5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Topical Questions

   It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling “the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   China and Japan

   China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   China and Japan

   The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Topical Questions

   T10. Instead of constantly pushing back the closure date for RAF Halton in an era where we need to increase defence capability, will the Minister commit to keeping it open for the long term?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   China and Japan

   In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?

   Hansard source
6. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   China and Japan

   Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   US Department of Justice Release of Files

   Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

   I rise to object to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill carry-over and Select Committee motions. Why is there any need to carry over the Bill? To paraphrase Monty Python, this project is no more: it has ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a stiff, bereft of life, so why won’t everyone accept this project is dead, finito, finished? By continuing with this charade, the Government are giving false hope to those who want it to happen, just like they did with the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, and are causing needless anxiety to those in my constituency who do not want it to happen. Rather than faffing about with carry-over motions—acting more “Carry On”, than carry over—why do the Government not just announce this project is dead and buried, and put it out of its misery once and for all? The Government need to dispose of the properties they have bought and are holding on to, and take them out of safeguarding. It seems the Government are only proceeding with this carry-over motion to try to appease the windbag of the north, Andy Burnham. If they think this futile gesture will ensure he plays nicely and supports the Prime Minister, they are sadly deluded. This is another example of the Government making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. They should have learned by now that such a tactic will always backfire. My constituents were extremely grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for cancelling this white elephant project. This Government would do well to follow his lead.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

   According to the Secretary of State’s announcement, the money being put forward was, I think, £1.1 billion out of a £45 billion cost, which was to be delivered in decades to come, when the Secretary of State and her Government will no longer be around—hence, it is a charade to keep the mayors of the north happy at the local elections.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    China and Japan

    It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?

    Hansard source
11. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    China and Japan

    The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    It is disgraceful that the Government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords; it is entirely within their gift to do so. The public know that, and will be not only alarmed by the fact that the Government are not doing that, but questioning the motive for their delay. On what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the Government?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the last debate carefully, and I wondered whether you could help me with a procedural question. Would it be orderly for the Government to bring forward legislation, as soon as they wished to do so, to relieve Peter Mandelson of his peerage?

    Hansard source
14. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    China and Japan

    The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion. In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Military Independence from US

    The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    China and Japan

    I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him. We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday 21 January, before my contribution to the debate on the Northern Ireland remedial order, I omitted to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That was an oversight, as it includes a declaration of a major contribution from Sir Michael Gooley in support of the campaign to protect military veterans from lawfare, for which I am the custodian. That was a mistake on my part, for which I obviously apologise to the House.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    China and Japan

    Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee: That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over): 1. The Committee is to have five members. 2. The members of the Committee are— (a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and (b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. 3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection. 4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that— (a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and (b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.

    Hansard source
21. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

    Division off. Question agreed to. Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”). Suspension at end of qualifying Session 1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”). 2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question— (a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time; (b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session; (c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session; (d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with— (i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended; (ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended; (iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9); (iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended; (v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended; (vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords. 3. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session; (b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session; (c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session; (d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session; (e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee; (f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition; (g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply; (h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body; (i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it; (j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time; (k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee. 4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee. 5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session. 6. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and (b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration. 7. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and (b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading. 8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House. Other 9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table. 10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session— (a) Session 2021-22; (b) Session 2022-23; (c) Session 2023-24; (d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session; (e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session 11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information). 12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person. That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over): 1. The Committee is to have five members. 2. The members of the Committee are— (a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and (b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. 3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection. 4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that— (a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and (b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)

    Hansard source
22. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity

    Order. Interventions must be brief, but as it is so long before 10 pm, Members could make a speech if they so wish.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    T9. The Government have said that we should be bolstering our preparedness for war. Can the Minister tell us when the defence readiness Bill will be ready and when he expects it to gain Royal Assent?

    Hansard source
24. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    China and Japan

    The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

    Hansard source
25. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Ajax: Initial Operating Capacity

    8. What steps he is taking to ensure the delivery of initial operating capability for the Ajax programme.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Ajax: Initial Operating Capacity

    The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    China and Japan

    I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?

    Hansard source
28. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Armed Forces Families

    It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    China and Japan

    When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government. So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the “veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.” That investigation never happened. In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know. Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that “full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship? On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”. So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway. The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information? It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice. If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that. If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete. [Dawn Butler in the Chair] Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin. Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation. Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who has been tireless in raising the issue of our support for Ukraine. I was delighted to hear from him that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has received the Order of Merit; it is richly deserved. I was proud to receive it when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley was equally proud. It is a great honour. The hon. Member began his remarks by saying, rightly, that this is day 1,435 of the full-scale war, but he also rightly pointed out that Russia’s attack on Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea 12 years earlier. It was arguably even before that, when Russia made it clear that it believed Crimea was Russian territory and its Parliament voted that Sevastopol was a Russian city. The annexation took place in a flagrant breach of the Budapest memorandum, of which we were a signatory along with Russia and the United States. It was a breach of international law. As I have said before, I think the rather feeble response from the west to the annexation contributed to Russia’s belief that it could go further in attacking Donbas. After the annexation of Crimea, we had the little green men and the separatist movement in Donbas, but we knew—the evidence was overwhelming—that they were not separatists. They were armed, funded and directed by Russia. Indeed, after the horrific shooting down of MH17 on to the territory by separatists, we had intercepts to show they were clearly operating under the command of Russians. During that time I visited several parts of Ukraine, including those now under occupation. I went to Mariupol, a city on the Black sea. Even then, it was being squeezed by the Russians as a result of the blockade of the Kerch strait to prevent ships from reaching Berdyansk and Mariupol. Since then, Mariupol has been almost completely destroyed, with 75,000 civilians killed in the battle with the Russians. This was an area that Russia claimed wanted to be liberated. It argued that the people were Russian speakers who felt Russian, that their allegiance was to Russia and that they were somehow going to be freed from Nazi oppression in Kyiv. It is the Russian propaganda playbook. It had absolutely no basis in truth, and the fact that so many Russian-speaking citizens in Donbas have been killed in the war proves the cynicism of the Russians. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about the conditions in Donbas. I just had a quick check. This weekend in Donetsk, the temperature will be between minus 11 and minus 18. People can expect to receive water every four days. They are predominantly elderly people, the young people having largely fled, and the conditions there are utterly appalling. What is happening in the occupied territories is horrific, and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to raise it. As well as the ongoing fighting, we know that atrocities are being committed, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We had a meeting yesterday with Dr Jade McGlynn of the war unit in King’s College London, who has done a lot of research about Ukrainians’ plight. We heard that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Ukrainians have been detained or have disappeared. We were told that 92% of those who have been released have reported being tortured, ill-treated and systematically abused, with sexual violence used as a deliberate method of humiliation, initially triggering men but then also women. I want to put two questions to the Minister, one of which relates to those atrocities. On the statute book, we have sanctions available for deliberate abuse of human rights. There is a list of individuals who have been identified as perpetrators of these abuses. Will the Minister look at extending sanctions to the people carrying out these appalling crimes? My other question relates to a specific location in the Donbas area: Zaporizhzhia, which has one of the biggest nuclear power plants in Europe. It closed down in September 2022, but there are reports that the Russians intend to reactivate its first reactor. The head of the Ukrainian nuclear energy service has said that that risks “nuclear catastrophe”, that the Russians do not know about the safety systems, they do not have the details of the plant, and that to do so is reckless and potentially incredibly dangerous. We are told that it forms part of the discussions taking place between America and Russia but, given Chernobyl—also a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, and we know what happened there—I should be grateful if the Minister would say anything about that specific issue, or at least raise it.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to bob, please, if you wish to speak. Given the level of interest, if everyone can confine themselves to about five minutes each, we should get everybody in.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

    Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

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

    Hansard source
40. 29 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Business of the House

    I congratulate the Government on one of their policies: the launch of a UK town of culture. Often, the Government find themselves having to pull their business. I hope that when they are next in that position, they can organise a debate on the UK town of culture. Stone town council is putting in a bid for Stone, which is a great town. It has the Crown Wharf theatre and one of the best food festivals anywhere in the country, and it would be a great recipient of this title. I hope we can have a debate on this issue in Government time.

    Hansard source