Middle East

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree about the importance of maritime law, freedom of navigation and the law of the sea. Those are fundamental international principles and that is why the UK, as an international trading nation, has long supported them. It is also one reason why we have supported Bahrain’s UN Security Council resolution—we were a co-sponsor—because we also see the UN charter as part of the underpinnings of international law.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I am slightly struggling to see what it adds to the answer to the urgent question we had yesterday, but it is always nice to see the Foreign Secretary. When she asks the US Government to de-escalate, what do they say in response?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long been clear that, ultimately, we need a swift resolution to this conflict. We are providing the basing support for the US to be able to take defensive action against the military launches and the weapons that are being pointed at the Gulf, and we are also providing broader defensive support, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need a swift resolution. We also know that, as the conflict ends, we will need a negotiated settlement that will prevent Iran from being able to rearm and pose an ongoing threat to the region and beyond. That is the best way to get stability and security in the UK’s national interest.

Strait of Hormuz

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

It is my understanding that Ministers were not consulted or indeed advised on that attendance. The issue has been ongoing since, I think, 2015, and was likely to have been under the previous Government as well.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister has come here to give us a pretty vague response of, “We’re in discussions with allies about making a plan,” and does not want to give us any more detail than that; I can potentially see why. When he has those discussions with allies, will he please remember that the British taxpayer kindly gifted two Sandown class minehunters to the Ukrainian navy and that we have trained up their crews, who are now at a NATO standard? The Defence Committee visited them in Portsmouth, and they were proud of those credentials. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that Ukraine seems to be leaning into supporting allies in the Gulf. Therefore, when the Minister is having discussions with allies about making a plan, will he bear that in mind? Of course, those craft cannot deploy back to the Black sea because of the Montreux convention, and I believe the crews are there and ready to operate.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into the detail of individual pieces of kit and equipment, but I welcome the fact that Ukraine has engaged with Gulf partners on the lessons it has learned, particularly in relation to drone technology. That is important. It is, of course, absolutely right that Ukraine’s focus remains on its needs and defending itself against Russia’s barbarous aggression, and I can assure him that our commitments to Ukraine remain absolutely iron-clad in that regard, but I do not want to get into commenting on individual pieces of kit and equipment.

International Women’s Day

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Let me start by paying huge tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for her maiden speech. She spoke with grace, poise and purpose, and her constituents are very lucky to have her representing them here, whether they voted for her or not. Members on the Conservative Benches will know that I am not overly competitive—I just have to win everything—so I was rather devastated that she made a far better maiden speech than my own meagre offering after the 2024 general election.

The hon. Lady said she wanted to put Gorton and Denton on the map, and she certainly put it on my radar. As she was listing the distinguished people from her constituency, I wondered whether she would get around to mentioning Ethel “Sunny” Lowry, who was born in Gorton, and was the first British woman to swim the English channel in 1933. I know what hon. Members are thinking: surely I have some neat segue to other women doing water-based heroics from my own Spelthorne constituency. I would not like to disappoint them.

In 1903, at 111 White Hart Lane in Barnes, young Amy Gentry was born to a Cockney father who had worked his way up and become a publisher. They bought a camping plot on Hamhaugh island, which is the southernmost point of the River Thames, and also the southernmost point of my constituency. She went there from the age of one—her dad got a boat and they used to love messing around in it. Before she was 10 years old, the people on Hamhaugh island had gymkhanas, and she was entered into a dinghy racing contest, which I think she won, and which clearly gave her a taste for competition.

The war then intervened in Amy’s growing up, and hon. Members will be only too aware that in 1918 we passed in this place the Representation of the People Act. The tide was turning in respect of votes for women, women’s individuality and women expressing themselves. In 1920, Weybridge rowing club decided that they would form a women’s section—considerably revolutionary at the time. They got a group of young ladies together and trained them in how to row properly, and the women’s rowing movement began.

In 1925, young Amy Gentry went over to the charity regatta in the Netherlands, where she competed against France, Belgium and Holland. By 1927 the sport had developed that much further that there was an eights competition on the Oxford and Cambridge course between Putney and Mortlake. She wrote at the time that she felt like she was rowing backwards at times—obviously, literally she was rowing backwards, but she did not feel like she was going anywhere—so dreadful were the conditions.

In 1932, her father went to a boat builder and asked, “If you build my daughter a boat, will she win?” The boat builder said, “She will,” and indeed she did. She carried all before her from 1932 to 1934. She became the secretary of Weybridge rowing club, and by 1939 she was its chair. She was the driving force in women’s rowing in the country.

One of the clubs that had been useful and had adopted women’s rowing with some enthusiasm was the Vesta rowing club, which set up the first women’s regatta. At the time, a gentleman from the club said:

“While I do not approve of rowing for women, as they will do it anyway the best thing I can do will be to help them do it properly.”

We can see what the attitudes were at the time. Nevertheless, Amy was fantastic at it. She retired from the highest level of the sport in the late 1930s.

Obviously, the second world war came around, and in 1939 she became the secretary to Barnes Wallis. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the dam busters raid, Barnes Wallis was instrumental in developing the bouncing bomb. He and Amy Gentry would go to Silvermere lake, where he would fire various projectiles from a catapult across the lake—sort of a high-grade stone skimming competition—and then he and Amy would row out to collect them to see how they fared. Barnes Wallis was a pretty serious guy, but when that they were rowing out to one of the projectiles, Amy pointed out, “Wallis, you may be in charge, but I am in charge in this boat. Sit down.”

After the war, rowing went from strength to strength. We were represented in the European championships in 1952 and in 1954, carrying all before us at the national and international levels. As a slight aside, at the 1954 European games Amy Gentry handed out some prizes to one of the crews, including to a young lady called Bette Shubrook, a member of the London rowing club. She had met her soon-to-be husband at the London rowing club on regatta on Boxing day. His name was Graham Hill. She went on to be Bette Hill, and she became the only person to be married to and the mother of a Formula 1 world racing champion.

Amy was instrumental in bringing the European championships here in 1960, and she was awarded the OBE in 1969. She died in June 1976 in Stanwell in my constituency. The significance of that date is a sad irony: she did not quite live to see the moment one month later when women were allowed to compete in rowing in the Olympic games, in Montreal.

In the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, when the women’s crews go under Barnes bridge in the latter stages of the race, they pass a huge pub on the south bank of the River Thames called the White Hart, which is at the end of White Hart Lane, where Amy Gentry was born. If hon. Members happen to be watching in a month’s time and see that moment, perhaps they will join me in raising a glass to the remarkable woman, Amy Gentry.

Consular Assistance

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are heading home. As we saw with our own charter flight, for which there was still a great deal of complexity, there will likely be bumps in the road, but we will get everyone home. We will ensure that we attend to their safety and security at every step. Anyone who is worried about their loved ones getting home, or about particular vulnerabilities, should please be in touch in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for his statement, and express a certain amount of sympathy? Like him, I ran evacuations under fire, and it is pretty chaotic. He and his officials will inevitably attract some criticism—that is the nature of the beast, as he knows.

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a number of pre-emptive measures that he took prior to the conflict starting. It was quite a long list, and included surface-to-air missiles and the radar early warning system. The one obvious gap in that list was sending a ship to the Mediterranean, which is now obviously the first thing that the Government have done as a result of events. Was the decision not to send the ship as part of that pre-emptory package a question of capability or intent? Was it that the Government could not send a ship, or that they did not want to?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the constructive and reasonable tone of his question—and not just because he has the finest first name in Parliament. Let me provide some additional commentary on HMS Dragon, given that it has been a subject of such interest. As he will know, decisions are based on operational factors. Force protection is at its highest level in the eastern Mediterranean. The decision about HMS Dragon was brought to the Chief of the Defence Staff and Ministers in the light of the increasingly reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran across the region, and it was signed off immediately.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am honoured to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing the debate. I worked in international development for many years, specifically on water sanitation and hygiene, so I also appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury about our strong support for the BBC. I would like to thank all the FCDO staff currently working very, very hard on behalf of my constituents who are in the middle east. The very quick response we have been able to put up, with flights coming in straight away, is commendable. It just shows the strengths and abilities of our embassies across the world, and how important they are.

I am delighted that after years of weakness, isolation and decline in our international standing under the Tories, Britain is firmly back on the international stage, leading on the international response to Ukraine, making the forgotten war in Sudan a priority, and transforming our relationship with Europe—worth mentioning on the day that the FAC released our report on the UK-EU reset.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady remember who led on the international response on Ukraine?

[Fleur Anderson]

This is not a party political issue. We have led on Ukraine for many years and we still are doing so. I am very proud of the role we have played, under both Governments. The Labour Government are now moving forward far further and far faster. I am also proud that we recently signed the global ocean treaty.

This debate is on the spending in the Department. I am concerned about the continuing cuts in aid, and that they are undermining our strong, and growing, international position and undermining our security. I am concerned about the false division that has been put up between defence and development. It is not defence or development. Defence and development are important for our strategic interests and security. Development spending is not charity; it is strategic investment. Our development budget is one of the most effective tools we have for sustaining British influence. Defence and development should not be seen as competing priorities, but I fear that they are seen as such. Defence responds to crises; development works to prevent them. Development underpins our conflict prevention around the world. A defence posture without sustained development investment risks becoming permanently reactive to events. Good development is good defence.

I am very concerned that the FCDO’s workforce faces reductions of up to 25%. The FAC has repeatedly asked where those cuts will be made. Which staff? Which programmes? Do the cuts match the priorities given by Ministers? I am concerned that they do not. We are not given the answers that we need to scrutinise this very big change in our country’s priorities, and at a crucial time in international relations that are so important for our security. It is important for my constituents to know what our foreign affairs priorities are and whether they are being matched in terms of staffing and budgets.

This is called an estimates debate for a different reason, but estimating is all we can do as a Committee—if MPs cannot see that the priorities given by Ministers are being backed up by spending and action, we cannot properly scrutinise their work. It is also a real concern for development agencies and local organisations on the ground in the countries where we are working, which are not able to plan their work as they do not know what the spending will be.

In the past year, £500 million has been cut from the ODA budget. Aid to Africa, at the time of the Africa strategy being released, has fallen by £184 million. Support to Sudan has been reduced by roughly 18%, at the very moment it faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, despite it being a stated priority.

Global health is also a priority for this Government, and rightly so. As I said, I previously worked in water and sanitation. I went to work for WaterAid before I was an MP because, when I had worked with other aid agencies, I had seen the impact that conflict and water have on a community. With action on both those things, a community can have peace—if a community has the water needed for crops and its health, it frees up girls and women from having to go off to get water; instead, they can go to school. It leads to development and resilience against insecurity, which stops conflict. That is what we should be seeing. However, £550 million has been cut from global health programmes. Let us not forget the lessons from covid.

Some £206 million has been cut from education, gender and equality programmes. There is a 25% reduction in women, peace and security funding, despite a feminist foreign policy being a stated priority. I am glad that the proposed cuts to the BBC World Service have been highlighted as well. We have a huge benefit in our BBC World Service. Trust in this service has built up over decades, and any reduction in that gives space to China and Russia. Cuts to development leave room for the Chinese Government to step in, as I have seen in countries across Africa. Cuts in poverty reduction fuel instability and conflict. Cuts in conflict prevention programmes that have been built up for years, which are locally led and are working, are dangerous.

The 0.7% target was not a vague aspiration, but a manifesto commitment that this party stood on. It remains important for our security. I know that these are difficult times for development spending, but we need to keep talking about that as an aspiration. I am concerned that the official policy of His Majesty’s Opposition is now to reduce spending to 0.1% of GDP. I do not know where that will leave our country.

Will the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the soft power superpower we have in the BBC, to conflict reduction, to the education of girls, to water, sanitation and hygiene, and to global health? Will he confirm that we are committed to working with the poorest countries, not using the move towards investment as a move towards working only with middle-income countries? Lastly, will he confirm that all these commitments will be backed up with funding and our fantastic staff in our embassies on the ground?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. Would she like to give us a couple of examples where overseas development aid has prevented crises in the way that she describes?

[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.

Gibraltar Treaty

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that he is hugely respected, by me and others in this House. I can assure him that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. Obviously, it is for them to decide the arrangements that they want to put in place to ensure their prosperity going forward. They are fully supportive of this agreement, which we think will be good for jobs and business in Gibraltar, good for the people of Gibraltar and, indeed, good for the prosperity of the whole region. I think it reflects a spirit of pragmatic co-operation with the EU, which we strongly welcome.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he reassure the House that the team who have negotiated the draft treaty that he has brought before us today have had nothing to do with the team that negotiated the disastrous Chagos deal? That deal is, I believe, as of yesterday, on pause, although No. 10 appears to be gainsaying that slightly now.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered many questions in this place on Chagos, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that read-across between these processes is completely erroneous. This is an agreement that is good for Gibraltar. It has been agreed by the Government of Gibraltar, and we have worked closely with the EU to ensure that it works for the prosperity and security of the people of Gibraltar. As I have said many times, it is hugely unhelpful to draw false comparisons between Chagos and the British Indian Ocean Territory, and indeed other overseas territories. Indeed, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has specifically cautioned against doing so—the hon. Gentleman might want to listen to him.

Draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2026

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the first time. The draft order will permit the UK Government to make financial contributions to the special development fund of the Caribbean Development Bank up to the stated values.

The Caribbean region is important to the United Kingdom, and our history and values are closely intertwined. Twelve of the 53 Commonwealth states are in the region, along with five out of the 14 UK overseas territories. There is a large Caribbean diaspora in the UK, and a significant number of British nationals visit as well as reside in the Caribbean. The Caribbean has strong economic links to the UK, and the UK was the destination for almost 10% of Caribbean goods exports in 2025. Although small in population size, countries in this region have a significant voice on global issues and in international organisations, including the United Nations. We have shared interests in areas such as tackling climate change, global financial system reform, combating crime and violence, and fostering trade and inclusive economic development.

The Caribbean Development Bank, or CDB, is the sole multilateral development bank that is exclusively focused on the Caribbean region, providing more than $312 million in 2024. The UK has a long-standing partnership with the CDB. We were one of the founding members and are the joint largest non-regional shareholder, with a 9.3% shareholding. The CDB plays a key role in the achievement of the UK’s regional development objectives of supporting sustainable development and tackling the impact of climate change.

Allow me briefly to take the Committee through the background and the purpose of the draft order. The special development fund, or SDF, is the consensual arm of the Caribbean Development Bank, which provides loans and grants to the most vulnerable countries in the region. It aims to reduce poverty, support human development, and strengthen climate and economic resilience across the Caribbean. It is replenished by donors every four years, and contributions to the fund come from regional and non-regional member countries of the Caribbean Development Bank, as well as from non-members. In line with our strategic shift towards multilateral assistance, the UK will commit up to £21 million to the SDF to maintain our position as the second largest donor.

The draft order will allow for the provision of the core funding by the UK. This replenishment will play a crucial role in supporting regional efforts to meet the sustainable development goals. The SDF will focus on promoting economic development and supporting increased resilience, with a particular focus on environmental resilience.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us who the largest donor will be?

[Chris Elmore]

If the hon. Member will give me two moments, I will get the correct name for him, because the list is not in front of me. It is in fact Canada—I am grateful to the officials on my left.

I will go through each point in turn. The SDF will build resilience against environmental stresses and disasters. It will fund climate adaptation, disaster risk management, biodiversity preservation and sustainable energy. That will include 10 km of new or improved sea defences and drainages, 6 MW of renewable energy and a reduction of 30,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually. The SDF will ensure that Caribbean infrastructure, agriculture and small businesses are supported to thrive. It will do so by training over 10,000 agricultural workers, improving 2,000 hectares of land, providing $75 million in credit to over 1,000 small businesses, half of which will be women-owned businesses, and building or upgrading 200 km of roads.

The SDF will support poverty reduction efforts in the region and improve living conditions by targeting the most vulnerable communities. That will include improving water and sanitation for over 30,000 households, building or upgrading 1,700 classrooms, training over 18,000 teachers and improving learning conditions for 350,000 students. It will also improve financial systems and practices so that individuals, Governments and organisations can better manage risks and respond to uncertainty. Twenty Caribbean Ministries, Departments and agencies will benefit from strengthened systems and services. The SDF will strengthen and modernise institutions so that they can respond effectively to challenges. It will support digital transformation in 11 Caribbean Ministries and agencies to help them operate more efficiently.

The SDF is an essential lifeline to the region’s most vulnerable people who have faced multiple crises over the last few years, including climate-related shocks to which the region is exceptionally vulnerable. Supporting the SDF will help us to achieve our objective of a bigger, better and fairer global financial system that delivers for everyone and is fit for the future.

To conclude, the Caribbean Development Bank special development fund is instrumental in achieving UK objectives in the Caribbean region. The financial contributions covered by the draft order will deliver UK international development and foreign policy objectives in some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. I commend the order to the Committee.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who are you giving way to, Minister? Three Members think it is them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue with my remarks for the moment. As I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our ability to uphold international law and continue to operate the base as we do today.

Moving on to the UK-US relationship, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This Government consider it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve, and we will not put party politics ahead of national security, as we see the Opposition doing today.

We have made strong progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are still under negotiation, so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be subject to ratification. We will keep Parliament informed about that.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I listened to the criteria that the Minister expressed before ratification is possible. Is American agreement one of the criteria that she considers essential?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will have heard me say that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. It is important—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

That is precisely the case; it is as plain as a pikestaff, yet the Government persist with the policy.

It is perfectly reasonable and respectable for the Government to say, “The facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, so we will pause this. There is no hurry in this matter, nor any dishonour in saying that we need to consult on it more widely—potentially indefinitely. Nevertheless, we will continue the process and keep it open.” I appreciate that, to save the Government’s blushes, we cannot simply can it, but we can pause it.

If the Minister wants more evidence that the Chagossians have been trampled all over during this process, she need only refer to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which said in December 2025 that we should pause the deal in order to ensure that the Chagossians’ voices are properly heard. She is being attacked from all quarters, and the unifying message from all those quarters is, “For goodness sake, let’s pause this—just think again.”

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that this could well be a case of, “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it is possible that you have failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation”?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters, makes an extremely good point. We need to keep our heads in all this. The Conservative party has been consistent in its opposition to this terrible, terrible surrender deal. The people out there honestly cannot understand why the Government persist with it. It is plainly not a matter of national security. I fear that all this is underpinned by the Government’s insistence on satisfying their post-colonial guilt. The Government need to get over that and understand that national security has primacy in this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Before I turn to the subject of the Opposition day debate, I must comment on the answer that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), gave to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—a Member I respect hugely. She mentioned climbing the greasy pole, possibly even in relation to me. It is always amusing when people who have served in the Cabinets of multiple Conservative Prime Ministers accuse Back-Bench Members of somehow being involved in climbing a greasy pole. It is just very, very amusing. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comment; I understand he also did pretty well in the past.

This motion is the Conservatives playing politics with national security—their friends in the other place using a wrecking amendment to block the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill being a prime example of that. Conservative Members have never been able to answer this question: if there was no problem with British sovereignty and operation of the base, why did they begin the negotiations in the first place?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the and hon. and incredibly loyal Member for giving way. Does he realise that, as the result of a UN judgment in 1965, the United Kingdom was required to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the future of the Falkland Islands? Those negotiations continued until 1982, when they were concluded in a rather different way from that envisaged by the UN.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. and even-more-loyal-than-I Member for his intervention. We spar across the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

It is indeed. I applaud the Government and their Ministers for doing that.

We hear time and again from Government Members that we have had ample time to debate these issues. I entirely agree, but that is exactly the problem. These debates have been going on for so long because we are not getting the answers that we need to do our job and scrutinise this deal. Anyone making a good argument should be able to justify their point and evidence it. I will summarise some of the key questions that I want answered, and will say why we seem stuck. I will then explain why that matters, and, finally, will give the context of this debate.

First, we ask about the legal position. The Government say that there is legal jeopardy, but the Conservatives contend that what the International Court of Justice says is non-binding, that there is no court that could pass judgment, and that there is a Commonwealth opt-out. The Government say that the cost is £3.4 billion; the Government Actuary says that the figure is £34 billion, and the Conservatives contend that the Government are using the wrong tool to make a judgment on cost, because net present value does not count. When it comes to the environment, the Government say that safeguards are in place, but the Conservatives contend that Mauritius does not have a navy that would enable it to hold up its side of the bargain and prevent damage to fishing.

Turning to the nuclear aspect, we Conservatives recognise that the Pelindaba treaty creates a conflict, and the Government have not explained why it does not. As for the US’s involvement and whether it has a veto, we believe that the 1966 agreement would need to be taken into account. Finally, although it has not been mentioned today or over the past few weeks, there is the long-term security of this base. At the end of 99 years, there is only an option for us to buy and continue, so what happens at that point? We have not secured the long-term security of the base at all.

[Lincoln Jopp]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), list the preconditions before treaty ratification can take place. I am pretty sure that I asked about America, and she said that there needed to be an exchange of letters. The position of the American Administration is that the Chagos deal as proposed by His Majesty’s Government would be

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

We seem quite a long way from getting American agreement and acquiescence. Does my hon. Friend, like me, foresee that we would need a protracted period of negotiation with the United States of America to get its acquiescence to this deal?

[Dr Evans]

Fundamentally, the US should express its concerns publicly, and it has now done so. We have asked Ministers, both in this debate and on Monday, whether the UK Government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. The Government have said that they have to amend the notes, but they have not set out what happens if the US does not agree. That is the key part of this, but the Government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday when I asked that question, the same answer that I got when I intervened on the Minister, and the same answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) got. They say that they have set out the process, which is primary legislation, secondary legislation, and then amendments to the notes. The question is: what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1966 notes? I will take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because the fundamental point about US involvement is this: if they say no, but we say yes, where do the islands go? What happens to the agreement? What happens if they say yes and we say no? Those fundamental questions are why we keep coming back to this issue. If there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, the Opposition would understand that and be able to make a balanced judgement. Instead, we have gaps in our understanding from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). With his final words on self-determination echoing in my ears, I have no doubt he will be reflecting on whether he is going to afford the people of Romford the same rights that he is demanding for the Chagossian people.

[Tom Hayes]

The Conservatives have argued against the Government’s position and have done so believing that that is what is right. They have never impugned the patriotism or the loyalty of the Labour party to this country, unlike the hon. Member for Romford. Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) agree that we should take no lessons from Reform, who take their line from either Musk or Moscow?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. If he wants to do so, I suggest that he takes it outside, as they say.

I am very time-constrained, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who have informed the debate with incredibly detailed research and knowledge. I have been delighted to see the Minister’s PPS running backwards and forwards from the officials’ Box, because I was rather hoping that the summing up would not simply be a reheating of the opening remarks made by the Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). There have been substantive points made from these Benches, which I hope will be answered in the summing up.

I am very time-constrained and a lot of points have already been covered. In search of inspiration I was wondering what I might add to the debate, so I will read out a piece of casework which, although not relevant to the Chagos islands, is an interesting comparator. It comes from a member of the public who had written to his bank manager. I suppose I owe it to him to anonymise him, so I need to come up with some sort of pseudonym. I will call him Mr Powell.

Mr Powell wrote to his bank manager: “Dear Sir, a number of years ago, I inherited a large seven-storey home in Mayfair. I am incredibly lucky and I acknowledge that fact. It is far too big for me to live in. I live solely in half of the ground floor. For as long as I can remember, I have had Americans living on the other floors. I like these Americans, so they live there rent-free. What I am proposing, sir, is that I give you, the bank, this house. I then propose to pay you, the bank, rent above the market rate not only for me, but for all the Americans who live upstairs. I would be very grateful for your advice on this issue.”

The bank manager wrote back to Mr Powell: “Dear Mr Powell, are you okay? I am concerned for your mental state, because what you are proposing would appear to be an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” [Laughter.] The bank manager went on to make the following four points: “First, you do not need to do this at all. Secondly, it will cost you a fortune. Thirdly, you do realise that at the end of all this you will have given away your house? Fourthly, on a personal note, were these arrangements ever to become public, I fear that your neighbours would laugh at you. Yours, the Bank Manager.”

I simply leave that analogue there, to let my colleagues in so that we may wrap this debate up.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Tice, thank you.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?

[Stephen Doughty]

Because they see this for what it is, which is simply party political game playing. Games are being played with our national security in the other place in a way that is deeply reckless and irresponsible.

International Day of Education

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Thank you for that welcome, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is also the chair of the APPG on global education, on securing this debate and on his long-standing interest in this matter. I also thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his gracious words of welcome, particularly because he was due to be standing at this Dispatch Box. When I saw him walk into Westminster Hall, I have to admit that my blood ran slightly cold, worrying that perhaps our shared team had prepared the same speech for us both to give—I should have known better.

We on this side of the House recognise the huge benefits that education brings to supporting aspiration and helping to fulfil potential. Whether at home or abroad, we know that education lays the foundation for young people to build better futures. Here in England, the last Conservative Government raised standards in our schools and lifted the UK’s standing in international league tables for literacy to first in the western world, and fourth in the world. We also increased the number of full-time teachers by around 27,000, which is about 2,000 a year on average—a higher annual rate of growth than the 6,500 over five years promised by the current Government.

Internationally, we played our part in supporting initiatives to lift people out of poverty. With the United Nations International Day of Education approaching on 24 January, this is an opportune moment to reflect on the links between education and economic development, and the role that the UK can play. Members will be aware of the UN’s sustainable development goal 4, which focuses on quality education to

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

The previous Government focused effort and resources on this area, including expanding and improving access to education, especially for women and girls, who face particular barriers to securing a meaningful education and childhood in parts of the world. This led to 19.8 million children, including 10 million girls, being supported with a decent education since 2015. That made a profound difference to those lives.

The international women and girls strategy launched in 2023 had a strong focus on education. It highlighted the wider societal benefits of improved education for women and girls in developing countries, including that

“A child whose mother can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five”,

is more likely to be immunised, and is about

“twice as likely to attend school.”

Girls benefiting from higher levels of education are also less likely to be affected by violence from a partner, less likely to marry as a child and more likely to find employment and start businesses. One of the great untapped potentials in developing countries is the enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit of women. Better education can help to unleash that potential. That is something that Members in all parts of the House can agree on.

That strategy also focused on the three Es of educating girls, empowering women and girls and championing their health and rights, and ending gender based violence. But education is the essential first step. I ask the Minister, are the Government committed to implementing that strategy? With international development budgets understandably being reduced to support efforts to bolster our defences and national security, can the Minister update the House on the areas where the Government intend to focus resources for the rest of the decade?

My team and I had prepared a rather different speech, but I have been very struck by the fact that four Members have mentioned Afghanistan. If the Chamber will indulge me, I, like the sponsor of this debate, would like to understand from the Minister what the Government are doing in terms of education in Syria, Iran, Gaza and the west bank and Sudan, but I want to tell a rather different story about international education.

It is 2009 and we are in Basharan in the Helmand river valley of Afghanistan. There is a small village in Basharan with a defunct school. A young company commander by the name of Sean Birchall takes over that area and is determined that the school should open for boys and girls. He spends vast amounts of time going backwards and forwards, at great risk, to Lashkar Gah to try to get the education department there to provide teachers and school equipment, such as books and chairs. Sean was killed by a bomb, leaving a widow and an 18-month-old son, Charlie. Nevertheless, the men and women in his company of Welsh Guards continued his extraordinary work and the school got up and running.

Fast forward to April the next year and I am the commanding officer of the Lashkar Gah battlegroup. We have Basharan in our patch, and very near one of the routes into Basharan was an impassable road—the Taliban had put a tax office on it and seeded it with a number of improvised explosive devices. I was given the mission to clear the road. I discussed it with the company commander and said, “It looks to me like we now need to start at one end and go to the other, or start at the other end and go to the other.” He said, “Let me have a think.” Then he said, “Right. I want to start in the middle and clear out in two directions.” I said, “Right, okay.” Taking the Taliban tax office would send a signal to the area that there was greater control.

This involved a lot of moving people and equipment around, which alerted the locals that it was happening. I was at the checkpoint nearest to where we were going to start the operation the next day, and a young lance corporal called Cammy sent a message saying, “Commanding officer to the front gate,” so I went there. My approach to counter-insurgency, which I told the battalion, was: “We need to take risks to be safer.” It is one of the paradoxes of counter-insurgency; it is incredibly dangerous but, nevertheless, it can bear results.

Cammy introduced me to a fellow with a wooden leg—a local—who had come to the gate and asked what was going on. Cammy said—he did not ask me—“I’m going to tell him the plan for tomorrow,” and I said, “Crack on.” So he told him the plan: that we were going to go in the next day and take down the tax office, and that we were going to clear the bombs but knew it was very dangerous indeed.

The man, who was known as the Muj—mujaheddin—said, “Well, I’m going to come with you tomorrow at dawn and I’m going to show you where the bombs are.” I asked him, “Why are you going to do that? It’s incredibly risky.” And he said, “I will show you where the bombs are so that you can clear them, so that you can open the road and my daughter can go to Basharan school.”

We all had a fitful night’s sleep, and, good as gold, the next day, at dawn, he turned up and we gave him a can of yellow spray-paint, and he hopscotched his way around a high-density minefield and sprayed paint on where the bombs were. It is so rare for the good that we enable off the security line of operations—namely education—to play so directly into local consent, in order to advance the cause and British interests.

Under the UK aid flag, our support for education should be a sign of hope and freedom for those who receive it. We have had strong successes in recent years in delivering quality education for those who need it across the world, providing new opportunities for millions. Along with our key partners, the UK should continue to play a leading role, exercising our resources, leverage and expertise to improve educational outcomes and lift millions, globally, out of poverty and into a better future.