Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I will start by echoing the sentiment expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members in this debate that any decision on whether to surrender territory is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone. Peace cannot mean carving up a sovereign European state behind closed doors; it cannot mean big powers forcing Ukraine to surrender its land and its people.

We must not accept the principle that borders can be changed by force or by coercion, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. It is vital that we stand up for the rules-based international order, even more so because there are those who flaunt it. I do not believe Putin’s vision of peace. I do not believe it is peace at all. It is a pause that will allow Russia to re-group, re-arm and return. We have seen this before in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas.

Every inch of occupied Ukrainian land matters, whether that be Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. These are sovereign Ukrainian territories occupied illegally under international law. That is why we must finally act on frozen Russian assets. Some £30 billion of Russian assets reside in the UK. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are bombed, children are abducted and civilians freeze without power.

In the coming days, temperatures in Kyiv will drop to below minus 20°. Thousands will freeze to death. Russia must be forced to pay for its illegal war of aggression. While our support for Ukraine is unwavering, it cannot be right that British taxpayers pay while oligarchs’ wealth remains untouched. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently clear that the legal and moral case exists, and to delay costs Ukrainian lives.

We in this House discuss the war in Ukraine often, and time and again those debates show that our support for Ukraine is near unanimous. We hear the feelings of those in this House, but the wider public conversation is often missing from those discussions.

Although we are united here, Russia is doing everything it can to divide opinion beyond these walls. It is sowing division through bots, fake accounts and co-ordinated misinformation. It is bribing politicians like Nathan Gill, the former head of Reform in Wales. It is seeking to influence elections, as I saw at first hand during my visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Moldova and Romania. It is painting itself as the victim despite being the aggressor, and it is brazenly attempting to rewrite reality in real time. The United States now has a President who openly flirts with the idea of handing Ukrainian land to Russia, and who has repeated Kremlin talking points.

The Minister for the Armed Forces spoke eloquently in the Chamber the other day when he said:

“there may not be a border but there is a frontline.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1036.]

I agree, but I would also go further. Each of us is on that frontline electronically: it is our phones, our social media platforms, our Twitter feeds. Wars are not just fought with weapons; they are fought with misinformation and disinformation, with lies dressed up as common sense and comment sections filled up with bots.

I am sure many of us here have been told in person or online that it was NATO or Ukraine that started this war. That is a lie. It is a lie spread by Russia, but it is a lie that gets repeated. We must speak the truth continually and relentlessly. It was Russia that started this illegal war. It is Ukraine that is defending itself.

Here today, we must reaffirm that non-recognition of occupied territories is not a diplomatic theory. It is a line that protects peace in Europe, because non-recognition does not just happen in this House, in No. 10, in conferences or on international stages—it must happen in people’s lives too. It must happen in what they read and |in what they share.

Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration have indicated to Ukraine that US security guarantees may be contingent on Kyiv agreeing to cede the Donbas—that Ukraine should withdraw from its own territory as the price of peace. That is an attempt to strong-arm Kyiv into painful concessions that are demanded by Moscow. It is not peace; it is coercion.

Ukraine has been clear: security guarantees must come before any discussion on land. Yet pressure is being applied almost exclusively to Kyiv, not to Moscow. The rules-based international order—the one that many of us learned about in schools and university, and that created stability, prosperity and the possibility of peace—allowed small nations to thrive without fear of invasion. It was imperfect, but it was grounded in rules that we believed applied to everyone.

That order is now being dismantled by messages, tweets and decisions: in the humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office; in the threats to invade Greenland; in random tariffs against allies and enemies alike; in the pausing of weapons to Ukraine; and in the quiet adoption of Russian talking points about territory and responsibility. It should deeply concern us that the US national security strategy was welcomed by the Kremlin as “largely consistent” with Russia’s view.

As Prime Minister Carney said in his powerful speech in Davos, middle powers have been quiet for too long—too submissive, too willing to rely on a hegemon that may no longer share our values. The UK must recognise that we are moving towards a multilateral world where co-operation between like-minded democracies matters far more than blind reliance on a single power. We may all agree that we must not recognise Russian-occupied territories, and that Ukraine must decide what happens to its territories, but agreement here is not enough if people outside are being convinced that Ukraine does not matter, that borders do not matter and that this war has nothing to do with them.

During a Foreign Affairs Committee session, I asked Nina Jankowicz, the former director of the US disinformation governance board, about Russian interference in UK politics. She was clear: she pointed to the convergence of Russian rhetoric with that of specific voice here in Britain—their narrative echoed, amplified and normalised. We should not be surprised that the person she mentioned had a show on Russian-sponsored TV. We should not be surprised because he has personal ties to an authoritarian Trump Administration who parrot Russian talking points. We should not be surprised because he said Putin was the leader he admired the most. We should not be surprised that neither he, nor any of his party, is here today condemning Russia.

If we allow misinformation to hollow out public support, our foreign policy becomes brittle. If people stop believing that this matters to their children’s future, Russia succeeds without firing another shot. Yes, we must act abroad with our allies—those who have consistently and constantly shared our values—with weapons, diplomacy and leadership, but we must also act here at home by taking misinformation seriously, defending truth, protecting our elections, and refusing to allow bots and lies to set the terms of any debate. Ukraine must not be forced to give up territory and we must not recognise Russian-occupied land—not in this House, not in the Government and not online. Russia is trying to divide us and, for Ukraine, we must not let it.

Arctic Security

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that my hon. Friend and others have been raising this issue, particularly about the hybrid threats from Russia. There are the direct threats we see in the Arctic, but also broader hybrid threats, which range from sabotage—of undersea cables, for example—to foreign interference, including information interference. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an important inquiry into this issue, and I look forward to its conclusions, but we have substantially increased UK sanctions to address some of the interference threats.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The post-war world order was based on the premise that like-minded western liberal democracies would stand up for each other, expand democracy wherever we saw it and lower the barriers to free trade, and that through NATO we would engage in collective responsibility—an attack against one was an attack against all. It is clear that the President of the United States does not share those values. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK should be closening our military and economic bonds with the European allies that do share those values?

[Yvette Cooper]

The transatlantic security relationship of North America—the US and Canada—and western Europe, and the whole of Europe working together around security, has been immensely important for a long time. We continue to have shared interests and shared threats—for example, Arctic security is clearly a shared security interest—but we are also strengthening our direct security and defence co-operation with Europe. Central to the EU reset was strengthening defence co-operation with our European allies, with whom we are bound by our close geography, as well as our shared values and interests. We will continue to strengthen those relationships.

Venezuela

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Our country has particularly strong relationships with the Venezuelan Opposition as a result of the work of our chargé d’affaires and our embassy in Venezuela, which we have maintained when other countries have not maintained theirs. As I have said, that puts us in a particularly significant position, in terms of being able to support a transition to democracy, which is what we have always argued for. That is exactly why I have spoken to María Corina today. We will keep in close touch, so that we can recognise, as a first step, their call for an end to political repression in Venezuela, which must happen.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I will not mourn the passing of the Maduro regime, but I will mourn the passing of the rules-based international order. If we accept the premise that a big-power country can do what it wants without any ramifications, anywhere in the world, then we accept the behaviour of Putin over the past two decades, and the behaviour of Xi Jinping in the future. We cannot allow that to stand. It is clear that our future security lies in closer co-operation with our European allies, so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the UK is in lockstep with those who do share our values?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have strengthened our relationships with our European partners—indeed, I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today on the issues around Greenland—and we will continue to support the rules-based international order, the UN charter and international law. I would warn Members against making equivalence here with what Putin has done in Ukraine; Russia invaded a country led by a democratically elected President Zelensky, and thousands of children have been kidnapped. We should be careful about what we say and its implications.

Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the most horrific element of this conflict. It appears that sexual violence against women and girls, and in some cases boys, is increasingly a part of all conflicts across the globe. We have utterly condemned the significant escalation of conflict-related sexual violence throughout Sudan at the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council and via two joint statements of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. I would be glad to come and see the exhibition. I have seen some of the imagery and it is genuinely distressing, but it is important that we keep a focus on the Sudanese people, as they are the victims of this horrific conflict.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

As the Minister said, the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN. There clearly need to be comprehensive arms embargos and sanctions against those actors who are fuelling the violence in Sudan. Given that one of those is Russia, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will the Minister ensure that the Government refer the matter to the General Assembly, where a veto cannot be used?

[Chris Elmore]

I am more than happy to look at any position at a multilateral level that supports the people of Sudan and brings a cessation of violence as quickly as possible, whether at the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, as part of ongoing work across the multilateral space.

Venezuela: US Military

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the experience that the right hon. Member brings to these questions. I want to be absolutely clear about the pre-eminent role of international law and how important that is to this Government and the actions we take. Those are, of course, points that we make to our allies as well.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that I suspect he grants President Trump far too much credit when it comes to understanding the Munroe doctrine—but that is an aside.

What legal advice have the Government received or obtained in regard to the legality or possible legal implications of support for the US, albeit through intelligence sharing, for any potential strikes on Venezuela?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House will know, Ministers receive legal advice on a range of matters relating to foreign policy, and that advice is subject to legal and professional privilege.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and my co-sponsors from across the House—the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding)—for their support in securing it.

It is almost a year since the Prime Minister announced sweeping cuts to official development assistance, a decision that prompted the resignation of a former Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not in good conscience support the dismantling of Britain’s global leadership in aid to fund increased defence spending. That decision marked a turning point. It signalled that Britain, once a leader in development and compassion, was willing to trade its soft power for short-term savings, instead of taking strong and bold decisions such as increasing taxes on tech giants or a bespoke customs union with the EU, as my party has so often urged.

The UK’s proud record as a global leader in aid has been left shredded. The previous Conservative Government reduced the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of our gross national income. This Labour Government now plan to cut it further to just 0.3% by 2027—the lowest level this century. Nearly one third of what remains of the UK aid budget is being spent not on tackling global poverty, preventing instability and migration, but on in-country asylum accommodation. That leaves far less for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. The very budget designed to prevent displacement is being used to pay for its effects. At far greater cost to society, we are left treating the symptoms, not the cause.

These cuts come even as global need rises. Over 123 million people are displaced by conflict. The World Food Programme warns that reduced funding for aid could push another 13.7 million people to severe hunger. In Sudan alone, 30 million people now need humanitarian assistance, with 25 million facing food insecurity. Children in Gaza are enduring unimaginable suffering, with families driven to starvation amid a humanitarian catastrophe. Over 640,000 people now face catastrophic food insecurity, and projections warn that as many as 43,000 children could die from malnutrition by June 2026.

The Liberal Democrats have always helped to lead on international development. We proudly enshrined the 0.7% target in law, because it was an investment in peace and prosperity, but also in long-term security. Aid is not charity; it builds peace, prevents conflict and addresses the root causes of instability and migration.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is raising some good points about national security and migration. He is probably well aware that the top three nationalities that come to the UK on small boats are from conflict-affected states: Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the UK dismantling the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s conflict and migration department is the wrong decision at a time when we should be investing in conflict prevention, rather than withdrawing from it?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee. His background and expertise in this area is unrivalled, and I agree 100% with his sentiment; it is money badly spent when we do not invest in conflict prevention. The decision to cut our official development assistance from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 comes at the worst possible time. It adds to the nightmare caused by earlier cuts in 2021 and the devastating aid freezes in the United States by Trump’s White House. If we stay on this trajectory, by 2027, Britain will be spending over £6 billion less on aid than if we had simply maintained the 0.5% commitment. That is equivalent to cutting the entire education or health portfolio from our overseas spending.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks about security and education. A charity in my constituency, School in a Bag, based in Chilthorne Domer, has delivered 160,000 school bags filled with stationery to children all over the world, giving those who live in the most deprived circumstances the tools for an education and a lifeline out of hardship. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the reach of brilliant charities such as School in a Bag will be shrunk without stable ODA-backed grants?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. What is so wonderful about Britain is how, time and again, communities step into the void left by Government spending, but we cannot rely entirely on the charity and good will of others.

The UK’s contribution to global health, education and nutrition, which are the foundations of our stability, is being eroded. Nutrition-focused aid has fallen by 60% and education spending has declined by 83% since 2016. Aid for reproductive health has fallen by 68%, and primary education now accounts for only £71 million of the entire ODA budget. The list goes on, and they are not just statistics. They are classrooms that will never reopen; vaccines that will never be delivered; and children who will never have a fair chance in life.

As a member of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have seen at first hand how aid and development are integral to our security. In recent weeks, we have seen the malign influence of China and Russia on our domestic politics. Those malevolent threats are already prevalent in the countries we support. We must not give them space to grow because, when we retreat, the vacuum is filled by those countries that do not share our values.

The strategic investments of Russia and China are already exploiting that space. China would have no difficulty stepping in to replace UK influence, especially in the global south, where its belt and road investments already run deep. But Beijing’s model of aid is transactional, not transformative. We should not be surprised when those nations fill the void, with motives far removed from our liberal and democratic values.

As Members of this House, we should never forget that the world watches what Britain does. When we lead, others follow. When we stand firm, others shrink back. Development and defence are not opposites; they are two sides of the same coin. Soft power—the influence we exert through compassion, diplomacy and culture—is what gives our country the moral legitimacy that has underpinned our diplomacy since the post-war era. It is what makes Britain a leader on the world stage. When we cut aid, we cut influence. When we weaken our global reach, we make ourselves less safe.

The Government have argued that the reduction is necessary to fund a rise in defence spending, to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027. Yes, we must invest in defence, but we cannot defend Britain by turning away from the world. We cannot keep our citizens safe by cutting the very programmes that prevent conflict and suffering at source.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. This weekend, the Government announced £5 million for Sudan and £6 million for Gaza. By contrast, the Government are spending £2.2 billion of ODA on hotels to house asylum seekers in this country. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the money would be better spent on preventing conflict and keeping people safe in their own regions?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Purely on a value-for-money basis, it is wiser to spend money where people are, to prevent them from getting on the road, than to try to house them here.

Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security; they are the foundations of it.

Climate change remains the single greatest threat we face. Carbon knows no borders; it does not respect treaties or national boundaries. If we cut funding to those on the frontline of climate vulnerability, we are cutting our own future resilience. Whether that is in the Caribbean, the Sahel, the middle east or the Pacific, our partners need leadership, and Britain should be that leader.

The Government’s commitment to meet their £11.6 billion international climate finance pledge by 2026 is welcome, but it is increasingly hollow if other aid streams are being dismantled. We cannot claim climate leadership while simultaneously cutting the very funds that protect vulnerable nations from its impact and help them to decarbonise sooner. The UK has always been at its best when leading with principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, on tackling modern slavery and, of course, on the creation of the United Nations.

Today we must show that same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves far more in the long term, by preventing wars, stopping pandemics and reducing the need for emergency interventions. We live in a globalised society. Our economies, supply chains and security are inter- connected. Disease, conflict and climate crisis spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from those realities is naive; if we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.

I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in some of the world’s most dangerous environments, and who risk their lives daily to deliver aid. They embody the best of British values, yet their work is getting harder. From Gaza to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ukraine, aid workers face extraordinary challenges. In 2024, one in eight people worldwide was exposed to armed conflict. Humanitarian staff have been detained, attacked and even killed, and entire operations have been halted due to insecurity. Our response to that sacrifice should not be to cut funding for their organisations—they deserve not only our gratitude but our tangible support. We must ensure that safeguards and funding are extended to humanitarian workers, who represent British values in the most fragile corners of the world.

The Government expect aid reductions to provide £500 million for defence in 2025-26, £4.8 billion in 2026-27 and £6.5 billion in 2027-28. That may satisfy Treasury spreadsheets, but it will come at the cost of lives, stability and influence. In the coming weeks, this House will debate spending priorities at the Budget. The timing of this debate could not be more important. It is a time of hardship and high costs of living for all. There are difficult decisions to be made, both domestically and abroad. But we should remember that the choices we make here ripple far beyond our own borders. They shape how the world sees us, and how safe, stable and prosperous our shared future will be.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that at a dangerous moment geopolitically, with tensions high and multilateralism facing challenges—which, as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are more than aware of—it is incumbent on all of us to advocate an approach that treats global co-operation, our international obligations and our defence and security as interconnected?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with the hon. Member. The more we work with our partners, the more we can deliver. We are living in an interconnected society; there is no way we can do this alone. We must work with others, and we must show leadership in that space.

If aid spending remained at 0.5%, it would have reached £15.4 billion by 2027. Instead, it will stand at £9.2 billion, the lowest in real terms since 2012. When we retreat, Russia and China advance; when we stay silent, violence speaks for us. There can be no security without stability, and no stability without development. Development is not an add-on to security and foreign policy, but what that policy is built on.

I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the planned reductions ahead of the Budget, and to bring forward sustainable, long-term plans for funding both our defence and our diplomacy, rather than setting them in competition. I urge them to recognise that global leadership cannot be built on cuts and withdrawals, but on conviction and compassion. The world we are shaping today, through the choices we make on aid, diplomacy and climate will determine whether future generations—our children and grandchildren—inherit a planet of opportunity for all.

We must stand up for liberal values, for compassion and for the rules-based international order. Britain has always stood tall on the world stage. Our leadership has mattered. It must matter again.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Champion. I suggest five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

In that case, I will not thank everyone individually for their contributions. Thank you, Sir Desmond, for so wisely chairing the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for her continuing leadership in this area. I will use my one remaining minute to make the point to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), that the 0.1% that her party envisages will leave literally no money, once in-country costs are accounted for.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for stepping in to respond. She made the point that the UK is a leader on the partnership model, but she failed to mention that when we withdraw from that leadership role, others step in. It will be China and Russia. Every Member in the Chamber made the same point about the importance of British leadership in this space, so I very much hope she will take the message back to her Department that we want to see the ODA budget restored.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.

Ambassador to the United States

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly think that that would be the right way to go for political appointments. It would probably be the right way to go for the top dozen embassies. I would not worry about all of them, without being rude to—well, I won’t pick a country. That would just be meaningless, but the top dozen are well worth doing.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team produced a report that was presumably handed to the Prime Minister, and that was certainly done prior to the announcement. Does he agree that the Minister must tell us whether the Prime Minister read that report, and whether it contained anything that Parliament should have been aware of before he made the appointment?

[David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right and I will reiterate the point. In addition to what my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, there should have been a fully developed vetting process and that appears not to have happened. There is a vetting unit in the Foreign Office and a vetting unit in the Cabinet Office, and normally one of them would have been engaged on this. There have been claims that developed vetting happens after an appointment. No, it does not. For existing ambassadors who are on a five-year vetting cycle, sure. For ambassadors or officers who are being read into a new class of material, sure. But for this—an outsider coming into the most sensitive job in Government—certainly not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.

National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.

Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.

[Edward Morello]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I give way to another fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the Committee’s repeated requests to meet Lord Mandelson before his appointment. He also raises the various responses that we got from the Foreign Secretary. The important fact that there were questions about the suitability of the appointment means that there must also be questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. Did he ask to read the propriety and ethics and security vetting reports before making the appointment, and did he go ahead despite their content?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman asks valid questions. We need to have the answers to them all. I know that he will join me in urging the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue pressing this case. It may well be that another body—perhaps the Liaison Committee, which has the opportunity to interrogate the Prime Minister—will also pursue these matters. As has been said several times, this will not go away. There is real anger across this House and across the country, and people will demand answers.

The Committee attempted today to try to put those questions by summoning two members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, but we were told that neither was available. I can tell the House that I have some experience in summoning people who do not wish to appear before Select Committees—there is a procedure—and I hope that, when we return after recess, the Committee will pursue these matters and will require Ministers to appear, and that if they refuse, we will see what other actions can be taken.

These are very serious matters. The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been forthcoming so far. We will go on pursuing this until they are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

1. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of reductions to the official development assistance budget on UK-supported humanitarian and development programmes overseas.

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

Welcome back after the recess, Mr Speaker. We remain committed to international development, but we must modernise our approach. In a changing world, we are not just donors; we are partners, investors and reformers. We must ensure that every pound delivers for the UK taxpayer, as well as the people we support. Sharpening our priorities on humanitarian health, climate and nature, and ensuring that they are underpinned by economic development; prioritising our work with multilaterals; and shifting how we work will help us maximise our impact.

[Edward Morello]

Natural disasters like the earthquake in Jalalabad, recent wildfires and floods are becoming more and more frequent as a result of climate change. Support for Ukraine and for Gaza have survived the disastrous cuts to ODA, but what assessments has the Department made of the impact of ODA reductions on countries facing humanitarian and natural disasters, and can the UK still provide the amount of aid needed to prevent displacement and migration as a result of those crises?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises important issues. We have seen horrific scenes in Afghanistan, and he will know that we gave £1 million yesterday. We have also seen terrible scenes in Sudan this morning. He will know that tackling the climate and nature emergency around the world is a priority for us, and we continue to support humanitarian work around the world. Of course, responding to disasters remains a key part of that, and we have demonstrated that repeatedly in a number of contexts, through the support that we have given.

Middle East

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Can I just be clear? There is a lot of mendacity in some of the sort of stuff we see on TikTok. We have stopped the sale of arms to Israel. We have stopped the direct sales of F-35s to Israel. Germany only just recently made the decision that we made last September. The UK represents 1% of sales; 90% are Germany and the US system. There are many other Governments that supply and that have not made the decisions we have made. On recognition, we will continue to work with partners as we head towards the UN General Assembly and make the necessary assessments.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary, in his statement, outlined all the steps that this Government have taken against the Netanyahu Government. He has also repeatedly said that the UK has done everything it can. In my mind, both are tacit admittances of defeat, as we have seen the Netanyahu Government increase their activity in Gaza, and increase their prosecution and persecution of the Gazan people. If we have done so much and had no effect, and if there is nothing left to do, what does he expect to change before the UN General Assembly meeting and why should we not immediately recognise a Palestinian state?

Humanitarian Situation in Sudan

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. That is an awful situation that the people of Sudan should not have to go through.

The impact on children is particularly brutal. In some famine-affected areas, as many as 29% of children show signs of acute malnutrition. At that level, children risk lifelong complications even if they survive the hunger that they face today.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the 25 million Sudanese people living in food insecurity. As she knows, Sudan is protected from the cuts to overseas development aid, but a further 600,000 Sudanese people live displaced in places such as Chad; those other countries in the region are not protected from the cuts to ODA. Is the Government’s decision to cut ODA seriously impacting our ability to help the Sudanese people?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I will come on to that issue later, but I am sure the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Previously, I have also raised in the House and with Ministers the terrible reality that rape and sexual violence are being used as weapons of war. Women and girls bear the brunt of the crisis: over 6.7 million of them are at risk of gender-based violence. Between December 2023 and December 2024, the UN found a 29% increase in the number of people seeking sexual and gender-based violence services. Reports of intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation and abuse, and the specific targeting of ethnic minority groups, are both widespread and on the rise.