British Indian Ocean Territory

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I am very pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I only wish that, when he was the leader of the Conservative party, he had gone on to become Prime Minister, because then we would not be sitting here debating this issue today. The last words of his speech said everything that needed to be said.

All Governments of all political parties have failed to do the right and moral thing over many decades. The Chagos islands were depopulated—cruelly depopulated—and the people of the Chagos islands were never given any say or any right of self-determination. Had that happened, decolonisation would have taken place, and there would never have been an International Court ruling. The Chagos islands would have stayed British and, as the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians have done, they would have proudly voted in any referendum to exercise their right of self-determination and stayed British. However, all Governments of all parties ignored the whole issue for decades, despite all the appeals of a small number of us who tried again and again and again, but were ignored. That is why we are in the position we are in today.

I cannot disagree with almost anything my former colleagues have been saying about this issue. They have analysed it correctly, and I only wish that we had done something about it during our 14 years in government.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not give way at this stage.

As I think all Members on both sides of the House will know, few issues have consumed so much of the 25 years of my parliamentary life as the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos islands and, more importantly, the Chagossian people. For more than two decades, I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination, as with all overseas territories and former colonies. I chaired the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. In fact, I was previously the deputy chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so trying to get cross-party consensus on where we were heading was a bit of a juggling act.

The one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement. I argued strongly for self-determination and that ultimately, whatever the options are and whatever happens, the Chagossians should have the final say. The right hon. Member had a different view, but members of that group—representing seven political parties—came to the view that the first thing needed was resettlement. However, the Conservative Government, over 14 years, absolutely refused even to consider any option for the resettlement of those islands.

I also dealt with this issue as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee over 15 years. Unlike the many who now speak with great certainty but remained silent during that period, I did not remain silent. I have also been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I have walked around those islands, and seen the abandoned churches and schools. I have walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people and the derelict homes. I have seen the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. I have raised this with every Foreign Office Minister in every Government over and over again, and I have been ignored. A small number of us were ignored; I pay tribute to Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, and Henry Smith, the former Member for Crawley, for raising this matter. We all raised it, but, sadly, over 14 years the last Government just dismissed it and refused even to consider it.

I went to Peros Banhos, the outer islands, which are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There is no security threat there. It took me four different boats to get to the outer islands. People could live there with no issues whatsoever, because they would be a long way from Diego Garcia. Despite the line from the Foreign Office, when I went to the State Department and raised this matter directly with the Americans, they said, “We have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands.” Our Foreign Office has been puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it. They did nothing and they ignored the facts.

I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend Michael Howard—Lord Howard of Lympne. It was not part of the official programme, but I asked, “Please can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis?” After a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted, and we went to meet the leaders of the Chagossian community. That was in 2002, which was pretty much my first year as a Member of Parliament.

So when I speak about the Chagos islands, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia and the outer islands, and I conclude that the current position represents—sadly, by all parties—a shameful betrayal of the loyal British Chagossian people. The Government’s Bill is nothing short of a surrender. It hands away British sovereignty over a territory that we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement, with tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign Government simply so we may lease back the military base that we already own. It is vital to our security and that of one of our closest allies, yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next century because of this shabby deal.

Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a Court, whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra-Commonwealth disputes, is somehow beyond negotiation, yet at the same time they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—an actual binding international treaty—which states plainly in its very first clause:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

That consideration tells us everything we need to know: this was never really about international law. An act of “total weakness” is how this has been described by the President of the United States of America, and does that not just say everything about this Government’s approach? All this is being done without the consent of or a genuine consultation with—and even without the courtesy, which every other territory has been afforded, of a democratic vote for—the Chagossian people themselves.

As disgraceful as the Bill is, it did not emerge from a vacuum. For over two decades and, as I have mentioned, for 14 years from the Government Back Benches, I urged Foreign Secretary after Foreign Secretary and Minister after Minister—speaking to them in the Lobbies, going to the Foreign Office and talking to officials; and discussing it over and over again by calling them into all-party group meetings and raising it at the Foreign Affairs Committee—to consider the Chagossians’ right of resettlement and self-determination, but I was ignored all the way through.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend—as I will always regard him, having known him for the past 40 years and knowing that his patriotism is beyond question—for giving way. Does he agree with me that there is a bit of a pattern here? The Government clearly want to do this surrender deal or giveaway, yet try to shelter behind inconclusive legalistic analysis. Is that not exactly the same as the betrayal of our Northern Ireland veterans, as the Government, when pressed, admit that they wanted to remove the immunity for our veterans anyway, but still seek to shelter behind questionable legal considerations that have not been fully tested? Why, when the Government want to do these terrible things, will they not at least have the guts to stand up and admit that that is what they want to do, and that they are not being forced to do it by lawyers whose credentials and jurisdiction are in question, to put it at its mildest?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree with every word my very dear and long-standing friend has said. I sit on a different Bench now, but as I look around the Chamber, I see colleagues on the Conservative Benches who I still agree with on most things, but I see some people on the Labour Benches—and certainly some of those in the Government—who seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country, including when it comes to Northern Ireland veterans, and this particular issue, of the surrender of one of His Majesty’s territories against the wishes of the people, is exactly what I am talking about.

[Mr Francois]

Both the hon. Gentleman and I have visited the Falkland Islands, although on different occasions. There is a strategic runway and base there at RAF Mount Pleasant. Would he agree that what the Government are doing is analogous to paying Argentina £35 billion to rent back that base and the Falkland Islands, which also belong to us and wish to be British?

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. There is a precedent here. The Falkland Islands could have gone the same way. Gibraltar could have gone the same way—indeed, the Government tried to make that happen. In 2002, one of the biggest campaigns I have ever fought was against the joint sovereignty plan by Tony Blair, which was against the wishes of the Gibraltarian people. I commend Mr Speaker, who at the time I worked with very closely in order to keep Gibraltar British, as happened in 1982 in order to keep the Falkland Islands British—but always on the basis of self-determination.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will make some progress.

With assurances from the United States, and given precedents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations, in 2016 I tabled an urgent question calling for self-determination. The response from the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this:

“we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.]

What a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn—another British community that the then Conservative Government were willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

I am sad to say that the Government are correct that it was my Government—the Conservative Government at the time—that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. I commend Lord Cameron, who rightly ended those talks, but they should never have begun in the first place. Why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why did they not say, “That’s the end of it. Never again.” and repudiate the failure of Sir Alan Duncan to give self-determination? Why did we not jettison that entire policy? We did not do so.

Even from within the shadow foreign affairs team, I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response, but I was shut down. The Conservatives’ opposition to this Bill, I am afraid, does comes not from principle but from convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye-watering and has been the focus of the Opposition for the last year, but no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out British people.

Self-determination is fundamental to everything I believe in—so fundamental that it rendered my position as shadow Minister untenable. I was pleased to hear the words of self-determination used earlier by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), because when I asked we take that position in the past, I was told it was not party policy. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official Conservative party policy. I hope that is the case—if it is, then everything that I have been fighting for over the last 25 years has been worth it—but the Bill and its origins, under both this Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to come before party; and I believe that the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen.

A few weeks ago, I was genuinely horrified and upset to be prevented, on Conservative Whips’ instruction, from voting for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is a fine addition to the House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people. His amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. I went to the doorway of the Lobby, but was told that I could not go in and vote for it. I apologise to my Chagossian friends that I let them down on that, but I was told not to and I felt deeply upset that I did not. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that he had, and still has, my support.

Meanwhile, genuine opposition on the Benches from which I speak now has put aside party squabbles, because national interest must always come before party—there is not really much in common usually between the Reform and Liberal Democrat Benches, but this is a matter of principle. Colleagues in my new party voted for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I commend them for doing so. It asked simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift-wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That is all we are asking: let the people decide. Who can seriously disagree with that principle? We rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, we strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony. The Government are happy to support that principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it is morally reprehensible.

What took place in the House of Lords on Third Reading was shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a Division, shouts of “Not content” were heard again and again, yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote. A Bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence—one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament—was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it.

I was further disturbed to learn from many very angry Conservative peers who contacted me that they had been instructed not to vote the Bill down, not because the arguments were weak or because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended too robustly today, lest it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many Members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions that they were given by their Whips. This is not coming from me, because I am not in the Lords, but from those who were there who were deeply upset by that. That crossed the line. A Conservative Government denied the principle of self-determination.

This Labour Government have gone much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without the consent of the Chagossian people. This is a bipartisan failure. The legislation sells out the King’s islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not in good conscience remain silent and complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party and ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher—the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination—would be implicated in this betrayal.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own Deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV last February:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of pressures of time, and that he will bringing his remarks to a conclusion shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

Given that the President believes this deal to be

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,

perhaps the Prime Minister should show some courage, withdraw this legislation and scrap this atrocious deal altogether.

In conclusion, this deal should be cast into the dustbin of history where it belongs, mark an end to the Government’s policy of managed decline, and prove that when it comes to the sovereignty of people over their homeland, whether it be Chagos—the British Indian Ocean Territory—or any other territory that is being decolonised around the world, it is the people themselves who must decide, have the final say and be given the right of self-determination.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands. We did not sign a deal; we would not sign a deal, because the terms were totally unacceptable, and they have got an awful lot worse since then—35 billion times worse. The cost is £35 billion—that comes from a freedom of information release from the Government themselves. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is why we will vote against the deal.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I have one simple question for the hon. Member. Is it now Conservative party policy to give self-determination and the right of resettlement to the Chagossian people?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Member knows that we have opposed this deal, but on self-determination, I would like him to ask his party leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), if he believes in the self-determination of the people of Ukraine, who have been invaded and brutally bombed by Russia. His leader still says that that was provoked by NATO. The hon. Member should be ashamed of that, if he believes in self-determination.

To conclude, I asked why the Government were surrendering land that we own freehold, only to lease it back for £35 billion. Is it not the same reason why they are surrendering our brave veterans to a new era of lawfare? Is it not the same reason why Labour gave up our fishing grounds, the most critical possession of an island nation, to access an EU defence fund from which it has not had a penny? We have a weak Prime Minister who always fails to put Britain’s national interests first. If Labour was strong enough to put our national interests first, surely it would stand up to Mauritius and reject this deal. After all, if the Government did that, they could spend the money that they saved on our armed forces, at a time when rearmament at home is on hold, precisely because Labour has failed to fund defence properly.

If there is one silver lining to having such a weak Prime Minister, it is his habit of constant U-turns. We have had 13 U-turns to date from this Government. Would the best thing for our national security not be for Labour to recognise that the game is up, to turn the pause on the Chagos Bill into a permanent full stop, and to scrap this terrible deal?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a link with the discussions on Greenland in recent weeks. We have been absolutely clear that we will always work with the United States on the treaty: we will always allay any concerns they have, and we have engaged with them every single day throughout the process. The deal was welcomed by Secretary Rubio, the US Administration, Secretary Hegseth and across the United States system, and very much so because—I will make this point, Mr Speaker—we secured a deal that, crucially, secures the operations that we and the United States conduct at the base, and that has additional protections that the previous Government did not get into place.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

When the historians write about this period of British history, those who have engineered this betrayal of British sovereignty over the King’s islands, along with the complete betrayal of the loyal British-Chagossian people, will not come out of it too well. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to review this shameful policy and give the Chagossian people—whom he did not even mention in his reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary—the same right of self-determination that we afford to all other British overseas territories. Why are the Chagossians treated differently to everybody else?

[Stephen Doughty]

With the greatest of respect, as the hon. Member well knows, I have regularly referred to Chagossian communities, and I have engaged with and met them on many occasions—even in opposition, before I became a Minister. I have deep respect for them, including those members of the communities who disagree with me. I simply cannot take anything seriously from the hon. Member, when he has joined a party that had such links to Russian money coming into its leader in Wales.

International Day of Education

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who secured this timely debate to coincide with the International Day of Education.

Over my 25 years as a Member of this House, I have been extremely fortunate to travel to all parts of our planet, whether as part of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I served for 15 years; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does excellent work, as we all know; the Inter-Parliamentary Union; the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; or, most especially, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I served as a governor for nine years, doing work in countries around the world. I have also taken part, over the years, in various missions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to countries including Uganda and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will say a bit more about the Chagos islands later.

Through my travels I have seen at first hand the impact of British education, cultural exchange and institutional engagement around the world. I felt it right to participate in this debate because I was due to respond to it on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition as a shadow Minister. Although that is no longer the case, I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will do justice to the role this afternoon, and I wish him well in his endeavours.

Education has the ability to transform lives and, ultimately, it shapes the world in which Britain must operate. For generations, this country has been regarded as the workshop for global leaders, and the world’s elites have wanted to send their children to be educated here in the United Kingdom. That includes post-colonial leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Menzies and Mahatma Gandhi, and contemporary leaders such as the great Tony Abbott and Shinzo Abe. The list goes on—it is very extensive—and we should take great pride in the fact that so many distinguished figures from around the world choose to send their children and families to be educated here in the British Isles.

It is clear that our schools, universities and language, and our great British culture, have projected British influence further than any number of tanks or treaties ever could have done. That influence has been built deliberately through institutions and scholarships that are respected across the globe, including the Rhodes scholarship, the Chevening programme, the work of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the generations of Commonwealth scholars who have gone on to become leaders in politics, business, science and civil society. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, I have seen how thriving these networks of influence truly are.

However, I am afraid that the Commonwealth itself, and bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, have been understood by successive Governments as almost like a hangover of colonial times—something from the past that should belong in history. That attitude is wrong and needs to change. We should be proud of what Britain has achieved over the centuries and we should continue those traditions today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I could not have been here earlier; I was in the Chamber.

I know the focus of the debate is on what Britain does when it comes education, but the other side of it is that many churches across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, have built schools and universities. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the good work done by the churches in my constituency? The Elim church has built a hospital, a health centre, a primary school and a secondary school, and it does work on job training for farming as well. All these things are done by people from Newtownards going to Malawi, to Swaziland and to Zimbabwe. That is an example of what can happen if we all look at some of the good things that are happening.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is about the International Day of Education.

[Andrew Rosindell]

That was a fine intervention and I entirely endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said. One of the reasons Britain has had so much outreach around the world is because of our Christian foundations. It is so important to uphold and cherish our Christian heritage. Of course, Christian missionaries have travelled the world and established schools, hospitals, universities and churches, helping countries far and wide and people of all religions. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s examples from his constituency; my constituency also has many churches that do excellent work and support causes around the world. I thank him for raising that point.

The Commonwealth is, I believe, a tangible force for good—I am sure we can all agree with that—and it should be central to any Government’s foreign policy. A voluntary association bound by shared language, legal traditions and educational standards embodies the very arguments that we are debating here in Parliament this afternoon. Above all, it provides Britain with a unique global reach that no other country enjoys. There are Commonwealth countries in every part of the world, including, let us not forget, our cherished overseas territories and Crown dependencies, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory, which should remain a British territory.

The Commonwealth has presented our great nation with an inheritance that is the envy of the world. But, obviously, soft power works only when it also serves the national interest. I am afraid that is where this debate has to be honest. Too often, international education policy has drifted away from British priorities and towards fashionable global causes, administrated by bloated bureaucracies with little regard for value for money or outcomes. My new party, Reform UK, believes in engagement with the world, but on Britain’s terms, not at our expense.

Last month, in my previous role as shadow Minister, I met with the British Council. It does invaluable work—I place that clearly on the record—but what I heard in that meeting should concern the House. Funding from the Foreign Office has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The British Council is being forced to consider the closure of up to 35 country offices, with 10 having already been lost during covid. Just £20 million would stabilise the British Council network, yet at the same time, this Government appear perfectly relaxed writing cheques running into the tens of billions for the handover of a British territory, thereby betraying British people, based on questionable interpretations of international obligations that deliver nothing tangible for the British taxpayer.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the motion.

[Sam Rushworth]

While the hon. Member is on that point, we are all aware of a letter that he wrote in 2020, in which he urged President Elect Joe Biden to do exactly what the Government are doing. Will the hon. Member say why his opinion has changed on the matter?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am so pleased that the hon. Member has raised that point. With your permission, Ms Vaz, I will answer it.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I have been advised that we have to stick to the motion, which is about the International Day of Education.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will certainly do so. To say one brief thing to the hon. Member, the letter was written to reflect the consensus of an all-party parliamentary group that I happened to be the chair of. The letter did not necessary reflect my opinions on everything. Self-determination should always determine decisions.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member address the Chair, please?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will go back to the point. We are told that there is no money for the British Council, yet somehow we find the cash for all sorts of other things: for housing the people who are coming to this country illegally; for the failing digital identification experiment; and for a long list of projects that do nothing to strengthen Britain’s position in the world or to promote education.

I am sure we will shortly hear warm words from the Minister about the importance of international education, and rightly so, but those words will ring hollow when the Government are presiding over an erosion of Britain’s ability to support education, influence and cultural engagement across the globe. What makes matters worse is that the cuts are focused on British Council offices in developed countries—the countries that need our support more than most. These are places where English teaching may not be the primary objective, but where influence, networks, science, culture and diplomacy absolutely are.

The British Council is certainly not just an English teaching charity. Its stated aims are to foster cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with the United Kingdom. Undermining that mission weakens Britain. However, Reform UK is not calling for a blank cheque—far from it. If Britain is to help educate the world, that education must champion the United Kingdom and its values, free speech, our model of parliamentary Government and the rule of law. It must never put Britain second.

We should not be funding programmes to apologise for our history, undermine our institutions, or promote ideologies fundamentally hostile to our way of life. Nor should international education be used as a back door for uncontrolled migration or permanent settlement. Students should come to Britain to learn, and then return home as ambassadors for this country and assets to their peers. They should certainly not be numbers that disappear into a broken system that is already overstretched.

Ahead of the International Day of Education, I say that, yes, education changes lives, but it also helps to shape geopolitics. If we hollow out our soft power while pouring money into symbolic global gestures, we will wake up—as we have for some time—poorer, weaker and less respected. Reform UK believes that Britain should engage with all nations of the world and treat all countries with respect, working with all nationalities and peoples for the best interests of humanity, but always in Britain’s national interest. Our educational institutions and global networks remain world class—dare I say, the best—but the question is whether the Government are willing to end the bipartisan policy of managed decline and once again put British cultural influence back on the map.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate ahead of the UN’s International Day of Education. It is a topic close to my heart, as the son of a primary school teacher and a youth worker, and having engaged in a number of educational initiatives myself over many years, including teaching English one summer in Ukraine, which I will come back to. I thank hon. Members for their sincere and passionate contributions on this crucial issue.

Of course, education is also important to us all in our own constituencies. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), spoke of a number of the issues around education in the UK. While I am, of course, hugely proud of schools and educational institutions in my own communities in Cardiff South and Penarth, and of the investment from the Welsh Labour Government into new schools and a new further education college there—and proud of many other aspects—we are largely talking today about international efforts on education.

Such efforts include the very powerful examples that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) just raised. I visited Afghanistan at the very same time that he was serving gallantly there—I thank him for his service at that time—because, under the last Labour Government, I served as an adviser in the former Department for International Development and worked on Afghanistan policy. Indeed, I worked on many of those issues, including the ways that we tried to support girls’ education in Afghanistan in particular back then, and I have been to many of the places that the hon. Gentleman described.

I also thought about that context today, not only for the people of Afghanistan, tragically, and particularly those young girls, but for the young people I engaged with just last week, in a live video conference linking up Stratford Manor primary school in east London with a school in Kyiv. That was part of the school twinning programme under the 100-year partnership, which is now reaching up to 300 schools. It was really powerful to speak to those young children live on camera with the children in London. They told us about the massive bombardment they had faced the night before in and around their schools and homes in Kyiv, thanks to Russia’s barbarism. They were lucky to be able to join us at that moment because most of the time they have no electricity or heating at their school. The stark challenges faced around the world by children who deserve education are very clear to me, whether that is in Gaza, Sudan or many of the other locations that have been mentioned.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make some progress, then potentially take some interventions later.

I previously worked in the international development sector for a Christian international development charity, World Vision, and for Oxfam, and have engaged with many educational programmes around the world. I have seen the real difference made by not only UK assistance, but international organisations and the United Nations, and the excellent charities that we have here in this country.

Many Members reflected on the important work of the British Council and our scholarship programmes. I have done a lot of work with Chevening scholars and Marshall scholars, among others, as well as Commonwealth scholars, of course. I am really proud that this Government have taken us back into the Erasmus+ programme and its opportunities for international exchange and engagement. It is crucial for young people in Britain, but also for those long-standing partnerships that make us strong and understood, and speak to our values in the world.

As advocates for global education, the Members present know all too well that the system is in serious crisis. UNESCO estimates that every $1 invested in education and youth skills in developing countries generates $10 to $15 in economic growth. Education has also been central to reducing inequality and empowering women and girls. We know its impact, yet 272 million children are out of school globally and 70% of children in lower-middle-income countries are unable to read and understand a basic text by 10. That figure rises to 90% in sub-Saharan Africa. That has to change.

With better research and evidence on what works, a range of different interventions and partners and countries working together, we can make a difference, particularly through taking on board new technologies and new ways of accessing the curriculum and learning. We are part of that effort, building modern and respectful partnerships, as well as shifting from being a direct donor in many circumstances to acting as an investor and an adviser and convenor.

We will always retain our focus on reaching the most marginalised children who need and deserve quality education. For example, in Sierra Leone, we are working with the Government to build gender-based violence prevention and response, especially with regard to children with disabilities who face gender-based violence. We are helping partner Governments to finance and manage their own education systems more effectively, and we are using world-class evidence to improve teaching in the classroom to ensure that children are learning.

Our people and our expertise and the great strength we have in education in this country means that we are trusted advisers to partner Governments. We have funded pioneering research, particularly on the issue of foundational learning referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others. We are a founding partner of the global Coalition for Foundational Learning, working closely with UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and other Governments. We are a founding member of the Global Partnership for Education. We were at the forefront of setting up Education Cannot Wait, which has done important work. We are continuing to deliver through a range of multilateral investments.

We have had to take tough decisions, which have been referenced by a number of Members. We took the tough decision to reduce our official development assistance spending to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 so that we could respond to pressing security challenges and geopolitical circumstances with which Members are only too familiar. With less funding, we need to do things differently. We have to focus on the greatest impact and we need to target funding on the people who need it the most.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not, if that is okay.

We are focusing on five areas: first, improving learning outcomes for all children, particularly targeting girls and the most disadvantaged; secondly, helping partner Governments to strengthen their education systems; thirdly, increasing the scale and sources of financing, so that Governments can access financing to fund education reforms; fourthly, safeguarding education in emergencies and protracted crises, including those affected by conflict and climate change; and finally, driving the reform of multilateral education organisations. I will say a little more about that conflict work in a moment.

We are leading on our own strategy. On 20 January, the Government announced our new international education strategy, which builds on our strong leadership, skills and expertise. Education already contributes more than £32 billion a year to the UK economy. Our strategy sets out a plan to increase that to £40 billion by 2030, generating jobs and skills here in the UK as well. We have expertise, leadership and commitment. I think Members understand that we are in a different circumstance with regard to the funding, but we will continue to remain focused on these issues.

In my last few minutes, I want to turn to some of the points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others asked about work in emergencies and protracted crises. We recognise that that is a huge challenge, and of course we are continuing to focus on it. We have committed a further £10 million for strategic partnerships on education in emergencies. We are of course the largest bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, £5.6 million of which is earmarked for education and psychosocial support in Gaza and the west bank.

The situation in Afghanistan is of course absolutely tragic, but even there we continue to support the delivery of education through UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee and other partners, including the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund. We are continuing to try to work in those incredibly difficult circumstances, which are a tragedy for girls, in particular.

My hon. Friend raised foundational learning and asked about the Future of Development conference in May this year. The agenda is still being finalised for that, but we will update him and the House in due course. We are of course looking at new ways to generate resource in straitened circumstances. For example, our support for the International Finance Facility for Education has already unlocked $1 billion in additional education finance from multilateral development banks. That is very good value for money for the UK taxpayer, because $1 of cash invested there generally leverages in $7 of additional concessional finance.

I absolutely assure Members that we will continue to stay focused on the education of girls and those who are most marginalised and least likely to go to school. I agree that the British Council is an important partner, and it will of course help to deliver the international education strategy. I visited the British Council team in Kyiv—tragically, their offices were hit by one of the Russian strikes. Our funding to the British Council is still under discussion.

Of course, that international commitment is matched by our commitment to young people in this country. I mentioned the investment that we are putting in and the Government’s focus on this issue. It is not just about schools, in terms of teaching, facilities and curricula; it is also about ensuring that young people are in the best place to learn. That is why we have put 750 primary breakfast clubs in place and extended free school meals to half a million more children. I am incredibly proud of that work, which draws on the lessons we have learned from Wales.

We are proud of what we are doing on education in this country and internationally. These are changed financial circumstances, but we will continue to focus resource where we think it makes the biggest difference for the most marginalised communities, and we will leverage in support from other donors. I thank all Members for the sincerity of the points that they made today.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We are deeply concerned about the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli military and by the allegations that my hon. Friend refers to. The UK calls for all reports to be fully investigated. The arrest and detention of children must follow due process, in line with international juvenile justice standards, and we call on all parties to the conflict to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate and unfettered access.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member likes to call himself a patriot. He has just joined the party that is the weakest on Russia—a country that threatens our country—and led by a leader who has continued to question the role of Russia in beginning the Ukraine war, the role of NATO and even in the Salisbury killings. He should look a little bit inwards before he tries to make points in here.

Ukraine

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

We are at a crucial juncture in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. It has been nearly four years since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, a period nearly as long as the duration of the first world war, with many of the same horrors that our soldiers witnessed in those days—trench warfare, a war of attrition—being witnessed today by a generation of young Ukrainians and Russians who are being decimated in their hundreds of thousands. We have also, tragically, seen the horrific mass deportation of 20,000 Ukrainian children. This is nothing short of a war crime. Make no mistake: on the line is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The freedom and democracy enjoyed by its people and also the entire security architecture of the west are at stake. The threat is especially acute in the eastern flank, for countries such as Moldova, and in the Black Sea, but this reaches far beyond the region; it is about the security of us all.

European countries are already having to protect their borders from malign Russian activity. We have had to do so for years, and will continue to do so, but I felt that 2025 was a real turning point. We need only look at what has been happening in Poland, whether Russian drone incursions or railway sabotage. Romania and Estonia have both had their airspace outrageously violated by Russia. And the Royal Navy has had to be activated to intercept Russian ships, including the Yantar, and we all know the real purpose of that ship.

Russia is already waging a sophisticated hybrid and sub-conventional campaign against us. The reality is that we must be prepared for sustained tension with Russia for many years to come. But the outcome of the war in Ukraine is central to whether that threat is checked or emboldened, and this extends beyond just Russia. The fact that Putin is now reliant on North Korean personnel and ammunition should shame him, but it should also warn us. The war has become a testing ground for an authoritarian axis that will not stop at Ukraine if it is allowed to succeed.

All of us want to see this war end. It is unjust, unprovoked and entirely of Putin’s making. It is therefore of no surprise that Putin appears completely insincere about wanting to reach a genuine ceasefire. We understand that initiatives to end this war, led by the United States of America, are progressing, at least on the Ukrainian side, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate, his latest assessment of those talks and their direction of travel.

It is also important to recognise where responsibility lies. Time and again, Ukraine has shown a willingness to engage in discussions aimed at ending the conflict. Russia, by contrast, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness and sincerity. If ceasefire proposals are rejected or negotiations undermined, the obstacle to peace lies not in Kyiv, nor among Ukraine’s friends, but firmly in Moscow.

One principle must remain non-negotiable: the Ukrainian people must be sovereign in their own land. They have paid in blood to defend themselves and their homeland, and decisions about their future, their borders and their security arrangements must be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone. No peace imposed from outside will endure, and no settlement that ignores the will of the Ukrainian people can be sustainable. As we have done throughout history, Britain must continue to show international leadership in defending that principle, so I would welcome an update from the Minister on what the UK is doing diplomatically to that end.

It is crucial that we achieve a just and lasting peace. Putin must not emerge strengthened from a potential settlement; we must not give in to him, because the lesson of the last 20 years is that he always comes back for more, with a persistent desire to exert control over neighbouring states and to challenge the post-cold war settlement in Europe. It is clear from the statecraft he is using that he has his KGB playbook out right now. Putin has not abandoned his territorial ambitions. He wants to subjugate Ukraine lock, stock and barrel.

A lasting peace is not about conceding to aggression. Territorial concessions would mean rewarding Putin’s barbaric attacks on the Ukrainian people. Britain must lead the way again on sanctions and keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits and the EU should step up and ban Russian oil and gas sooner than it currently plans, in 2027. Will the Minister confirm whether he has been pressing his counterparts in the European Union and European capitals to do exactly that? The Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constrain Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin getting his hands on military equipment.

The issue with Russian oil persists. Countries are allowing the purchase and whitewashing of Russian oil on their watch. We know the businesses, refineries and individuals who are profiting from Russian energy exports, so do the Government plan to take further action against those enablers?

It is clear that we need to go a lot further on sovereign Russian assets. We welcome the £2.26 billion loan made by the UK to Ukraine off the back of the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, but the Government cannot view that as the end of the road. Instead, Ministers need to be working around the clock, including with the City of London and our allies, to find innovative and workable solutions that allow us to go even further and to drive other G7 and European states to do the same. What is the current status of talks with the EU, the United States and the G7 partners? Specifically, what recent discussions has the Minister had with his Belgian counterpart? What is the UK doing to help move things along? Does the Minister agree that when those sanctioned assets are mobilised they should be used not just for the reconstruction of Ukraine but to support the Ukrainian people as fast as possible?

For all the talk of negotiations, we must not lose sight of the fact that the GDP of the UK and our allies combined colossally outweighs that of Russia, and we need to leverage that in every right way. We need to ramp up our defence industrial base now for the long term, because we know that, for Russia, sustaining its war economy will come at an enormous price at a time when it is already reeling from sanctions, with interest rates at high levels not seen in decades and with welfare payments having to be slashed.

Last week we learned of the Government’s vision for British troops on the ground in Ukraine, should a peace agreement be reached. That deployment of British troops is, I believe, one of the most serious decisions a Government and a Parliament could ever take, so there are a number of vital details that we need to understand about what exactly the Government’s plans are for any future deployment. These include the rules of engagement, troop numbers, how rotations could work, the composition of the force, whether any British soldiers will be actively involved in policing or patrolling any border or demilitarised zone, and what air and naval assets would be provided as part of any multinational force for Ukraine. The British people will expect answers to those vital questions before we consider sending our boys out to a conflict zone, potentially risking the lives of courageous British servicemen and women.

The Government must confirm the contributions of other countries and the nature of any security guarantees, particularly with regard to the United States and Germany. We need Ministers to confirm whether soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment. Will the Minister clarify which Government budget such an operation will be funded from? Does he agree that this underscores the imperative of spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? His Majesty’s Opposition have called for that and I hope that the Government will do the same. Kicking the can into the next decade, with no road map, is simply not going to cut it in the world in which we currently live. We must do everything in our power to deter an invasion of this kind of any other country. In principle, Britain must be involved in any and every effort to provide deterrence against such aggression in future.

Two things are also critical in the immediate term. First, Ukraine must continue to receive the military aid it needs to fight back against Russia’s increasingly savage war, and Putin’s ability to wage this war must be further undermined, for example through biting new sanctions. Secondly, any initiatives to secure an end to the conflict must deliver peace on the terms of the Ukrainian people, and with full involvement of Ukraine. We cannot allow Putin to be strengthened. Will the Minister provide an update on how the UK is ensuring Ukraine is able to meet the increasingly savage tactics being used by Russia?

To conclude, in the early days of the war, the previous Conservative Government played a pivotal role in coming to the aid of the Ukrainian people. Just as Margaret Thatcher stood up to the threat of Soviet domination in eastern Europe, and fought for the freedom and the democracy of eastern Europeans, ultimately leading to the fall of the Berlin wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union, my party led at the outset of this invasion, and continues to stand with the people of Ukraine.

As usual, it was British leadership that set the direction of travel for many European countries. It was the British people who provided approximately £12 billion in overall support, including military and humanitarian aid. With our allies, it was Britain that imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. It was Britain that hosted the Ukraine recovery conference in 2023, raising billions for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. And it was Britain that established Operation Interflex, which has now trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion of 2022. When freedom is threatened, Britain stands resolute.

Today, we feel as passionately as we did four years ago about defending and restoring the freedom that the Ukrainian people earned back in 1991. Long has Britain stood for the cause of freedom, and long may that continue.

Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

Like other Members, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his long-standing and tireless commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief around the world. This debate is the latest example of those efforts. Once again, he has brought before the House an issue of grave moral urgency and deep international concern, which too often escapes the sustained attention of hon. Members across this House. For that, he deserves our sincere thanks.

In my capacity as a shadow foreign affairs Minister, I have stood in this very place on a number of occasions to raise the vital importance of defending freedom of religion and belief. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the assault on the right to believe, to worship or simply to think freely is not receding. I regret to say that in many parts of the world it is intensifying, and Myanmar is the most tragic and alarming example of that. It is, sadly, a depressing way to start 2026: to hear that such tragic circumstances in a country continue in the second quarter of this century.

However, I find it reassuring that today we have heard from MPs from about six different political groups who all had the common theme of wanting to see the tragedy in Myanmar end. I thank all Members who have helped to play a part in that process over many years, some of whom have spoken today.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the importance of upholding the rights of religious minorities and about the need for international action in Myanmar. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hit on a very important point about the motivation behind all this, so there are still questions to be answered. Why is there such severe repression against religious minorities in that country? The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who served as a Minister until recently and who worked on this issue as a shadow Minister, spoke about the fragile situation on the border with Bangladesh and the importance of remembering that issue as part of the overall tragedy taking place in Myanmar.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for highlighting that the issue is not about one religion; it is about all religions that are persecuted. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians are all being persecuted, and he particularly highlighted the plight of the Rohingya. I was not aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) had been so involved in the Burma Campaign over the years. I commend him for that. He also spoke about the appalling humanitarian crisis and the tragic failure of the global community to highlight it more seriously. We look at so many other issues going on in the world, but we rarely talk about that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), made a similar point.

Finally, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) spoke about erasing identity and culture—exactly what is happening in Myanmar today—and Burmese nationalism. I think there is unity among all Members this afternoon, but there is a lot more to be said on this. Religious persecution is at the very centre of the wider conflict taking place in Myanmar. The military junta has deliberately targeted religious minorities—whether they are Muslims, Christians or others, as hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned—simply because of their faith, identity and ethnicity, which are so deeply intertwined in that country. The result is a campaign of terror that has displaced millions of innocent people and destroyed so many places of worship.

Independent human rights organisations such as Fortify Rights have documented deliberate aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, churches and hospitals, in the run-up to the sham elections, blatantly indicating how systematic and widespread the military junta’s violence is. The latest report shows multiple airstrikes targeting civilian areas, many of which may constitute war crimes under international law.

Muslim communities, particularly the Rohingya, continue to suffer what many have rightly described as crimes against humanity. Hundreds of thousands remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a nation that has its own international issues to overcome, while those still inside Myanmar endure what Human Rights Watch has described as apartheid-like conditions, arbitrary detention and systematic deprivation of their most basic human rights.

Christians, too, often from ethnic minority communities and most starkly in Chin state, have been brutally targeted. Churches have been bombed, clergy have been killed and congregations have been forced to flee into jungles or makeshift displacement camps. Nor has Myanmar’s religious and cultural patrimony been spared, with historic cathedrals and churches damaged or destroyed in a deliberate attempt to erase identity as well as faith. That amounts to a sustained pattern of persecution carried out by the Tatmadaw armed forces with impunity.

As a country, and particularly in this place, we cannot look at Myanmar without recognising our own historical connections to that country. During the period of British administration, Burma was, as it remains today, home to a remarkable tapestry of peoples, languages and faiths. In its latter years as a Crown colony, there was at least a recognition, imperfect though it was, that diverse communities could co-exist under the protection of shared institutions and the rule of law. That pluralism was and is very much still being violently dismantled by the current regime. The very sense of cultural multiplicity that once defined Burma is now treated by the military junta as a threat to be eradicated. That should matter to us in Britain, given our role in establishing what is now Myanmar but, perhaps more importantly, because Britain’s standing in the world rests on our willingness to uphold the values that helped to hold that country together, with the borders that it still has today, in the first place.

I acknowledge that the United Kingdom, under Governments of both colours, has taken a strong stance on Myanmar. Successive statements at the United Nations have rightly condemned the violence and reaffirmed support for freedom of religion or belief. However, we all know that in the second quarter of the 21st century, eloquent statements in international forums are not enough when entire communities are being erased before our eyes. The International Court of Justice case involving the Rohingya continues at a glacial pace while atrocities persist on the ground, so I say this to the Minister: what further support are the UK Government providing to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to ensure that evidence is preserved and that perpetrators are identified and, we hope, brought to justice?

Beyond judicial mechanisms, what discussions has the United Kingdom had with counterparts in the region, particularly countries such as China and India, to ensure that those responsible, particularly within Myanmar’s military leadership, face real political and diplomatic pressure today and not at some indeterminate point in the future? Action is required immediately. Despite the UK’s imposition of sanctions, including on aviation fuel suppliers, airstrikes against religious sites continue. Does the Minister believe that the current sanctions regime is sufficient, or should we go further? What concrete steps are being taken to close the loopholes—particularly on jet fuel, arms transfers and financial flows—that continue to enable these atrocious attacks?

The UK Government rightly state that freedom of religion or belief is a core human rights priority, but how is that reflected specifically in our Myanmar policy? Is there a dedicated strategy to support persecuted religious minorities both in Myanmar and among refugee populations in neighbouring countries? We know that aid is being deliberately blocked from reaching displaced religious minorities, particularly in ethnic and Christian-majority areas, so what pressure are the UK Government exerting, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, without interference or manipulation from the junta?

Will the UK Government commit to raising once again at the UN Security Council the crisis facing religious minorities in Myanmar? Will the Minister work with international partners to build a stronger coalition in defence of freedom of religion or belief across south and south-east Asia more broadly? We have seen the United States take a strong stand in defence of persecuted Christians in countries such as Nigeria, and the US Congress’s work on freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. Although the findings are grim, they have been instructive, so what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Washington? Is she pressing for deeper American engagement on this issue?

The United Kingdom has long been a world leader on freedom of religion or belief. When dealing with religious regions that have modern political foundations tracing back in part to this very building, I believe that we have a particular responsibility to show leadership—if not for the sake of those suffering today, to ensure that Britain is seen not as an irrelevant observer in global affairs, but as a nation that still stands up for justice, freedom and the rule of law, as our forebears have always done.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave at least two minutes at the end of the debate for the mover to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is engaging a wide range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the treaty and will produce a report before Christmas. We have seen no evidence of Mauritian interference, and it is important to recognise the wide range of views in the Chagossian community. I very much look forward to reading the IRDC’s report when it is completed.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else.

Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?

[Stephen Doughty]

No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats his wild claims about the cost of the deal, they are no more correct. I have been clear on multiple occasions about the cost of the deal. We will not scrimp on the national security of this country. The base is crucial for our security and that of our allies, and we have set out the costs very clearly.

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Butler, and Ms McVey before you, for chairing the debate; it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for bringing this debate to the House on behalf of the vast numbers of people—198,966—who signed e-petition 700682. I have listened to the debate carefully. I have been moved by the passion and the deeply held, sincere concern heard from Members on both sides of the House.

No human being should be subject to the kind of inhumane treatment that we have all seen in Gaza in recent times. I hope and believe that everyone in this Chamber, whether we completely agree or not, wants the same outcome: to see peace and stability returned, and to see women, children and others who have suffered living in peace and returning to normal life. We all want to see that, whatever our opinions.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Of course, I am always moved by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and I listen avidly whenever he speaks—we do not agree on much, but we do agree on some things. I also want to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke earlier. We share the same part of Essex and east London, and our constituents have similar views on many issues. I will not refer to everyone who spoke this afternoon, but I thank them all.

Speaking on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, let me firmly put on record our support for President Trump’s peace plan for Gaza. As I said during the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2803 represents a major step towards restoring order, security and a pathway to peace. I sincerely hope that prosperity and peace will be returned for all the people of Gaza as a result. The United States has brought leadership, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies, especially the United States and Israel, if we are to have any hope of ending this conflict and building something better.

Since becoming shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this subject, as other shadow Ministers have spoken instead of me. I would like to put on record that I have always believed that Hamas—an Iranian satellite and a terrorist organisation responsible for atrocity upon atrocity, culminating in 7 October—can play no part whatsoever in the future governance of Gaza, let alone in civilised global politics. I am glad that many Members have said things along those lines this afternoon. Hamas’s contempt for human life and dignity is matched only by what appears to be their absolute hatred of Israel and the Jewish people and, from what I can see, the wider free world.

We have nothing in common with Hamas. Their repeated rejection of peace proposals, their game-playing over the release of deceased hostages and their brutal campaign of summary executions against Palestinian civilians tell us everything we need to know.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the shadow Minister agree that we in this place can and should condemn all acts of horror, terrorism and injustice anywhere and everywhere, whether it is Hamas or Israel perpetrating them?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hate what I have seen on our television screens for more than two years. I condemn all unwarranted acts of violence—self-defence, we understand. We are deeply sad to see what is happening. We all want to see an end to this, so I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s position and agree with him.

However, Hamas seek only chaos. They are completely uninterested in co-existence with Israel. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the petitioners and many Members present this afternoon. No one can fail to be moved by the scale of suffering endured by innocent Palestinians. However, any approach that sidelines Israel will do nothing to get aid over the borders. All crossings, with the exception of Rafah, border Israel, so there has to be co-operation with Israel to get aid into Palestine. I believe that the UK must work with Israel to ensure that aid is flowing through the crossings effectively, safely and securely. Last week, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that she is working with her Israeli counterparts on the reopening of certain crossings into Gaza. What are the Government proposing specifically for each of the individual crossing points? I am sure that the Minister will answer that question later.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is visiting Israel at the moment. She is seeing for herself the humanitarian aid operation at the Kerem Shalom crossing, where trucks have been crossing into Gaza with aid supplies from Israel, the World Food Programme and partners in the region such as the United Arab Emirates. Maybe not all aid is getting through, but a lot of it is. She has also met with COGAT, and I believe she is the first British parliamentarian to visit the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, where she met with General Frank, who is heading up the operations to implement the 20-point plan. That shows the importance that the Conservatives place on the ceasefire, ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is eliminated, so that the region can have the promise of a more peaceful and secure future.

The CMCC and COGAT are focused on getting 4,200 aid trucks into Gaza each week. Can the Minister confirm that this level of humanitarian assistance is getting through? Does he recognise the aid supply figures from COGAT? Does he agree with those figures? We often hear Ministers quote the UN figures, but will the Minister tell us whether he accepts that COGAT efforts are bringing in thousands of trucks of humanitarian aid a week, including vital winterisation supplies? Will the Minister also tell the House whether he or the Foreign Secretary have any plans to follow in the footsteps of the shadow Foreign Secretary by visiting the CMCC and meeting with COGAT? If they have not done so already, it is vital that they do so soon, given where we are in the plans.

The previous Government did everything in their power to increase humanitarian access. Working with allies, they secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. Israel also agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza. For a period, we saw an increase in the quantity of aid delivered. The United Kingdom supplied vital food and medical aid for innocent Palestinians. With the help of the UN and Cyprus, we managed to secure infrastructure, including the floating pier off the coast, to help get aid into the territory. I respect the fact that this is an immensely complicated and tragic situation, but the Government need to focus on practical and even novel solutions for getting around the bottlenecks.

Regarding UNRWA, we must not forget that it had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel on 7 October. The testimony of Emily Damari about the location of her captivity is incredibly serious. UNRWA must sever all links to the Hamas terrorist group. It is critical that UN bodies ensure adequate vetting of personnel and activities, and that Catherine Colonna’s reforms be fully implemented as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will accept that Hamas has been using aid as a weapon by stealing and hoarding it, preventing Gazans from receiving it, and then profiteering from its sale. That is wholly unacceptable. What constructive steps are the Government taking with international partners to address aid diversion?

At the heart of President Trump’s peace plan is the establishment of an international stabilisation force. The United Kingdom has world-class peacekeeping, policing and stabilisation expertise. Will the Minister confirm that British expertise will not be wasted and that we have a plan to support the creation of that force alongside our allies? Does he have a view on what the ISF operating parameters should be? Does he think that it should move into the red zone? On the rebuilding of Gaza, what actions is the UK taking to support the establishment of alternative safe communities?

It is widely acknowledged that if the current ceasefire is to turn into a sustainable end to the conflict, Hamas must be removed from power and their terrorist infrastructure dismantled. What we need to hear today is how the Government intend to work with regional partners—Israel, Egypt, the UAE and the emerging Palestinian security structures—to achieve that essential objective. We also need to hear that Britain will play its part in creating security, peace and stability, and give the people of Palestine, Israel and the whole region hope for the future.

Gaza and Sudan

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the passing of the US-drafted resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the middle east, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved ones, and the families of all the deceased hostages, in the forefront of our thoughts. We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured.

Key to yesterday’s resolution was a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force, but can the Foreign Secretary set out exactly what Britain’s contribution will be to that force? The Government speak about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid a potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. What is Britain’s contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence, funding, action on the ground, or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about those details. Will she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate, and say what their contributions will be?

Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and their full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday’s vote, what practical contribution will the UK make to those efforts? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there are several points in the US President’s plan specifically on that, so where does the UK dock into those initiatives? Has she identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day-after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and education overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the west bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the middle east in that domain, and this must now be a moment of reckoning for the curricula in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that is vital if we are to build a sustainable peace.

On the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza? Have specific proposals and solutions been conveyed by the British side to Israeli Government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved?

Turning to the situation in Sudan, in El Fasher and elsewhere we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words, all in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered. In the immediate term, the UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators, and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain the conflict. Will that be forthcoming, and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having on that with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan quad and others? Will she also update the House on the Government’s response to US efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire, and say what role Britain is playing in that?

On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery. How has the situation evolved in the past two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? Finally, on day-after planning, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups, to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? We have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week, and I hope that similar initiatives will be possible with regards to Sudan. As penholder, the UK Government have a special responsibility, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gear.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the issues relating to Gaza and Sudan, and I will take his points in turn. We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the international stabilisation force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil-military co-ordination committee that is led by the US. It is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20-point plan. On the nature of the role that we expect to continue to play, we already provide training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training. I met them in Jordan, and other countries are also offering to provide such training for Palestinian police, which will be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise on decommissioning. That is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we have experience and expertise, mostly immediately around de-mining capabilities in terms of both funding and expertise.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of curriculum reform, which I agree needs to take place. That is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed that directly with President Abbas. The importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform must be central in both the west bank and in Gaza. On practical issues about the opening of crossings, we want to see all the crossings opened and restrictions lifted. The co-ordination committee, which has a UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli Government to seek to improve access and monitoring, and to improve arrangements to get more aid through. I continue to urge swifter action to get that desperately needed aid in place.

On Sudan, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for sanctions. I have had personal direct discussions with all members of the quad, including most recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, and I know how strongly he feels about the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan. We will continue to offer our support to that process.

On aid delivery, based on what the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though some of the routes into the region are currently completely inadequate, so security and infrastructure need to be provided to get the desperately needed scale of aid into the area. We will need to look at air routes as well as truck routes. He is right to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese civilian organisations. It is crucial that ultimately we have a transition to a civilian Administration in Sudan and an end to the horrendous fighting, abuse and sexual violence that we have seen, with reports on all sides of those sorts of atrocities taking place.

Finally, US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza, but it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress so far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan and we need the whole international community to pull together to deliver progress in the same way.