John Slinger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  One crucial factor in achieving the current ceasefire was the unprecedented declaration at the end of July by all 22 members of the Arab League, calling on Hamas to release the hostages, lay down their arms and give up power in Gaza. That was hugely important in showing Hamas that they had run out of road. What role do the UK and our partners have in influencing that declaration? Does the Minister agree that our strong diplomatic relations, led by our excellent diplomats, have a positive impact?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, and as I led a delegation there. The 2005 federal Iraqi constitution agreed in a popular vote to underpin Kurdish rights. We were told that Baghdad deliberately withholds salary payments to public employees in the region. The Foreign Secretary visited Erbil when she was Home Secretary, and knows how important this part of Iraq is to our security. Does she agree that we need our Kurdish ally to be strong and respected in a federal Iraq, and that a better relationship there would enable vital reform, for the benefit of that region and, indeed, our own country?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are being nothing short of opportunistic and are playing political games with our national security. It is, of course, their job and their right to oppose what the Government are doing, but on issues of national security I would have thought there could be more appreciation of the national interest and the nuances involved. In my speech I am going to do some myth-busting—quite a useful thing to do in this age of misinformation, disinformation and hyperbolic chest-thumping. What we are seeing is a somewhat phoney, but very definitely opportunistic, brand of national security patriotism. Frankly, if ever over-inflated balloons of confected outrage needed to be burst, it is today. So, I will bust two myths and state two truisms. Myth No. 1: a narrative that the Tories try to push is that Labour prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China. However, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The true fault lies with the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the then Foreign Secretary, said in April 2023 that summing up China in one word as a “threat” was “impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”. The Leader of the Opposition, while serving in the Cabinet, also said: “We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”. Now that this trial has collapsed, they are accusing this Government of interfering, when it was their carefully worded Government policy that did not define China as an “enemy”—and there is nothing that present Ministers can do to change that.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely, deeply regrettable that the Conservative party, when in government, did not reform legislation sufficiently well. Myth No. 2, another myth that the Tories will continue to spread, is that the Labour Government interfered with the delivering of evidence. The shadow Home Secretary has made the accusation that “the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.” This accusation simply has no real substance, as the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for this case. I shall move on to what I believe all Members across this House know to be true—truism No. 1. It is dangerous to undermine public confidence in the Government on matters of national security for party political advantage. Truism No. 2 is the more important one. It is perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time: one is that China is clearly a strategic rival to the UK in certain areas, and another is that it is a vital partner, whether on the Security Council, in tackling global challenges or, of course, for trade and investment. I will conclude, taking the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that the Conservatives really do need to look in the mirror on this issue. This Government are acting with integrity.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have any other information on that point, but I do believe that Conservative Members ought to look in the mirror and acknowledge the decisions taken by the previous Government. Let me turn to myth No.2—

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  While it is obviously necessary to improve the lives and dignity of older people, does the Leader of the House agree that in order to build a fairer Britain there needs to be some rebalancing of attention and resources towards the younger generation? Will he therefore consider a debate in Government time on what I call a youth triple lock? Members, having consulted young people, could then discuss what such a measure might include—for example, free bus travel, uplifting maintenance loans by inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Conservatives, during their 14 years of chaotic power, sought to develop an even closer relationship with China, can I urge the Government to continue Labour’s approach, which is to look at opportunities to work together while not compromising our values and national interest at any time?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure my right hon. Friend that many of us on the Government Benches want us to get on and build, baby, build. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. While much of the national conversation is understandably London-centric, can she assure the House that regional airports, particularly those in the west midlands, and the communities and businesses that they support, are being considered by the Government?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative party. My hon. Friend is speaking about renewable energy. Does he agree that one benefit of the co-operative movement and principles is that it can be innovative for local communities? A constituent of mine approached me about a problem faced by people living in flats: they do not have driveways and cannot charge electric vehicles at a good rate. It strikes me as a good example that a co-operative approach could help that large section of the community gain access to EVs, which would be socially useful and progressive for them, society and the environment. That is innovation in the interest of the entire community.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities, Councillors Ish Mistry and Senthil Karadiar, Rugby First, Rugby borough council, Keya Joshi, the marshals, volunteers and participants on stage on their very successful Diwali celebration held on Saturday and enjoyed by all Rugbians? Diwali symbolises light over darkness and reflects the wider need for understanding in our community. Could the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate on all we can do to boost community cohesion and counter the forces that seek to divide us?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure? I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today: “Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate— [ Interruption. ] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend. In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking? Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting: “I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.” Lord Justice Leveson replied: “No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.” Lord O’Donnell then said: “Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”. David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking. I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time, whereas this Prime Minister has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will not— [ Interruption. ] I will give way.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like to give him some advice: please do not patronise me.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group. As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday: “The left is the party of murder.” I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly. Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate. It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution. Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives. I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk. Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions. To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too. Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country. On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires, “the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”. Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within. At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%. Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned that the Reform UK Members are not in their place, and does he agree with me that this really is a travesty? When we think about the social media posts that they put out and the grand speeches they give up and down this land, does he agree with me that it really is a travesty for them to claim to be on the side of working people when they have the audacity to vote in this House against a Bill introduced by a Labour Government on the side of working people?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Qatar: Israeli Strike · Hansard source

  More

  Given that, under article 51 of the UN charter, any pre-emptive strike is normally regarded as justified only when a threat is imminent; that article 2(4) states that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”; and that article 51 states that “measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”, does my hon. Friend agree that international law and the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based system is vital to the peoples of the region, the wider world, our ally Qatar and the UK? Will he make it clear to Israel that we expect it to obey international law?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. We must continue to strive to use every possible avenue for delivering supplies, so I welcome the Government’s co-operation with Jordan on airdrops. I want to put on record my praise for the efforts of Ministers and diplomats at a difficult time, but we must all do more. The Palestinian people must not pay the price for the atrocities of Hamas, yet Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza with “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”. We all know that starvation as a method of warfare is illegal under international humanitarian law. The Gaza strip has now faced what is effectively a siege. The UN-backed panel, as hon. Members have said, has declared that there is now a famine in parts of Gaza. I know that the Government believe that the strip must be flooded with aid, not drip-fed through the piecemeal deliveries of the failing Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. According to the House of Commons Library, the UK considers Gaza’s status as occupied. As the occupying power, Israel is bound by the fourth Geneva convention and Hague conventions, which require it to ensure civilians’ access to food and medicine and to avoid collective punishment. The UK views Israel’s naval blockade as part of that. Blockades are governed by customary international law, including the San Remo manual, which requires legality, necessity and humanitarian access. Given the humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s role in fomenting it, do the Government have a view on whether we and other countries have a legal right to provide aid by sea? Can the Minister outline whether the Government have looked at whether the Royal Navy could deploy ships off the coast of Gaza or a hospital ship? I am not singling out Israel; I am asking that we treat it by the standards, norms and law that all nations must adhere to, especially democracies. Those rules are fraying before our own eyes, and that is terrible, mainly for the Palestinians, but also—