Phil Brickell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very good point; we do not have lowland rescue in Bolton, but I do not see why not. Those volunteers are also hard-working and deserve similar support when they go through a traumatic episode. Finally, on medical supplies, teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are required to carry a full complement of drugs to treat casualties in the field. However, because incidents are unpredictable, a lot of that stock expires before it can be used. Every year, that means more fundraising to replace perfectly good medication that has simply reached the end of its shelf life. There is already an arrangement for swapping out medical gases; extending that to drugs, by allowing unused supplies to be exchanged through the NHS, would save thousands of pounds, reduce waste and ensure that teams always have safe, in-date medication available. Again, I know this falls outside the remit of the Department for Transport, but can the Minister look into that issue with her DHSC counterparts? Taken together, those proposals would make a real, tangible difference to teams on the ground. At the moment, frankly, too much of the burden still falls on volunteers and their communities. Teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are doing extraordinary work, often with limited resources, because they are committed to helping others. We should be helping them.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in my constituency including trailer manufacturer Indespension are labouring under a mountain of repetitive, costly and unnecessary paperwork because the last Government failed to negotiate a regime for mutual recognition of conformity assessments. What progress has the Foreign Secretary made, with the Paymaster General, in removing the Brexit barriers to trade that are holding back British businesses abroad?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied: “I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”. Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  There are almost 26,000 unpaid carers in Bolton, providing vital support to individuals across the borough who would otherwise struggle to manage. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the hard-working staff and volunteers at the local charity Bolton Carers Support? They include Melanie and Georgette, who provide much-needed support to carers and who I met in Horwich earlier in the month. Will he also acknowledge the vital work done by unpaid carers to support my constituents across Bolton, Blackrod, Horwich and Westhoughton?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Building on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), I commend my hon. and gallant Friend on his statement and encourage him to do all he can to continue to raise awareness of the subversive actions of Russia, whether in the grey zone or through hybrid activities. Does he agree that the recent success of our armed forces in the north Atlantic rebuffs the Leader of the Opposition’s recent remarks—which she has still failed to apologise for—about our armed forces simply “hanging around”? What we have seen is that, whether at sea, in the air or on land, our armed forces work day in, day out to keep our homeland safe, and we should be proud of all they do.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this Government have put in to support SEND adaptations in Bolton, but also acknowledge the recognition that came from parents at my SEND roundtable last week that this cannot just be about extra investment in the system? Reform is now long overdue.

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I have very fond memories of the National Savings & Investment savings account that I held as a child—I regularly paid money into it at Little Lever post office. I understand how important it is for the Government to right historical failings at NS&I, and to reassure my constituents. I commend the Minister and the Treasury for the decisive action that they have taken, including the appointment of a new NS&I chief executive who is well respected across this House. What more can the Minister say to assure savers in Bolton West that NS&I will get to grips with the issues that he has mentioned today? In the light of his comments about false reporting in The Daily Telegraph , and given the extreme sensitivity around bereavement and funds, what more are his Department and officials doing to dispel the false information that has been put out by newspapers?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Bolton West, my constituents are concerned that proposed funding for a section of link road called Park Avenue has been trumpeted as unlocking a further 4,000 homes near Westhoughton. The link road will only take traffic so far, causing congestion elsewhere. My constituents do not object in principle to new house building, but developers have a track record of building homes first and then completing infrastructure as an afterthought. In the meantime, my constituents continue to endure what is now a decade of frustration with insufficient roads, school places or GP capacity. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of an infrastructure-first approach to local development?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed. May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clause 4 in particular, and to the wider issue of tax dodging and enforcement in this country. I make these remarks as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I begin by congratulating the Government on the action they have already taken to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The measures brought forward by the Chancellor and the Treasury team to strengthen HMRC’s powers, invest in enforcement and crack down on abusive tax schemes represent an important step in restoring fairness to the system. They have sent a clear signal that in Britain, the rules should be the same for everyone. The same rules should apply to the multinational company and the market trader, to the billionaire and the builder, and to those with the most expensive accountants and those who simply pay what they owe. More broadly, I also welcome the Government’s wider economic plan, which, despite global headwinds outside the Chancellor’s gift, is beginning to restore stability after years of uncertainty and drift. After 14 years in which economic instability and mortgage-spiking kamikaze Budgets became the norm, restoring stability is no small achievement. It is the foundation on which everything else must be built—investment, growth and confidence that the system is working in the interests of ordinary working people. I turn to new clause 4. As a financial crime compliance officer in a previous life, in which role I spent many years dealing with the practical realities of financial crime controls, anti-money laundering systems and tax compliance, I recognise the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is pursuing—that of cracking down on the enablers of crackpot tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the rise of so-called online finfluencers promoting dubious arrangements. These schemes are dressed up as clever financial advice, but in reality, they promise something that should always ring alarm bells: something for nothing. I make no judgment on the merits of my hon. Friend’s new clause, and I would welcome further discussion about it with her after today’s debate. My sincere hope is that HMRC is already fully alert to the risk posed by these schemes, and is monitoring the promotion of them closely. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that when he winds up. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has, on a fundamental issue in this country, hit the nail on the head. In many ways, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion have become decriminalised, not through any change in the law but through something far more corrosive—a lack of enforcement. Laws can exist on the statute book, offences can be created and powers can be granted, but if those powers are not used and those laws are not enforced—if those who break the rules rarely face consequences—the signal that is sent is unmistakeable. I am afraid to say that much of this decline occurred on the watch of the Conservative party. For 14 long years, we saw enforcement weaken, complexity increase, and a culture emerge in which some individuals and firms appeared to believe that paying tax was optional so long as they could afford sufficiently inventive advice. At the same time, the Conservatives drove the tax burden to the highest level in 80 years while turning a blind eye to those who simply refused to pay it. In response to an intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who unfortunately is not in his place, it was the Conservative Government in 2023 who scrapped the Office of Tax Simplification. Now, the official Opposition have the audacity to talk about making £47 billion of cuts, which is the equivalent of firing every police officer in Britain twice over. It is simply not credible. Members may recall my speech on 27 November last year, during the Budget debate. For those who do not, in my remarks I referenced one of the more surreal examples of tax avoidance that has surfaced in recent years, which is the elaborate mollusc-based wheezes used to avoid business rates. These are schemes so convoluted that they led one high-profile individual to acquire more knowledge than anyone should ever reasonably possess about snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and—rather disturbingly—snail cannibalism. You really could not make it up: slimy advisers, snail farms and shell companies, all deployed in the service of dodging a lawful tax bill. It sounds absurd, and in many ways it is, but it also illustrates something deeper and more troubling. The creativity deployed in designing these schemes—the ingenuity, complexity and sheer effort involved—is often directed not towards creating wealth or innovation, but towards avoiding a basic civic responsibility. That is why I welcome clause 156, which prohibits the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements, with civil penalties and criminal offences built into the Bill to tackle the unlawful promotion of such initiatives. On enforcement, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has highlighted just how far things have fallen in recent years. Prosecutions against enablers of tax evasion dropped by around 75% between 2018 and 2024, and HMRC has not fined a single enabler of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance in five years. That is a dramatic decline that sends the wrong signal. It also risks creating the impression that while most people must play by the rules, those with the right advisers can simply play around them. Since the introduction of a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, we have seen very little enforcement. When prosecutions are rare, deterrence weakens; when enforcement is inconsistent, compliance declines; and when those who break the rules see others doing so without consequences, the entire system begins to fray.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Local journalism is the lifeblood of our democracy, but the defamation laws in this country make it difficult for investigative media outfits—like The Londoner , The Manchester Mill and their parent company Mill Media—to speak truth to power. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy recognises this threat to free speech, and has outlined a priority commitment of comprehensively tackling all strategic lawsuits against public participation, but it sets 2029 as the target date for action. Will the Leader of the House support my calls for a statement from the Ministry of Justice outlining what steps it is taking now to address SLAPPs?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a good point about foreign interference and money in politics. Could she confirm today whether she has submitted her thoughts to the Rycroft review, which is under way at this time?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia and democracy, and as chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax. Let me say at the outset that the most important step at this juncture is to provide input into the ongoing Rycroft review of foreign interference in our democracy. I look forward to meeting Philip Rycroft later this week. If colleagues have yet to do so, I encourage them to submit their views to his team as soon as possible. I would like to make the case for a wide range of reforms that we desperately need, including measures to address glaring weaknesses in our lobbying framework, improvements to controls in this House and the other place, and further measures to work closely with the private sector. However, as a considerable number of colleagues are keen to contribute to the debate, I will restrict my remarks to the changes that I would like to see in the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. I will begin with the repeated red flags linking Reform UK, or individuals closely associated with it, to Russian money, Kremlin-aligned networks and their vehicle of choice for influence: cryptocurrency. Vulnerability to foreign influence is a cross-party issue, but when it comes to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him, Mr Pritchard, that I would mention him—and the people he chooses to surround himself with, the pattern is hard to ignore. Reform UK presents itself as the party of ordinary people, the party of patriotism and the party that claims to stand up for Britain, but the public deserve to know where its money comes from. Again and again, the individuals bankrolling, advising or orbiting Reform appear to sit far too close for comfort to networks that raise serious national security concerns. Let me start with one of the most serious cases of all and, I suspect, the reason why six out of the top 10 constituencies by signatories to the petition are in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) mentioned, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for accepting money in exchange for making pro-Russia statements in the European Parliament. Having dedicated my working life to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms, I found the Gill conviction of profound concern. Yes, justice was done, but that case should have prompted a moment of deep reflection for Reform UK. Instead, we saw Reform attempt to brush it off and to distance itself from “one bad apple”. But the public are not fools. If Gill was one bad apple, let us take a look at the rest of the bushel. Arron Banks’s links with Russia are well-documented, despite his attempts to silence journalists trying to report on his activities. Banks was allegedly offered financial incentives by Russian interests, including a stake in a gold mine, an offer he claims he refused. The New York Times reported that after Banks met President-elect Trump in Trump Tower in 2016, he returned to London and went straight to the Russian ambassador to discuss the visit. The point is not whether every allegation is proven beyond doubt; it is that the same names, the same networks and the same proximity to the Kremlin keep reappearing around the same political project. We cannot pretend that that is normal. Let me also mention Chakrit Sakunkrit—sound familiar? I can see blank faces around the Chamber. I will use his old name: Christopher Harborne. Harborne donated £9 million to Reform UK—the largest single donation ever made to a British political party. He has lived in Thailand for more than 20 years, and he made his money from the cryptocurrency stablecoin tether. The National Crime Agency has explicitly warned that tether has been used for sanctions evasion and money laundering, including in relation to organised crime and Russia-linked networks. That is not to say that Harborne himself is complicit in any wrongdoing, but the fact is that we now have a large political party bankrolled by an overseas billionaire whose wealth is tied to a cryptoasset that our own law enforcement agencies have flagged as a tool used in Russia-linked illicit finance. I used to work in anti-bribery and anti-corruption at two major UK banks. Let me summarise what I have just said in six short words: red flag, red flag, red flag. That brings me to Reform UK and cryptocurrency, which is currently a permissible vehicle for donations into UK politics. The hon. Member for Clacton announced that his party would be taking crypto donations at the Bitcoin 2025 conference—a conference held not in Clacton, London or even Manchester, but in Las Vegas. We should ask ourselves: how many permissible donors were in the room at the time? I find it profoundly disturbing that the leader of a British political party is being funded, promoted and platformed by the same international ecosystem of crypto money and political influence operations that have been repeatedly linked to Kremlin-aligned interests. This is how foreign interference works in the modern era. It is not George Smiley and Karla battling it out in trenchcoats, and newspapers with eyeholes, but money flows, opaque financing, crypto networks, conferences, and so-called influencers paid to shift political narratives. Now let me speak about George Cottrell, a key Reform fixer. He has acted as a fundraiser for UKIP and the Brexit party and served as chief of staff to the hon. Member for Clacton, who described him as “like a son”. Cottrell served time in prison in the US after being accused of offering money laundering services on the dark web; he ultimately pleaded guilty to wire fraud. His mother, Fiona Watson, donated £750,000 to Reform, making her one of its biggest donors at the time. Cottrell has been linked to offshore crypto and gambling networks. He appears to be based primarily in Montenegro, where he has funded political campaigns and been accused by local police of running illegal crypto ATMs. Offshore finance, crypto, money laundering risk and Russian proximity—to my mind, there is only one reason why anyone would court crypto-linked individuals’ donations so aggressively: if they have something to hide. I have sought to paint a picture of the current funding landscape and the egregious means by which certain individuals have sought to circumvent electoral law in order to pump money into our democracy. Let me turn to the principal legislative vehicle that can address these risks: the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. First, I have to say that I was disappointed that the Government’s election strategy contained no concrete proposals to ban crypto donations to political parties. The Electoral Commission has recently issued some belated guidance, but its hands remain tied without Government action. Cryptocurrency donations into our politics should be banned completely. I am no luddite. I recognise that there may be some value to cryptoassets in certain circumstances, but they are inherently high risk. In my opinion, neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties themselves will ever be able to keep up with that risk. Crypto is designed for anonymity, speed, cross-border movement and weak oversight, and Reform has chosen to host its cryptocurrency payment provider not in the UK, but in Poland, away from the prying eyes of the Financial Conduct Authority. Dare I ask why? Against that backdrop, we know that crypto is widely used for sanctions evasion, organised crime and illicit finance. As I have said, our NCA is concerned about tether’s role in Russia-linked laundering, so we cannot pretend that this is some sort of theoretical debate. Secondly, no one person should be able to bankroll a political movement overnight. Chris Harborne’s £9 million donation is not democratic participation; it is political domination. The terrifying reality is that, under current rules, someone with that scale of wealth could make such donations again and again until a general election is called and the regulated period begins. That is not a level playing field. It is a plutocratic arms race—one set against an outdated concept of long and short campaign periods that has long been left behind in the modern world of 24/7 campaigning. Finally, we must restore the independence of the Electoral Commission. If we want proper enforcement, proper scrutiny of permissibility and real deterrence, the Electoral Commission must be truly independent. Reform may claim to be the party of patriotism, but patriotism is not surrounding yourself with people repeatedly accused of Russian proximity. Patriotism is not building a political machine that thrives in the shadows of opaque money. Patriotism is defending British democracy from foreign interference, whoever it comes from and whichever party benefits. I urge the Government, in the forthcoming elections Bill, to deliver three reforms that Britain urgently needs to protect our democracy from foreign interference: a cap on political donations, a ban on cryptocurrency and full independence for the Electoral Commission.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Let me start by thanking Westhoughton South councillor John McHugh for his campaigning for measures to tackle antisocial behaviour in Westhoughton, to give residents and firms the confidence they need to go about their business. John has worked extensively with me and with Greater Manchester police, and many of his efforts are not publicly commended but they should be. Our town centres are the hearts of our communities, which is why I welcome the Government’s new Pride in Place funding for Bolton West. But regeneration, whether in Bolton or Blackrod, Horwich or Westhoughton, will only succeed if we resolutely confront one of the biggest threats to our town centres—high street economic crime. In towns across this country, cash-intensive businesses are being used to launder criminal money, evade tax and undercut legitimate traders. These acts are not victimless. They are predatory. They enable organised crime and drug dealing, drain the public finances, and drive honest businesses out. That is why the Government’s safer streets mission must include tackling economic crime. If there is one thing I know after tackling bribery and corruption for more than a decade, it is that if we want safer streets, we must follow the money. It is not just an issue of putting more police officers on the streets. Having met officers from Greater Manchester police’s economic crime unit, it is clear to me that any lasting efforts to address and increase safety in our towns must also rely on provision for specialist financial investigators within the police, to go after the same criminal actors who feed off our high streets, carrying out their business in plain sight. I welcome the Government’s decision in the latest Budget to establish a high street criminality taskforce, but for it to work, high street economic crime must be treated as a systemic national threat, with regeneration funding aligned to enforcement. That has to include stronger licensing and registration in high-risk sectors and tougher action against phoenix companies and against serial non-payment of tax and business rates. We can look to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, which has set the way on tackling high street money laundering and been very effective over the years. We also need to see far better data sharing between different trading standards teams, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House, the police, and local authorities.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Ukrainian language education has been banned, cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and children have been transferred to Russia under the guise of evacuation, as has been mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that those acts demonstrate that occupation is not merely territorial, but an attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and that that makes the policy of non-recognition all the more vital?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I was recently contacted by one of my constituents regarding a four-month delay to her daughter’s provisional driving licence application, relating to her type 1 diabetes diagnosis. My constituent’s application remains outstanding. She has been unable to obtain an update from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or any timescale for the conclusion of her application. My constituent’s mental health is now being affected by the delay, as she has lost her driving instructor and feels as though she has been treated differently due to her diagnosis. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss the important issue of delays in the DVLA system, in particular for individuals with disabilities and health conditions?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to support families with the cost of living.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  Almost 4,000 people with jobs in my Bolton West constituency still need universal credit to cope with the cost of living. Heating, water and food bills have been stubbornly high. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that families in my constituency get the support they need to pay the bills?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the need for change in the law, and the impact on humans and animals. One of my constituents got in touch with me to talk about the massive detrimental impact that the irresponsible launching of fireworks had during bonfire night weekend. She talked about how the next day her horses were spinning around in their stables and sweating profusely, displaying flehmen responses and windsucking on doors. When she spoke to the Greater Manchester police, they essentially said in writing that the lack of legislation meant that they could not act. To quote my constituent, it was obvious from speaking to “so many different professionals” that all they could really say was that “their hands are tied”. It is clear to me, from the contributions we have heard today, that it is imperative for the Government to change the law, to protect the individuals and animals that are so detrimentally impacted by fireworks.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  The truth of the matter is that there is actually a lot of false information flying around—does the Minister agree? In Bolton, we are very much looking forward to having local elections in May. Can the Minister confirm that that has always been the case, as it has been in the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester, and that words to the opposite effect are simply false information?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  As a proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I thank the Foreign Secretary for her visit to our Marines at Camp Viking in Norway, and for her unequivocal stance in support of collective security with NATO at its heart. I welcome the Rycroft review of foreign interference in our politics. In the context of NATO and Arctic security, does the Foreign Secretary agree it is vital that we get to the bottom of the role that Russian money plays in trying to subvert our public discourse on these hugely important issues?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, two tankers from the shadow fleet were scheduled to go through the channel earlier today. The shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin, while threatening maritime safety and environmental security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should be mindful of other aspects relevant to this debate as we continue to pursue the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted and unlawful invasion?