Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I very strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is the Lebanese armed forces who, in the end, must be the force that disarms Hezbollah and ends the threats to both the Lebanese and the Israelis that emanates from that malign group, so I completely support the Lebanese armed forces and agree with what he says. UNIFIL will, of course, be a subject of discussion in the Security Council in the coming months and we will play our full part to try to ensure that it can contribute as much as possible. In much of the discussion around Lebanon, there is often a focus on the international elements. We have to be clear that the Lebanese Government, the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese President must have control over the use of force in Lebanon. That is the position of the British Government.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

While we rightly focus on the grave situation in Lebanon, the wider region is seeing an increasing pattern of British nationals being arbitrarily detained and used as leverage by countries including Iran. In light of the news that Craig and Lindsay Foreman have had their appeal dismissed by the Iranian courts, and given their ongoing hunger strike in Evin prison—I think Craig is on his 27th day and Lindsay is on her 18th day—to protest against their conditions and ongoing detention, what further specific steps are the Government taking to secure consular access? Are the Government now prepared to condemn their detention as arbitrary, use international levers against Iran for hostage taking, and show Iran that it cannot keep taking British citizens hostage as pawns in its own games?

[Mr Falconer]

I was clear yesterday, in response to the news that my hon. and learned Friend refers to, that their continued detention is unjustified and appalling. He has been a doughty advocate for his constituents in this matter. I will continue to meet him directly and with them on all these questions. The behaviour of Iran does not relate solely to British nationals, although they must of course be our focus in this Chamber; it is part of a much wider pattern of detentions which appear to have absolutely no justification of any kind. It is a pattern that extends far beyond Europe as well. We condemn it. It is completely erosive of any trust in Iran, and I have made that point clearly and repeatedly to the Iranian authorities.

Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Just over 500 days ago, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the mother and stepfather of one of my constituents, were on the trip of a lifetime: a motorcycle journey across the world. During their travels, Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to research along the way the elements of what makes a good life. She wanted to ask people in all the different countries they travelled through what happiness, fulfilment and purpose meant to them.

In January 2025, they entered Iran with visas and with an approved tour company. The Iranian authorities claimed that, simply by speaking to people about what makes a good life, the Foremans were conducting espionage and attempting to overthrow the Iranian regime—a totally baseless and utterly absurd allegation. The obvious truth was that they were innocent tourists.

The Foremans were arrested in Iran in January 2025 and later convicted of espionage in a trial that fell well short of international standards. In February this year they were sentenced to 10 years in prison. Their case was heard by the notorious revolutionary court, and by an Iranian judge who has himself been sanctioned by the UK, the US and the EU. That judge relied on so-called confessions of Lindsay and Craig that resulted from Lindsay being forced to sign documents in Farsi without interpretation and to fingerprint blank pieces of paper. Those documents were obtained after the Foremans being subjected to severe psychological pressure and inhuman treatment.

That treatment has included solitary confinement for 56 days without justification, and while in solitary confinement Lindsay was interrogated for 30 consecutive days and Craig for 14 days. They were blindfolded to, from and during those interrogations. Craig was walked into walls deliberately. Aggressive questioning was used, with language designed to cause maximum psychological distress.

For all of the interrogations, Craig and Lindsay had no legal representation at all, despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. There were countless other due process violations —not seeing evidence, false evidence, not having the opportunity to challenge evidence, and being taken into court without any warning—and UK officials were not even permitted to attend this so-called trial.

Since August and October last year respectively, Craig and Lindsay have been held in extremely harsh conditions in Evin prison, which is widely regarded as one of the most notorious prisons in Iran.

I would like to put on record my sincere thanks, on behalf of my constituent Joe Bennett, who sits bravely in the Public Gallery, and the whole Foreman family, for the welfare support given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lindsay and Craig and their family. I thank them for everything that they are doing in very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance that the Foremans are simply innocent tourists whose convictions and sentences are unjustifiable and appalling.

However, Craig and Lindsay’s family would like the British Government to go further and to act with more urgency.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. On the point of monitoring the welfare and health of the Foremans, with diplomatic relations as they are at the moment, does he agree that we must implore the Minister to use all channels and actions possible to check on their welfare?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Craig and Lindsay are currently undertaking a hunger strike, which is essentially the only way they feel that they can protest against their treatment, after their phone cards were taken away and they were denied contact with their family. I will discuss their welfare later in my speech, but I agree that the Government need to explain what measures they are taking to monitor their health in these very difficult circumstances, including, if necessary, by using third-party allies.

Ultimately, I want to set out four things that the family are calling for, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s views. First, the British Government should say loudly and clearly that Lindsay and Craig are not spies, and that their detention is politically motivated and arbitrary in international law. I say that because this case follows a well-documented line of cases where Iran has taken innocent British citizens and those of other nations as bargaining chips for their own purposes. If the Government accept that Lindsay and Craig are innocent and are not spies, and that the trial that they were subjected to in Iran was grossly unfair and provides no basis at all for their detentions, they must have a view about why the Iranians are doing this.

My constituent Joe does not believe that it is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest to shy away from calling a spade a spade here. These are obviously trumped-up false charges from a kangaroo court that Iran is pursuing for its own ends. In other words, Craig and Lindsay Foreman are hostages, they are being held for political purposes, and we should be prepared to say so openly and to calibrate our response accordingly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right that we need to call a spade a spade here. There is no basis for these convictions and no basis for this detention—that is the hallmark of an arbitrary detention in international law. If we can accept that, we can move to the next stage to take the appropriate measures to deal with this very serious abuse of British citizens in Iran.

A number of our international partners have not shied away from such clear language. For example, France and Australia have explicitly rejected the espionage convictions of their nationals in Iran in similar situations as baseless and politically motivated. They have described those detentions of their nationals as arbitrary detention, and have used such language not to close down diplomacy, but to strengthen it. My constituent Joe and his family ask: why should the British Government be more cautious about the truth than others have been in similar situations?

Secondly, what consideration has been given to providing diplomatic protection to Lindsay and Craig Foreman? That is an established way of converting an individual grievance into an interstate dispute. Craig and Lindsay are our citizens, so the Government must do all they can to protect them. That should include, at the very least, a serious and transparent assessment of whether conferring diplomatic protection on them would enhance our ability to bring them home. If not, why not?

Thirdly, what consideration has been given to how the International Court of Justice mechanism and other international legal forums could be used by the UK to exert pressure on Iran? The ICJ is where the UK could argue that politically motivated arbitrary detentions of our nationals do breach international legal obligations; France has done exactly that with its nationals. What is the Government’s view about that mechanism in the Foremans’ case? Does the Ministers accept in principle that the pattern of conduct is not just unjustifiable, but arbitrary and unlawful under international law?

Fourthly—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—given that Craig is in the 13th day of his hunger strike and Lindsay is on her fourth, will the Minister assure the family that appropriate steps are being taken to monitor their health in prison, including, if necessary, with the assistance of an ally?

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and thank him for the cross-party nature of his approach. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs for its work on the concerning case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman.

This is a crucial moment for the UK Government and hon. Members in the Chamber to ascertain whether the support given to Craig and Lindsay is satisfactory. The tourists Craig and Lindsay were formerly my constituents. Joe and the family are living in deeply challenging times, and they want to know that that welfare and protection is roundly being given.

[Tony Vaughan]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Contributions in this Chamber and the response to the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago— I think around 70 parliamentarians signed it, which is a good number, given that many people do not sign such motions—show that there is cross-party support for more robust action in the case of the Foremans, and I will continue with colleagues, in this Chamber and outside it, to press for that.

Over 500 days into this terrible nightmare, Lindsay and Craig, my constituent Joe Bennett and their family are desperately in need of hope. They see the French bring home their nationals from Iran, as Australia did—and as the UK eventually did in the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. I thank Richard Ratcliffe, who is in the Gallery and has been a source of great support to the family at this very difficult time, in spite of his own and Nazanin’s terrible ordeal. France and Australia have explicitly rejected espionage convictions as baseless and politically motivated, and Joe wants to understand why the UK cannot take a similar approach in relation to his parents.

The family are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity of language, for maximum use of the legal and diplomatic tools available to our country, and for an approach that treats Craig and Lindsay appropriately: as innocent British citizens who have been taken from their usual lives and their families, and must urgently be brought home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I will, once I have made a little more progress. These cases rarely move quickly or predictably. Progress is often incremental, and requires sustained and patient engagement, and I assure the House that we are persistent and determined in our efforts.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the Minister give way on the complexity of this case?

[Mr Falconer]

I think I probably have to take turns, so I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. and learned Friend.

[Mr Falconer]

I will try to make a little progress before I take the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. I am always reluctant, when at the Dispatch Box, to compare our diplomacy with that of our friends, partners and allies, but I say gently to the hon. Lady that the French case to which I think she is referring involved four years of detention in conditions that no one would want to see Craig and Lindsay in. I understand the point that she is making, but comparisons between cases are not easily made, and we have to use our best judgment and give our best advice to the families.

I recognise that the family have called for stronger public action, including a range of steps, some of which were outlined very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. As I have tried to make clear throughout my speech, we will give the family our best advice. It also falls to us to give our best judgment about what is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest. That is at the heart of our approach.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the complexity of these cases, which potentially involve numerous different Government Departments, that we need an envoy for complex consular cases, who has not just the resources, but the authority to bring the Government together, and to act proactively to get such cases moving? Can he update the House on where that proposal is at, and whether there will be the framework and the powers to bring these sorts of cases forward? The Minister will be aware of matters that potentially concern other Government Departments in this case, and it may help if an individual has the authority, resources and powers to bring these sorts of cases forward. What are his thoughts on that?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that we are progressing the appointment of an envoy. One of the issues we have sought to navigate in the appointment of an envoy is that the Government and I recognise the responsibilities that the Foreign Secretary and I have to this House and to other Members, who will wish to represent their constituents appropriately in public, just as we are doing as we speak. There is therefore a balance to be struck in appointing an envoy with the ability to do all the things that my hon. Friend describes while not taking away from parliamentary accountability, which is a central pillar of our system. We are bringing forward that appointment, and I look forward to returning to the House with further details about it, and about the individual who I hope will take up that post.

I recognise that even during this short exchange, there have been differing views about the most effective ways to secure progress. That is entirely understandable in the circumstances. However, I wish to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the family in the Gallery that every decision we take is guided by what we judge to be in Craig and Lindsay’s best interests. Our objective is clear: to work towards their return to their loved ones, and, until then, to ensure improvements in their welfare.

I remain deeply concerned for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, particularly in the light of recent developments affecting their health. We are working, and will continue to work, intensively through all appropriate channels to support Craig and Lindsay, improve their conditions and pursue their swift release.

Question put and agreed to.

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Gaza’s healthcare system has been severely depleted. Israel’s campaign has destroyed health facilities, killed health workers and restricted vital medical supplies. The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories reported in September that Israel’s actions, including the systematic destruction of the health system, amount to genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Although the recent ceasefire has allowed a greater flow of aid, including vital health supplies, more must be done to ensure that the level of supply meets the scale of need.

As winter approaches, the health needs of Gaza remain dire. Israeli authorities continue to impede full humanitarian access—which is a legal obligation under international law, not a concession of any ceasefire.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Given the ICJ ruled last year that there is a “plausible” case of genocide in Gaza, and given that the humanitarian situation has drastically deteriorated since then, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must actively support efforts to ensure that every rejection of aid and refusal to allow trucks in for spurious reasons is documented, so that it can be put before the ICJ in the South Africa case to hold Israel accountable for breaches of international humanitarian law?

Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate. The ECHR has delivered extraordinary victories for British people. When Jeanette Smith and Graeme Grady were discharged from the armed forces simply for being gay, the English courts rejected their challenge, but the Strasbourg Court unanimously upheld their rights. Today the armed forces welcome all people regardless of sexual orientation.

The ECHR has protected children wrongfully taken into care; workers have won the right to express their faith and mental health patients have gained proper legal safeguards. Those are not abstract legal victories—they are real, and have changed people’s lives for the better. Yet many voices, including that of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, paint the ECHR as our enemy and as a barrier to border control. They could not be more wrong. The truth is that we need the ECHR to manage our borders.

A common rights framework means that our European partners will work with us to tackle organised people smuggling and to protect our national security. We had the UK-France deal this summer, Bulgaria is intercepting smuggling boats at the EU border, and Germany is reforming its criminal laws to confront these shared challenges. Even Rwanda said that it will not work with us unless we observe human rights. Let us not forget that it was the failed Brexit project that destroyed the Dublin regulation, leaving us without any EU returns agreement. We then saw the number of dangerous crossings soar.

The ECHR did not stop the UK from removing 34,000 people with no right to be here in 2024, which was the highest number since 2017. Under 1% of foreign national offenders successfully appeal deportation on human rights grounds; since 1980, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, the Strasbourg Court found against the UK on deportation cases just a handful of times, only four of which concerned family life. The Reform and Tory policy of ECHR withdrawal is simply Brexit 2.0 and isolationism. It will not secure our borders. It will not solve anything.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend has listed a number of very good examples of what has been achieved as a result of the ECHR. Does he agree that we need to work together to highlight its benefits, as opposed to seeking to tear it down or tear it apart?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman conclude in 30 seconds, because there is no additional time for interventions?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will conclude by saying that, on this 75th anniversary, 300 organisations—from Liberty to Mind, Shelter to Amnesty—rightly defend the convention. It is up to this Government to demonstrate to the public that we can have both border control and compassion. Let us celebrate 75 years of freedom, and 75 more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that the Government take action to ensure that security measures are in place, and we do so through a series of different routes. He will also know that the planning process is independent, and will follow its course.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

When it comes to the UK’s relations with China, it is not a simple binary choice between national security and growth—national security must always be our non-negotiable red line—but subject to that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that when there are specific sectors where economic engagement with China promotes growth, we should be open to that?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We already have substantial trade with China, there is also investment from both the United Kingdom and China, and we have always been a trading nation that works and trades with countries across the globe, but as my hon. Friend says, national security must always be the first priority. That is why, wherever there are national security threats, we take them immensely seriously and will always challenge China on them.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her tireless activism on this issue.

Twenty months ago, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches Palestinians in Gaza, to protect what the Court found to be Palestinians’ “plausible” right to be protected from acts of genocide. Today, humanitarian reality speaks for itself, as other hon. Members have set out: 470,000 Palestinians face catastrophic food insecurity, and nearly 900 people have been killed while queuing for aid since May—shot by Israeli forces as they waited for food and water.

Last month, alongside 27 other countries, the UK rightly condemned Israel’s aid distribution system as “dangerous” and “inhumane”—my hon. Friend rightly described it as a disgrace. It is clear that humanitarian access has worsened and that the Court’s orders are still being systematically ignored. We must see full compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures, all border crossings reopened, all restrictions lifted and humanitarian operations restored to pre-conflict levels.

Under the genocide convention, the UK has obligations to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law, regardless of whether the UK has reached its own conclusions about genocide itself. The ICJ has made enough rulings. The time for action is now.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this timely debate.

We must be crystal clear about what is going on in the west bank. The forcible displacement of Palestinians there is an act of grave immorality and a breach of international law. Bodies such as the UN, Amnesty International and Oxfam are clear about what is going on. The UN has confirmed that since 7 October 2023, more than 6,463 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, following the demolition of their homes. That figure does not include around 40,000 Palestinians who were displaced from three refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem.

Oxfam is clear that we are witnessing the

“largest forced displacement in West Bank since…1967”.

About 8,000 Israeli military checkpoints, barriers and gates have been constructed, causing unprecedented movement restrictions. Aid deliveries to the west bank face impenetrable obstacles. The Israeli military are conducting an unrelenting campaign in the west bank. They have deployed tanks, carried out air strikes and destroyed buildings and other civilian infrastructure. We have heard eyewitness testimony to that effect from Members present. On 21 May, a diplomatic delegation of representatives from over 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, came under fire from Israeli soldiers while visiting Jenin refugee camp.

Mr Turner, 5 June is an important day for Palestinians: Naksa Day, when they remember the forced displacement of approximately 300,000 Palestinians during the war of 1967, when Israel occupied the west bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. We must learn the lessons from history and not repeat tragic mistakes.

This Government’s approach is markedly different from what has come before. They were right to sanction the two Israeli Government Ministers, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have championed illegal settlements; right to support the independence of our international courts; and right to take an internationalist, multilateral approach, collaborating closely with our allies France, Germany and Canada to call out the Netanyahu Government.

We must have as strict a sanctions regime as possible against the illegal settler outposts and organisations in the west bank. We must sanction any Israeli politician or organisation that incites violence in the occupied west bank, as we already have. We must stop trade with the settlements. All that is required because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, we are under positive legal obligations to take steps to prevent violations of international law, as the ICJ advisory opinion made clear in July 2024.

We must recognise the state of Palestine, along with the 147 other UN member states that already do. Doing this is about our country acting with moral authority and showing the moral leadership that we ought to show.

Political Prisoners

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this vital debate. I commend her for her work fiercely fighting for her constituents. I declare an interest in this debate as the chair of the all-party parliamentary China group.

Jimmy Lai’s situation is desperate and his treatment wholly unacceptable. I am deeply concerned by the treatment that Mr Lai, a 77-year-old British citizen, has received at the hands of the Hong Kong authorities. He has been a tireless campaigner for democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. He has already been sentenced to five years and nine months in prison for a separate case relating to his now closed newspaper, Apple Daily. His lawyers have confirmed that he has been denied independent medical care and is allowed out of his cell for a mere 50 minutes a day. That is inhuman treatment. He is a frail, elderly man who is 77, has diabetes and has lost considerable weight, yet he remains a man of immense courage and unyielding spirit—qualities to which I want to pay tribute today. If he is found guilty he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

As chair of the APPG, I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case in person several times with Chinese officials, including in January when I visited Beijing as part of a visit by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. The Chinese believe it is an internal matter for them, but raising his case firmly has been my duty. It is important that a message is sent by this House and by UK parliamentarians that his treatment is not acceptable.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about making the case to China. Does he agree with me that this is about more than just Jimmy Lai, because the rights that Jimmy Lai was exercising when he was arrested were guaranteed under the joint declaration, and that brings into question whether China is a reliable partner on all sorts of other international agreements, too?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must not forget that Hong Kong still, it is said, has a common law system, so Hong Kong must observe the common law and the basic principles attached to a fair trial. That is the bedrock of what the common law is about. It has been a privilege and inspiring for me to meet Sebastien Lai and his father’s lawyers. I pay tribute to them and their work.

Because of our fundamentally different political and economic systems, conceptions of democracy and human rights in China and in Britain will inevitably be different. But we must not relent from pushing and raising the case, given that Hong Kong has a common law system, and the international obligations that apply to China and Hong Kong must be upheld. I was encouraged to see that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case when he met President Xi at the G20 in Brazil. I urge the Prime Minister to meet Mr Lai’s son and his lawyers. The UK must of course work closely with our allies to continue to raise his case with officials at every level of the Chinese Communist party. China and Hong Kong should understand that Mr Lai’s case and the treatment that he has received is damaging the standing of China and Hong Kong in the world.

But beyond questions of legality, reputation and soft power lies the case of a frail, elderly man who deserves better, more humane treatment. I call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Gaza: UK Assessment

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is a top priority for me, and for my officials, to ensure that British nationals or their dependants who are in danger in Gaza are able to leave safely. I do not wish to comment on the specifics, but I am happy to take up that case and others with my hon. Friend and any other Members whose constituents are in similar circumstances.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the Minister for all his work on this issue. Given the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution, and given our obligations under international law, can he explain how the Government justify engaging in trade negotiations with Israel while the UN is warning us about genocide in Gaza, and does he agree that pursuing a trade deal in these circumstances would undermine both our ability to broker a two-state solution and our positive obligation to act to prevent violations of international law?

[Mr Falconer]

I can assure the House that my focus is on the matters that we have discussed this afternoon. They are urgent and immediate, and they crowd out all other priorities.

UK-China Relations

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-China relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I welcome the opportunity to raise in this House the opportunities and implications of our relationship with China. I declare an interest as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, alongside other colleagues in attendance today, who have consistently raised concerns over the UK’s relationship with China.

Since Brexit, the UK has rightly sought to establish new economic and trade relationships beyond Europe, aiming to diversify access to key commodities. As a result, China has become the UK’s third largest trading partner. This economic interdependence presents both an opportunity and a risk, which we must navigate carefully to uphold security, human rights and our fundamental values. Yet we have already seen how economic leverage can be misused. The UK-China economic and financial dialogue in January resulted in a rather uninspiring £600 million deal—hardly the sign of a robust, or indeed equitable, economic relationship. This is not a partnership; it is dependency, and dependency makes us vulnerable.

Take the UK’s reliance on China for renewable energy components, for example. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in her policy renewal speech last Tuesday that the best way to deliver clear energy and a better environment is with the markets. However, the reality is that much of our push for net zero is built on Chinese supply chains, particularly in solar panels, wind farms and electric vehicles. A long-term net zero strategy cannot mean long-term reliance on China.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

If the mechanisms and safeguards were robust enough to ensure that there is not slave labour in supply chains, would that address the hon. Member’s concern?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Member is entirely right. I would be very surprised if anyone in the Chamber did not agree with him. The key point is how we move from what I think is relatively universal agreement to actual sanctions and enforcement, to make sure that our manufacturers are competing on a level playing field.

As an example of that, a 2023 report from the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University noted that in 2020, China produced 75% of the global supply of solar grade polysilicon, and 45% of that was manufactured in Xinjiang. That is why the amendment that I alluded to earlier was crucial to cleaning up the supply chains and preventing the UK from becoming core to Chinese consumption.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will in a minute; I just want to make a bit of progress.

On Times Radio, the Housing Minister gave his “absolute” guarantee that solar panels for GB Energy projects on hospitals and schools will not include slave labour. But without legal requirements for companies to comply, will the Minister outline how she can be sure that such labour will not be involved?

China’s dominance in trade also extends to industrial production. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in July 2023 warned that the Chinese Communist party had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, leaving us with a £32 billion trade deficit. The consequences of this economic entanglement are already apparent. When a recent shipment from Xinjiang entered UK airports via European Cargo, neither Border Force nor the responsible Government Departments took the necessary steps to intervene. The failure to act leaves our economy exposed and less competitive.

Meanwhile, China remains the world’s largest carbon emitter: it emits 15 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually and powers industries with coal while exporting steel and electric vehicles at artificially low prices. What is the UK doing? I urge the Minister to clarify whether the Government are considering measures similar to those that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) pointed out, the US is taking.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the hon. Member not agree that the correct characterisation of the amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that he mentioned is that it was about restricting how the Government spend money on GB Energy? If it had been about a whole of industry approach, and stopping both private companies and the Government purchasing solar panels tainted by slave labour, that might have made sense.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. I acknowledge my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. I pay tribute to the Minister for her role in improving the UK-China relationship and the UK’s bilateral relationships with other Asian nations such as the Philippines and Thailand. These are the fastest-growing economies in the world, and we need to trade and invest where the economic action is.

I participated in a cross-party delegation trip to Beijing at the start of this year. During the trip, it was clear to me—with my eyes wide open—that there is much that the UK and China can co-operate on. The focus of the delegation was on how the UK and China can strengthen global artificial intelligence safety regulations, and what learning we should share regarding our domestic approaches to that issue. It was clear that the UK and China can also increase co-operation on trade, especially by increasing trade in agrifood, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, education and professional services. There is also more we can do together to tackle climate change, promote biodiversity and strengthen global pandemic preparedness.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am fascinated by the argument the hon. Member is developing. Could he point to anything significant that China is doing to reduce its footprint?

[Tony Vaughan]

It is difficult to see how we are going to address these huge global challenges without involving China. I am not advocating for China, but relevant to the hon. Member’s question is the fact that it has a hugely fast-growing green energy technology sector. Of course China has huge carbon omissions as well, and that is another issue.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, 35% of China’s energy is renewable energy, which is up from 0% 15 years ago. By the end of this decade, given the rate at which it is expanding, China will be responsible for 60% of the globe’s renewable energy production.

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he is more on top of the statistics than I am.

With China being a member of the G20 and the UN Security Council, and the third-largest trading partner for the UK—if one includes Hong Kong—it is entirely logical that the Government should aspire to a more stable and consistent relationship. To do anything different would not be in the UK’s national interests.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

There are well-documented links between Russia and China. It is publicised and well-known that China buys Russia’s oil and all the rest of it. We are fighting Russia at the moment in Europe; it is our primary adversary. Why on earth would we want to have a close and stable relationship with China?

[Tony Vaughan]

As I said, I am not advocating for China; I am saying that, as the third-largest trading partner with Hong Kong, we cannot pretend that it does not exist. We cannot pretend that there is no role for building dialogue and engagement. The reality is that, given the way the tectonic plates of global affairs are moving, it is in China’s interests to have a stable Europe. Who else will buy its electric cars, for example? There is an evolution in the way we should look at these things, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point.

Over the last 14 years, British foreign policy towards China resembled a rollercoaster. We had the golden era under the Cameron Government, when President Xi enjoyed a state visit and, as the Foreign Secretary recently reminded us, had a beer in a pub with the Prime Minister. We had the May Government’s justified scepticism about China General Nuclear Power Corporation’s involvement in Hinkley, and then the Johnson Government’s confused China policy, culminating in Liz Truss’s cold war 2.0-style policy. No serious nation should aim to have a bilateral relationship with the world’s second-largest economy that resembles a fairground ride. The Chancellor’s trip to China for the economic and financial dialogue in January, concluding agreements of up to £1 billion for the UK economy over five years, is an example of how taking a grown-up relationship to China is in our national interest.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on China in 2023. The public version said that it is China’s

“ambition at a global level—to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant—that poses a national security threat to the UK.”

How does the hon. Gentleman see it?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree that a national security-first approach to China must be the position. As I understand it, that is the position of the Government. That is why the position taken on the embassy is a national security issue; I know that there has been some debate about that, but I am not in a position to second-guess MI6, MI5 and the security services, and that has to be the lens through which we look at these issues.

I have referred to the EFD outcomes. Critics of engagement overlook the fact that some nations who took a robust approach to China were still engaging in the background. If we step back while competitors—including the United States, which has also taken a robust approach to China—are engaging, we are missing a trick. The UK had not sent a Prime Minister to China in many years. I am pleased that the Government aim to have a relationship with China based on what I understand to be a national security approach, while also co-operating with, competing with and challenging China where appropriate. Engaging with does not, of course, meaning agreeing with.

[Jim Shannon]

I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am conscious of what he is putting forward, but I do not hear anything in his speech to do with human rights or religious persecution. We must make that central to our economic business with China. That is the Minister’s mission, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will come on to that shortly and reassure us that those are also his thoughts.

[Tony Vaughan]

That is exactly what I am now moving on to. As I said, engaging with does not mean agreeing with. Part of our stable and consistent relationship with China involves raising human rights concerns with it, stably and consistently, as the Prime Minister did with the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi last year. I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and the barristers representing his father and I was very concerned to hear of Jimmy Lai’s deteriorating medical situation. I urge the Prime Minister to meet his team to discuss what the British Government can do to effect his release.

Another example is the compelling evidence of the use of forced labour in energy supply chains in China, especially polysilicon. I do not believe our green energy transition should be built from solar panels built using forced labour. We must take a whole-of-industry approach, with robust safeguards against the import of solar panels when it cannot be shown that they are free from forced labour. In the long term, our country needs to become self-sufficient in our industrial supply chains, such as renewable technology production. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) said about protecting UK domestic industries and jobs, which must be prioritised.

A grown-up relationship with China means believing that we should work with China on areas that do not impact national security and human rights, while also putting our foot down in areas that do. It will always be a highly complex bilateral relationship, with tricky trade-offs and tensions, and I fully accept that there is a role for pressing China extremely hard, as some in this Chamber have done. I am pleased to see the Government’s success so far in bringing stability and pragmatism to that relationship.