Tag: 2026

  • PRESS RELEASE : Major international science meeting begins in Manchester  [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Major international science meeting begins in Manchester  [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 February 2026.

    Environment Secretary opens international meeting on business and biodiversity.

    A thousand of the world’s leading scientists and policymakers from nearly 150 countries are gathering in Manchester this week for a vitally important summit, supported by the UN and hosted by the UK government.  

    The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are meeting to discuss action on tackling one of the defining challenges of our time – halting the loss of nature.  

    Often described as the ‘IPCC for biodiversity’, IPBES provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people, as well as providing the tools to help us better protect the natural world.

    This year’s meeting, running until 8 February, focuses on the crucial link between business and biodiversity, with the goal of approving a groundbreaking Business & Biodiversity Assessment. This intergovernmental report, if approved, will help businesses understand their relationship with nature and practical steps they can take to protect it. 

    Hosting this landmark intergovernmental meeting in Manchester is expected to deliver a £3.1 million boost to the local economy, bringing delegates from around the world to the city and securing Manchester’s status as hub for nature-positive business and innovation. 

    In a speech at the opening plenary session this morning, the Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds relayed a message to delegates on behalf of His Majesty The King, which described the “unprecedented triple crisis” of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. His Majesty’s message reminded delegates they “possess the knowledge to reverse this crisis and transition towards an economy that prospers in harmony with nature” and expressed his wish that the outcome of this week’s meeting “will help shape concrete action for years to come”. 

    Speaking at the opening plenary, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds said: 

    Around the world, momentum is building. Countries are restoring wetlands and forests. Communities are reviving degraded landscapes. Businesses are increasingly investing in nature as they have realised it delivers real returns. The tide for nature is beginning to turn. 

    But we cannot afford to slow down. The window to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum – and we need to do it now. That is why organisations like IPBES matter more than ever. At a time when some are stepping back from international cooperation, the rest of us must step forward. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity, it’s essential for our security, our economy, and our future. 

    The UK’s commitment to multilateralism remains steadfast. We believe that by working together – sharing knowledge, aligning policies, and holding one another accountable – we can halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. This week, we come together to approve the Business and Biodiversity Assessment. This is multilateralism in action. This is what global cooperation looks like.” 

    The Environment Secretary went on to address the urgency of multilateral action, the critical role of science, and the opportunities for businesses – noting that nature-positive investments can build resilience into supply chains and drive innovation in biotechnology, sustainable agriculture, and green finance.     

    Louise Heathwaite, Executive Chair of the Natural Environment Research Council, part of UK Research and Innovation, said: 

    This meeting marks an important milestone for business and biodiversity. Organisations that understand and manage their impacts on nature are better equipped to secure resilient supply chains, minimise risk, and unlock new opportunities for sustainable economic growth. UK researchers have been central to developing the evidence base that enables businesses to assess and respond to nature‑related risks. UKRI is proud to have supported the UK science that has made this assessment possible.

    Gemma Harper, Chief Executive of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) said:

    IPBES-12 represents a crucial moment for strengthening the science-policy interface on biodiversity. JNCC is proud to contribute our expertise to these important discussions, helping to ensure that the most robust evidence informs decision-making at the highest levels.

    The business case for nature has never been clearer. All businesses depend on nature and the services it provides: from pollination and clean water to climate regulation and fertile soils. Companies that act on their nature-related dependencies and impacts will be better positioned to manage risk, build resilience and seize opportunities in the transition to a nature-positive economy. We look forward to productive discussions that will help translate scientific understanding into practical action for governments, businesses and communities worldwide.

    The UK is committed to taking a leading role on the world stage to tackle the twin threats of climate change and nature loss. We appointed two UK Special Representatives for Climate Change and Nature who work to boost our diplomatic engagement and strengthen our international partnerships.    

    The UK Special Representative for Nature Ruth Davis and Nature Minister Mary Creagh will also be attending IPBES this week to support the work of the panel, drive business investment in nature and encourage business to be transparent with full nature related financial disclosures.  

  • PRESS RELEASE : Tech giants meet disability sector to break down barriers at work [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Tech giants meet disability sector to break down barriers at work [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 3 February 2026.

    Disabled people are set to benefit from the expertise of some of the world’s tech giants to help make the workplace more accessible to them.

    • Government brings together tech giants and disability charities to improve workplace accessibility.
    • Discussions explored how emerging technologies can create new job opportunities for disabled people.
    • Initiative supports the government’s mission to help people into good jobs.

    Disabled people are set to benefit from the expertise of some of the world’s tech giants to help make the workplace more accessible to them.

    The Department for Work and Pensions hosted a meeting with big tech companies Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon, alongside leading UK disability charities to identify practical ways that cutting-edge technology can remove barriers preventing disabled people from finding and keeping jobs.

    Technologies such as screen readers, real-time captioning, and AI-powered visual description tools are already helping disabled employees perform tasks.

    It marked the first step in a larger conversation the government wants to see take place around assistive technology breaking down barriers to work and complements wider action to help disabled people into work.

    This includes the Connect to Work programme which will help 300,000 sick or disabled people into work by the end of this Parliament, and the government’s engagement with employers following Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working Review.

    Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said:

    We must harness the power of technology to open more opportunities for disabled people to work.

    By bringing together the biggest names in tech with those who understand the barriers disabled people face, we can identify the tools and approaches that will help build workplaces that truly support everyone.

    This is part of our wider mission to Get Britain Working – investing in employment support and working with employers to create genuinely inclusive workplaces.

    Vice President Accessibility and Engagement at Meta Maxine Williams said:

    Technology has the power to unlock opportunities for everyone, and we’re committed to building tools that help people live, work, and connect on their own terms.

    Our AI-powered wearables are transforming accessibility by providing real-time support that helps people with disabilities navigate work and public spaces independently, unlocking new possibilities for employment and connection.

    Chief Executive at Scope Mark Hodgkinson said:

    There are a million disabled people who want to work, but many face barriers such as inflexible workplaces, negative attitudes and outdated systems.

    We need government, employers, and others to come together to tackle these barriers. To make it easier for disabled people to get in work and stay in work.

    The current pace of technological development and growth in the availability of accessibility features is an opportunity which cannot be missed.

    The Work and Pensions Secretary brought the groups together to explore how existing accessibility innovations can be more widely adopted in workplaces, and to encourage further collaboration on tools designed specifically for employment settings.

    Many common workplace technologies now include effective assistive features, and new tools – such as AI-powered glasses that describe surroundings for visually impaired users – are coming onto the market. However, awareness of these tools varies, and many workplaces may not yet be fully set up to use them.

    The discussion was about moving beyond tick boxes to explore practical integration of assistive technology in everyday work.

    Director of Workforce Staffing at Amazon Jaqui Sampson said:

    At Amazon, creating an accessible workplace goes far beyond simply doing the right thing. It’s about unlocking talent. When barriers are removed and technology is designed inclusively, people are better able to thrive at work.

    By working with government and disability organisations, we’re helping to ensure innovations are meaningfully embedded in everyday workplaces. This approach strengthens our teams, broadens opportunity and helps build a more inclusive and resilient workforce across the UK.

    Head of Accessibility, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at Guide Dogs UK Alex Pepper said:

    It’s encouraging to see major technology companies coming together to open opportunities in the workplace. Assistive technology can remove barriers at work, but it is not a solution on its own. Without accessible recruitment, the right training and affordability, it risks creating new exclusions. At Guide Dogs, we see technology, human expertise and guide dogs as a blended solution – and the same joined-up approach is essential if workplaces are serious about inclusion.

    CEO at Lightyear Foundation Jeff Banks said:

    Today’s roundtable was an incredibly valuable opportunity to move beyond broad commitments and focus on how AI and assistive and accessible technologies can be embedded into real working environments.

    For deaf, disabled and neurodivergent people, the issue is not whether the technology exists, but whether employers understand it, adopt it well, and involve disabled people in shaping how it is used. Collaboration between government, tech companies and disabled-led organisations will be essential if we are serious about turning innovation into more inclusive employment opportunities in the future.

    Director of Policy, Policy Connect, Robert McLaren said:

    We know Assistive and Accessible Technology is vital to the success of disabled people – I certainly wouldn’t be able to do my job without these tools. That makes the adoption of this technology, in business and the public sector, one of the great challenges and opportunities for our economy.

    CEO at Ability Net Amy Low said:

    At AbilityNet we have seen tech advancements in the past 5 years alone blow the doors off the art of the possible when it comes to disability inclusion in the workplace.

    This gathering was exciting as in the room we had all the right people – big tech, government departments and third sector representatives, many of us with lived experience of disability and neurodivergence – to mount a collaborative campaign to drive this awareness at every level in an organisation.

    CEO at Business Disability Forum Diane Lightfoot said:

    Technology is moving at pace. Disabled people need to be involved in the design of AI-powered tools from the very beginning to ensure they are designed inclusively.

    Employers must also be at the heart of these conversations to make sure solutions are practical, scalable and meet wider business security and compatibility requirements. By coming together, we can harness the potential of technology to remove barriers in the workplace and beyond.

    Additional information:

    • Attendees included representatives from Meta UK, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Lightyear Foundation, Business Disability Forum, AbilityNet, Disability Rights UK, Regional Stakeholder Network, Scope, Guide Dogs, RNID, Global Disability Innovation Hub, Atech Policy Lab.
    • A £1 billion government investment has already been announced to help disabled people into employment by the end of the decade. This includes the Connect to Work programme which will help 300,000 sick or disabled people into work by the end of this Parliament.
    • The Disability Confident scheme is being overhauled with tougher standards and tailored support for smaller businesses, with 19,000 employers have already signed up.
    • A number of early employer adopters will address issues highlighted in the Keep Britain Working Review have also been launched, and the government announced the national expansion of WorkWell across England, which will support up to 250,000 more people with health conditions.
    • Nine inactivity trailblazers backed by £125 million are also launching across England and Wales. These bring together health, skills and employment support to help people back into work.
  • PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on Mauritania [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on Mauritania [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 3 February 2026.

    Delivered at Mauritania’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

    We welcome Mauritania’s continued engagement with the UPR process, as well as: efforts to strengthen access to education (particularly for girls); measures to address slavery and human trafficking; and collaboration with humanitarian partners.  

    We recommend that Mauritania:  

    1. Continues advancing the rights of women and girls by implementing legislation on gender-based violence and ensuring access to justice and survivor-centred services. Legalisation on gender-based violence would reaffirm the Government’s commitment. 
    2. Increases efforts to eradicate slavery and discrimination, including hereditary and descent-based slavery, by strengthening investigations, prosecutions and accountability, ensuring fair and equal access to descendants and providing effective support for victims.   
    3. Strengthens judicial protection for migrants and asylum seekers by adhering to international frameworks, ensuring humane treatment, due process safeguards, access to asylum procedures and protection from refoulement.  

    Thank you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on Nauru [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on Nauru [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 3 February 2026.

    Delivered at Nauru’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

    Thank you, Mr Vice President.

    The UK values Nauru’s sustained commitment to the UPR process and welcomes its efforts to enact the last review’s recommendations, including legal and policy reforms to protect the rights of women and children and persons with disabilities. We also welcome Nauru’s commitment to protections against gender-based violence and improving its food security.

    We urge Nauru to continue seeking support from international partners to address the financial, logistical, and climate-related challenges it faces as it advances its human rights.

    We recommend that Nauru:

    1. Adopts Cabinet resolutions and develops implementation plans for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by 2028.
    2. Prioritises improving women’s access to safe water in the Nauru Sustainable and Resilient Urban Development Project by 2027.
    3. Protects and upholds media freedom in Nauru, including by reviewing prohibitively high foreign journalist visa fees to enable foreign journalists to visit the country.

    Thank you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on São Tomé and Príncipe [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : UPR51 – UK Statement on São Tomé and Príncipe [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 3 February 2026.

    Delivered at São Tomé and Príncipe’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

    Thank you, Madam Vice President.

    The United Kingdom recognises São Tomé and Príncipe’s efforts to protect human rights through its accession of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its continued engagement with international human rights mechanisms.

    The UK commends São Tomé and Príncipe for the delivery of peaceful and inclusive elections in 2022. We encourage a free and transparent electoral process, in accordance with international human rights standards, for their 2026 Presidential elections.

    We recommend that São Tomé and Príncipe:

    1. Accelerates efforts to eliminate all forms of child labour, in line with the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, and through the full implementation of the National Action Plan.
    2. Establishes a fully independent National Human Rights Institution in line with the Paris Principles, including by adopting the necessary legislation and ensuring adequate resources to enable effective monitoring and protection of human rights.
    3. Ratifies the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

    Thank you.

  • Monica Harding – 2026 Speech on Sudan

    Monica Harding – 2026 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons on 5 February 2026.

    The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?

    Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?

    I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?

    What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.

    Yvette Cooper

    I thank the hon. Member for her commitment to reaching peace in Sudan and her comments on the horrendous nature of the crisis. The sanctions that we have now issued bring us broadly in line with the EU. The US has gone further, so we are continuing to look at the issues. We are seeking to link our sanctions to the evidence on atrocities, to the evidence on arms flows and, crucially, to the peace process and the peace discussions that we want to take place.

    I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of the UN. A few weeks ago, I met the UN Secretary General and the UN emergency co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to discuss Sudan and the importance of the work that the UN is doing. The UN is in close touch with the Quad on these discussions and is pressing for much greater humanitarian access. We certainly need to move towards a civilian Government. We need a political transition and a process to get there, but that has to start with a humanitarian truce. We have to start by silencing the guns and, as part of that, we need an end to the arms flows. I have seen evidence of a whole series of countries being involved in the arms flows to different sides, and we need action against that.

  • Priti Patel – 2026 Speech on Sudan

    Priti Patel – 2026 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 February 2026.

    The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.

    I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed.

    This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany?

    We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war.

    Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?

    As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands?

    The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.

    Yvette Cooper

    I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s words on Sudan. It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting it to end. She asked about the work being done through the Quad, and the work led by the US. I am in close contact with the US special envoy, Massad Boulos, and I am keeping in close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue. I have also been involved in discussions with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A lot of work is being pursued by the Quad, but, linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to build civilian capacity. We all want this to move towards a civilian political transition, but we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians, who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.

    As I said in my statement, we believe that this has to be an international effort, in the same way as in the run-up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the state of Palestine, and work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer, all of which was ultimately drawn upon in the 20-point plan put together by President Trump last year. We need the same intensity in relation to Sudan, with the same level of international engagement. That is what I want to see, and it is why I spoke to so many African Foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It is why I have been speaking to the African Union, and why I will be raising the issue not just at the UN Security Council when we hold the Chair this month, but at the Munich security conference, and as part of the Berlin conference. It is crucial that we keep that focus and energy in relation to Sudan. The £20 million announced this week is new money that will be used, in particular, for the survivors of sexual violence.

    The right hon. Lady mentioned Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States less than a week after I was appointed as Foreign Secretary. I am clear that his actions are completely unforgiveable. Given that at the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, this is particularly disturbing. I will say something else: I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the height of the financial crisis, when everybody was busting a gut to rescue the savings and livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, so the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister, working alongside us, could instead be behaving the way we have seen is truly shocking. It is right that a police investigation is under way.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2026 Statement on Sudan

    Yvette Cooper – 2026 Statement on Sudan

    The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 February 2026.

    I wish to update the House on the situation in

    Sudan.

    On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.

    That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.

    In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.

    I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.

    But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.

    What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.

    In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.

    Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.

    This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.

    The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.

    African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.

    As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.

    Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.

    To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2026 Comments on the Mandelson Scandal

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2026 Comments on the Mandelson Scandal

    The comments made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Independent MP for Islington North, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2026.

    This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.

    Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.

    We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.

    The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.

    Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.

    None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.

    The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.

    When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.

    Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.

    Graham Stuart

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.

    As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.

    I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.

  • John Lamont – 2026 Comments on the Mandelson Scandal

    John Lamont – 2026 Comments on the Mandelson Scandal

    The comments made by John Lamont, the Conservative MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2026.

    No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow.

    From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification:

    “Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”

    Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles.

    Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to

    “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

    In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files.

    Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme.

    But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to

    “challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

    Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?

    Graham Stuart

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.

    John Lamont

    My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment.

    I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.

    Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

    Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been a Member of this place for longer than I care to remember, and throughout that time I have seen powerful men go unchallenged and cause havoc in our country as a result. He and I will want to change that for good, because this goes well beyond any partisan concern. Does he agree that it is therefore time to revisit the role of this House in scrutinising appointments, and particularly the capacity of Select Committees to object? Too many people have known for too long that a number of controversial characters are not fit for public office. It is time to bring the disinfectant of democracy back into that process—does the hon. Gentleman agree?

    John Lamont

    The obvious question that stems from the hon. Lady’s point is why on earth the Prime Minister made that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature of Peter Mandelson. What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, a Cabinet member, was doing the rounds saying that it was “worth the risk”, so clearly, even in the higher echelons of the Cabinet—not least the Prime Minister—there were concerns about this appointment, yet nobody did anything about it. This individual, who had this association with a predator and grooming-gang master and was subsequently caught sharing sensitive information with him, should never have been anywhere near the important office of our ambassador to the United States.

    There are so many questions that the Government need to answer, but there are crucial questions that the Prime Minister has to answer. For me, the Prime Minister’s conduct in this matter is completely unforgivable.