Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The only way that I am aware of co-operatives starting is by groups of local people coming together. That is what FCDO and ODA money is particularly good at doing—supporting civil society. I mentioned holding Governments to account, but of course, the economic empowerment that comes from communities being involved in the development of their own countries is something that we have supported so well for decades. I really hope we are able to continue to do so.

One concern I have is about the money that will likely be spent on staff redundancies that would be much better spent on furthering British priorities overseas. Of course, there are also pressures on the wider network of institutions that further the UK’s interests overseas, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. Those institutions play a really important role in projecting the UK’s soft power, and require stable and predictable funding. Although more funding has been provided in the supplementary estimates, this follows a long period of damaging uncertainty, which has really weakened our hand.

Inadequate transparency over aid spending has been a persistent theme for the past few years. I am proud of the work my Committee has done to shine a light on where aid cuts have fallen and the impact they have had. I am also extremely grateful to the excellent support provided in this task by my Committee staff and the House of Commons financial scrutiny unit, but we do not do this work alone; independent scrutiny bodies such as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact play a central role in maintaining transparency and accountability and in ensuring that Members have the information we need. I am deeply concerned that ICAI may be axed as part of these cuts, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that I am wrong about that.

This estimates debate sits within a broader shift in the UK’s aid strategy towards investment-led development, which is evident in nearly £0.5 billion funding for British International Investment this year. BII’s model is built on long-term investments rather than rapid humanitarian response, but that raises questions about the breadth of our development portfolio, and whether we are still there to help the poorest of the poor if we do not have the other support that underpins BII.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her opening remarks, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Does she agree that it was extremely disappointing that the previous Government, and indeed this Government, did not follow the recommendation of the International Development Committee that there should be someone from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the board of BII—not to make investment decisions, but to ensure it is aligned with Government strategy and policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done.

As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters.

I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms.

Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan.

Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer.

What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There is now a speaking limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

I start by paying tribute, as all Members of the House have, to our deeply dedicated and professional civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Speaking as a Minister just about to enter his sixth month in the job, I have met nothing but thoroughly professional, decent and hard-working civil servants. In fact, they are a tribute to some of the best parts of UK plc and the civil service. More broadly, I pay tribute, as again every Member has, to the work of teams on the ground across the middle east and their work in response to the Iranian attacks.

I turn first to the shadow Foreign Secretary’ speech and what I will call her list of questions. She tempts me into a wider debate on foreign policy, which, frankly, is her job, and I have enormous respect for her in doing that, but I will bring us back to one particular point on Iran. I can confirm to the House that the Minister for the Middle East has just finished summoning the Iranian ambassador, and I know that will obviously be of interest to her and the whole House. That has taken place in the last 30 minutes.

I will give a brief update on consular assistance—something that is of concern to many Members across the House, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. As of 7 am today, 136,582 individuals have registered their presence. The breakdown covers Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar and the UAE. This is the largest ever response to this service that we have ever had across multiple countries, and it is testament to the significant pressure that the service is experiencing. Diplomats are undertaking this work across the middle east. We have received nearly 4,000 inquiries since the start of the crisis, and on 3 March, almost 1,000 calls were handled just on that one day. With the civil service, we are doing our very best across the middle east to offer as much support as possible, including—for one of the first times in the history of the Foreign Office—external-facing communications to people who register in place. That is an important part of our response.

[David Mundell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Elmore]

I will make a bit of progress, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will give way later.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a pedant for procedure in this House, but I have forgotten something: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for securing the debate. I am sorry that I did not thank them at the beginning of my remarks, but the shadow Foreign Secretary tempted me, and I felt the need to bite. I am equally grateful to all other Members for their contributions. One thing I have learned is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has done a bit of gin-drinking and linen-wearing while travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I need to up my game!

Let me set out and respond to some of the many points raised in the debate. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, mentioned by many Members, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s security landscape. Like many of our allies, we recognise the need to reduce overall reliance on the United States for our defence. Strengthening the UK’s sovereign defence capabilities is essential in this new era. It is in that strategic context that the Government have taken difficult but necessary decisions, although I appreciate that that view is not shared across the House. The Government have taken those decisions in that strategic context, while ensuring that the UK still plays a full part in European security and remains able to protect our people, our interests and our values.

I am known for many courtesies in this House, but I found it slightly disingenuous of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), to skip over the fact that a Labour Government introduced ODA funding to begin with, and then gently suggest that the Lib Dems reached the 0.7% target after the 2010 general election. It is not my style to be combative in this House, but I thought that was slightly disingenuous—and I will leave it there.

The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, mentioned the ICAI. I can confirm that no decision has been taken. I appreciate that that will not please her, but we remain totally committed to meeting our statutory obligation, as the independent evaluation of ODA spending is extremely vital for the Government’s work.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—I hope I have got the name of his constituency right—asked about Abercrombie House in Scotland. We are committed to maintaining Abercrombie House. In fact, we are considering how other Government Departments could be based on that. I give him that assurance on the record, and I am more than happy to take the conversation away from the Chamber if doing so would be helpful to him.

There have been many questions about a plan, a way forward and the transformation agenda. I do not underestimate the challenges that come with FCDO 2030. Just a few moments ago, I made very clear my support for the civil service in the FCDO—whether on King Charles Street, in Abercrombie House or across the globe—but I have also heard civil servants themselves talk about the need for change in order for the service to be more agile in responding to the global events that many Members have mentioned. There is no hiding from the work that we need to do.

The FCDO needs be equipped to meet challenges today and in the years ahead. The permanent under-secretary of state is leading the transformation programme, to build an organisation that is agile, innovative and equipped to seize the opportunities of the day. They build on deep expertise, which I know is a concern for colleagues, and on the professionalism and commitment that the civil service brings to Britain’s diplomacy and development work every single day. Our workforce reforms are designed to strengthen that foundation, with officials developing a clear sequenced strategy supported by a Department-wide assessment of our skills, capabilities and requirements. I want to stress that point, because Members from across the House have raised the skillset, the institutional memory, and the scale of the knowledge that we bring, across the world, through our diplomatic service. We want to improve those things, not lessen them, and that can be done, among other things, through the skills audit.

As part of that audit, we of course remain committed to maintaining our development capability, but reduced ODA means deploying it with greater precision and impact. It will also mean closing and transitioning programmes in a planned way, drawing on lessons from previous budget adjustments. This includes strengthening the skills we need most for the future, expanding opportunities for specialist development, and ensuring that colleagues can gain the depth of knowledge and experience, both in the UK and overseas, that underpins a world-class diplomatic service. In short, our aim is to build a workforce with the right mix of expertise, regional insight and professional capability to deliver consistently for the UK in a rapidly changing world.

Let me focus on the specific challenge put to me this afternoon: that of development. The Government remain committed to returning to 0.7% when fiscal circumstances allow. We should be proud of the progress made in international development this century, but the world has changed and so must we. The British people and our partners around the world want a new approach to international development—that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law)—and the phrase “partners not patrons” is testament to where ODA needs to move to. We must listen to the countries that we support through ODA, not dictate the terms of what we think they need. That is important and I know the International Development Committee will agree with it, as will Members across the House.

The days of viewing aid as charity are frankly over. This modernisation is not simply the product of tighter budgets. It reflects what our partners have told us directly: they want support that is more responsive to their priorities, with partnerships focused on better health and education, and on ensuring that their people have opportunities at home. We have listened to that—I have listened, as have the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary—and our new approach is designed to match what our partners say they need, not what outsiders think they should have.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale spoke about a plan. The new approach is based on four fundamental shifts: it moves us from donor to investor; it moves us away from delivering services ourselves and towards supporting the capacity of our partners to improve their own service delivery; it moves us away from providing grants to offering our expertise; and it moves us from imposing change from overseas to championing local leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised the latter point with respect to co-operatives, and I was pleased that at the development conference at the beginning of November, I was able to include the crucial work done by the co-operative movement. I reassure him that while I remain in the job, co-operatives will be an extremely important part of how I see development moving forward.

As we progress through the aid budget work, and to announcements on decisions, I confirm that we plan to publish indicative ODA allocations for the next three years shortly. Those three-year budgets will provide the predictability that our teams need—the need for long-term funding allocations has been raised, and I can assure the House that the announcement will come soon. Effectively managing the reduction in aid spending will demonstrate how we intend to put our modern approach into practice. Our development work has never been solely about our aid budget, and access to private investment—the shadow Foreign Secretary raised that—remittance flows, efficient tax systems and trade opportunities are essential foundations for countries to achieve self-reliance. With less money to spend, we must make choices and focus on greater impact, as has been said by many Members. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support. The UK remains committed to meeting our statutory obligation on the independent scrutiny of our ODA spending—I am saying that again for emphasis, and to reassure the International Development Committee and its Chair of that work.

Let me come to points raised the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about water, sanitation and hygiene. We have increased humanitarian funding that includes WASH support in both Gaza and Sudan, working with the World Bank and the UN. The shadow Foreign Secretary may see things differently, but I reassure the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes that that part of our ODA change is about being a player in this space—as an advocate in the room, ensuring that we campaign and lobby for investment within the multilateral space. I also speak as the Minister responsible for multilateral issues, and the change can be a crucial part of such work. We are also supporting several fragile and conflict-affected states to strengthen WASH services, and we have supported more than 700,000 people in Sudan with access to water. I assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that we understand the importance of access to water, and how that can lead to security in the spaces where people are living and on which they are reliant.

The UK will also remain at the forefront of the world in relation to responses to humanitarian crises, particularly in supporting people affected by violent conflict, whether in Ukraine, Gaza or Sudan, and helping displaced people in or near their counties of origin. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raised the right of women and girls to live in a world free from violence, which I know is an issue that she champions. We recognise that human rights, good governance and our work through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative are key enablers of our wider FCDO priorities. I cannot stress enough to the House how important this is to both me and the Foreign Secretary. It is vital that we find solutions to the fact that the rape of women, girls and boys is used as a tool of war. I am sure that there would be no dividing line for anybody in the House over the part that the UK Government will play in reducing and, we would all like to hope, ending that practice. We will champion the rights of women.

We will accelerate the global clean energy transition, promoting green and resilient growth and seizing the opportunities for Britain. We will also continue to support countries to build resilient and sustainable health systems, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale—I seem to be highlighting him today, but I promise I will get to other Members —including through major investments, such as our £1.25 billon pledge to Gavi and our £850 million commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a clearer reassurance than that. This will help to protect millions of children from disease and save well over 1 million lives in the years ahead. All this is underpinned by our commitment to sustainable, inclusive long-term economic development, and it is built on the foundation of our strong relationships with countries around the world and our standing on the global stage.

Let me turn to questions raised by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and others, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, about soft power. I know, understand and support utterly and totally the UK’s role in making sure that soft power is relevant and crucial to our wider work within foreign affairs and diplomacy.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; the scale of the use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan is truly horrific. Two weeks ago, prior to the Security Council briefing, I convened an event in New York in the UN building to include four women speakers who have been working to tackle sexual violence in Sudan, and also to hear, through video testimony, from a Sudanese woman who has been working to tackle the levels of sexual violence and provide support to survivors in Chad. I have announced a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan. The voices of Sudanese women must be heard.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly look further at the evidence and the horrendous accounts that the right hon. Member describes. We are establishing, with international partners, a coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to work on Sudan and to work together on preventing atrocities and gathering evidence. We have been pursuing some of the findings in the UN’s report on El Fasher, which talked about systematic starvation, torture, killings, rape and deliberate ethnic targeting. The right hon. Member has added a further horrendous account to that, which is why it is important not only to pursue these atrocities but to ensure that there is basic humanitarian support. That is why we are prioritising Sudan for humanitarian support as well.

Sudan

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard the most disturbing stories about the impact on children. Mums describe how their children just stay in their tents, even though they have reached the relative safety of the camp, because they are terrified to go out because of everything that has happened to them. We have also heard terrible stories about young children being raped and facing the most horrendous sexual assaults. I strongly agree that not only do we have to pursue peace, but we need to hold to account the people who have inflicted those atrocities on children.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I commend the Foreign Secretary for her proactive engagement with Parliament on this issue, because that is part of the way we will shine a light on these horrendous circumstances. I concur with the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of civilian engagement, that any ceasefire is linked to the development of a political process, and that perhaps there can be civilian engagement at the Berlin conference. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about how she intends to engage the African Union? There is a general view that if the African Union were more engaged, it would be a lot harder for Russia to veto UN Security Council resolutions.

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about civilian engagement. I assure him that we plan for civilian voices to be heard in the discussions at the UN Security Council, where I strongly believe we need to hear the voices of Sudanese women, and as part of the Berlin conference. He asks about the African Union, which is a priority for us. One of the reasons I went to Addis Ababa was to meet the head of the African Union and other representatives to discuss exactly how we can work with the African Union, and how Foreign Ministers from neighbouring countries can work together. They all desperately want to see peace in Sudan, because they can also see the destabilising effects of what is happening there on their countries and across the region. So yes, we need to work strongly with the African Union too.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I do welcome Saudi Arabia’s southern dialogue conference. As my hon. Friend has said, it is supported by the Arab League and the GCC, and it is a vital step amid a worsening humanitarian and economic crisis. As UN penholder, the UK is actively supporting the process, through sustained engagement with Saudi leaders, the UN special envoy and regional partners, to help shape a credible road map that reflects southern communities’ aspirations.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

In his statement on 5 January, the Minister referred to the United Arab Emirates’ call then for a ceasefire. What discussions have since taken place with the United Arab Emirates, and is that still its position?

Arctic Security

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strength of our people-to-people bonds, but also the deep historical bonds and the continuing bonds of co-operation. Even today, the US and the UK have been discussing terrorism threats in northern Syria and the need to tackle Daesh. We have so many shared interests and a shared history, which is why it is so important that we pursue this disagreement in a robust and constructive way.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

In pushing back against the tariffs, will the Foreign Secretary and others make it clear to the US that it is not just the potential imposition of these tariffs, but the bandying about of the threat of tariffs, that is so disruptive and difficult for major British businesses that export to the US, such as those in the Scotch whisky industry? The tariffs might be just game-playing or tactics, but they are causing real damage right now.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member about the impact that threats can have, and the instability that they can cause. Stability and respect in relationships is a crucial underpinning of the economy.

Venezuela

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about engagement with the Commonwealth? Not only are there two Commonwealth countries immediately adjacent to Venezuela, but there is an important Commonwealth network across the Caribbean. Surely there must be a danger at this moment that some of those countries might think that their interests would be better served by looking to the United States rather than to the Commonwealth and the UK.

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to have a very strong engagement with the Commonwealth and are continuing to do so in the light of the weekend’s events. There are Commonwealth countries and overseas territories that have been heavily affected by the instability in the region, including the instability driven by the Maduro regime, as well as by the scale of the narco-trafficking and the criminal gang operations and by the scale and pace of migration, which has been very destabilising. We are also engaging with the Commonwealth countries in order to work with them on ensuring that there can be stability in the region, because that is in everyone’s interest.

Middle East and North Africa

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience of delivering aid in Palestine. She will know that I will not comment further on sanctions, but the question of the NGOs’ ability to operate in Gaza is obviously vital for the very pressing questions facing the Palestinian people, and the British Government will continue to raise it.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I also very much welcome the fact that the Minister made such reference to Yemen. As the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has just said, we often say that Sudan does not get enough attention in this Chamber, but I am afraid that the attention that has been focused on Yemen in this Parliament, given the scale of the crisis there, has been pitiful, and I hope that today reflects a change in that. How can the Minister convince us that that he and the Foreign Office can actually deliver on prioritising these issues when, as we heard in the previous statements, there are so many other issues that are commanding attention?

[Mr Falconer]

I would just like to emphasise wholeheartedly that I would like it if there were fewer issues on the international stage, and indeed in the middle east, particularly over Christmas. There are clearly a range of significant and important developments happening in the region I am responsible for and in those of my colleagues. Yemen is a priority for us; I was glad to be the first Minister to visit in six years. The developments subsequent to my visit underline both how dramatic the stakes are in Yemen and how important it is that the UK remains focused. It is one of the reasons I have been speaking to my colleagues in Yemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over the past few days.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will do my utmost, as I am sure other Ministers will.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member has been a long-standing champion of these issues. We reaffirmed our commitment to addressing malnutrition at the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2025, as he knows, and we continue to support the child nutrition fund, which funds treatment of acute malnutrition. We are providing technical assistance and are supporting countries to integrate nutrition across sectors.

Gaza and Sudan

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The need for shelter is becoming particularly acute as we move towards winter. Some of the warehouses I saw in Jordan, for example, have winter supplies in them, including tents and shelter. Of course, a much bigger reconstruction effort will be needed to restore homes properly for Palestinians across Gaza. We continue to urge the lifting of restrictions on tents and equipment, and we will continue to do so. This is an issue that the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre is also raising.

My hon. Friend is right to raise issues around accountability, but I am sure she will agree that the most immediate issue is to ensure that the peace is in place. The immediate task of the international stabilisation force will be to sustain and monitor peace in Gaza, so that the IDF can withdraw from Gaza.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s proactive statement, and I hope that will be the pattern of engagement with Parliament going forward. In addition to the horrendous atrocities that she and others have detailed, the World Food Programme has identified that 700,000 people face catastrophic hunger conditions in the coming months in Sudan, so we really need that step change, but we need some evidence of it. Can she be clear that the exchanges with the UAE have been robust and that there are real efforts to engage the African Union?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member is right to talk about the extreme hunger—the famine—taking place. In fact, I have seen worse figures suggesting that 8 million people are at risk of famine in Sudan. That is the equivalent of the population of London; there are that many people at serious risk. That is why he is right to talk about the issues in terms of the RSF and humanitarian access. The SAF has also been restricting humanitarian aid access and trying to introduce greater restrictions, so we need all sides to understand the vital importance of all those civilians across Sudan being able to get basic food.

Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Before we start proceedings, I want to say two things. First, this debate is oversubscribed, so not everyone will get to speak. I hope to call 10 Back- Bench Members to contribute for three minutes each. If Members take interventions, they will not get extra time because this is an hour-long debate. Secondly, we expect Divisions in the House shortly. The procedure will be to suspend the debate for 15 minutes for the first Division and approximately 10 minutes for each subsequent Division.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 6.30 pm.

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) is one of the longest-serving delegates. She sits on the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, fighting for gender equality, combating violence against women and girls and defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. She is a rapporteur for the committee and has overseen a report on the ban of so-called conversion practices, which will hopefully be passed at the next plenary in January. That report will provide model legislation for all 46 member states to pass and end that awful practice. Let us hope that this House is ready to enact those recommendations, as promised in our manifesto and the King’s Speech. As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I have worked with colleagues on youth democracy, artificial intelligence, ethics in sport and media freedom.

The Council of Europe develops recommendations on issues affecting all member states, including the UK. We may be an island, but sharing best practice and developing common conventions strengthens rights, freedoms and democratic values across the continent. The Council of Europe continues to lead globally, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting democratic transitions and exposing human rights abuses. It expelled Russia from the Council, declaring it a terrorist state, and Belarus for its support for Russian aggression. This summer, I witnessed history being made in Strasbourg as President Zelensky signed a bilateral agreement with the Council of Europe to bring a trial against Russia for crimes of aggression against Ukraine.

But what has the ECHR ever done for us? Well, it has ensured that the Good Friday agreement has lasted this long. The incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Irish law means that the people of Northern Ireland have an independent arbiter to trust in disputes over fault during the troubles, and that is no small thing. It is vital to peace, societal rebuilding and the end of sectarianism. Maintained rights can create faith in people and shine light out of darkness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend has made a really important point. The convention covers so many parts of our life and we must maintain it.

Currently, our politics is consumed by the issue of small boats. Despite representing less than 2% of all immigration into the UK, the boats are suddenly the reason why we must abandon the convention and place our collective human rights at the mercy of Government. In many ways, the attempted attacks on our freedoms under the guise of liberation remind me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but I do not want to find myself looking from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, and finding that I cannot tell which is which.

Of course, even the conflation of small boat arrivals with the ECHR is a lie. Mr Mundell, did you know that the ECHR has nothing written down relating to immigration or asylum? There is no right to asylum in the ECHR. Did you also know that, since the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Court’s rulings against the UK have fallen dramatically? It used to average 17 a year; now it is fewer than four. Indeed, it ruled against the UK only once in 2024—when, in a very nice piece of irony, the ECHR protected the rights of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to freedom of expression. Even the convention’s harshest critics come running to it for protection when they are under threat from big government.

The University of Oxford recently published a Bonavero report titled “The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate”, which centres on misinformation, over-reporting and outright lies in the press that poison the debate around the ECHR. I highly recommend it to all Members who are wavering on whether the UK should stay in the convention or leave it because of immigration.

There are two articles of the ECHR that have been tied to immigration. Article 3 is applied so that we do not send individuals back to torture or death—I would like to believe that we can all agree on that. Article 8, the right to family life, is projected by the ECHR’s critics as the real villain of the piece. They argue that it stops deportations of foreign criminals, sex offenders and individuals who arrived in the UK via small boats. There really is a lot of rubbish written in the papers and online relating to article 8, using examples of how the ECHR is being used to stop deportations and erode national security and identity.

The most notorious example was in February this year, when an Albanian criminal was apparently granted appeal to deportation because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The ruling was made because the criminal’s younger child had sensory issues, food sensitivities and emotional difficulties, but the upper tribunal rejected the appeal as not strong enough to be considered unduly harsh, and the case is still under review. For the record, article 8 is primarily used for reunification of British citizens with family members who are foreign nationals.

Let us step away from that story and look at some statistics. From 2015 to 2021, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK, and in that period 1,000 foreign criminals managed to halt deportation on ECHR grounds, roughly 3% of the overall figure. Less than 1% of those cases were ultimately successful, so the ECHR is hardly the immovable object blocking the UK’s will in removing offenders from its shores.

Furthermore, the Court has ruled only three times that the UK’s immigration rules have violated the ECHR in the past 45 years, but political and media pressure appears to be bearing down on our relationship with the ECHR. There have been noises about tweaking the convention and about opening discussions, the thought of which fills me with dread.

Why concede the argument that the ECHR is to blame for our impotence, when that squarely does not match the reality? Why put the EHCR directly in the limelight of the political will of the day? Why cost businesses an estimated £1.6 billion at a time when they are already struggling? Why abandon the soft power that our place in the convention and institution affords us?

If I may say so, this reminds me of David Cameron’s renegotiation with the EU prior to the referendum. He put Britain’s relationship with the EU at the forefront of the agenda and worked tirelessly to get a better deal for Britain, believing that if he could show that Britain can renegotiate, the crocodiles in his party and on the fringes would let up—but in the end he lost it all. I make a plea to the Minister and to the Government: “Let’s draw a line in the sand. Stand up and fight for the convention and our place in it. Do not concede. Do not think that you can find a middle course that will satisfy all parties and stem the anti-politics sentiment that is so prevalent in the UK today. Let’s be bold and argue for the UK’s role in the Council of Europe and the ECHR.”

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Paul Kohler. You have three minutes.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

I am pleased to speak about the ECHR and the UK’s membership of the Council of Europe. Across the political spectrum, parties are flirting with withdrawal. It feels like Brexit déjà vu, with the same hollow promises of taking back control, the same disregard for facts and the same blindness to consequence. The siren voices who said leaving the EU would be easy are now saying the same about leaving the ECHR, and thereby the Council of Europe.

Lord Wolfson’s recent report to the Conservative leader, for example, offers a threadbare fig leaf, based on an extremely narrow reading of the law that downplays the legal obstacles and, by his own admission, ignores the political ones. As Lord Wolfson knows, withdrawal would not be a technical exercise in legislative drafting, but a rupture in the constitutional fabric that binds these islands together. Reform, not rupture, should be our guiding principle; the convention can be updated to serve a modern democracy without sacrificing its founding principles.

Two practical measures would command broad support. First, the UK could lead efforts to clarify the scope of key provisions, particularly article 8, so that domestic courts can apply them with greater predictability and closer regard to parliamentary intent. Secondly, rather than withdrawing, we could work with other Council of Europe members to update the living instrument doctrine, ensuring that the Court’s interpretation better reflects democratic consent and contemporary realities. Those would be acts not of retreat, but leadership, strengthening Britain’s international role as a principled champion of the rule of law.

Despite what Lord Wolfson says, there are serious legal barriers to withdrawal. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Northern Ireland, I must warn of the profound risks to peace at home. The ECHR is embedded in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 2017, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement. Removing it would require overhauling devolution and entail legislative chaos. Turning to Northern Ireland, withdrawal would breach our international commitments, destabilise all communities, betray those who built peace and force renegotiation of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.

I say this to the Tories, Reform and the Labour leadership: flirting with populism for political convenience endangers both our unity at home and our reputation abroad. As Brexit has shown, dismantling international commitments might sound easy and liberating—but, as we know to our cost, it is neither. It is a hugely damaging, expensive diversion that will only make our problems worse.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Well done for sticking to time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend has listed a number of very good examples of what has been achieved as a result of the ECHR. Does he agree that we need to work together to highlight its benefits, as opposed to seeking to tear it down or tear it apart?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman conclude in 30 seconds, because there is no additional time for interventions?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will conclude by saying that, on this 75th anniversary, 300 organisations—from Liberty to Mind, Shelter to Amnesty—rightly defend the convention. It is up to this Government to demonstrate to the public that we can have both border control and compassion. Let us celebrate 75 years of freedom, and 75 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

rose—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not taking that intervention, so let us continue.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Members may disagree with what he is saying, but we will conduct this debate in an orderly way.

[Rupert Lowe]

What about the human rights of the British people? They have the right not to be raped, stabbed and killed by foreigners who should never have been in our country to begin with. Please spare me the continued moral outrage.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I already know that is not a point of order in relation to the content of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Rupert Lowe]

Please spare me the continued moral outrage. I am bored of it. The British people are bored of it. It is not cruel to deport criminals, and it is not inhumane to defend our own citizens. What is cruel and inhumane is allowing foreign killers and sex offenders to walk among us in the name of the human rights they should have forfeited the moment they committed their crimes. Hon. Members can sit here and persuade themselves otherwise, but one simple fact remains: the British people want those people gone—not some of them, not most of them, but all of them. What happens on their return to their own country is quite simply not our problem.

The solution is to take three straightforward steps. Step one: we should leave the ECHR and remove all other legal obstacles to mass deportation—Restore Britain’s new 100-plus page policy document proves it can be done. Step two—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. You have had your three minutes.

[Rupert Lowe]

The interventions held me up, Mr Mundell.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

You did not take any interventions.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this important debate. As a fellow delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can personally attest to her dedication in this area.

I want to bring a Cornish perspective to the importance of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights—one that shines a light on our membership. First, the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, although less well known than the European convention on human rights, is one of the most comprehensive treaties to protect the rights of national minorities, including the Cornish people. Leaving the European convention on human rights would call into question our membership of the Council of Europe. Those who wish for that departure either have not considered the implications for Cornish national minority status, or they have considered those implications and do not care about the Cornish.

There is also the European charter for regional or minority languages, which protects, supports and encourages minority languages such as Cornish, or Kernewek. These are important commitments to which the UK is a signatory. They are too often considered secondary, but they bring tangible social and cultural benefits to the people of Cornwall. If we lived in a world governed by the parties that wish to leave the European convention on human rights, we would risk leaving the Council of Europe altogether. Any move to withdraw from the European convention on human rights would likely cause us to leave the Council of Europe, putting at risk the protections and benefits on which Cornish people rely under those other conventions.

In his ten-minute rule Bill last week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is regrettably not here today—I notified him that I was going to raise this—described leaving the European convention on human rights as “unfinished business.” Having played a key role in the economic damage caused by Brexit, it seems that he is back for more, determined to sever another vital limb of our international partnerships as he attempts to steer the country on to the rocks of isolationism.

Some voices on the right argue that basic human rights hold us back. I believe they do quite the opposite. The hon. Member for Clacton will not talk about the other guarantees under the European convention on human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture and the right to liberty. As has been mentioned, bodies such as the Bonavero Institute at Oxford University have rightly said that some of the commentary on the European convention on human rights is misleading, often based on incendiary anecdotes involving chicken nuggets and pet cats. In reality, court rulings are far more complicated.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Moon.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

When politicians such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Conservative Members or, indeed, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) want us to leave the European convention on human rights, it tells us something quite reassuring, which is that the ECHR is doing precisely the job it was designed to do to protect all of us from the whims of tinpot populists like the hon. Member for Clacton. When parties such as Reform, and indeed the Conservative party, rail against the ECHR, it tells us everything we need to know about why it is so desperately required.

Those politicians want to remove our basic rights in order to leave the disadvantaged unprotected and their authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. It is in situations like this, when our human rights are most under attack, that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they are preserved. Let us remind ourselves of the company that the hon. Member for Clacton wants to keep: Russia and Belarus—perhaps that should not surprise us either. He spends half his time as an apologist for the Kremlin, and he has the slight inconvenience of his party’s treasurer in Wales having been found guilty of taking bribes from Russian interests.

Let us remind ourselves what this is all about. The ECHR was created from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities of that dark time could never be repeated. It enshrines our freedoms of speech, to assemble, to worship, to protest and to live our private lives free from interference, and it is a living instrument that evolves as our society evolves. It is everything that the populists despise. Most of the time, we are not aware of the ECHR—most of our constituents probably do not know what is actually in the document—but it is always there, guaranteeing our freedoms and our rights. It does not seek attention; it simply ensures that the Government—any Government—act in a way that respects our rights. It is our silent guardian.

Leaving the ECHR will not stop the boats or allow the Government to deport masses of our fellow citizens, but it will tear holes in our domestic law. Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in just 13 cases, only four of them concerning family life. But those politicians do not just want to leave the ECHR; they want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 as well. They would seek to abolish its 16 core protections, leaving the UK as about the only country with no chapter on human rights.

I say this to Labour Members: instead of fully defending the ECHR, the Government accept the premise that there is something wrong with it—that it needs to be amended and made compliant with Government interests. They talk about article 8 as being redefined—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Wishart.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Sincere apologies to everyone I was not able to call. We now come to the Lib Dem spokesman, who has five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not, because time is very limited.

Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe:

“We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.”

I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability.

Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed:

“No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements.

We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world.

Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation.

This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, the proceedings are due to conclude at 6.30 pm. You may wish to give Ms Eccles a few moments to wind up the debate.