Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

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

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

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

[Yvette Cooper]

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

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.