Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Jeremy. The draft order affects the implementation of the UK emissions trading scheme, which replaced our participation in the EU ETS from 2021. As the Minister set out, the scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020. In the draft order, the Department seeks to expand the scope of the UK ETS in line with the Secretary of State’s net zero agenda. We saw just last week an instrument brought with the effect of reducing the free allowances under the scheme, increasing the carbon tax on industry from 2027 onward. The increasing cost on industry per tonne of greenhouse gas emitted is a burden that weighs on the UK’s industrial competitiveness. Food manufacturers, oil refineries, power stations and more are all subject to this framework. As the levy on emissions increases, naturally prices paid by end consumers are also driven up. That is why we have said that when we are re-elected to Government in three years’ time, we will repeal the ETS framework and begin to undo the great damage to Britain’s industrial base being done by the actions of this Government. We only hope that it will not be too late. The draft order requires maritime operators to participate in the scheme, enacting a requirement on ship operators to produce an emissions monitoring plan. The nominal purpose of this extension is to encourage decarbonisation in the maritime sector, which is a laudable aim—not that it will have any impact on global maritime emissions, given the fact that the USA, China, India and others have no plans to curb their emissions in the maritime sector. As a result, this mechanism will actually function purely as a carbon tax. To pretend otherwise would be this Government at their absolute abject worst. This is not a mechanism to decarbonise; it is a pernicious tax being levied on one of our most successful industries. Access to alternative fuels is not sufficient to decarbonise at the level required by the scheme. The infrastructure that the UK maritime industry requires to transition to low carbon simply does not exist at the scale that will be required. Worse, the industry is expected to comply in three months’ time, while still awaiting guidance to be published on how they can implement it. Even for this Government, that is either incompetence of the highest order, a deliberate attempt to squeeze a hard-pressed industry even more to make up for the shortfall in Treasury receipts as businesses and individuals up sticks and get out of the United Kingdom. The Department’s own impact assessment quotes an £85 million cost to British business as a result of this mechanism and we have not even turned to the burden that this mechanism is going to place on operators. This emissions monitoring plan represents a ridiculously onerous administrative burden on maritime businesses. Article 18 of the order details the facts to be logged on each voyage for ships completing fewer than 300 voyages per year, including: “(a) port of departure; (b) date and hour of departure; (c) port of arrival; (d) date and hour of arrival; (e) total amount of each type of fuel consumed; (f) emission factor for each type of fuel consumed; (g) amount of each greenhouse gas emitted.” The burden then falls on the maritime operator to produce a risk assessment to identify potential sources of error in data flows. I recite that content only to illustrate the extent of the burden that this regulation imposes on the sector. This instrument extends the ETS burden to the UK shipping industry to the tune of £175 million in administrative costs alone. That is utterly absurd. This is without doubt one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen come before us in three Parliaments and nine years on Government Front and Back Benches and now in opposition. For every £1 spent on decarbonisation as a result of the framework, £8 will be spent on bureaucracy. That is insane. That does not support businesses or growth. The only thing growing here is the burden of red tape—the Government’s favourite colour—on UK industry. I take this opportunity to put on record my support for the specific exemptions made for fishing vessels and ferry services providing essential connectivity for Scottish islands. It is vital that they are exempt from the burden of the restrictions, albeit it is to be for only one year. One questions why the Isles of Wight and Man and the Scilly Isles are not afforded the same level of concern. 1 would argue, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will argue, that the connections to those islands are just as vital as connections to the Scottish isles. Believe it or not, Sir Jeremy, it gets worse. Although the extension is a major blow to the maritime industry and UK shipping competitiveness overall, it is another death knell for the oil and gas industry, which is yet again being totally shafted by this Government. This instrument includes in its definition of offshore vessels those that support the oil and gas industry, which are not protected by the 5,000 GT threshold. The Government estimate that more than 145 oil and gas support vessels will be impacted by this instrument, but we know they do not care, because most of the vessels sail out of the port of Aberdeen, which is already suffering job losses as a direct result of the Government’s policies on oil and gas. Aberdeen city and shire have no Labour MPs or MSPs, so we know the party does not care about the fate of that city, its industry, economy or people. Those of us who live there feel that every day. What impact does the Minister think the extension will have on the north-east of Scotland and the UK oil and gas sector—a sector already suffering blow after blow from the Labour Government? What impact will that have on energy security? May I also ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the risk of carbon leakage in the maritime sector and whether he believes the safeguards under this instrument are sufficient? We do not simply oppose this instrument; we will vote against it. We oppose the UK ETS and carbon taxes that are crippling UK manufacturing and businesses and deindustrialising Britain at a criminal rate. On behalf of all those who this Government are harming by their reckless actions, we ultimately oppose this Government.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   No votes.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   indicated dissent.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

   As somebody who served in the Royal Navy for four years after I left school, I have full awareness of maritime operations and of the importance of our United Kingdom. I was talking about the gross unfairness of this legislation and the impact it is having on some communities around this kingdom, whether on the Isle of Wight or in Northern Ireland. The Minister has the audacity to claim that CBAM is protecting British industry, when his Government’s policies are doing more to undermine British industry than any policy of any Government in recent history. The deindustrialisation we are seeing in this country is something of which his party, which still laughably calls itself the Labour party, should be utterly ashamed. I ask him to withdraw his remark about the ignorance of maritime affairs.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

   Q You have both mentioned the risk involved in supply chains. Do you think that, outside regulated industries, the Bill goes far enough to secure supply chains? If not, what would your recommendations be? David Cook: The legislation talks about secondary legislation, so it allows for an agile, flexible programme whereby organisations can be brought within scope very quickly if concerns make that necessary. What that leaves us with, though, is that although legislation can be changed quickly, organisations often cannot. Where there is a definition, as we see with NIS2, as to which entities are in scope, organisations can embark on a multi-year programme to get into a compliant position. They can throw money at it, effectively. What this legislation talks about, through the secondary legislation, is bringing organisations into scope and mandating specific security controls or specific requirements on those organisations in terms of security, but while the law might come in over a weekend, organisational change will not necessarily follow. There is a potential issue there. I can see the benefit and attractiveness of secondary legislation being used to achieve that aim, but having a clearer baseline as to what that sort of scope might look like—it could be ramped up or down, and the volume could be turned up or down, depending on need—would be more helpful. Reducing scope while diverging from NIS2 might be a benefit in terms of the commercial reality, but it might be a misstep in terms of security and the long tail that it takes to get more secure.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

   I am so sorry. Could you possibly speak into the microphone? I cannot hear you. Stuart McKean: Sorry. I was saying that the cyber-criminal does not care about lines, geographies or standards. They do not care whether you have an international standard or you follow the legislation of a certain country. They will attack where they see the weak link.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

   Q Returning to the supply chain risks, I want to ask you about the difference between OT—operational technology—and IT, and whether there is sufficient detail in the Bill to protect that. If you have intelligent electronic devices from single suppliers across multiple sectors, are we confident that there is sufficient detail about what the regulatory role is in saying that suppliers should be within scope? Is more detail needed in the Bill? Stuart McKean: I am not an expert on the detail, but I would say that there is currently very little detail in the Bill regarding IT and OT.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

   Q Do you think that there should be more or not? Stuart McKean: The devil is always in the detail, so any more clarity that can be put in the Bill is always going to be a good thing.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

   Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

   Does anyone have anything else? Jill Broom: I think that I will need to come back to you in writing on the specifics of operational technology.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)

    Q I have two specific questions. The first is about OT versus IT. Do you think that OT and its supply chains are sufficiently covered in the Bill? Secondly, given that you are all from commercial organisations, from your direct client experience, what is going to be the thing that moves the dial on board governance, specifically in relation to cyber? Chris Anley: On the OT versus IT question, we have mentioned specificity versus flexibility. The benefit of the UK sectoral regulator model is that regulators that are in areas where OT is predominant can set specific measures that can reinforce those environments, whereas if you try a one-size-fits-all approach, you run the risk of certain critical OT-based systems becoming subject to successful attacks. Ben Lyons: The broad approach that the UK is taking is sensible, in that the existing guidance has a range of principles around OT, as well as IT, security. Manufacturing is not in the scope of the Bill, which is probably appropriate, but it is worth looking at what could be done to improve the security of the manufacturing sector, more broadly, probably through non-legislative means. In light of recent attacks, it is important to ensure that guidance and incentives are in place to support that sector.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Feb 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate and all Members who have spoken in it. There are few issues that reflect our values as a society more than how we treat creatures in our care. Many people in our communities and across our country rightly feel strongly about this, and it is clear from the debate that Members from all parties share concerns for animal welfare. Animal testing should be a last resort, only when there are no viable alternatives. That was the view of the last Conservative Government. We did not just talk about the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—but legally embedded them into the fabric of our regulatory framework. We backed that with £90 million in research and a £27 million further fund called the CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme, as well doubling annual investment to £20 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year. We also refused to vote for bans on protests outside animal testing sites. Can the Minister confirm whether the levels of investment that we left in place have been maintained, and what steps are being taken to accelerate the development of alternatives? Turning to the annual report, these are figures that warrant rigorous scrutiny. I welcome the fact that the number of animals experiencing adverse welfare outcomes has fallen, but the statistics on non-compliance make for very difficult reading. As we heard, there were 146 cases of non-compliance across 45 different establishments, with 63 of those involving a failure to provide basic care such as food, water or suitable facilities. The unacceptable instances highlighted by Members are harrowing: unweaned pups starving to death after their mother was killed; mice left without water for five days; and live animals accidentally placed in waste bags. Those are not administrative oversights; they should be criminal acts. Those animals are supposed to be protected under our regulatory system, but concerningly, 75% of cases are resolved with inspector advice alone. Does the Minister agree that a letter of reprimand is not a sufficient deterrent for such a profound failure of care? We must ensure that sanctions are not just administrative slaps on the wrist but robust measures that prevent recurrence and punish wilful neglect and cruelty. Just last month, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) asked directly whether a letter of reprimand was adequate. The Minister’s answer referred to a compliance framework, but did not address whether this sanction was sufficient. Will the Minister before us today commit to reviewing the effectiveness of current sanctions? On staffing, while I know the Government have committed to increase inspector capacity by March 2026, capacity is currently lower than the average over the last 10 years, so I urge a focus on adequate recruitment. Turning to the 2025 strategy, the proposed three-baskets approach provides a welcome road map. It is right that the Government move quickly where mature technology exists, such as in skin-irritation testing, and aim for total replacement in 2026. However, I sound a note of caution: we must ensure that we do not see countries with lower regulatory standards becoming industrialised for animal testing. Some products will continue to require animal testing, and we must not rely on animal suffering being exported and happening elsewhere, because that will be under worse conditions beyond the reach of British regulation. It would be not a victory for animal welfare but an abdication of responsibility. Can the Minister also share what steps have been taken to ensure that products imported into this country have been developed to adequate standards? We all want to see the day when animal testing is no longer needed, but until that day comes, we have a duty to ensure that every procedure is justified, every harm is minimised, and every failure of care is met with the full force of a robust and well-resourced regulator, not a written rap on the knuckle.

    Hansard source
12. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    China and Japan

    They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]

    Hansard source
13. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    China and Japan

    I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I withdraw it.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    China and Japan

    Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?

    Hansard source
15. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    China and Japan

    The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?

    Hansard source
18. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    And the Hinduja passport.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    China and Japan

    The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.

    Hansard source
22. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Order. Many Members wish to speak. We will try to get you all in, but I have to impose an immediate three-minute time limit. Every intervention means that somebody at the back of the queue might not get in at all, so do bear that in mind, but we will try and get everybody in, starting with Cameron Thomas.

    Hansard source
23. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Indefinite Leave to Remain

    Order. Please be brief.

    Hansard source
24. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    China and Japan

    What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?

    Hansard source
25. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?

    Hansard source
26. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    China and Japan

    In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—

    Hansard source
28. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    US Department of Justice Release of Files

    And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Topical Questions

    T3. The provisions of the Armed Forces Bill extend anti-drone permissions to the UK armed forces and UK bases. RAF Croughton is a US air force base in my constituency. Will the changes give US personnel the same updated authorities that are being extended to the UK armed forces?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Ukraine

    Our Ukrainian friends want not just to physically rebuild after this devastating war, but to recover with a modernised, reformed economy that can attract investment and support their entrepreneurial population. This is something Britain can help with, given our strengths in defence and technology and, indeed, as a global financial centre. So may I ask the Government to fully lean into these efforts alongside our allies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the private sector, because an economically strong Ukraine is good not just for Ukraine’s future security, but for ours as well?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Topical Questions

    T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Topical Questions

    Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?

    Hansard source
33. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Support for Defence SMEs

    Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?

    Hansard source
34. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    China and Japan

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who—[Interruption.] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS—[Interruption.] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself. I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach. I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life. Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit. The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that? I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that? What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around. Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
35. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    China and Japan

    Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about. As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres. More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions: “If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”? What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    Right hon.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?

    Hansard source
39. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Topical Questions

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Feb 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

    The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully. We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation? On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there? The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio? The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated? It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA? We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.

    Hansard source