International Development
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Alongside the written ministerial statement published this morning, I want to update the House on the Government’s revised approach to international development and official development assistance allocations. National security is the first duty of Government, and this country faces the most serious security situation for a generation. For too long under previous Governments our defence investment was cut back, so last year this Government took the necessary decision to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—the importance of that a decision has been demonstrated again in recent weeks as UK jets fly defensive operations in the middle east while our carrier strike group has been preparing to head to the High North.
In order to fund the additional defence spending, we had to take the hugely difficult decision to reduce our development budget over the next few years, moving to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. That was set out by the Treasury in the spending review last year. Allies such as Germany, France and Sweden have made similar choices. This, for us, is not an ideological step; it is a difficult choice in the face of international threats. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed that it is our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.
Our country has a strong, long history of leading on international development across the world. Let me be clear that our commitment to international development remains a central part of our foreign policy and a reflection of both our values and our national interest. It is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger and to support those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate change.
We know that preventing conflict, instability and crisis, displacement and migration, as well as supporting security, economic development, growth and trade, and building global partnerships are all the right things to do. They are also directly in the UK national interest, because as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, instability and crises across the world have a direct impact on us here at home. We have looked hard at what we prioritise and how we work, using the challenge of a reduced budget to find solutions that increase impact, focusing on what secures best value for money for taxpayers while reflecting UK values and the UK national interest, and what will seize new opportunities to bring real change to people’s lives.
First, we will prioritise support for countries and communities facing the worst humanitarian need—those affected by wars and crises. We are committing £1.4 billion a year to tackle human suffering in some of the worst humanitarian crises. Seventy per cent of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict-affected states. That includes fully protecting funds for Ukraine, where people were left in freezing conditions this winter; for Palestine, where civilians continue to suffer immensely in Gaza; and for Sudan, where we see the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. In the light of the current crisis in the middle east, this week I have taken the decision to add Lebanon to the countries whose funding will be fully protected next year.
That does mean that direct bilateral aid funding for other countries will be reduced. We have taken the decision to withdraw from traditional bilateral funding for G20 countries. Countries such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan will remain humanitarian priorities. They will see direct grant reductions, although we will continue to support multilateral programmes that operate in those countries. Countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique will remain development priorities, but their direct grant funding will be significantly reduced. Instead, we will run partnerships for investment that include growth funding through British International Investment and investment to tackle climate change, or lever in direct UK expertise to help them improve capabilities and raise funds directly themselves.
Secondly, we will focus on areas that maximise impact, transform lives and build stability—creating jobs and economic opportunities is the path out of poverty—as well as saving lives and improving health through backing proven global partnerships with which the UK has strong engagement and expertise. For example, we have our partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, where we will be investing over £1.2 billion, which will save the lives of millions of children around the world. We are investing £800 million in the Global Fund, which is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives and avert up to 22 million new cases of HIV, TB and malaria. We are investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises. Over the next three years, the UK will aim to spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance, covering mitigation, adaptation and a focus on nature. Using different instruments and levers, we will aim to deliver an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance. That includes measures to help countries to recover when disasters hit. For example, risk insurance in Jamaica enabled rapid payouts following Hurricane Melissa.
Thirdly, we will support women and girls, and we will invest in line with our values, even where other countries have changed their development approach. I have taken the decision to make support for women and girls not just a priority for development, but a central theme across the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That means work to prevent violence, to champion women’s political and economic participation and to keep children learning even during conflict. We will continue support for things such as help for the survivors of horrific rape and sexual abuse and the kind of dedicated funding I announced recently in Sudan for women who have endured the most appalling and traumatic experiences. At least 90% of our bilateral ODA programmes will have a focus on women and girls by 2030. In an age of disinformation, we will also increase our funding to the BBC World Service by £11 million extra a year.
Fourthly, we will support and help reform international institutions to unlock greater finance for development and the innovation that can go far beyond UK aid and traditional grants. That means backing the most efficient and effective bits of the multilateral system to multiply our investment, because multilateral development banks are the largest source of development and climate finance and can lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each pound that we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and to which we have increased our contribution by 40%. We are also working to double the amount of money that multilateral development banks can provide, listening to partners and backing Africa’s institutions to raise far more money at scale.
Our £650 million contribution to the African Development Fund will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time. We will use our shareholder role and our seat at the table to press for innovation and reform, increasing the voice and representation of low-income and vulnerable countries and pursuing debt relief too, because the global financial system needs to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries and their citizens. The UN must continue to play its indispensable role, but also be more efficient, effective and coherent, so we will refocus on core priorities in line with the UN80 reform initiative.
Fifthly, we are transforming how we work, responding to the clear need for partnership, not paternalism. My noble Friend Baroness Chapman, the International Development Minister, has set out a series of shifts in how we work. We will be an investor, not just a donor. Our partners want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid. Through British International Investment, our finance institution, we are driving growth and innovation and unlocking private capital. That is why I signed a joint agreement in Ethiopia earlier this year for energy transmission projects worth £300 million, enabled by a British International Investment company that delivers UK investment across Africa. That is the kind of partnership that also helps Ethiopians find work at home, rather than considering dangerous international migration overseas.
We are also making reforms to strengthen systems rather than providing services, so that countries can thrive better without aid. For example, our partners want to educate their children themselves, rather than having us try to do it for them, so we are helping to support teacher training and curriculum design. We are moving from providing grants to providing expertise, drawing on the best of British know-how and mobilising UK strengths from inside and outside Government, whether that is from world-class universities, specialists in the tech sector, the City of London, the Met Office or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For example, tax expertise helped Ghana generate an additional £100 million in revenue to invest in education, health and priorities. Finally, we are backing local solutions rather than remote international approaches, because organisations locally know their populations best and are closer to those in need.
Allocating a reduced budget inevitably leads to hard choices and unavoidable trade-offs, so we are focusing aid on the people and places that need it most, and we will still be a major player. We expect to be the fifth-biggest funder in the world. We will still use international leadership, such as our 2027 G20 presidency, to shape the global agenda for development. We will continue to use other policies and levers so that lower income countries benefit from trade and growth. We will tackle flows of illicit finance and dirty money, which harm developing countries most and fuel crime on everyone’s streets.
This modernised approach to international development and our allocation of ODA reflect our values and our interests, because our driving force has been and continues to be working for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet. We are clear that prosperity and stability in lower-income countries matters for outcomes here at home, whether that is the cost of living, the security of our borders, the resilience of our economy and upholding our UK values across the world. We are also clear that the UK’s sustained commitment to international development is about delivering both at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady obviously has a set of questions, but it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation we are in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010, who failed to respond to the end of the post-cold war dividend, and who left our overall public finances in, frankly, a perilous state by the time we reached the 2024 election. That situation left us with difficult decisions and choices to make. We are having to reverse some of the cuts they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending, and we are having to make difficult decisions to fund that.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions on particular areas, but I gently point out that she said nothing to explain what her approach would be under the Conservative party’s policy to reduce development spending to 0.1% of GNI—a two-thirds reduction in the funding we are setting out. There was no explanation of whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, vaccines or global health support.
I say to the House that we are honouring our commitments, such as those to the World Bank’s International Development Association programme. The ICAI will continue, and we are increasing funding for the British Council, but that will come from outside ODA funding. That will come from additional funding, because we recognise the hugely important role that the British Council plays across the world.
The new approach we are taking to support investment and to shift from donor to investor was encapsulated in the “new Approach to Africa”, published by my noble Friend Baroness Chapman before Christmas. That set out the equal partnership and respect that underpin the new framework for our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries.
On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are providing support that helps refugees in places like Chad, because we know that providing that support in region also prevents people from making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs. There are areas where we are reducing direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but we are working to increase investment in those areas through things like the World Bank and other programmes. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need and continue to champion international development.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly.
This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate.
I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences.
I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs.
Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity.
Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially?
I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for the points she has made and for being such a strong champion for international development and its wider purposes. I also thank her for the extensive work and scrutiny that her Committee does in this area.
My hon. Friend mentioned the interaction between development work and security across the world, and I agree with her that those issues are strongly linked. We have decided to prioritise some fragile and conflict-affected countries exactly because those development and security issues are so strongly interlinked. Our purpose is to better link the direct aid we provide with conflict and atrocity prevention.
We are linking those policy approaches in, for example, Sudan. We are fully protecting the funding for Sudan because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but we are linking that to much stronger policy interventions, including for the women and girls facing such crises, and the work to support a ceasefire. The honest truth is that, if we could achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, that would have more impact than any humanitarian aid funding we can provide because, frankly, the humanitarian funding too often cannot get in because of the conflict. We need to join up strongly those policies with aid support.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the equalities impact assessment, which is being published today. Our intention had been to publish it by this point, but I understand it is being uploaded at the moment. I will be giving evidence to her Committee, but I can tell her that we looked at earlier assessments and adapted our decision making on the basis of that analysis to ensure that we are, for example, doing more to support women and girls and taking account of equalities issues.
I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues are interlinked, which is why they must continue to be linked as part of our foreign policy. We have to both defend our security and support international development, because those things are fundamentally linked: this is about both our values and our national interest.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I start by asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain’s commitments overseas is being announced on a Thursday, when most MPs are not here? Is it perhaps because the Government are ashamed of these cuts and want them to slip out unnoticed?
Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour Government cut the foreign aid Budget more deeply than Donald Trump or the last Conservative Government. This shameful moment is not only a moral catastrophe, but strategically illiterate. The cuts to the bilateral aid budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain’s long-term interests, to our influence and our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest, and to growth in new markets, leaving a vacuum for Russia and China to fill.
The Foreign Secretary makes great play of defence, but when the world is on fire we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and will therefore need more defence spend down the line. If she does not believe me, she may like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax.
Does the Foreign Secretary not see the contradiction between her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet and these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership that previous Labour Governments and the coalition Government showed to the poorest in the world? Where has the Government’s full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour party’s values, where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? When and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI target enshrined in law by the coalition Government?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady’s party wants to walk away from NATO, which would actually make our defence more expensive and more difficult, rather than ensuring that we can support both defence and international aid. This Government will still be the fifth largest investor in international development as a result of these changes. It is challenging, but it is also about being able to support both our values and the national interest.
International Women’s Day
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The previous occupant of the Chair reminded Members that we need to start Front-Bench speeches at around half-past 4. If the remaining Members could keep their comments to around five minutes, that would be very helpful.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a visiting research scientist—an unpaid position—at the Francis Crick Institute. I forgot to mention that in my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her interests are now on the record. I now call, to make a very quick speech, Calvin Bailey.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
“A very quick speech from Calvin Bailey,” said no one ever. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—this will show your influence over me.
In 2021, the Defence Committee published a landmark report on women in the armed forces. One of the most consistent things that came out of it about women who serve is their feeling that they fail to be recognised by the public. Our veterans do not feel that society acknowledges them, so the Committee recommended that we use occasions like International Women’s Day to make sure that those voices and experiences are heard.
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of serving alongside some exceptional women. When I led humanitarian aid operations in the Philippines, I did so alongside Master Sergeant Aircrew Samantha Green. When I delivered aid to the Yazidi women stranded on Mount Sinjar, it was Flight Lieutenant Abbie Anderson who generated our beloved C-130J aircraft, and it was my very close friend Jen Bracewell who managed both me—as you have done, Madam Deputy Speaker—and the missions. When I commanded a frontline squadron, I learned from the venerable Wing Commander Caz Viles, who had commanded the Royal Squadron. I did so under the exceptional leadership of Air Marshal Suraya Marshall, who is without doubt one of the most outstanding military leaders of her generation.
Despite the landmark Sex Discrimination Act 1975, women continued to be excluded from frontline combat roles in the British armed forces until 2016. In fact, it was only when I entered the Ministry of Defence in 2018 that all the restrictions were finally removed. Over the past couple of days, we have all seen that a female F-15 pilot was shot down over Kuwait. We should all reflect on the fact that, although women are putting themselves in the line of fire, the people who deploy them are questioning whether their gender makes them suitable to do their job. In the extra five minutes that I would have taken, I would have discussed how these things are being challenged at this very moment. I call on all of us to ensure that we challenge them when we are given the opportunity to speak.
Although the armed forces are recovering and the number of women in service is improving, it is important that we point to the disparities in treatment that persist. There are good stories, but there remain challenges and inequities. I urge anyone who sees my very truncated speech to go and listen to the wonderful speeches that we have heard today, including the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), which will all be very ably summarised in a moment.
I started my speech by saying that a landmark piece of work was done by the Defence Committee. It is therefore important that I recognise Lucy, Eleanor, Ines, Toni and Corrin, who sit in the background and tolerate the likes of me, and who helped us produce that incredible work. I thank them. I look forward to hearing the summing up.
Consular Assistance
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on developments in the middle east.
Everyone in this House, and across this country, will be horrified by what is unfolding—by the wave after wave of reckless Iranian missile strikes, by the loss of life, and by the fact that many thousands of British citizens are caught up in this crisis. Let me begin by offering my condolences to the families of civilian casualties from across the region. We stand in solidarity with allies and partners targeted by Iran. I condemn in the strongest terms these appalling strikes.
Yesterday, I summoned Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, in response to his country’s reckless actions. Iran must be held accountable. The safety of British nationals remains my top priority. There are around 300,000 of them in the region that is being targeted by Iranian strikes. The numbers reflect the deep ties between Britain and our friends in the Gulf. These countries did not attack Iran, and were not involved in the initial hostilities, yet they are being subjected to thousands of ballistic missile and drone attacks. Continued airspace closures and restrictions are making it extremely hard for many people to get home. Families on holiday and business travellers are having to shelter from attacks. I understand the anxiety and the frustration that this is causing.
I thank the almost 140,000 British nationals who have signed up to register their presence across Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. That is helping us to know exactly where people are, so that we can provide timely updates and support. If anyone watching this statement has a vulnerable family member, or particular concerns, please contact our helpline, which is manned by Foreign Office staff 24/7. The number is: 0207 008 5000.
I pay tribute to the United Arab Emirates Government and all our regional allies for their efforts and generosity to our nationals stuck in the region. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working round the clock to support British nationals. We are working intensively with airlines, travel companies and regional Governments to find safe routes home on commercial flights. The Foreign Secretary had productive discussions yesterday with the Emirates president, Sir Tim Clark, on ways forward, and also with the British Airways chief executive officer, Sean Doyle.
Airlines have been able to reinstate some commercial flights from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and are working to support passengers. As the House will be aware, some flights are now operating out of the United Arab Emirates. More than 2,000 people arrived in the UK on eight flights from the UAE yesterday. That included transit passengers and vulnerable people identified through our consular system. We are expecting a further 10 flights today.
Let me turn to Oman. Following close engagement with the Government, British Airways has laid on new flights to Muscat, which we anticipate flying every day. We are grateful to British Airways for its efforts. We are also providing UK-supported charter flights out of Muscat, the first of which was delayed yesterday evening due to technical issues at the airport, but it is scheduled to depart imminently, with further flights planned in the coming days. British nationals in Oman will be contacted about those as they become available.
In addition, we have deployed rapid deployment teams on the ground to help facilitate onward travel for British nationals. I can confirm to the House that a further RDT has been deployed in the last 24 hours. We will continue to provide the latest information and will be constantly reviewing and updating our travel advice. I encourage everybody watching this statement who is affected to sign up to our travel advice.
I must be clear that we are tackling a consular challenge on a scale not seen since covid. There are no instant solutions for moving such numbers of people, especially while airspace restrictions remain in place, but I am determined that people should get home as safely and as swiftly as possible. In total, over 4,000 people arrived in the UK from five different countries in the region yesterday.
Turning briefly to the wider situation, the Prime Minister has been clear that we are not engaged in any military action against Iran, but we are supporting our allies and our partners, particularly in the Gulf, to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks on their territory. Since Saturday morning, multiple F-35s and Typhoons have been operating on a defensive mission to identify and shoot down cruise missiles and drones, not just in the middle east but in the eastern Mediterranean, joining the extra forces deployed to the region prior to this crisis.
Further missions were flown overnight, with Typhoons defending Qatar in particular and F-35s defending our other regional partners. We are resupplying our air defence missiles today. Wildcat helicopters with anti-drone capabilities will be in the eastern Mediterranean this week. HMS Dragon will shortly be deployed to the Mediterranean.
As the Prime Minister has set out, RAF Akrotiri is not being used by US bombers. The Defence Secretary is in Cyprus today, where he has just met Cypriot Defence Minister Vasilis Palmas. They discussed what the UK is doing to reinforce our defences to support our shared security. The House is aware that the Prime Minister has also agreed that US aircraft may fly out of UK bases for the specific and limited purposes linked to defending against Iran’s reckless attacks—attacks that are threatening our partners, our interests and our allies, including our friends in the Gulf.
Strong allies are honest with each other, and we were clear with the United States that the UK would not be involved in the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran. As the Prime Minister has said to the House, we stand by both decisions, taken squarely in the UK’s national interest and in line with international law. That is the action we are taking. That is the agreement we have reached with the United States to protect our nationals and our allies.
The situation is evolving, and there are indications that this is a crisis not of days but of weeks and possibly months. We are focused not just on the immediate term. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will shortly address the House regarding the impact of this crisis on energy costs and the cost of living.
We are under no illusion about the nature of the Iranian regime. As the Foreign Secretary has said, its leaders have for decades terrorised and murdered their own people, destabilised the region and exported threats and instability around the world, including here on UK soil. Iranian people took to the streets just last month demanding change. They were met instead with bloody and brutal repression. We assess that at least 7,000 were murdered, with bodies lining the streets—the deadliest unrest in Iran’s modern history.
We must guard against the country sliding into chaos, exploited by extremists, and against a protracted regional conflict spiralling further. We continue to call on Iran to end these reckless strikes. We will work tirelessly for the swiftest possible resolution to this crisis, in line with Britain’s interests and with lasting regional security and stability. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Falconer
I would be grateful if Members on the Opposition Front Bench could keep their volume slightly down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that we listen with respect in this Chamber, especially when the situation is so serious.
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear to British nationals in the region that the commercial routes that are opening up are by far the most likely and most rapid routes back to the UK. I recognise the terrible uncertainty and anxiety faced by so many British nationals in the region. Given the scale of the disruption to airspace and the global aviation system, this is likely to take some time. We have put on charter flights, and we are working with our commercial partners to ensure that vulnerable British nationals are prioritised.
I say to people at home who are concerned for their loved ones, please do call the Foreign Office hotline. If right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about their constituents, I encourage them either to contact the Foreign Office—we have had officials in the House today to assist people directly—or to be in touch with me, as so many have been already.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Having spent some 10 years on the shadow Front Bench, I know that it is frustrating and that it can be difficult, but there is a responsibility, in my view, to always put the country’s interests first and to not use an opportunity for narrow political advantage and play party politics. As for throwing personal abuse across the Dispatch Box at a time like this, I have to say that I am profoundly shocked.
May I move on to my question? Given that the Minister called in the Iranian ambassador to see him, I would be interested to hear what on earth the ambassador had to say and how he excused what Iran is doing at the moment by attacking many countries in the region, some of which have worked night and day to try to find a peaceful way through this.
May I also pass on a message from one of my constituents, who is caught in Muscat at the moment? They moved from the UAE on the basis of Foreign Office advice. They went to the airport in Oman and all they say is this. When they got to the airport, they could see some representatives, particularly of Italy, who were wearing high-vis jackets. There may well be people from Britain there, but they were not as clearly identifiable as some from other countries. I am sure that there is a presence in the airports, but perhaps there could be high-vis jackets or some form of clearer identification, because there will be a lot of people at Muscat airport looking for help.
Mr Falconer
We will take that feedback into account. I confirm that our ambassador to Oman is in the airport as we speak, to ensure the successful departure of the flight. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right about the scale of the crisis. We will provide further updates on those questions as rapidly as possible. That is why it is so important that people watching at home register their presence and sign up for our travel advice.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The illegal war started by Trump and Netanyahu has now engulfed the entire middle east, and Iran’s reckless retaliation against our partners in the region is putting British lives at risk. There are 300,000 Britons still in the region, yet only 140,000—less than half—have registered with the Government.
For families in my constituency of Esher and Walton and across the country who have relatives in the region, the uncertainty is agonising. One of my constituents from Walton is stranded in Abu Dhabi and is six months pregnant. Her flight home has been cancelled and her only option is to book a taxi to Oman and then walk up to 4 km in the heat, in the hope of catching a flight. More of my constituents are stranded in Dubai in the Fairmont hotel, which was struck last week. They have registered, as instructed, but have said that the comms are poor and that they cannot get information on how to register for the Government flights.
Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to encourage more Britons to register their location? Will he also update the House on what contact the Government have had with Lindsay and Craig Foreman, who remain imprisoned in Iran? What steps are being taken to confirm their safety and wellbeing? Even as the Government’s immediate focus must be on protecting and repatriating UK citizens in the region, I pay tribute to the officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who are working so hard on this.
We cannot, however, ignore what appear to be catastrophic errors in the Government’s readiness for this crisis. The Minister says that this is a consular challenge on the scale of covid, but the Government knew it was coming. Reporting by The Spectator and The Telegraph overnight suggests that the Government were asked for use of British bases on 11 February. There has been a huge deployment of US assets over the last month, and I also assume that the Government were not oblivious to the USS Gerald R. Ford steaming towards the eastern Mediterranean in late February. With so many signals suggesting that war was potentially imminent, why did the Government not move sooner on preparing repatriation plans for our citizens, or prepare for the defence of our base in Cyprus, with HMS Dragon still sat in Portsmouth?
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding
I would love to, and I will come back to the hon. Member with those at another point, but I am up against the clock at the moment. As I go through my speech, there may be some examples.
Aid is not charity, as the Minister for International Development suggested to the International Development Committee. It is a strategic tool that makes Britain safer and secure. It reduces the drivers of migration to these shores and strengthens health systems before pandemics cross borders. While we retreat, China and Russia expand their influence across Africa, the middle east and south Asia, filling the vacuum that we leave. UK aid to Africa has already been reduced by £184 million.
Countries such as Ethiopia, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and fragile Sahel states—tinderboxes—have seen significant bilateral cuts, alongside a very thin Africa strategy released quietly before the Christmas recess. Africa has the world’s youngest and fastest-growing population and a projected $30 trillion economy by 2050. It represents a huge future trading opportunity, but our cuts risk weakening those relationships—relationships on which our country’s growth relies.
Even international climate finance, which has been rhetorically protected, could fall by nearly £3 billion, we are told by The Guardian. Programmes such as the biodiverse landscapes fund, the blue planet fund and the climate and ocean adaptation and sustainable transition programme are under threat, and support for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which we co-designed, has yet to materialise. Intelligence chiefs have warned that the collapse of ecosystems like the Amazon and coral reefs will not just risk our climate obligations but trigger food shortages and unrest and lead to war reaching our shores.
In reality, the cuts are even worse than they look. Around 20% of the aid budget is projected to be spent on in-donor asylum costs by 2027-28, meaning that the amount reaching people overseas could fall to just 0.24% of national income. Is the British taxpayer aware that the money earmarked for the poorest in the world is being spent on asylum hotels in this country?
What is most striking about these supplementary estimates is not only their scale but the absence of a coherent strategy underpinning them. There has been no clear argument made, no case put forward and no honest reckoning with what is being lost and what the impact will be. There is no published road map explaining which capabilities we are prepared to lose and whether we intend to rebuild them later. There has been no serious articulation of why slashing bilateral aid strengthens Britain’s long-term interests. There is just a quiet hope that the cuts will land without anyone looking too closely.
In fact, the future of the very organisation tasked with scrutinising the UK’s aid and development spend—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—is in doubt. One of its inquiries is on the impact of the Government’s ODA cuts. The very oversight mechanisms that hold the Government to account are being dismantled.
I will briefly turn to our soft power institutions. I will not dwell on them because other Members already have. The BBC World Service and the British Council—two of Britain’s most powerful instruments of influence, funded at a tiny cost to the taxpayer—are having their budgets eroded, the latter burdened by a Government loan with interest payments of up to £15 million a year.
Then there is the vital question of capacity and expertise. The FCDO is planning staff reductions of up to 25%, and the Department for Business and Trade, which works in-country to promote trade relations, is facing a 20% staffing cut, yet the Government have failed to produce a workforce plan before the cuts. It is cuts for cuts’ sake. All of this represents a hollowing-out of capability. Rebuilding that expertise later is neither quick to do nor cheap, and it is very difficult to bring back once it has been torn down.
The question is unavoidable: what is the plan? The Government must change course and set out a clear, binding timetable to return to 0.7%. I look forward to the Minister updating us on how he will do that. The Liberal Democrats will take a different approach to funding the defence uplift, and we have laid it out in this House. In the meantime, the Government must act to limit the damage that these cuts will cause. That means backing meaningful debt relief for low-income countries, redirecting the share of the aid budget spent on in-donor asylum costs back to aid, and safeguarding vital accountability mechanisms such as the ICAI.
In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, rising instability and growing humanitarian need, Britain faces a choice: we can be an engaged, outward-looking power, shaping events, building partnerships and investing in prevention; or we can shrink our presence, reduce our expertise and hope that the consequences do not rebound on us—a decision to retreat, a decision for the short term, not the long term. The Government’s cuts show that we are drifting towards the latter. Once expertise is lost, once trust is eroded, and once influence is surrendered, it is far harder to recover than it is to protect.
Britain still stands tall in the world, but these cuts threaten to diminish that. Britain does not lead by retreating. We lead by showing up, keeping our word and standing with our partners when it matters most. I urge the Government to reclaim our moral authority, rebuild our global influence and lead once again on the world stage.
Sudan
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I wish to update the House on the situation in Sudan.
On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.
That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.
In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.
I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.
But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.
What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.
In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.
Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.
This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.
The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.
African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.
As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.
Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s points and pay tribute to the bravery of Sudanese civilians, especially those who continue to run the emergency response rooms, providing urgently needed support for desperate people in Sudan. She is right that civilian capacity has to be a central part of the peace process. In fact, members of the Quad have specifically asked us to play a role in developing that as part of the peace process. I also discussed that with the African Union this week, because we believe that civilians can only be supported with the assistance of the countries bordering Sudan, and with the African Union.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?
Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?
I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?
What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. While it is not a matter for the Chair, she has now put her remarks on the record.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 2nd February 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 157-I Marshalled list for Report - (8 Jan 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 9
Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Seema Malhotra
I am delighted that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill has returned to this House for the consideration of Lords amendments. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and for the constructive and collaborative approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I also place on the record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the Bill expertly through the other place. In today’s debate, we will seek to address the amendments made by the Government there, and I thank all those in that House who have been involved in debates on this Bill.
Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I remind the House that the passage of this Bill is a vital part of delivering the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in those areas and help to ensure that the benefits arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.
I am pleased to inform the House that the BBNJ agreement entered into force on 17 January. Following Royal Assent, and subsequent secondary legislation to be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement. We intend to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before 16 January 2027.
Turning to the Lords amendments, the House is being asked to consider a package of 12, all of which were put forward by the Government. They relate to devolution and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements and ensuring that devolved Ministers are appropriately engaged, where devolved competence is affected.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by.
I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill.
Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply.
Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended.
The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.
We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?
On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?
The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?
The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?
It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?
We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure.
The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity.
Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round?
I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I will conclude my remarks—I am sorry but I have taken a number of interventions today.
Since coming into power, this Government have been clear on our deep regret for the way in which Chagossians were removed from the islands and have sought to recognise the wide range of views within the Chagossian community. We remain committed to building a relationship with that community that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past.
We have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to doing in the other place. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have engaged with Chagossian individuals and groups more than 30 times and they are regularly in conversation with the Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.
In conclusion, doing this deal was right and essential. It protects our national interest, it defends our national security, it protects the Diego Garcia base from legal threat, it supports the Chagossian community and it preserves the unique environment in the archipelago. We know that the best way to do that is to pursue this deal. It is time that the Conservatives realised—or should I say, remembered—that too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Evans
Absolutely. That is another perfectly sensible question to pose to the Government, and for them to answer and to set out the reasons and the rationale.
I am still concerned, when we are dealing with the detail, about the long-term nature of the deal and whether it is bomb-proof. When we come to the end of 99 years, what will happen? The only protection we have is that we have first say on taking it on. We have already heard, from Members on both sides of the House, how much China’s economy will grow. Will we even have the finances to buy that deal? Will we be outbid by the United States, by China, or by some other BRIC power? We are held over a barrel by the Mauritians, or, worse still, the Mauritians can simply say, “We don’t want it any more”, and the base is gone and we can do nothing about it.
Why does all this matter? Those are all technical questions that I want the Government to answer, but overall we must see the wider context, which has been explained here numerous times before. The United States is changing its foreign policy, China is changing its foreign policy, yet the UK does not appear to have an approach in either direction. It appears that we are looking towards a sphere of influence, with America having one side and China and Russia having another. So the question for the House is, “Why rush this through?” Why not think about it? Why not answer these simple questions, to get this side of the House on board, so that we could then say, “We think this is the right thing for the country?
The saddest aspect of this whole debate is the way in which the Government have turned it into a scapegoating of the Opposition as if we were playing political games, rather than seeing that the simple technical questions that need to be answered are the key to unlocking our understanding. If we as parliamentarians cannot get answers to these questions and do not understand the rationale, how can we explain it to our constituents, how can we explain it to the nation, and how can we explain it to the world? If the Government want us to stop—supposedly—playing politics, I ask them to give simple answers to simple questions, back them up and give evidence for them. Otherwise, we are left fighting the Black Knight, who is brave, who is forthright, who is keen to stand in the way of any progress, but who simply will not answer a question and is cut down, limb by limb, in a pool of blood.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 294 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
Andrew Rosindell
I will make some progress.
With assurances from the United States, and given precedents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations, in 2016 I tabled an urgent question calling for self-determination. The response from the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this:
“we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.]
What a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn—another British community that the then Conservative Government were willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
I am sad to say that the Government are correct that it was my Government—the Conservative Government at the time—that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. I commend Lord Cameron, who rightly ended those talks, but they should never have begun in the first place. Why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why did they not say, “That’s the end of it. Never again.” and repudiate the failure of Sir Alan Duncan to give self-determination? Why did we not jettison that entire policy? We did not do so.
Even from within the shadow foreign affairs team, I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response, but I was shut down. The Conservatives’ opposition to this Bill, I am afraid, does comes not from principle but from convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye-watering and has been the focus of the Opposition for the last year, but no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out British people.
Self-determination is fundamental to everything I believe in—so fundamental that it rendered my position as shadow Minister untenable. I was pleased to hear the words of self-determination used earlier by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), because when I asked we take that position in the past, I was told it was not party policy. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official Conservative party policy. I hope that is the case—if it is, then everything that I have been fighting for over the last 25 years has been worth it—but the Bill and its origins, under both this Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to come before party; and I believe that the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen.
A few weeks ago, I was genuinely horrified and upset to be prevented, on Conservative Whips’ instruction, from voting for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is a fine addition to the House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people. His amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. I went to the doorway of the Lobby, but was told that I could not go in and vote for it. I apologise to my Chagossian friends that I let them down on that, but I was told not to and I felt deeply upset that I did not. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that he had, and still has, my support.
Meanwhile, genuine opposition on the Benches from which I speak now has put aside party squabbles, because national interest must always come before party—there is not really much in common usually between the Reform and Liberal Democrat Benches, but this is a matter of principle. Colleagues in my new party voted for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I commend them for doing so. It asked simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift-wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That is all we are asking: let the people decide. Who can seriously disagree with that principle? We rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, we strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony. The Government are happy to support that principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it is morally reprehensible.
What took place in the House of Lords on Third Reading was shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a Division, shouts of “Not content” were heard again and again, yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote. A Bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence—one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament—was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it.
I was further disturbed to learn from many very angry Conservative peers who contacted me that they had been instructed not to vote the Bill down, not because the arguments were weak or because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended too robustly today, lest it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many Members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions that they were given by their Whips. This is not coming from me, because I am not in the Lords, but from those who were there who were deeply upset by that. That crossed the line. A Conservative Government denied the principle of self-determination.
This Labour Government have gone much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without the consent of the Chagossian people. This is a bipartisan failure. The legislation sells out the King’s islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not in good conscience remain silent and complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party and ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher—the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination—would be implicated in this betrayal.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own Deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV last February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of pressures of time, and that he will bringing his remarks to a conclusion shortly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members should be aware that I am planning to start Front-Bench contributions at 3.40 pm.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we move to consideration of the Lords amendments, I can confirm that Lords amendments 2, 3 and 6 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Clause 1
Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4.
Stephen Doughty
National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.
As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Iran: Protests
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Lady asks important questions. Let me turn first to the question of numbers. I do not want to give the House an artificial sense of precision when the internet has remained restricted since 8 January. There clearly have been many deaths; we believe in the thousands. We will not put a more precise figure on it at this time because to do so would be at risk of misleading the House that we have a more precise picture than we do. That does not in any way take away from the strength of our condemnation.
The Iranian regime has provided a variety of rationales, both in private and in public. It has claimed that it was responding to armed protesters, and it has complained that others are seeking to interfere in its internal affairs. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the scale of bloodshed that we have seen in relation to those protests. It is not to seek to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs to say that the protesters have rights—rights of assembly, rights to protest and rights to have their internet turned back on.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I know that the Minister shares with me—and probably with most of the House—a deep affection for the Iranian people, for their beautiful country and for their extraordinary culture, which makes the killing and terrible violence we have seen even worse than we could possibly have imagined. Can he give the House confidence that Britain and the international community will not now abandon the Iranian people for geopolitical expediency?
Mr Falconer
We will not. As I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Iranian people have rights—rights that we hold dear in this place and this country—and we will continue to press those points with the Iranian regime.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Since the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, Ayatollah Khamenei has confirmed the death of thousands of protesters, but he has again deflected responsibility for the brutal crackdown by his regime. The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that sanctions against the leaders of the regime, and the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, relied upon new legislation or instruments. We have waited too long for that. Will the Minister give the House a date by which those measures will be introduced?
Will the Minister update the House on internet connectivity? What is the UK doing, with our partners, to restore internet access so that people in Iran can communicate and evidence can be gathered to hold the regime to account? What dialogue have Ministers and officials had since last week about the Liberal Democrat proposal to pursue, through the United Nations, an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity perpetrated by the regime?
Proposed Chinese Embassy
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I reiterate that our intelligence services have been involved throughout. A range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. She will also know that the Government are still to make a decision. That planning decision will be made independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning grounds.
It is also important to recognise that we have set clear red lines through this process. That has included, for example, the consolidation of the diplomatic presence of China from seven buildings to one, which will have security benefits. It is also important to say that we do routinely engage with our allies, including the US, which is our closest ally, on a range of issues, including security and intelligence in relation to China. It is important to recognise that we do that routinely and that it is important to discuss national security factors that we may consider.
My hon. Friend referred to transnational repression. She will know that the UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK, and we take the protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms and safety very seriously.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board.
The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms.
The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions?
Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how.
Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?
Seema Malhotra
I know that my hon. Friend has raised her concerns a number of times. I reiterate that national security considerations are always the first duty of any Government, and the security and intelligence agencies have been involved throughout this process. As I noted in my opening remarks, the two national security issues that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office made public as part of the planning process have now been addressed. If the planning application for a new embassy in Tower Hamlets is approved, China has committed to replace seven sites that make up its diplomatic footprint in London with the new embassy, which will also bring clear security advantages. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to have conversations with her local council and with the Government in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have made it clear from the beginning of this saga that the approval of China’s super-embassy would be a terrible betrayal of Hongkongers who moved to the UK to escape the very repression that the Government are now inviting to their doorstep. The Government must halt the application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make it clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our community.
On the specifics of the application, in a 2018 letter the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted diplomatic status to Royal Mint Court. That letter made no mention of a condition relating to planning permission and, under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, represents a fulfilment of the condition to provide express consent. Eight years later, we are now being told that consent was somehow conditional on planning permission, based on a secret note verbale from May 2018 that has not been published. Will the Government release that note verbale, which is the only evidence that diplomatic status was provided conditional on planning permission and, therefore, that the application was not prejudged by the Government?