lehrer song. Those are incredibly serious minerals that are essential for our future. For most of them, China either dominates the mining or has the materials processing capability for about 90% of the global market. It is important for us to consider how we can secure materials processing in future.

Just this week Richard Holtum, the chief executive of Trafigura, the world’s biggest private metals trading company, recommended that Governments nationalise their metals-processing industries in order to compete with China.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Member is talking about a critical area for us all. Those minerals are best described as the oil of the 21st century: who controls them controls the way we live our lives. Surely we cannot consider that China is benign in this market. Quite recently—about two years ago—China blocked Japan from access to the market, so Japan then set up its own position. That attitude shows us what the Chinese intend to use this for if they have to deal with countries like the UK. If they blocked us off, it would cause us chaos.

[Chris McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say a few hours ago that economic security was national security. The two cannot be divided. Because of our belief in the free market, we thought that as long as we have a trading partner we can buy goods from, we are left in a secure position. But we must why—why does China choose to dominate these markets? Because it is an extension of Chinese foreign policy. The same is true of trade. The Chinese belt and road initiative seems to me to be a deliberate policy to bypass the traditional trading ports of Goa, Aden and Hong Kong, where the UK has historically had a strong foothold, to ensure that China dominates trade routes.

The real question is what we do about this. The mindset we need to have is that China has the first-mover advantage in this new industrial revolution. We had the first-mover advantage in the last industrial revolution. How could a country have competed with us in the late 19th century? That mindset means investing in our own industries, and using our own market to do so. We can learn from China in this sense: we can use our own public procurement and invest in our industries. We have a great nickel producer at Clydach; the Chinese tried to copy that process but were unable to do so. Our Lochaber aluminium plant was set up to serve the nation in the late 1920s, and it still exists and is worthy of further investment. The UK also has one of the six cobalt refineries in Europe.

But what of copper? We cannot achieve anything without copper, yet we have no copper-refining capacity in the UK, despite being the fifth largest exporter of copper in the world. These are the issues that we need to take seriously to ensure that we can have an independent economic policy and an independent foreign policy when it comes to China. That is important for our industries and our foreign policy, but it is also important for the communities like the one I represent, where people have relied on good jobs in these industries. We should prize those jobs being in the UK.

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.

My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others.

I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously.

[Catherine West]

I fully accept that, as a sanctioned MP, the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned. I respect and admire his doggedness in raising these issues in the House. I hope he will reply to my invitation, from me and the Foreign Secretary, to visit me in the Foreign Office to discuss his ongoing concerns, including those he has raised today.

Specifically on the Mandatory Provident Fund, this is an ongoing dialogue. Both my predecessor, the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I raised the documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early. Basically, the Hong Kong authorities have a particular approach, but we are quite right to keep campaigning on that. Why should BNO passport holders not receive the funds to which they are entitled? He mentions HSBC. We will continue with any financial institution that is not being fair to its own investors. We will continue, with his support, to campaign for that. On sanctions, he is well aware that there are many sanctions against Chinese entities. I will write to him with the detail of where we are at with sanctions, but he is also aware of the Government’s long-standing position on sanctions, which is that we do not talk about them in the House because that could take away from their efficacy in future.

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I am sad that it has been reduced from three hours to an hour and a half, because it is an important debate, and I hope that the Minister has time to answer some of the questions.

In reality, we are in a peculiar position—I do not blame this Government, because the previous Government were in the same position—whereby we are, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) just said, trapping ourselves in the same arguments that are meant to release us to get after those who have done egregious harm to others through an illegal invasion of another territory. That is clear, and it is why we should be permitted at this stage, where necessary, to seize those frozen assets—it is very simple. There is not time to go through all the legal arguments, but there are good reasons why we would be able to act in that way, and I would be happy to write to the Minister about them.

First, instead of claiming that international law prohibits us from doing those things, it is important to remember that the basis of international law is pretty fluid, because it is hugely influenced by the politics of the day—otherwise, we would still be trapped in what happened in 1950, even though things have moved on. That is another point: the British Government should not use those arguments against action; they should lead on making the necessary changes where possible.

My main point is that when it comes to freezing and sequestering assets, there is a good point at the end of it all. Hopefully, we will soon face an end to this war and the brutality, executions, murder and ghastly damage that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine. Ultimately there must be reparations by the country that invaded Ukraine, which is Russia. The trouble is we know very well that if we impose those reparations, Russia will never pay any of them, so the only hope we have is to seize state and oligarch assets and to say that they can be held in payment of the necessary reparations, and will be released as reparations are paid in accordance with what the UN says at the end of the war. That is one way of using frozen assets: seizing them and saying, “You will get these back, but only when you have stood up and done what you’ve been told to do after this aggressive war.”

If Members look carefully, they will see that we are already considering taking the money earned from assets in banks. That set of assets and their income cannot be separated. At the moment, we are talking of separating the income from the assets, as if there is some fundamental difference between who owns what. While the state has an asset banked, it also owns the money earned from it. We cannot just say that we might do one but not the other. If we seize what is earned, we should recognise that that allows us also to seize the asset that is earning that money in the bank. There is no reason why we should not pursue that, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that point in due course.

I do not believe that there is in international law any obligation or block on doing any of this. These arguments are being had at the moment in various court cases. By the way, we are not talking about the UK unilaterally seizing assets. Canada, which has already been mentioned, and the US have already passed legislation to give them permission to seize those assets—the Anglosphere is beginning to come together on this one. There is foot-dragging in Germany and France, and very much in Belgium. We know why: Belgium has a huge number of Russian assets and seems to be somewhat troubled by the idea of taking them over.

I say this in cross-party spirit. Surely now is the chance for the United Kingdom Government—my Government, because they were elected—to take the lead in arguing now for us to use these assets against future reparations and mend what has gone on so appallingly in Ukraine. I urge the Government to step up, take that lead and give the rest of the developed world the chance to get that money into the places where it can do the most good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

We are all concerned to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and as quickly as possible. It is wrong to speculate on what the future Administration might choose to do. Let us remember that the package came through from the United States with strong bipartisan support, and much of the support to Ukraine even before the 2022 invasion came from the first Trump Administration. Let us be clear that there is support there and that there is unity across the Atlantic on support for Ukraine.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

President Trump has already said that he will continue with the payments and support. May I ask a simple question? We know from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill that recently passed through the House that using the profits of assets will help to bring up to $50 billion of support to Ukraine. A previous legal commitment has been broken, which could not have been done before without prior legislation; assets have never been separated from profits. The Minister does not have to answer the question now, but will he go back to the Foreign Office with a reminder that the assets are now left available for seizure?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and hope that he will write me the letter that he promised in the debate. I will read it with great interest. He is extremely well informed on these matters and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in them over some time. As I said, we will consider all lawful measures that we can possibly take to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs. I will listen closely to his advice and, indeed, that of many others. He would not expect me to comment on any legal advice or technical advice under consideration.

I am conscious of the time and the need to move to the next debate, but I genuinely want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members. Hugely important points were made. It is clear that there is unity in the House that we all want to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and to get that there as quickly as possible. I am convinced that we are doing everything we can on both sides of the equation—choking off Russia’s ability to fund its war machine on the war economics side, which was mentioned, as well as getting Ukraine the support that it needs. We will continue to do that.

Our support is ironclad, and we have made that clear to President Zelensky. I was with Foreign Minister Sybiha a number of times before Christmas, and he is absolutely clear that the UK’s support is critical and that it must continue. We are glad to give him confirmation of our resolute support.

Detained British Nationals Abroad

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned by the number of arbitrarily detained British nationals at risk of human rights abuses abroad and the apparent lack of active support for those detained; and calls on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide regular reports on when it last raised the cases of those people with its international counterparts.

I am enormously pleased that the Backbench Business Committee agreed to find sufficient time to debate this issue. Too often, the issue of British citizens detained abroad gets washed away in all the other debates, no matter who is in government. As I have said before, regardless of who is sitting on the Government Benches—be they Conservative, Labour or whatever—I tend to find myself in opposition on issues such as this, as do many Members here. We have serious concerns that the issue is not raised enough, and cases are locked behind a wall of silence. I want to change that today.

My intention is to call on the Government, first of all, to provide regular reports—something they never do —on when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last raised the cases of British nationals who are arbitrarily detained abroad and at risk of human rights abuses. Individuals detained abroad are particularly vulnerable to torture, ill treatment and other serious human rights violations from the moment that they are detained. At least 100 UK nationals are tortured or ill treated abroad every year. In 2023, the FCDO received 188 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. It goes on and on.

Arbitrary detention and hostage-taking are devastating, but are practised by a number of regimes, chief among those being Iran. That is devastating for the individuals affected and their families. Survivors bear the physical, psychological and socioeconomic scars of their captivity. Survivors’ families also endure significant psychological distress, often facing vicarious trauma as they fight for their loved ones’ release and feeling that they are fighting a losing battle against even the establishment here in the United Kingdom.

The support that the British Government can provide to their nationals in these harrowing circumstances is crucial. They are sometimes the only link between the individual and the outside world.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The right hon. Member mentioned support from the British Government. Does he agree that that support is not always as consistent across the globe as we might like and as many members of the public would imagine it to be? There is no guarantee or legal right imposed on the UK Government to do it in the way that there is, for example, on the American Government. Does he think that the situation is unsatisfactory and, if so, what does he think the Government should do about it?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I completely agree. I have no problem agreeing on this matter. It has been a long-standing issue for families and Members of Parliament that, somehow, the FCDO puts a cloud of obscurity in the way of real knowledge about what is going on. For families, that can be incredibly difficult.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

The right hon. Member may be aware of the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British national who remains in an Egyptian prison. Like me, is he very concerned that Mr el-Fattah’s mother, Laila Soueif, who is 68 years old, is now on the 67th day of a hunger strike? As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary last raised the case on 14 November. Does the right hon. Member agree that more needs to be done beyond just raising the case?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree. That case will be raised today. All of us who want to speak in the debate have agreed that we will make sure that individual cases are raised in detail. I will touch on some to summarise them, and I will detail a couple of them. The hon. Lady is quite right. What has happened is appalling, and we need to ensure that more is done—that is critical.

Those who fall prey to detentions are too often let down by British Governments. I say, without let or hindrance, that that includes the Conservative Government who were in office previously, the Labour Governments before that and the present Labour Government. I hope that will now change.

The Foreign Secretary recently confirmed that there are 28,000 prisoners in the system, yet the Foreign Office refuses to disclose exactly how many are British nationals who are being arbitrarily detained. Why not? What is so ground-shaking about discovering who the British nationals are, for goodness’ sake? I hope the Minister will agree that it is essential that the Government publish data on the number of British citizens who are arbitrarily detained or held hostage abroad. Sadly, there are British nationals in arbitrary detention in repressive countries all over the world. Quite often, we are not aware of them. As I said in response to the hon. Lady, those cases will be raised.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that family members are watching this debate from the Gallery. I will quickly name them, if that is all right with everyone here. We are joined by Omar Robert Hamilton, Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s cousin, and Sanaa Seif, Alaa’s sister. We are joined by supporters and family members of Ryan Cornelius. I am deeply sorry that Ryan’s wife, Heather Cornelius, is unable to join us today, but Ryan’s brother-in-law, Chris Pagett, and his wife Diana are with us, as well as Ryan’s sister-in-law, Wendy Thompson, and her husband David. Also sitting in the Gallery is Matthew Hedges, a victim of arbitrary detention in the United Arab Emirates, and Peter Humphrey, a former prisoner of China.

Too often, families feel that they are fighting two battles: one against the foreign state that has detained their loved one, and another against the UK Government, who do not seem to prioritise the case. I am deeply sorry that that should be the case, and today’s debate is about, hopefully, sowing the seed of change.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member mentioned the families who are here today to listen to this debate, and in doing so highlighted the impact on not just those detained or held hostage but their loved ones, friends and family. I take the opportunity to invite him to recognise the family and friends of British-linked hostages held in Gaza—Oded Lifschitz, Eli Sharabi, Avinatan Or and Emily Damari—and their cases.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was going to say it, but as the hon. Member has raised it, I will do so now: we must not forget those hostages. What has happened to them is appalling, and he is right to raise it. Families across the UK listening to this debate will be appreciative of that.

A critical issue is the lack of a clear and proactive response strategy from the FCDO. There is no centralised approach for dealing with arbitrary detention cases, and that absence of structure adds to the stress for families, who feel unsupported and often ignored.

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

My right hon. Friend’s point is surely the critical one. Traditionally, the best and the brightest went into the diplomatic service and the Foreign Office intake, but even the brightest people need to specialise if they are to do a good job. Given that so many people are being detained in this way, surely the answer is to have a small dedicated unit within the Foreign Office that can handle the co-ordination of a systematic response every time someone is arbitrarily detained abroad.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The point I am really getting at is that the days of the shifting jobs of generalists are long gone, I am afraid. I have often made the case, having run a Department, that the civil service and the Foreign Office need to catch up with what is happening outside. We need specialists in place, and we need that to be considered an important job.

In cases where British nationals are detained abroad, the families of those detained have often found the UK Government reluctant to act to prevent torture or to seek accountability where it occurs. If they are acting, they do not relay that to the families, so the families are left believing that nothing has happened, even if something has happened. For instance, when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian dual citizen, was detained in Iran, her family first raised allegations of torture with the FCDO in 2017. It was not until May 2021—following outside pressure from Redress and others, by way of a submission to the FCDO of a medical report as evidence of her severe suffering—that the then Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, an old colleague of ours, acknowledged that she had been a victim of torture. Why did it take so long? It seems to me that this is pointless.

In the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British national tortured by police in India, FCDO officials would only raise the allegations of torture with the Indian authorities once they had sought consent from him directly, which took two to three months. I know that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) intends to speak about that case, but I just raise it generally as an illustration of what is going wrong.

Families of detainees face significant challenges in their engagement with the FCDO. Many report vague or inconsistent communication, which breeds mistrust. There is a critical need for a designated point of contact for families, as happens in the States, to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of cases. Without that, families feel abandoned by their own Government while simultaneously battling the detaining state with few tools.

The FCDO also lacks a consistent policy on the treatment of dual nationals, often citing states’ refusal to recognise dual nationality as a barrier to action. That is a practical challenge, not a legal one, and it should not stop UK officials from attempting to access prisons or courts. When the Government fail to act, it risks sending a damaging message to dual nationals that they are less British and, by extension, less deserving of protection.

For instance, that reasoning was used very much in the case of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen. China decided, because it does not recognise dual nationality, to call him a dual national. He has never been a dual national, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have literally shouted at Government Ministers in Westminster Hall that he is not a dual national. When they got up to speak, they just said that he is a dual national. He has never been a dual national. He is a proud British citizen. He got into Hong Kong long before he was of an age to have a nationality in that sense or a passport. He has been a British national non-stop since then.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it does not matter whether someone is a dual national or not? If they are British, they are British and they are proud to be British. We should simply talk about them being British citizens, and not even bother talking about dual nationals.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady, and I welcome her to the debate as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is absolutely right, but the problem in this case is that dual nationality was used as an excuse for why the Government did not want to raise the matter, because China did not recognise that British citizenship. She is right that if someone is a British citizen, they are a British citizen, and the inside of the passport tells us why that is important. It seems to be ignored too often.

We know that sanctions are a vital tool for deterring and punishing state actors involved in arbitrary detention, yet that tool is often underutilised by UK Governments. I will touch on that later, because compared with the Americans, we fail to utilise it as a possible way to leverage changes to what is going on outside.

Another area of concern is the inconsistent application of Government policy regarding international legal standards. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he confirm the Government’s official definition of arbitrary detention? How does it align with international legal standards, such as those established by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention? I have never been able to get an answer out of any Foreign Minister yet, but I ask him, given his experience in the Department, to kindly find out the definition for us and let us know.

I said I would raise specific cases, so I will run through some of the list. Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen unjustly detained in Dubai for more than 16 years, originally in isolation. His case represents an egregious violation of human rights and, importantly, of due process. He was arrested in 2008 on false fraud allegations relating to a $500 million Dubai Islamic Bank loan, and his 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years in 2018 through retroactive application of a new law without proper legal proceedings. The bank seized assets worth $1.6 billion from Mr Cornelius, far exceeding the original loan amount. The UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled categorically that Ryan’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law, calling for his immediate release and compensation. However, there still appears to be FCDO resistance.

Mohammed Ibrahim Al Shaibani became DIB chairman shortly before Mr Cornelius’s arrest. He appears to have orchestrated Mr Cornelius’s continued detention and the asset seizure. Mr Al Shaibani holds influential positions in Dubai’s Government, indicating an abuse of power. Mr Cornelius is now 70 and has suffered severe health issues in prison, including tuberculosis that went untreated for 18 months. Meanwhile, his seized property, originally claimed to be “worthless” by the bank, is now being redeveloped as a luxury project called The Acres, worth, strangely, $3 billion.

Under the last Government, I raised Mr Cornelius’s case finally with the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron while he was Foreign Secretary. Subsequently, he engaged personally in seeking clemency for Mr Cornelius. He met the family, raised the case with the UAE Foreign Minister and wrote personally to the ruler of Dubai. That was a first, because everybody else seemed to have shied away from this one, not wanting to upset the UAE, it appears.

To be fair to Lord Cameron, he got the issue and he started to tackle it, and that was important. The present Foreign Secretary, who replaced Lord Cameron in July, failed to raise Mr Cornelius’s case in his recent visit to the UAE in September, which perplexes me, given that it had already been raised. That just encourages a country like the UAE to carry on and to double down. I do not understand why.

In response to my written question to the Foreign Secretary, I received this answer:

“The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of consular issues, although not this specific case, during his visit to the UAE on 5 September and first meeting with Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed.”

I understand that on Sunday, the Prime Minister is expected to visit the UAE and, I think, Saudi Arabia. Will the Minister make it clear to the Prime Minister— I believe this is the view that will be expressed in this debate—that he must not only raise the case, which is important, but demand categorically that Ryan Cornelius is released into the hands of his family without delay? I hope that whatever is summarised from his meetings, that specific issue is there in black and white for this House to record.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) raised Mr Cornelius’s case several weeks ago in an Adjournment debate, when he was reassured by the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), that:

“the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities”,—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 241.]

and yet it was not. If Ministers give assurances in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, do you not agree that they should actually back up those assurances? I wonder if the Minister present will explain why that was the case.

Although individual cases are raised with international counterparts, often no concrete action follows. I hope the Minister agrees that once a case is raised, it will be followed up. In Mr Cornelius’s case, I believe the path could culminate in sanctions, so there is a process. It is clear that raising the case with the UAE authorities has yet to produce a result. What we want is a real record that the authorities are now being warned that should they fail to take action, individual sanctions under the Magnitsky rules will follow.

Will the Minister therefore now look to imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizures? There are a number of them: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani, who was the chairman of the DIB; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, the vice chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, who was a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi, a board member; Dr Hamad Buamim, a board member; Javier Marin Romano, a board member; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb Al Mheiri, a board member; and Dr Cigdem Kogar, a board member. All were involved in this case; all are eligible for Magnitsky sanctions. Mr Cornelius should now be released immediately, or sanctions, I believe, should follow.

I will deal reasonably quickly with the case of Jimmy Lai, and then I will give way to others in the debate. Jimmy Lai is a renowned pro-democracy campaigner, journalist and media owner. I wear the badge to free him with pride. This man has been treated abominably—he is a hero, and we should recognise that. He is 77 and a proud British citizen. He is also a Catholic, and has been denied the normal communion that he would expect as a believer in Catholicism; it has been shut off from him for a long time, which matters a great deal to him. He is a prisoner of conscience. He could have fled Hong Kong after the Sino-British agreement was trashed, but he chose to stay. Why? He wanted to set an example for the many who could not flee and who were going to be arrested—that he was not going to run away just because he had money. This is a brave man.

Mr Lai is currently on trial in Hong Kong for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition, said to arise out of his work as a newspaper publisher and his pro-democracy activism. His case is emblematic of the crackdown on the media in Hong Kong, civil society and the rule of law. On 15 November 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained and called for his immediate release. The working group found multiple violations of Mr Lai’s rights and freedoms, expressed alarm at his prolonged detention in solitary confinement and stressed that he should not be on trial at all.

This case, I say to the Minister, is very urgent. Mr Lai has been arbitrarily detained in prolonged solitary confinement for nearly four years, often in insufferable heat during the summer months. Securing Jimmy Lai’s release requires effective action across the Government to bring him home and reunite him with his family in London. At the moment, he is bravely giving evidence in his trial—at which, by the way, a number of Members present have been named. I have been apparently named. I am already sanctioned by the Chinese, but I have also been named as being party to the case being brought against him. I have to say publicly that I have, sadly, never met Jimmy Lai or corresponded with him. I wish that I had. I wish that I could tell him what a brave man he really is. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister outline today what urgent steps the Foreign Office is taking to secure Jimmy Lai’s release?

I remind the Minister and others that what we see in front of us now is a rise in hostage taking by nation states. The biggest abuser of this process is, of course, Iran. I worry about this abuse growing more and more in Iran. In January 2023—we must not forget about this—Iran executed British-Iranian national Alireza Akbari, who was arrested, charged and executed on spying charges, which he denied and which were totally untrue. It was the first execution of a dual national since the 1980s. Only four months later, the Iranian authorities executed a second dual national, Swedish-Iranian Habib Chaab. In October 2024, it executed a third dual national, German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd. At least one more dual national, Swedish-Iranian Ahmad Reza Djalia, has been sentenced to death since 2023.

I conclude on the simple basis, as I raised at the beginning, that we can no longer go along with the idea that we somehow lose influence if we raise these cases publicly. We can no longer go on with this idea that we can manage a generalist approach to this in the Foreign Office. As has already been raised, we need a much more professional, deliberate and permanent status in the Department to deal with this matter.

Finally, we have in our hands the Magnitsky sanctions legislation. With the case of Ryan Cornelius and others, it is high time that those who were party to the arrest and incarceration of innocent British citizens find themselves facing Magnitsky sanctions, unless they recant and that individual is released. That at least gives us a tool. I ask the Government to get to the Dispatch Box, when the time comes, and commit to that process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes the point that I was just coming to. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, all too often one part of Government may be pressing for somebody’s release while other parts of Government seem to have a normal relationship with the foreign Government responsible and do little. We managed to send many delegates to COP29—I cannot remember how many there were, but it was certainly in three figures—but I would be interested to know how many of them actually raised with the Government in Baku the case of Dr Ibadoghlu.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I and a number of others wrote to the Prime Minister before he departed for Baku, urging him to raise that case. I understand from the Foreign Office that he did not raise it with his hosts.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very disappointed to hear that but, sadly, not surprised. I think I added my name to the letter that my right hon. Friend sent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing the matter forward and, as he does so often in the House, for setting the scene clearly, clinically and evidentially. Today’s debate is happening thanks to his request to the Backbench Business Committee and we are pleased about that.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss). I will speak about Jagtar Singh Johal as well, and it would be remiss of us in this House not to recall the efforts of Martin Docherty-Hughes, who was the MP for Mr Johal’s constituency and who valiantly fought the case throughout the time he was here. There was not a time in the week or month that he did not bring it up. He certainly did his bit with dedication and commitment. It is frustrating that after this period of time, we still see little headway.

I rise today to highlight an urgent and deeply troubling matter that strikes at the heart of what we stand for as a nation: the unjust detention of British citizens abroad for their belief. Those individuals embody the values of freedom, justice and dignity, and their plight calls for nothing less than our unwavering solidarity and absolute action. Just last week during oral questions, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether a section should be set aside within the FCDO tasked specifically with looking at this matter—it was after a question posed by right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—and he gave an indication that he was considering that. Can the Minister give us more information on where we are with that?

The clear and strong indication from the Foreign Secretary on that day was that that would happen. If it happens, it would follow on from what the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) referred to as well. What she requested would be incredibly helpful. If there was a section, it could take up the cases of British citizens. Quite honestly, a British passport has to mean something more than a bit of paper that I carry in my inside pocket everywhere I go. It means something for our rights, our citizenship and our protection under the citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I will begin with the harrowing case of Jagtar Singh Johal, the young British citizen from Dumbarton. In 2017, he travelled to India to celebrate his wedding, with all the joy that occasion would give, only to find himself abruptly detained. I talked to Martin Docherty-Hughes about it, who was a fount of knowledge on the case and always gave us the details on his contacts with the family. Since then, Mr Johal has endured more than seven years of imprisonment under charges that credible sources indicate are baseless. Allegations of torture during his detention further compound the gravity of the case.

It is clear that Mr Johal’s activism for Sikh human rights has made him a target. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, which stands up for those with Christian faith, those of other faiths and those with no faith. We are fortunate within the APPG to have a number of Sikhs, and we stand side by side with them on their right to human rights and on issues of persecution.

The treatment of Mr Johal is not just a tragedy for him and his family; more than that, it is an affront to the very principles of justice and human rights that we cherish in this House and of which every one of us will speak highly and sincerely today. His situation also underscores systematic failures in the protection of British nationals abroad. The prolonged inaction has left his family and the whole Sikh community across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to grapple with unimaginable anguish. That cannot stand.

I know the Minister has been in place for only the last five or six months, but in that time he has made a reputation of being one who has a deep interest in these matters and who looks to find a way forward. No pressure on you, Minister, but in all honesty, we are looking for something fairly edible at the end of this so that we actually have an idea of just where we are going. I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Minister to use every diplomatic tool available, from public advocacy to behind-the-scenes negotiations, to ensure Mr Johal’s release and to secure accountability for those responsible for his abuse.

I turn my attention to Jimmy Lai, about whom I have spoken on a number of occasions, as have many others. He is a British citizen and it is clearly underlined that his passport is a British passport. He is a devout Roman Catholic who represents the courage of standing for democracy in the face of tyranny. A founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, Mr Lai has long been a vocal advocate for press freedom and human rights in Hong Kong. We salute him and we acknowledge his courage.

I have never met Mr Lai, but there are many people in the world I have not met and it does not stop me speaking up for them. It does not stop us revering their names in this House and stating their right to have the freedom and liberty that we enjoy. Mr Lai now finds himself in prison under the draconian national security law imposed by Beijing, facing charges of colluding with a foreign country—my goodness—and conspiracy to defraud. Those are vague accusations with no evidential basis whatsoever, wielded to silence dissent and suppress freedoms.

Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment is emblematic of the broader erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong, a region where promises of autonomy and democratic rights under the Sino-British joint declaration are being systematically dismantled. How tragic it is to watch what is going on. His willingness to stay in Hong Kong despite escalating provocation and persecution speaks volumes about his commitment to the principles he holds dear. I ask all Members of this House: would you have had the strength of character to have done the same, knowing what was coming down the road towards you? His willingness to stay in Hong Kong cannot be underlined enough. The House must unequivocally condemn the actions of the Chinese authorities and demand Mr Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Freedom of religion and belief is important. The case of Jimmy Lai is illustrative because they do not have to, but the Chinese authorities have locked him away from any involvement with his faith. He cannot receive communion and he cannot give confession. For those who do not believe in it, I note that that really is powerful for a Catholic. He has had to endure that, which, although petty and pointless, is a way of trying to break him. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

[Jim Shannon]

I brought the case up in Westminster Hall. Jimmy Lai was denied the Eucharist when it is his right to practise his religious belief. When there is that attack on someone’s religious belief, along with persecution, human rights abuses and the denial of that very right, we thank God that Jimmy Lai has that relationship with God in heaven. He may not have the Eucharist, but he has a greater faith, which hopefully will strengthen him. However, when someone wants to outwardly express themselves and is denied that—that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—that is totally wrong. The Chinese Government, particularly those in Hong Kong, should be criticised for the way that they have denied Jimmy Lai his rights.

Furthermore, we must act to ensure that the international community does not normalise the repression of freedoms in Hong Kong. The cases of Mr Johal and Mr Lai are not isolated. They reflect a troubling global trend where authoritarian regimes act with impunity to silence voices of dissent. Whether they are targeting activists, journalists or those practising their faith, these regimes seek to erode the very freedoms that form the bedrock of a just society.

I am reminded of Amanda Damari, who I think is a British passport holder. Her daughter, Emily, was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. I met Amanda just after Easter when I was on a visit to Israel. I was incredibly impressed by her courage and determination to see her daughter once again. I believe that we, in this House, have a duty to fight Amanda Damari’s case for the release of her daughter.

The United Kingdom has a moral and diplomatic duty to lead by example. Words of condemnation, as important as they are, are not enough. I call on the Government to do three things: prioritise these cases in all diplomatic, bilateral and multilateral engagements; explore the application of targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in these human rights violations; and advocate for stronger mechanisms of accountability at forums such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth. We cannot always fight battles on our own, but we can fight them better together. I urge that we do so in a positive way.

We must also be mindful of the human stories behind these injustices. We try to express the human stories behind each one of these cases in the way that we can, but perhaps we do so without using the individual knowledge that we have. Jagtar Singh Johal is a husband, a son and a brother. Jimmy Lai is a father and a tireless advocate for freedom. Amanda Damari just wants her daughter home. Both those men are people of faith, and so too is Amanda. Their families bear the heavy burden of waiting, hoping and fighting for their return. We owe it to them and to ourselves as a nation—this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by paying tribute to the families who are in the Gallery and to those who are not. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, I have some personal experience in these matters, and I know just how painful it is to have a loved one detained overseas, often for long periods and with great uncertainty about next steps. I have met many of those who are in the Public Gallery. They are a tribute to their families, and I am endlessly in awe of the bravery, commitment and determination that they show.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, many of these cases have been going on for some time. I will start by providing context on the general situation. Several Members have made comments about trend lines; I will offer data on the Foreign Office’s response, as has been requested. I will set out Labour’s position, and then I will turn briefly to some of the cases that have been raised. However, as was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), many families do not wish to have their case named in this House, and many of them are not represented in the Public Gallery. That does not make them any less of a priority for me, the rest of the ministerial team, or the Foreign Office.

I join the shadow Minister—the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—and many other right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to consular teams for their work. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said that many Foreign Office staff are the best and brightest, and that is certainly true for consular teams, who I am very happy to represent as the consular Minister, and to visit everywhere I go. The week before last, I was in Pakistan, where our staff deal with some of the most complex consular cases, as the House will know. They work 24/7 to ensure that people have what is often their only contact with the outside world once they have been detained, as many Members have said.

I would not claim to be one of the best or brightest, but I am what the right hon. Member for New Forest East would probably call a specialist unit, given that during my time in the Foreign Office, I dealt with many such cases. Indeed, I worked with other nations, as many Members have encouraged the Government to do. It is of course desirable to look at other countries’ systems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) mentioned the SPEHA system, with which I worked extensively. I can assure her that I talk to my American counterparts, including the special envoy, who I will see this weekend.

Members seek consistency in our response to consular cases. They will recognise that what governs our ability to provide consular assistance is the Vienna convention, which mandates that we cannot interfere in foreign legal systems; we can only ensure that proper consular assistance is offered. Many Members have rightly highlighted the difficulties in identifying whether British nationals have had proper recourse to due process and their full rights. The Foreign Office remains focused on that question.

We are assisting 1,400 British nationals overseas. Some of those cases are more straightforward; some are considerably more complex. We provide assistance, both directly and through a partnership with Prisoners Abroad—a highly valued charity with which many Members will be familiar. It works to ensure not only that British nationals overseas are visited by the Foreign Office, but that they have access to essentials such as food and medication. Prisoners Abroad also supports the families of those detained abroad, a vital service that we will continue to support. We have long-running partnerships with non-governmental organisations such as Reprieve and the Death Penalty Project, which provide expertise in complex cases.

I know that right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the Foreign Office arrangements, so I will not dwell on them too much, but let me be clear about what a Labour Government will do differently and why. We will introduce a special envoy for complex consular cases, in part because we have heard from families, including those in the Public Gallery, about their experience of seeking Foreign Office support. We will introduce that envoy so that there is, as many Members have requested, a part of the Foreign Office with a particular focus on complex consular cases. We will also introduce a new right to consular assistance. I hope to return to the House shortly to set out more details on both provisions.

The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly highlighted that we should be uneasy about the increasing global trend of trying to use British and other foreign nationals as diplomatic leverage. It is important to repeat that we will never accept British nationals being used as pawns or diplomatic leverage. We take a strong position on that, and will continue to do so. We will not haggle for British nationals, but will ensure that they have their proper rights, in accordance with the Vienna convention, and will do everything we can to support their family.

I turn briefly to some of the cases that have been raised. I reiterate that I will not mention every case. There are many names that are burned into my mind, as Members would expect, and cases that we work on regularly that I will not mention now, but I will address those on which I have been particularly pressed for answers. I begin with the cases of Mr Cornelius and Mr Ridley. The family are above me in the Gallery. We will continue to provide support to them, but I reassure the House that I have now raised with the ruler of Dubai the request for clemency, and outlined the British Government’s support for Mr Cornelius’ pardon application. The previous Foreign Secretary did so, as was alluded to by the shadow Minister; I thought it was important to provide clarification on that. I recognise that there has been unwelcome news in this case; I will not go into further detail about that in this place, but we will continue to work on the case. I met Mr Cornelius’s family recently, and I reassure the House that I have committed to continuing to meet them for as long as the two cases remain ongoing.

Mr Lai’s case, which was also raised, remains a priority for the British Government. We are closely monitoring his trial, and I can reassure the House that diplomats from our consulate general will continue to attend his court proceedings. As this House is aware, the Prime Minister raised the matter of Mr Lai with President Xi at the G20 summit, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his equivalent. The Minister for the Indo-Pacific has also raised this case with both the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Mr Lai.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), and for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), for raising the case of Mr Johal. We continue to press the Government of India for faster progress to resolve this matter. I recognise the diligent efforts of his brother, who I understand is in the Gallery, and the deep and profound frustration about this case. It must be resolved, and that resolution must include an investigation into Mr Johal’s allegations of torture.

I will return to this House later today to talk further about Mr el-Fattah’s case. That case remains at the front of my mind and that of the Foreign Secretary. He met the family, who I understand are behind me in the Gallery, last week. The Prime Minister has raised the case with President Sisi; the Foreign Secretary and I have both raised it with the Egyptian Foreign Minister; and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development raised it just this week, again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister. Mr el-Fattah’s case is tragic. I am very mindful of the hunger strike of his mother, who I have met, and whose efforts have been mentioned by many hon. Members. We will continue to focus on Mr el-Fattah, and I look forward to returning to the House this afternoon to discuss his case further.

On Emily Damari, a hostage held by Hamas and a British national, she and all the other UK nationals and people with UK links held by Hamas are very much on our mind. We continue to press for their immediate release, for humanitarian access to them, and for the medical assistance that we are sure they will require. I met their families this week, and they will remain a steadfast focus. I would also like to comment briefly on the case of Dr Ibadoghlu; we have indeed raised this case with the authorities, including recently at the end of October.

As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested, these are not easy cases. Many of them have been going on for some time, and the appointment of an envoy is important, but I reassure this House that I am the Minister responsible for consular affairs. It is not for officials to own these cases; as the shadow Minister has made clear, that is for Ministers. That is very much the view that I and the Foreign Secretary take. I look forward to returning to the House to discuss some of these cases in more detail, and to tell Members about the measures that we will take. I regret that in our few months in Government, we have not yet seen positive progress on all these cases, and I note that many Members have referred to the negative trend in some of these areas. I reassure the House that we will continue to focus on this issue above all. As was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock, the first duty of Government is to look after their people. There is no higher responsibility for me than serving British nationals, whatever corner of the world they are in.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Before the Minister concludes, there is something that many Members have called for that he has not touched on. We passed an Act on Magnitsky sanctions some time ago. Should those sanctions not be part of our attack on hostage-taking and on people being detained abroad for no reason? Why are those involved not being threatened with sanctions, and not having sanctions applied to them? Why are the Government—all Governments—so reluctant to use this tool?

[Hamish Falconer]

I am afraid that, as the right hon. Gentleman might expect, I will not provide a detailed commentary on whether we are considering sanctions in any of these cases. Our position has been that we do not like to discuss sanctions in the House before we implement them, but I recognise the thrust of what he says. I think he is asking me to ensure that there is no diplomatic lever that we would not consider pulling to ensure the safety of our nationals, and I can confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

This debate was long overdue, and we have used the time well. We should have regular debates on this issue; the Government should set aside time for Back Benchers to debate what is happening to constituents who have been arbitrarily arrested and, more widely, to British citizens who are unlawfully detained. That should be a regular occurrence, and there should be regular reports. In my opening remarks, I called for a regular report from the Government on the status of those individuals. I hope that the Minister will take that request away, and that Ministers will initiate debate on this issue, rather than waiting for Back Benchers to do so. That would give us a real sense of the concerns, and the direct action that is being taken.

A number of issues were raised by colleagues from across the House. First, there was a call for a regular envoy who would be directly involved in these cases, so that the families always feel informed, and so that there is a go-to individual who everybody knows, and who possesses knowledge and understanding, including of the policy that the Government have initiated. It would be helpful if the Government made it clear that that is what they want to do.

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about making sure that we link this issue with trade, and that is very viable. We have different Departments; I was a Secretary of State once and we deal in separate little silos, and no one quite knows what the other is doing. It is clear from the debate that everybody shares the view that it is time for there to be a concentration of effort so that all powers are brought to bear on foreign Governments and every angle is used: trade, investments and, ultimately, sanctions.

We have Magnitsky sanctions legislation. We know now from what has happened around the world that what really concerns individuals is the idea that they will be sanctioned—sanctioned by Governments in the democratic world who will refuse them access to their financial institutions and all the other pleasures they may derive from being in places like the UK, Europe or the United States. This is a very efficient tool, but it is not used much by the UK Government and it should be used more.

In Hong Kong, China has trashed the Sino-British agreement and has arrested a number of people. It has just incarcerated 45 democracy campaigners in ghastly fashion, having held them for three years before eventually giving them their sentence. Jimmy Lai, in appalling treatment, languishes in isolation from others. And we, the UK, who set the agreement with China, have sanctioned not one single person responsible for any of the many abuses. America has sanctioned at least 12 of the highest officials. This shows—this is the main issue that arose from the debate—why people in Britain believe that British Governments of all hues, through the Foreign Office, do not do as much as they should. That has to be countered; whether it is correct or not, it needs to be answered. That was the final point of the debate.

Finally, I want to stress on every given occasion that our British passport, given to those who are British citizens whether or not they are dual nationals, has on its inside page a demand, not a request, and sometimes we in this House wonder about that. As one Foreign Minister after another, whether Conservative or Labour, arrives on the Front Bench, none ever makes that statement. British citizens require and demand that right of access to the consulate—one of the Minister’s responsibilities—so that they can have their issues dealt with. We need to know that that has been demanded, not requested nor negotiated—demanded, as that is a right that we have. I hope the Minister will take away with him the sense that there is genuine concern here about the behaviour of successive Governments in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House is concerned by the number of arbitrarily detained British nationals at risk of human rights abuses abroad and the apparent lack of active support for those detained; and calls on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide regular reports on when it last raised the cases of those people with its international counterparts.