Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill.

I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?

British Indian Ocean Territory

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point for not just this nation but the United States of America, and that it too should have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands have been under the control of a nuclear power with a navy, and that this treaty would hand them over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy. Does that not create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? Should the Americans in particular not be very wary of that?

[Priti Patel]

As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public.

Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that:

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer. There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no?

On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account.

Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty. Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media:

“This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”.

Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear that the agreement we have struck is vital for protecting our national security and guaranteeing the long-term future of this vital base for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which had been under threat. I have referenced the many comments from across the United States Administration. We continue to engage with the United States every day, making clear the very important parts of the deal that protect its security and ours, and we will continue to have such conversations.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I hold in my hand the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. There are extensive sections on historical background and legal background. Nowhere within those sections is there any reference to the 1966 treaty. Why is that? I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the 1966 treaty—or notes, as he calls it—is extant? Secondly, is it capable of being altered unilaterally?

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed. As I have said, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US agreement, and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. I am staggered that some on the Opposition Benches have only just clocked this; we have been aware of it and we engage with the United States every single day. That was made clear even before Christmas to the noble Lord Callanan in response to the question he asked my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. Again, this deal secures the base for the operations of ourselves and the United States, and we will continue to engage with the United States on a daily basis on it.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.

I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:

“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

That is wholly unwise.

I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.

This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.

The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.

The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always

“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,

it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says

“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,

but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.

The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.

Arctic Security

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be purposeful in our response. It is for all of us to recognise that the greatest threat to UK security, as well as to European security and North American security, does come from Russia. We have shared alliances, and the US is a close partner in strengthening our security against Russia.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman’s views, but the Windsor framework was about sustaining the Good Friday agreement, which was a shared agreement underpinned by principles and peace.

Venezuela

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

One reason I spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday was to engage on what the plans now should be going forward. Given the level of criminal gang operations in Venezuela and the different factions that there have been in the country, preventing greater instability now and ensuring that we can get that stable basis and a plan for democracy is immensely important. There is a very strong civil society, with opposition groups and so on, but they need to be enabled and supported to ensure that we can get that peaceful, democratic transition. It will be crucially important.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Most Members of this House will agree with the Government that there are no tears to be shed over the removal of the brutal regime in Venezuela, but my question for the Foreign Secretary is this: how does such a desirable outcome impact on the Government’s view of what is permissible within international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is always a debate to be had about how to respond to different kinds of hybrid threat and complex threat in different countries, and different interpretations can be made. That is also why we have said that it is for the US to set out its interpretation and its legal basis for any action that it takes, but we continue to promote the importance of international law as it is set out and the UN charter. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have argued for, for example, reforms to the interpretation of the European convention on human rights and for other areas of international law, for other reasons, to modernise, but we continue to stand up for the principles of the UN charter.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will have to consult the Ministry of Defence to be sure where the error is. My understanding is that all costs have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, and I cannot provide any further clarification.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In getting to this point, the Government have made much of their adherence to international standards and bodies, yet in the last 15 minutes the Minister has been asked three times to respond to the United Nations’ findings, which call for a suspension of the treaty, and criticise the denial of the right to self-determination and the right to return. Why is the Minister now so timid when it comes to dealing with those international findings?

[Mr Falconer]

I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts all the UN findings—for example in relation to Gaza or UNRWA. There is a wide range of different UN bodies with different responsibilities. The UN Secretary-General himself welcomed the agreement between the UK and Mauritius. This further report by a UN body will no doubt be studied carefully by the relevant Minister, but I do not have a fuller response today.

Gaza and Hamas

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

International justice and accountability are of vital importance. That is why this Government removed the block on the International Criminal Court and continued to support that very important body, and that is why we continue to support the International Court of Justice. They are the competent courts and the process by which justice will be secured, and we continue to support them in those endeavours.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Are we expected to believe that in the months and years ahead, the Government will stand by their promise that Hamas must be fully disarmed and play no part in the Government in Palestine? I ask because a previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair, with the present National Security Adviser by his side, promised the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA and other terrorists would be totally disarmed through decommissioning. That did not happen: supposedly decommissioned weapons continued to be able to be used to kill, and we ended up with the surrogates of the IRA in government. Will it be any different in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

One thing I have learned so far as a politician is not to make comparisons between the middle east and practically anywhere else, and certainly not with Northern Ireland. I will allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular questions about the current arrangements. Clearly, peace is possible—we have demonstrated it here and in many other places. That has to the be the work of the Government, and that is what we are focused on.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

The Minister is nodding along, but there must be something wrong if the public and Opposition Members cannot simply understand the arguments for what is being put in place. We cannot see the wood for the trees. It is a Government’s duty to show those arguments, and I look forward to the Minister doing that in his response and putting these arguments to bed once and for all. Otherwise, the British public will not forgive him.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I will primarily focus on new clause 8, which is in my name and the names of colleagues. First and foremost, this Bill is about perfecting the decolonisation of the British Indian Ocean Territory—that is self-evident in clause 2—but it does that in a way that ignores a primary component of decolonisation. We subscribe to United Nations resolution 1514. That resolution talks about respecting not only the integrity of territory, but self-determination. The British Indian Ocean Territory has existed, de facto and de jure, for over 50 years, yet the Government’s approach in justifying this completion of decolonisation is to focus solely on territorial integrity by claiming that the Chagos islands are, in fact, part of Mauritius.

Resolution 1514 contains a number of components. Its first point is that

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights”.

Its second point is that

“All peoples have the right to self-determination”.

The question for this House is surely this: are the Chagossians a people? I certainly think that they are. They are distinct from the Mauritians by their ethnic background, by their religion and by geography. Mauritius and the Chagos islands are over 1,300 miles apart, approximately as far as it is from this House to north Africa, so after 50 years of the existence of the BIOT, it really is a stretch to say that the sole defining issue is that of territorial integrity. To say that is to ignore the right to self-determination.

This nation has dealt with decolonisation before, and we did not approach it on the basis that it is only about territorial integrity. Take the example of India. We decolonised in India, but we allowed it to be subject to self-determination—that is why we have India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is quite clear that this is not a situation in which territorial integrity trumps everything else. It does not trump self-determination. An experience of decolonisation such as India’s shows that territorial integrity is secondary to self-determination, yet the right of the people who claim the Chagos islands as their homeland to any measure of self-determination is the one thing that has been utterly ignored in this process. We have in our history the shameful episode of their forceful removal from the Chagos islands, and now under this treaty, we are going to compound that shame by legitimising that removal. Saying that this is only about territorial integrity is to legitimise their forceful removal from the Chagos islands—that is how we get around the question of self-determination. That is wrong. The people of the Chagos islands are a people. They are a people with a homeland; therefore, under international law, they are a people with a right to self-determination, so why do this treaty and this Bill trash that right? That is the fundamental haunting question when it comes to the humanity and international legal requirements of the situation that prevails.

The Government are obviously holding to the line, “It is only about territorial integrity,” but they are hoisted by their own petard, because they have recognised the Chagossians as a people by setting aside some millions of pounds for them. They cannot say it is only about territorial integrity, and there is no people to whom to give the right to self-determination, and then say, “For those people to whom we deny the right to self-determination, here is some conscience money.” They cannot do that, yet that is what the treaty does.

The BIOT recognised the separateness of the people of the Chagos islands, and even the much-vaunted advisory judgment of the International Court of Justice gives respect and acknowledgment—to an extent—to the question of self-determination. At one point, the judgment states:

“It follows that any detachment by the administering Power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.”

Even that advisory judgment recognised the exception of the freely expressed and genuine will of the people, but that is what we have not had on this issue. This Government have gone out of their way to deny the free and genuine expression of opinion by the people whose homeland is the Chagos islands. That shameful indictment compounds what we did to those people at the end of the 1960s. The Government now totally dehumanise their human rights by saying, “You have no rights whatever when it comes to self-determination.” That is fundamentally wrong.

If the splitting of that wider colony in 1965 was illegitimate because there was no self-determination, according to the advisory judgment of the Court, then equally the Chagos islands rejoining Mauritius without self-determination is illegitimate. The Government cannot have it both ways, but that is what this Bill is seeking to do. The Government say that because it was illegitimate to split the Chagos islands off from Mauritius in 1965 because there was no self-determination, the Bill is about territorial integrity only, but if the basis of rejoining the Chagos islands to Mauritius is without self-determination, then that equally is illegitimate. Those are some of the points that this Government have not faced, and if they have faced them, they have not answered them. This House is legitimately asking those questions tonight, and waiting for answers. If those answers do not come, it will illustrate how this is the tawdry, unacceptable and unenforceable Bill that it will ultimately be seen to be.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister will try his best in a few minutes to defend this wholly indefensible Bill, but the public know what it is: they see it as an absolute sell-out. I suspect that the Government Members who are not filling the green Benches see it as a sell-out, too. That is why every single one of them failed to support the Bill in Committee, save for one brave or perhaps misguided Member.

The public can see that they are a weak Government without the backbone necessary to stand up for the British public’s interests. They see this Bill as the sell-out that it is geopolitically, with the Government blind to the associated security risks, the sell-out that it is financially, with £35 billion going to a foreign Government, and the sell-out that it is of the Chagossian people, with their exclusion from negotiations.

International Day of Democracy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.

We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.

Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.

So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.

I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.

We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.

That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his remarks about my appointment—I think most Members do not realise that I have been silent for a good two years, so it is nice to know that the voice box is still working.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank Members from across the House for the cordial way in which we have debated today—clearly without everyone agreeing, which is the whole point of democracy in this place and in institutions around our United Kingdom. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate to mark such an important day and for her work to advocate for her constituent, Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case remains a priority for the UK Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Mr Lai. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to all the points raised.

In these unpredictable times of global tension and turmoil, with democracy under threat, the stakes are high. When we stand up for our democratic values, we are not only doing what is right, we are safeguarding our own future, for we know that accountable governance is the foundation for a safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous world. Although public support for democracy remains strong, as has been mentioned, over the last 20 years, the world has, overall, become less democratic. Today, more than seven in 10 people around the world live in autocracies, and democracy is under pressure from climate change, conflict and irregular migration, among many other factors. Even long-established democracies like our own are affected. That is why in the UK we continue to work with partners at home and abroad to ensure that democratic principles remain strong.

We need to maintain public trust and support for democracy by showing that democratic Governments can meet today’s challenges and deliver for their citizens. We must address the threats posed by countries such as Russia that are working to undermine democratic systems and values in the UK and around the world. We must also support our partners where the shoots of democracy are still growing to defend the space for civil society, uphold the rule of law, champion equal rights, support accountable, inclusive institutions, and tackle global challenges such as dirty money and corruption.

The Government have already taken big steps to strengthen democracy at home. As has been mentioned, we are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in UK elections—a major change that will boost young people’s trust in democracy. We are making sure that eligible voters are not prevented or deterred from voting by permitting the use of UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at polling stations. We are introducing tougher rules on political donations, striking the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns.

We are also empowering the Electoral Commission to clamp down on those who breach political finance rules, with fines of up to half a million pounds, and there will be tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners, or elected representatives or their staff. Our commitment to give more decision-making power, funding and tools to local leaders and mayors in England will enable them to effectively address local needs, drive growth and improve public services.

Alongside our efforts to strengthen democracy at home, we must protect ourselves from those overseas who do not share our values. The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is leading a whole-of-society effort to protect the integrity of British democracy. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been stepping up its efforts to expose those who manipulate information, interfere with our democratic processes and institutions, or undermine the rights, freedoms and security of our citizens.

The international nature of the threats requires an international response. We are working through partnerships such as Five Eyes and the G7 to share expertise and take co-ordinated measures against actions by states such as Russia, China and Iran. Last month, the UK and our G7 partners condemned the latest round of arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong police as acts of transnational repression. In July, we exposed and sanctioned the Russian interference agency African Initiative for its role in malign influence operations across Africa.

It is equally important to nurture and support democratic government around the world. We are delivering on that commitment through our extensive diplomatic and development partnerships. The UK supports elections, Parliaments and political parties in over 30 countries through our arms-length body, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and I am more than happy to engage with the WFD governors and ensure that FCDO officials do too. Election observation remains an essential part of the UK’s support for free and fair elections. This year and last year, we sent more than 160 observers to watch votes around the world, including in Moldova, Georgia and Uzbekistan.

Freedom of expression and a free media are the bedrock of a healthy democracy, empowering citizens to hold institutions to account. However, as the persecution of Jimmy Lai demonstrates, in many parts of the world the freedom of the media is under threat. The UK is one of the most significant champions of international media freedom. Our support for the BBC World Service brings impartial, accurate news to 320 million people around the world, in 42 languages, every week. It remains the world’s most trusted international news service.

Illicit finance and corruption are transnational challenges, undermining growth and democratic governance, and fuelling organised crime and conflict. We are strengthening our domestic defences and stepping up efforts internationally to ensure that dirty money has nowhere to hide. In April, we sanctioned the cronies of corrupt leaders who are undermining democracy and the rule of law in Georgia and Guatemala.

It is unacceptable that in the UK and around the world, women face barriers to participation in politics and are increasingly exposed to abuse and threats. Our special envoy for women and girls, my noble Friend Baroness Harman, is championing gender equality worldwide and co-ordinating international efforts to ensure that women and girls are empowered and their rights are protected. I am sure that Members from across this House can agree that there is no more powerful advocate for ensuring that women and girls are able to take part in our democratic processes.

To briefly answer the point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—having spent many years myself not always getting answers as an Opposition Member—I understand more than most Members of this House the importance of the Commonwealth, having served on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK and international for years. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government recognise the importance of the Commonwealth, and we are working with the new secretary-general. I give him the assurance that we will continue to do that work.

This Government are working to protect and strengthen democracy internationally because it is the right thing to do and is clearly in our national interest.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Elmore]

I am running out of time.

A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.