British Indian Ocean Territory

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member could not have known it, but I was on the first line of a page of comments on that exact issue. I am sorry that he chose that moment to interrupt proceedings.

As I was saying, it is a matter of long-standing policy that we do not comment on operational procedures. The Conservatives know that and, of course, took the same approach in government. As the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“We are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our abilities to uphold international law, and to continue to operate the base as we do today.”

As Lord Coaker has—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue my remarks. It is as if the Conservatives cannot decide who is speaking from the Front Bench today.

As Lord Coaker told the other place in November, the UK-Mauritius agreement

“enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability.”

He said that we will continue to be able to

“deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1313.]

It is not just us; the agreement has been tested at the highest levels of the US security establishment under not one but two Administrations. They too were satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. We have agreed with the Mauritian Government that nothing in the treaty conflicts with our respective commitments, and we are absolutely clear that we can continue to operate the base as we have done and as we do now.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Seema Malhotra]

No, I have been very generous in giving way. I will continue with my remarks. [Interruption.] Sorry, what was that comment?

[Mr Francois]

Frit.

[Seema Malhotra]

Is that in order, Mr Speaker?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

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

[Mr Francois]

He is an hon. and gallant Member.

[John Slinger]

I thank the even more loyal hon. and gallant Member for his history lesson, but it does not change the fundamentals: 85% of the negotiations took place under the Conservatives.

In November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was then Foreign Secretary, said:

“Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”. —[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 354WS.]

In February 2025, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that she understood that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. This motion is obvious political opportunism. These are hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons who raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. Only after leaving government did they do so, but with no plan of their own.

On the matter of the sovereignty of the Chagossians, the Conservatives’ view is logically inconsistent. They want the UK to retain sovereignty, but they attack the Government for not giving the Chagossians the right to self-determination. They ruled out resettlement. Some Chagossians want to return to Diego Garcia, so are Conservative Members calling for them to be returned to that island, with the inevitable issues that that would cause for the operation of the vital base? Opposition Members have gone rather silent on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

The people who we should be worried about are not the people in charge of the British overseas territories—we should be worried about the people who are watching what we do and making decisions about how they will act, as we saw with previous attempts to take control of those territories. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Argentina will observe this situation and not draw a lesson from it? Of course it will.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he confirm to the House that very shortly after the deal was announced, the Argentine Government announced that they wished to renew their claim to the Falkland Islands? That is a fact, is it not?

[Dr Mullan]

That is a fact. My right hon. Friend will know that other UN bodies have supported Argentina for decades, and are pressuring us to continue negotiations around that issue. The Government rely on what the UN says, but the UN’s position on the Falklands is completely contrary to the interests of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I have actually enjoyed seeing what the Foreign Office has been doing over the past few weeks. I was trying to determine why I have been getting so much more enjoyment out of it, and I think it is because it has been taking advice from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Every time we have a Foreign Office question, the Black Knight comes in front of us. They are honourable, brave and doughty; they will not answer a question; they are torn limb from limb, and their arguments are struck down one by one; but they still want to have the fight.

[Mr Francois]

It’s a flesh wound!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he normally is. The reality is that the treaty to which he refers is very clear that its signatories cannot modify it; they must categorically agree not to have nuclear weapons on their territory. We are in the business of giving that territorial right to Mauritius, so there is no question but that the treaty will apply to Chagos.

That brings me to the other thing that the Government simply do not want to face up to: the 1966 treaty between the USA and the UK is absolutely clear. The Government obfuscate by calling it an “exchange of letters”, but it is actually a treaty. When we talk about an exchange of letters, it sounds like a “get well” card or something that one puts in the post. The Government say that this is not a big problem and that we can just exchange a few letters to each other:

“How are you getting on?”

“Fine. What about you?”

“We’re just going to give the islands away. Are you okay with that?”

“We’re okay with that—no problems. Can you give us a bit more detail?”

“We will when it is all passed. Don’t worry about it. We’ll be with you on this.”

No, it is a treaty. It has the substance of being a treaty, and that substance states categorically:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

We cannot arbitrarily change that; we have to have full agreement from the USA. I do not believe that the United States really understood that it would not have sovereign rights over the base. I do not think the Government ever bothered to explain that, because I seem to recall that when this whole debate began, it was never mentioned. The Government did not come forward and say, “Yes, we’re going to get this Bill through. It’s not in the Bill, but we’ll exchange letters with you afterwards, because although it’s relevant and it’s completely sovereign, we don’t want to talk about it.”

The Government have to explain why they have never made any significant mention of that at all, because it now has a massive bearing on what happens to this really poor treaty, which is badly drafted, hurriedly written and only a few pages long. I sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty—rebelling, of course—and the reality was that it was huge. Every aspect of our arrangements was in there and was debatable and amendable. It has been horrific to see how quickly the Government want to get the Bill through. I honestly think that it is madness.

I come to the cost. The other bit that is completely wrong is the Government’s desire to show how little they have had to pay under the treaty to get what they consider to be a reasonable lease. Is it not ironic that the Government are now moving against leaseholders here in the UK? They do not like leases. Apparently, people do have enough power over their leases. I simply say that the Government should learn from their own views about what is happening domestically. The lease is a terrible thing at times, because it gives people so little control. This is going to be a lease.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and if he was not already sanctioned by the Chinese, he would be by the end of it. Does he recall that Disraeli said in opposition, “We may not win the vote tonight, but we can win the argument?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are we winning the argument, but the Government are failing by not answering any questions or making any argument at all?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Indeed. In fact, rather than us winning the argument, the Government have simply lost the argument. That is even more powerful, because they are making no effort to explain it. I honestly feel sorry for Ministers. I have sat in government, and I know that Ministers are sent out to bat and to defend the indefensible, which they have to do well. I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, as he knows, but good luck to him on this one—he will need to make his speech brief, because we will intervene.

I simply say that the cost is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) brilliantly laid it out, so I will not repeat the specifics. As I said to him, having sat in government, I know how these figures are put together. There is no way on earth that a Government should use net present value for a foreign treaty that covers a period of over 90 years—it is an absurdity. We have no control over the social obligations in Mauritius, which may shift and change. We have no control over what the Mauritians’ economic policy will be and the impact of inflation. The treaty can only really be used for domestic issues, and I think this is a shimmy by the Government to try to get the cost down, absurdly, to £3.4 billion, when in fact it is £34.7 billion. That figure is probably wrong, because I think it will be more than that over the long term. This is another absurdity and an excuse to be got rid of.

All the other points have been made, so I will not dwell on them, but I do want to dwell on this point. It was wrong to have chucked the Chagossians off their islands in 1966—it was a bad decision and an immoral one, and we need to own up to that fact. My Government should have done so, and we should own up to the fact that we owe the Chagossians something better. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, has talked about a referendum, and that is one of the possibilities, but I will tell the House what I would do if I was in government. I would say to the Chagossians, “Listen, we’re not going to do the deal with Mauritius; we’ll do the deal with you. You’ll be allowed back to the islands, with full rights, and we’ll negotiate with you on how we will work together, with British control overall but with you being paid.” I would rather pay the money to them, so that they can live their lives better, than to Mauritius. We know that many of the Chagossians have had terrible problems in Mauritius and have been treated like second-class citizens. For that reason, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has come out and said that the treaty should not go ahead, and I agree with that.

There is both a factual problem and a human rights problem with the treaty, and there is an overarching threat to our freedom and to the freedom of those elsewhere in the free world. If we give way, let the treaty go through and do not end this nonsense, we will forever have it over our heads that we lost control of the most critical area in the world.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I am very pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I only wish that, when he was the leader of the Conservative party, he had gone on to become Prime Minister, because then we would not be sitting here debating this issue today. The last words of his speech said everything that needed to be said.

All Governments of all political parties have failed to do the right and moral thing over many decades. The Chagos islands were depopulated—cruelly depopulated—and the people of the Chagos islands were never given any say or any right of self-determination. Had that happened, decolonisation would have taken place, and there would never have been an International Court ruling. The Chagos islands would have stayed British and, as the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians have done, they would have proudly voted in any referendum to exercise their right of self-determination and stayed British. However, all Governments of all parties ignored the whole issue for decades, despite all the appeals of a small number of us who tried again and again and again, but were ignored. That is why we are in the position we are in today.

I cannot disagree with almost anything my former colleagues have been saying about this issue. They have analysed it correctly, and I only wish that we had done something about it during our 14 years in government.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not give way at this stage.

As I think all Members on both sides of the House will know, few issues have consumed so much of the 25 years of my parliamentary life as the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos islands and, more importantly, the Chagossian people. For more than two decades, I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination, as with all overseas territories and former colonies. I chaired the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. In fact, I was previously the deputy chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so trying to get cross-party consensus on where we were heading was a bit of a juggling act.

The one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement. I argued strongly for self-determination and that ultimately, whatever the options are and whatever happens, the Chagossians should have the final say. The right hon. Member had a different view, but members of that group—representing seven political parties—came to the view that the first thing needed was resettlement. However, the Conservative Government, over 14 years, absolutely refused even to consider any option for the resettlement of those islands.

I also dealt with this issue as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee over 15 years. Unlike the many who now speak with great certainty but remained silent during that period, I did not remain silent. I have also been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I have walked around those islands, and seen the abandoned churches and schools. I have walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people and the derelict homes. I have seen the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. I have raised this with every Foreign Office Minister in every Government over and over again, and I have been ignored. A small number of us were ignored; I pay tribute to Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, and Henry Smith, the former Member for Crawley, for raising this matter. We all raised it, but, sadly, over 14 years the last Government just dismissed it and refused even to consider it.

I went to Peros Banhos, the outer islands, which are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There is no security threat there. It took me four different boats to get to the outer islands. People could live there with no issues whatsoever, because they would be a long way from Diego Garcia. Despite the line from the Foreign Office, when I went to the State Department and raised this matter directly with the Americans, they said, “We have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands.” Our Foreign Office has been puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it. They did nothing and they ignored the facts.

I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend Michael Howard—Lord Howard of Lympne. It was not part of the official programme, but I asked, “Please can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis?” After a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted, and we went to meet the leaders of the Chagossian community. That was in 2002, which was pretty much my first year as a Member of Parliament.

So when I speak about the Chagos islands, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia and the outer islands, and I conclude that the current position represents—sadly, by all parties—a shameful betrayal of the loyal British Chagossian people. The Government’s Bill is nothing short of a surrender. It hands away British sovereignty over a territory that we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement, with tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign Government simply so we may lease back the military base that we already own. It is vital to our security and that of one of our closest allies, yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next century because of this shabby deal.

Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a Court, whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra-Commonwealth disputes, is somehow beyond negotiation, yet at the same time they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—an actual binding international treaty—which states plainly in its very first clause:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

That consideration tells us everything we need to know: this was never really about international law. An act of “total weakness” is how this has been described by the President of the United States of America, and does that not just say everything about this Government’s approach? All this is being done without the consent of or a genuine consultation with—and even without the courtesy, which every other territory has been afforded, of a democratic vote for—the Chagossian people themselves.

As disgraceful as the Bill is, it did not emerge from a vacuum. For over two decades and, as I have mentioned, for 14 years from the Government Back Benches, I urged Foreign Secretary after Foreign Secretary and Minister after Minister—speaking to them in the Lobbies, going to the Foreign Office and talking to officials; and discussing it over and over again by calling them into all-party group meetings and raising it at the Foreign Affairs Committee—to consider the Chagossians’ right of resettlement and self-determination, but I was ignored all the way through.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree with every word my very dear and long-standing friend has said. I sit on a different Bench now, but as I look around the Chamber, I see colleagues on the Conservative Benches who I still agree with on most things, but I see some people on the Labour Benches—and certainly some of those in the Government—who seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country, including when it comes to Northern Ireland veterans, and this particular issue, of the surrender of one of His Majesty’s territories against the wishes of the people, is exactly what I am talking about.

[Mr Francois]

Both the hon. Gentleman and I have visited the Falkland Islands, although on different occasions. There is a strategic runway and base there at RAF Mount Pleasant. Would he agree that what the Government are doing is analogous to paying Argentina £35 billion to rent back that base and the Falkland Islands, which also belong to us and wish to be British?

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. There is a precedent here. The Falkland Islands could have gone the same way. Gibraltar could have gone the same way—indeed, the Government tried to make that happen. In 2002, one of the biggest campaigns I have ever fought was against the joint sovereignty plan by Tony Blair, which was against the wishes of the Gibraltarian people. I commend Mr Speaker, who at the time I worked with very closely in order to keep Gibraltar British, as happened in 1982 in order to keep the Falkland Islands British—but always on the basis of self-determination.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.

I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.

There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.

[Mr Francois]

I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

I regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I have respect for him normally, but if he had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me explain this exact point. It is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. The value of money changes over time; £1 today is not worth the same as £1 tomorrow. This is very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it is even agreed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

We have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many occasions. Let me be clear: this deal secures this base for the national security of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it secures it for our allies. It is vital, and this is an important point to end on. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South asked why this matters to our constituents. It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies and our citizens in preventing terrorism and the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendments and agree with Lords amendment 4.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend so early on, but he has mentioned Russia several times. He will be aware that there has been much talk about ceasefires, but there is no sign of one yet, because Putin still thinks he is winning in Ukraine. Would he agree with me that, if we really want to compel Putin to stop killing Ukrainians, we need to increase sanctions on the Russian Government, particularly on their hydrocarbons, which means action not just by us and Europe, but further sanctions from the United States?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a tool here that can be used to drive back those who act badly—in this particular case, against a country illegally invading a neighbouring democratic state—so we should use this ability to sanction those involved and to increase such sanctions dramatically. I know Labour Members will be raising this issue, but they will have noted what he has said.

The UK and the US have imposed extensive additional sanctions on Russian individuals and entities under the Russia-specific sanctions regimes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to note, those regimes use broader designation grounds and, crucially, do not usually acknowledge an individual’s direct involvement in human rights abuses in Ukraine or elsewhere. That distinction matters, and this should be rectified by the UK Government. The symbolic and moral force of the Magnitsky sanctions is precisely to name perpetrators and link consequences directly to human rights abuses, and that is what sets them apart. In sheer volume, the contrast is stark. The US has imposed well over 5,000 such Russia-related non-Magnitsky designations, and the UK about 2,900. Yet despite this scale, the absence in most cases of any explicit human rights attribution in such regimes means an important opportunity for accountability is being missed.

As a mechanism in the Government’s foreign policy toolkit, Magnitsky sanctions have a huge potential. However, important gaps remain in their implementation, raising serious concerns about their overall effectiveness. There is no publicly available information on the number of Magnitsky sanctions evidence dossiers received by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, based on estimates since the inception of the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, the FCDO receives on average about two or three dossiers of evidence per month from civil society organisations, which often identify between three and 15 individuals or entities alleged to be implicated in human rights violations. This means that since July 2020, the FCDO has received evidence on anywhere between 360 and 3,000 alleged perpetrators of serious human rights violations. In stark contrast, only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under the global human rights regime and global anti-corruption regime, to date.

The limited number of Magnitsky sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. Designations tend to overlook broader command structures, instead focusing on isolated actors, excluding key backers or enablers and failing to adopt when sanctioned entities rebrand. For example, Chen Zhi is one of the many leaders of scam networks with bases in south-east Asia trafficking and torturing vulnerable individuals to compel them to scam citizens here in the UK and abroad. The news that the UK and the US sanctioned some of those responsible is always welcome, but those sanctions fail to target Cambodian Government figures who are themselves implicated in the practice, or who turn a blind eye to those violations.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures.

It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes.

Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea.

In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones.

What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year.

Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world.

To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea.

All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said:

“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices.

I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent, poignant speech. In 2013, as the then Veterans Minister, I had the great honour of going to South Korea with His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester to represent the Government at the 60th anniversary of the armistice. As my right hon. Friend knows, the South Koreans refer to this day to the countries, like ours, that sent them aid as the sending states. I was very struck by the tremendous lengths to which the South Koreans went to look after our veterans who attended the commemorations. They were treated with immense reverence. Will my right hon. Friend allow me to place on the record today my great thanks to the South Koreans for everything that they do to remember the sending states and those troops who came to defend democracy in their land?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes, and my right hon. Friend’s comments will be recorded and available for all to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, and on his excellent opening speech.

It is a great privilege to represent my consistency of North Cotswolds. It is an area that I have had the honour of representing, in some guise, since 1992, and it includes the largest geographical chunk of Gloucestershire, where undoubtedly members of the Gloucestershire Regiment’s families still live. As we commemorate this important anniversary, let me start as others have by paying tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Gloucestershire Regiment during the battle of the Imjin river in April 1951. Like my right hon. Friend, I acknowledge that, of course, not only the Gloucestershire Regiment but all our other airmen, naval men and soldiers were part of that operation.

In the face of a powerful force of 42,000 Chinese soldiers, the 1st battalion—the Glorious Glosters—held their position alone for three days. In the end there were 662 casualties. Fifty-six were killed, and 522 were taken prisoner—and many of them had already endured German and Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two, as has been said.

It was because of my connection with the Glosters that I chaired the APPG on North Korea for many years. I was very pleased that it was taken over from me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On behalf of all the families, and the relatives who live elsewhere, I would like to pay tribute to the Glosters.

According to General James Van Fleet, commander of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Glosters’ stand at Imjin was

“the most outstanding example of unit bravery in modern warfare.”

Their heroic defence plugged a large gap in the allied line and, ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, it prevented the North Korean forces from capturing Seoul—where I have visited on several occasions—and helped to pave the way for the establishment of a free, prosperous South Korea. The courage and sacrifice of the Glosters secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula—even as the other half continues to suffer badly today under the repressive yoke of one of the most brutal regimes with the worst human rights record in the world.

For their actions during the battle, the Glosters were awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation, a rare honour for non-American armed forces. Two of the men from the regiment were also posthumously rewarded the Victoria Cross, the British empire’s highest military decoration for valour. They included Lieutenant Philip Curtis for leading a counter-attack on the Chinese position at Castle Hill, buying time for his comrades. There were also two awards of the Distinguished Service Order, six Military Crosses, two Distinguished Conduct Medals and 10 Military Medals. The actions of the Glosters at Imjin remains one of the British Army’s finest hours.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the Glorious Glosters were awarded a US Presidential Unit Citation, which is extremely rare for a non-American unit. Another link is that the Korean war memorial in Washington has a very brief inscription that reads simply, “Freedom is not free.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence of Gloster Hill by the Glorious Glosters, and the casualties they suffered, are a living embodiment of that great motto?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right: freedom is not free, and nor is it enduring. We cannot assume that we will always be free; we have to continuously fight for and believe in it. That is why we want to support Ukraine and other countries that are being unjustly penalised in an illegal war, to make sure that they can remain free, just as we in this country have freedoms that we often take for granted. We must never take those freedoms for granted.

I come now to a slightly sad bit in my speech. The bodies of many of the Glorious Glosters who were killed in North Korea still remain there. As many of my colleagues will be aware, I have previously been involved in efforts to try to return their remains to Britain. While noting the current geopolitical climate, I would like to ask whether the Minister will work with me to ensure that the remaining Glosters are brought home, so that their families can finally give them a dignified burial. There is precedent for this: the last time there was a little bit of rapprochement, around the time of President Trump’s meetings with the President of North Korea, some of the American bodies were brought home. If there is an opportunity in the next rapprochement, and if the Minister supports me in pushing for this, I could arrange for the bodies to be categorised and returned to the families in a dignified way, so that they can lay them to rest.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, let us turn our attention to the situation in the peninsula today. Anyone who looks at a satellite photo will see that half, the south, is lit up with bright lights—the lights of a free, prosperous, democratic society. The other half, the north, remains in darkness—a darkness of cruelty, repression and poverty. As has been mentioned, those who are brave enough to try to escape from North Korea very often end up in China. China uses facial and other recognition technology to make sure those people are returned, certainly to torture and most likely to their death.

We are very honoured—I have his permission to mention this—to have Timothy Cho in the Gallery today. He is one of those who tried to escape from North Korea. He failed on the first occasion, and he has huge scars all over his body from the torture that he went through when he was recaptured. But he was even braver, and wanted to escape for a second time, when mercifully he succeeded. We are very proud to have him here in Britain.

In 2013, the United Nations established a commission of inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. A distinguished Australian judge, Justice Michael Kirby, was appointed to chair it. Together with the experienced Serbian human rights campaigner Sonja Biserko and the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea at the time, the former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, he conducted a comprehensive set of hearings, gathering witness testimony and first-hand evidence. As has been quoted today, their conclusion was:

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations”

—this is the important bit—

“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

Having been chairman of the North Korea group, I can tell the House that some of the stories that I have heard are just unbelievable. It is a harrowing catalogue of crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and forced abortions, among the other atrocities that people there have to endure, as well as severe religious persecution, enforced disappearance and starvation. The inquiry recommended that this should lead to a referral to the International Criminal Court. More than a decade later, I ask the Minister: what is the status of the UN commission of inquiry? What plans do the Government have to revisit the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Korea at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council?

Seventy-five years on from the war on the Korean peninsula, North Korea, together with China, is a major facilitator of President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, providing Russia with weapons, munitions and men. While we remember that 75 years ago our brave soldiers were on the Korean peninsula defending freedom, North Korean troops today are on the continent of Europe, on our doorstep, reminding us that independence and liberty cannot be taken for granted. What steps are the Government taking to hold North Korea to account for this act of aggression?

We live in an increasingly turbulent and uncertain world. That should remind us how imperative it is for democracies to stand together to defend freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism. Nowhere is there a clearer example that shows why that is needed than on the Korean peninsula. Imagine what Korea would be like today if the Glosters had not taken such a heroic stance. All of us in this House should pay tribute to their courage and selfless actions.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Pinkerton]

As I was saying, one of the greatest challenges that Cathy and campaign groups face in their advocacy for carbon monoxide awareness is the lack of accurate data on carbon monoxide-related deaths overseas. We know that fatalities have occurred over the past 25 years in the likes of Spain, Egypt, France and Ecuador, with many more cases of travellers being hospitalised worldwide. The data remains fragmented, however, and it drastically under-records and under-represents the true scale of carbon monoxide deaths.

In many countries, post-mortem toxicology reports are not required, meaning that carbon monoxide often goes undetected and unrecorded. Ultimately, deaths caused by carbon monoxide may be attributed to generic pulmonary conditions, as happened with Hudson. The silent killer remains silent. The UK charity CO-Gas Safety has recorded 34 deaths of British citizens overseas by carbon monoxide poisoning since 1999, but it stresses that that is a vast under-recording. How many more have gone undocumented?

Many families lack the resources or ability to do what Cathy did, leaving them without the truth that they deserve. It is crucial to understand that the dangers of carbon monoxide extend far beyond sudden fatal poisoning. Since taking up this cause, I have met survivors who suffer from the long-term health implications, including severe cognitive impairments that affect memory, language, mood and behaviour, all of which are caused by prolonged CO exposure.

The risk is not limited to home stays such as the one Hudson was in when he died, nor is it confined to low-budget backpacker accommodation, as some might assume. In May 2022, three American tourists were found dead in their villas at the Sandals resort in the Bahamas, having all perished from the effects of carbon monoxide. Let me be clear: this can happen to anyone anywhere, at any age, in a luxury hotel or a backpacker hostel. Faults can develop even in well-maintained appliances, meaning that all travellers, regardless of where they stay, would be well advised to take precautions. The most heart-wrenching reality of this particular tragedy is that it was entirely preventable. If only Hudson had been aware of the high levels of carbon monoxide in his home stay—if only he had carried a £20 portable carbon monoxide alarm.

Since Hudson’s death, Cathy and her family, who are here today, have dedicated themselves to raising awareness of the risks of CO poisoning through Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal—a campaign that encourages travellers, particularly young backpackers, to carry and use a carbon monoxide alarm. Working in collaboration with the Safer Tourism Foundation, Cathy’s campaign pushes for greater responsibility across the travel industry to ensure that all accommodation providers, from chain hotels to Airbnb hosts, pay attention to carbon monoxide safety. Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal has already made significant progress in educating about these potential dangers.

Through the sheer force of her character—I can attest to that force—Cathy has taken Hudson’s message on to radio and television, and even into the match day programme at Chelsea football club, the team Hudson had supported all his life. It is fair to say that this debate would not be happening today had it not been for the constituency surgery I had with Cathy last November. That conversation opened my eyes to the devastating effect that carbon monoxide poisoning can have. Although I had heard of the odourless, colourless gas before and was aware of the “silent killer” label, I had no understanding of CO’s deadly consequences, not just for travellers such as Hudson but for people in homes here in the UK.

That brings me to what I ask the Government to do on behalf of Hudson’s family and all the campaign groups I have been working with, many of whom are in the Gallery. The root cause of these preventable deaths is the fact that travellers are simply unaware that the accommodation they are staying in could pose a potential carbon monoxide risk. They do not even realise that the danger exists. Although the risk of carbon monoxide is undoubtedly everywhere, even here in the UK, education about its risk is not at the same level as, say, education about the risk of fire. Unlike fire, people cannot see it, smell it or sense it. They would not even know if they were suffering from its effects. That is the fundamental issue.

Shockingly, many major travel companies, such as the one that Hudson used to organise his kit list for his trip to South America, are completely unaware of those risks. But there is a devastatingly simple way to put the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning on to the radar of the UK travel industry, and into the minds and plans of British people travelling overseas. The UK travel sector closely monitors and indexes itself against the travel advice provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. From school trips abroad to travel companies, the travel industry uses information from the gov.uk website and feeds it into corporate and institutional risk assessments and travel guides. I know, because I have done it myself when organising field trips and coursework overseas in the university sector.

The FCDO has a huge amount of influence in the UK travel sector, even if it does not always realise it, and the risks faced by travellers are clearly reflected in the travel advice and kit lists that the FCDO provides. In correspondence with me on 22 January, the Minister of State for Development stated that the British embassy in Quito had recently reviewed carbon monoxide poisoning incidents in Ecuador, and as a result had determined not to update travel advice to add the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. Given Cathy’s experience in securing an accurate post-mortem assessment in Hudson’s case, the reliability of the data on which that assessment was made is certainly open to question.

Some may ask: why focus this debate on risk to travellers overseas? The answer is simple. Because carbon monoxide has no smell or taste, it is not an obvious danger, so it can happen anywhere in the world. Someone such as Hudson, who only felt faint in the days leading up to his death, would not necessarily have realised that he was in any imminent danger. People instinctively flee when they see fire, but the same instinctive response does not apply to carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, which, as he said, is very important to Cathy and her family, some of whom have graced us with their presence this afternoon. Although this was a tragic loss of a young man in his prime, does the hon. Member agree that if other lives are saved because better precautions are taken, some good might yet come for others from the family’s tragic bereavement?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I completely agree. Even though I do not speak for Cathy, I know that she would agree with that. The change that is required is devastatingly simple. It is a minor change that we are looking for. Just a few lines added to the Government travel advice could have a lifesaving impact of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The FCDO has a real opportunity to influence the entire travel sector by identifying the risk of carbon monoxide on its travel advisory pages, from where it can cascade through the wider UK travel industry. I must confess I am not convinced that the FCDO fully appreciates or grasps the power and influence it has over that sector, or the close attention that individuals and institutions pay to its travel advisory pages.

Of course, advice can go only so far. If travellers are warned of the risks of carbon monoxide, it becomes their individual responsibility to pack a portable carbon monoxide alarm and use it while travelling. That link is often broken. We hope that today the FCDO can see a way to use its power to reduce risk and possibly prevent further tragic losses of British lives overseas. Hudson Foley’s death was not an isolated incident, but Cathy’s extraordinary determination has ensured that his story has been heard today. I urge the Government to move beyond the mindset that more numerical evidence is needed before action is taken. I contend that we cannot afford to wait for more deaths before reacting; we must act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. I send my condolences to Cathy and to the whole family for the tragic loss of Hudson in Ecuador. I know how difficult it must be, and my thoughts are with them. I am grateful, too, for the contributions of other hon. Members, and I shall try to respond to the points that have been made. I know that some of those contributions are informed by personal and painful experience.

I am the Minister with consular responsibilities for British nationals overseas, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if my speech focuses on the overseas elements of the debate. We have taken careful note of the points made for other Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. My officials will seek answers for hon. Members on the more detailed questions that I am unable to answer today.

Supporting British nationals abroad is clearly a key priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Most British people live or travel abroad without incident or needing to seek consular assistance. When an incident does occur, they naturally and understandably ask whether it was preventable. If it was not, what might have made it more bearable?

Let me say a few words on how the Government are acting to help British nationals in need abroad. I will begin by setting out our approach to travel advice, the goal of which is to help British nationals to make better informed decisions about international travel. Their safety is always our top priority, and our advice is based on objective assessments of the risks, based on inputs from multiple sources. That includes our own embassies, foreign Governments, and, where relevant, intelligence services.

On carbon monoxide poisoning specifically, as the House will be aware, building, fire and gas safety standards abroad do not always match those in the UK, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) identified. Since the Foreign Office lacks in-house expertise on building safety, we share information from expert organisations, such as Energy UK, in some of our travel advice. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, for some countries, such as China and Nepal, where carbon monoxide poisoning is a higher risk, we include specific information on that in our travel advice, based on local reports and consular case trends.

I recognise the questions asked by the hon. Member for Romford about trends; it is difficult to determine those on the basis of the information available to the Foreign Office. Last year, sadly, 4,000 British nationals lost their lives overseas, and we believe that at least two of those were as a consequence of carbon monoxide poisoning. However, as many hon. Members have identified, we cannot be sure of what we do not know. Wherever cases are raised, as with the tragic case raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, my officials and I are available. If there is uncertainty about the cause of death and further support is required from the Foreign Office, we stand available to provide that. But as I think the hon. Member identified, ultimately, our advice is there to guide people, not to set rules that people must abide by. It is intended as just one source of information to help British people to make informed decisions about where and how they travel.

I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said about the impact of our advice. I assure the House that we always consider the arguments for changes to travel advice on their merits. We must make judgments, try to consider all risks proportionately, and consider the best way to ensure that advice is presented to travellers.

[Mr Francois]

On the point about the extent of guidance, with my recent gas bill, I got a leaflet from British Gas—which I take to be authoritative—warning about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. It estimated that about 50 people had died from it in the UK in the previous year. That is slightly higher than but similar to the APPG’s estimate. British Gas is warning people here in the UK. Given what has happened, it would not be a great deal of skin off the Minister’s nose if we were able to say that the Government will make including that a standard part of travel advice for Brits going abroad. Can I invite him, with the family here, to do the right thing?

[Mr Falconer]

I think the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that we include the risks from carbon monoxide everywhere in the world. I am happy to take away that proposal and to come back with a more detailed answer, particularly in relation to the letter from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, in which he set out some further requests of the Foreign Office, as he did in his speech. With travel advice, we always balance the desire not to have too much standard text across all countries with the wish to keep it as focused as possible, but I am happy to take away that question and return to it.

Alongside travel advice, of course, the Government aim to reduce incidents through our long-standing Travel Aware campaign, which includes key messages such as encouraging British nationals to have appropriate travel insurance, to read our travel advice and to sign up for our alerts. We partner with more than 100 organisations from across the travel industry, including airlines, tour operators and insurance providers, and we ask them to help to amplify our key messages and drive customers to our travel advice pages.

We try to regularly review our work with partners to ensure that they highlight appropriate issues to British travellers. That has included work with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Safer Tourism Foundation, which I think the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has mentioned already, to raise awareness specifically on the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning around the world. I commit that my officials will hold another meeting with the Safer Tourism Foundation later this month to explore opportunities for greater collaboration.

Turning now to our work on prevention, we use a range of sources—customer feedback, casework data and in-house research—to determine when to take preventive action. We also work closely with host authorities, partners in the travel industry and others to improve local support for British people abroad. Through our student brand ambassador programme, we aim to raise awareness among young people of preventable incidents.

Let me assure the House that the Government are committed to continual improvement. We are looking for ways to improve our consular services, including our prevention activity, messaging and travel advice. Priority themes are constantly under review, with decisions being made according to what poses the greatest risk to British travellers abroad. We will also explore options for linking to other expert sources through our travel advice pages for solo and independent travellers. That includes advice such as that shared by the Safer Tourism Foundation on carbon monoxide safety.

I admire the efforts of the Foley family to urge travellers to take safety equipment such as carbon monoxide detectors on their travels. We will consider including that in our advice, and it is of course important that travellers use them in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and that they should be maintained and tested regularly.

I emphasise that we welcome all feedback and use it to improve our services. I recognise the strength of feeling from the House and from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. We will consider his proposals carefully, and I am happy to meet with colleagues again to follow up on these important issues. In the spirit of the speech from the hon. Member for Romford, we intend to work on this on a cross-party basis. I reiterate the Foreign Office’s commitment to providing clear, accessible and up-to-date travel advice. We will keep it under constant review and ensure it reflects the latest assessments. We will continue to collaborate with the travel industry to amplify personal safety messages, and we will work with host Governments to reduce the risks for British people abroad.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is completely right, but she knows that the Conservatives have got a leadership contest on, and this is a bit of a beauty parade. That is why they are stepping away from a negotiation that they began, had 11 rounds on and failed to deliver on.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Having heard the Foreign Secretary’s performance this afternoon, we now know why the Government did not dare announce this in the House of Commons. This abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing—that is what it is—risks a Chinese veto over a vital military facility. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how much in rent this country will now pay Mauritius for the right to lease back what is already ours? Which Government Department—the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will pay the landlord?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a Chinese veto. The Chinese do not have a veto in this House. The treaty will be scrutinised by this House. All Members will be able to look at it, debate it and reflect on it. Of course, at the time of publishing the treaty, there will be a discussion of the costs, but no basing agreements ever discuss costs, because that would damage our national security, and the Government are not prepared to do that.

International Immunities and Privileges

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

It is my pleasure as the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to speak on behalf of the Government. In December 2022, the UK, Japan and Italy launched the global combat air programme, known as GCAP, to deliver a next-generation aircraft by 2035. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to promoting co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Italy on 5 July with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and between the UK and Japan on 6 July with the Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida. In the call to Japan, our Prime Minister concurred that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are indivisible.

His Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific, working closely with our allies. For the UK, the aircraft will sit at the heart of a wider system; it will be networked and will collaborate with a range of wider air capabilities, including the F-35, and broader military capabilities. It will use information systems, weapons and uncrewed collaborative combat air platforms to complete the capability. Replacing the capability provided by Typhoon, this system will sustain the UK’s operational advantage.

In addition, GCAP will attract investment in research and development on digital design and advanced manufacture processes, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine West]

I will continue, if the right hon. Gentleman allows.

The signing of the convention on the establishment of the GCAP international government organisation, commonly known as the GIGO, by the parties of the UK, Japan and Italy took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the Defence Secretaries of those three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in GCAP. Through the GIGO, the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, and will facilitate collaboration with key international partners that raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.

The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, employing personnel from the UK, Italy and Japan. The chief executive and director posts shall be filled by nationals of different parties according to a mechanism that shall preserve a balance between the parties. Given the nature of the GIGO as an international defence organisation, the Ministry of Defence, with support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has been leading on trilateral engagement and negotiations on its establishment. The convention, once in effect, will enable closer collaboration between the parties—the Governments of Japan, Italy and the UK—and support the development of His Majesty’s Government’s defence capabilities, stimulated by development of the UK-based headquarters. That will enable further collaboration with key industry partners, with the headquarters supporting hundreds of jobs, and working in close partnership with Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK, and hundreds of other companies across the UK in the supply chain, to deliver GCAP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

To be clear to Members new and old, this instrument is the legal framework within which the programme will sit. It does not have specific funding recommendations attached to it because it is the scaffolding, or the nest, within which all the work will happen.

This order was laid before Parliament in draft on 23 May 2024. It is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to approval and ratification, the treaty will enter into force on the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance of the parties. That is anticipated to be in autumn 2024 to meet the 2035 in-service date.

This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities to enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government consider those privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the UK has towards the organisation.

[Mr Francois]

I am not a Minister, but I was for three years. Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine West]

As the right hon. Gentleman has so much experience on the Defence Committee, I am happy to take his point.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She is a Foreign Office Minister heading this up, I believe, not a Defence Minister, which is interesting, but it is an international agreement. Can she tell the House whether, because of the threat to the programme from the defence review, she has had any representations from the Japanese Government or the Italian Government, our two other major programme partners, to express their concern about any threat to GCAP?

[Catherine West]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I can confirm that this is the legal framework around which the programme will sit. I can also confirm that the Defence Secretary yesterday met with his Japanese counterparts at the show and they were able to have further interesting discussions. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his questioning when he is surely once again a member of the Defence Committee in the autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all three countries, and working so closely together—there is already so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he has opened up the debate about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it means to be sixth-generation.

[Mr Francois]

Before my hon. Friend does so, would he give way very briefly?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course—it is a pleasure.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend was a very good Defence Procurement Minister, and we on the Committee liked him because, crikey, he actually answered the questions. He will know from that experience that even the Americans, who have a new thing called the next generation air dominance fighter, are struggling to afford it; there have been media reports in the US that they may even cancel that programme, because even the Americans cannot afford to do everything unilaterally anymore. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend believe that a three-way programme represents good value for money?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that 2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford GCAP and stabilise that programme.

I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force, those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to develop those drones, and we are doing that.

I have always said—I said it during my statement on the integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for the Army and of course for the Air Force.

I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of points have been floating around in the press. The first is that the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed, it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single service competition. There has also been the point that we should choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes, the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous economic benefit they bring.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP. There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular, investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge economic gains for every part of the country.

In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country—including many in Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.

An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point. I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any other platforms or capability manufactured by the United Kingdom.

To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future war-fighting capability and relations with our closest international partners. The Government should instead embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battlespace data.

To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our largest conventional military programme? We support this statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful gains it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your election and welcoming you to the Chair? I am sure that you will chair our proceedings excellently. We wish you all good luck.

May I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for a fine, fluent and—if I may say so—at times poignant maiden speech? He spoke well on behalf of his constituents. I have it on good authority that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was the procurement Minister, the hon. Member took him on a tour of Brize Norton and helped to brief him on the A400M. My hon. Friend has asked me to pass on his thanks. As a former Army officer, may I say to a former RAF officer what a great pleasure it is to see the RAF turn up on time? There is indeed a first time for everything. [Laughter.]

The purpose of the order is laid out clearly in paragraph 4.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that it

“gives effect to the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United Kingdom…establishing the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation signed on 14 December 2023”.

It points out that

“The Convention was negotiated by the Ministry of Defence.”

My third welcome is to the Minister; it is good to see her in her place. However, as the convention was nominated by the Ministry of Defence, could she explain for clarity why the FCDO and not the MOD is handling this statutory instrument?

The Minister kindly nominated me for a place on the House of Commons Defence Committee. As today appears to be a day for people taking up nominations, I will gladly accept that and announce that I am going to run—for that Committee.

I also point out that in the explanatory memorandum the policy context for the order—this is important—is described as follows:

“In December 2022, the Prime Ministers of UK, Japan and Italy launched GCAP to deliver a next generation aircraft by 2035. The signing of the GCAP Convention between the partners took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the respective Defence Secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in the GCAP.”

So far, so good. The debate takes on some additional resonance, however, because we now have a defence review, which some people have interpreted as a sword of Damocles hanging over this important programme. My fourth welcome is to the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who represents a military constituency; it is good to see him in his place, too.

A few minutes ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister described GCAP as a “really important programme”. It is. It is good that he was able to go to Farnborough, see the mock-up of the aircraft for himself and receive a briefing.

When I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, in March 2024 we travelled to Japan to examine the programme as best we could from the Japanese perspective. We spoke to politicians, civil servants, industrialists and the Japanese air self-defence force—its military. We were going to write what I believe would have been a very positive report, and then someone went and called a general election. We cannot blame the Minister for that, but she and some of her colleagues did somehow appear to benefit from it.

I would like to stress three themes from that trip, which came out strongly. The first was the absolute unanimity of purpose among the Japanese to deliver the programme. As one politician put it to us,

“We live in a tough neighbourhood, including three autocracies with nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen our defences, and this programme is fundamental to that.”

I think that is a very good summary of the Japanese perspective.

Secondly, we were struck by the willingness of the Japanese to consider third party exports of GCAP to make the aircraft affordable by increasing its production run. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was always hot on that when he was the procurement Minister. For various historical reasons, I do not think that the Japanese would necessarily have taken that view even a few years ago; that is important.

Thirdly, the Japanese have an absolute determination to achieve the in-service date of 2035, which is referred to directly in the memorandum. The Japanese air self-defence force uses a mixture of F-15J Eagle aircraft and the F-2, which is sort of a souped-up version of the American F-16. They are both good and capable aircraft, but they are getting rather long in the tooth. The Japanese have to plan forward against a threat from the Chinese J-20 or the Russian Su-57. The risk is that by the mid-2030s those aircraft will be outmatched by those two powerful new combat aircraft.

Reference has been made to the F-35. It is a fine aircraft, but it is expensive to buy and very expensive to run. The Americans have found that to their cost—the F-35 was nicknamed by the American media

“the plane that ate the Pentagon”.

It might not necessarily be the answer to the Treasury’s dream. Moreover, for the record, deliveries of the F-35 to the United States forces were suspended for nearly a year—they have only just been resumed—because of problems in upgrading the computers and the software. If we are to talk about the realities, the F-35 has been quite a troubled programme and, to some extent, continues to be so.

What would be the implications of cancellation of GCAP? This is an international agreement and, as it says in paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum:

“No external consultation was undertaken as the instrument implements provisions of an international agreement to which the United Kingdom will be obliged to give effect as a matter of international law once it enters into force.”

The first implication were we to cancel it is that it would put back Anglo-Japanese relations and Anglo-Italian relations, arguably for decades. I would not want to be the CEO of a British company trying to sell something to the Japanese Government in the aftermath of the cancellation of GCAP. Secondly, given the scale and the prominence of the programme, there would be a serious risk that we in the United Kingdom would achieve a reputation as an unreliable partner in major military collaborative programmes—everything from AUKUS through to collaboration in space. In an era when things such as a sixth-generation combat aircraft are so expensive that, as I intimated earlier, even the Americans are struggling to afford one on their own, the reality for us as a medium power is that we need to collaborate. We would find it very difficult to find future partners if we suddenly cancelled such an important and sizeable programme for financial reasons.

Thirdly, it would make a nonsense of the UK’s so-called tilt to the Pacific, which was inherent to the so-called integrated review and was reinforced when the review was refreshed before the general election. How can we tilt to the Pacific if we then cancel a major collaborative programme with a critical Pacific partner, which faces challenges from Russia and China even more immediately than we do? Bluntly, our name would be mud in that theatre of operations if we were to do that.

Fourthly, there is what one might call the prosperity agenda. As they said in the King’s Speech, the Government are very committed to growth—let us not debate building and the green belt now, but focus on this issue. In the last few years, about 80% of the UK’s defence exports have come from combat air—mainly sales of Typhoon or our 15% workshare on the F-35. That has averaged roughly £6 billion a year. Again, what would be the threat to our exports and our reputation as a reliable supplier if we were to cancel the programme?

What should we do? The GIGO, which this memorandum establishes, will incorporate prominent representatives from all three countries—the UK, Japan and Italy—and it will be headquartered here. If the programme is to survive, which I strongly believe it should, the GIGO has a vital role to play as the management organisation. It will have to be leaner and less bureaucratic than its predecessor organisations, which oversaw the Tornado and Typhoon programmes—two wonderful aircraft with a proud heritage in the Royal Air Force. I think everyone in the industry would admit that those organisations were a bit too bureaucratic.

The GIGO will have to be a lot leaner and meaner to get the job done. The principal industrial partners—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo, among others—will have a real challenge. Historically, the answer to such a dilemma might have been, “Look, it’s a very complicated programme. It will take years to achieve, and it all depends on how many countries join, how many aircraft they buy and what configuration they go for. Will the Saudis participate? Will they want it built in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if they do participate? There are lots of imponderables, so we will come back to you in about five years’ time with a unit price.” That will not wash. I would submit that one of the first tasks of the GIGO, working with those industrial partners and the three Governments, is to come up with at least a realistic pricing envelope for the programme, which the Treasury can look at and, hopefully, take a positive view on. If they do not do that, there can be no blank cheque, even for this.

To conclude, there is no such thing as an uncancellable defence programme—although I still hope for Ajax—but this comes close. To cancel this programme for short-term financial reasons would be a disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically and industrially. If it comes down to GCAP, AUKUS or Ajax, for me, Ajax has to go, and I say that as a former soldier. We need to understand how extremely serious the implications are of cancelling this programme.

I was a soldier, but the Royal Air Force has a proud tradition in the defence of this country and its interests, going back to the Battle of Britain and the first world war—when it grew out of the Army, I hasten to say.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

And the Navy.

[Mr Francois]

And the Navy, in which my father served, for completeness. The Royal Air Force needs this aircraft. We need it. The Japanese, the Italians and the west need it. By all means, let us control the costs, but let us keep it. We are not going to scrap the Spitfire of the future.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to you extending your authority to unruly fourth parties, even if they are new to that role.

I welcome this statutory instrument, which gives effect to the convention on the establishment of GCAP. GCAP is not important but vital to a range of different priorities, to which I urge the new Government to pay very close attention. It is vital to the United Kingdom’s ability to play its role in defending our values against peer or near-peer adversaries and the threats that they present to our way of life. We will not do that in the very near future if we cannot command a sixth-generation capability. It is vital to developing and maintaining sovereign air capability. If we had no legacy of manufacturing complex combat air systems, we could not start it. That enterprise cannot be begun from nothing.

The flipside of that inevitable truth is that if we neglect what we have developed, at great cost to the public purse over the past 100 years, we defeat the legacy of world-leading extraordinary aircraft, civil and military, that have come out of the United Kingdom over the past 100 years. We also create an extraordinary gap in our ability to defend the realm—the first duty of any Government. The programme is vital for the 600 stakeholders in the UK alone who have been engaged with GCAP to date, and it has not even got up to speed yet. Those are just a few elements of why this is vital. In a geographical sense, it is extraordinarily important to defence manufacturers in the central belt of Scotland and the north-west of England, but I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that it has positive effects for constituencies all across the United Kingdom.

I seek to impress on the Minister for the Armed Forces—who I know gets it, and I am glad that he is here today—that he should challenge any rise in Treasury dogma when it comes to GCAP. It is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to repeat the world-leading performance of Harrier and the Blackburn Buccaneer, the extraordinary capabilities of the Panavia Tornado and the exceptional abilities of the BAE Typhoon. That is what it can do. What it expressly must not do is repeat the incredibly self-defeating cost to the public purse and defence capability of the TSR-2 fiasco in the 1960s. Unfortunately, an incoming Labour Government scrapped that at huge cost to our defence capability and huge cost to the public purse. It was a demonstrable exercise in a Treasury obsessed with the price of everything and myopic about the value of everything. I repeat, in case I sound political, that I know the Minister for the Armed Forces gets it. We trust him to do the right thing.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what happened to TSR-2, which was a generation ahead of its time and a world beater. It was scrapped because the Treasury wanted to buy the F-111 instead, which was an American aircraft, and then it did not end up buying it. There is a lesson from history there too, is there not?

[Dave Doogan]

If we take, as the United Kingdom has, an extraordinarily complex programme somewhere down the road, then the opportunity cost, much less the financial and operability cost, of turning back on that must be well set out. I am afraid that those are the details the Treasury has a history of not being that interested in. It is more focused on the number at the bottom right-hand side of the balance sheet, but this is far too important to yield to that level of priority.

It is much to be regretted that the future combat air system and GCAP are proceeding in the European theatre in parallel. That is a grossly expensive duplication. I greatly fear that there is nothing we can do about it now. Nevertheless, it is much to be regretted. I am not certain that the partners in the competing French-led FCAS programme will be happy partners throughout, but that remains to be seen. The Minister for the Armed Forces must ensure that the door is left open for any latecomers or laggards who want to get on board with GCAP. I would appreciate his assurance, either today or at a later date, on that willing acceptability and acceptance.

As it is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister who is leading today, let me say that the one thing the extraordinary aircraft I listed did not enjoy was particularly healthy export success. GCAP must have exceptional export success because, quite apart from the standard avionics engines and air frames that we have to deal with in conventional traditional aircraft, this aircraft is a breed apart in terms of its electronic warfare capability. It is a combat system, which happens to be in an aircraft, that is extraordinarily expensive. If the price of that is left to the Italians, the UK and the Japanese, we will face no small measure of difficulty.

On the statutory instrument itself, article 34(2) of the convention makes provision for host countries experiencing “serious balance of payment” issues. I draw Members’ attention to the sovereign debt liabilities of both Japan and Italy—and the UK itself, although it would be the third of that list. But the convention merely seeks—to inform the Minister—to “consult” in such circumstances. It would be appreciated if we could know what type of consultation that would involve. Further, article 19(1)(c) clarifies that funding from each party will

“be set out in a further arrangement”.

However, the convention does set out that the steering committee will have equal representation from each of the parties. How will the convention decide what the funding will be based on? Will it be based on orders, or on the number of national employees employed in the steering committee? How will that work? It is unclear.

In closing, Leonardo in Edinburgh is the brain and nerve centre of GCAP; it is the central nervous system of this world-leading capability. The system is being designed and finalised in Edinburgh, and it will be built in Edinburgh at Leonardo. That brings me on to the final provision in the SI, which states that the headquarters of GIGO will be established at a later date, but that it will be in the UK. It is really important that wherever it is established, it has close connectivity with the key prime manufacturers of GCAP: Rolls-Royce, Thales, BAE and Leonardo. It must be in a part of this island where an outstanding quality of life can be enjoyed, with access to good schools, good quality of life, transport infrastructure, an international airport and good links with London. That place is Edinburgh.

Situation in the Red Sea

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

As ever, my hon. Friend raises an excellent point. That is what Operation Prosperity Guardian is all about: that taskforce enables shipping to be protected to an extent. He may be getting at the broader point of whether individual ships should be protected. The view that the world has taken is that Prosperity Guardian provides an umbrella to shipping more widely. The sheer volume of ordinary traffic through the Red sea means that we need that US-led international taskforce for the security of the Red sea and the gulf of Aden.

This is incredibly important. After all, we are part of defending the international rules-based order in the actions that we are taking. Last week, I was onboard HMS Diamond—which is right at the heart of the issue in the Red sea—talking to our brave sailors who are out there protecting our critical sea lanes. The House will know that this is the first Royal Navy ship’s company for 32 years who have fired in anger—or in self-defence, in their case. It was fascinating to talk to them about their experience and to witness their professionalism in dealing with this challenge.

It really did not have to be this way. We worked hard to warn the Houthis off. At the start of the year, the world sent a very clear message to the Houthis: “End your illegal and unjustified actions. Stop risking innocent lives. Please stop illegally detaining vessels and crews. Cease threatening the global economy.” All those warnings fell on deaf ears, and eventually enough was enough.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I completely support the Government’s action, which is totally in accordance with international law and defending freedom of navigation on the high seas, but we can only do it with people; otherwise, there will be no one to maintain the Typhoons or crew the warships. People are leaving three times as fast as we are recruiting, as the Secretary of State is aware. Will he commit to coming to the House before Easter to make a statement on what we are doing about the retention of critical armed forces personnel? He knows why it is important.

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend has been very solid on these issues, which he and I have spoken about in the Defence Committee and elsewhere. He will be pleased to know that I have recently held meetings with individuals he believes will help to resolve the issue. In common with many western militaries, I am working very hard to ensure that we have the men and women we need in our armed forces, skilled up to the right levels and capable of taking on this challenge. He will be reassured to know that I went to Akrotiri last week and met the Typhoon pilots. They are incredibly highly skilled, and backed by an enormous array of tanker pilots, ground crew, mechanics and many others. It is very important that we support them. I am working very hard on this, and will come back to my right hon. Friend, the Defence Committee and the House with future plans to back up what Haythornthwaite and others have proposed.

A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister, relevant Cabinet Ministers and I authorised the RAF precision strikes using four Typhoon FGR4s, supported by two Voyager air-refuelling tankers. They struck facilities at Bani in north-western Yemen and an airfield at Abbs. The sites had been used to launch reconnaissance and attack drones as well as cruise missiles over the Red sea, and they were destroyed. Let me reiterate what has been said before: this was limited, necessary and proportionate. It was done in self-defence in response to very specific threats and in line with international law.

Integrated Review Refresh

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Gentleman seems have embedded in his question the idea that our posture to the Indo-Pacific is a one-off event. It is not; it is a permanent recalibration of our foreign and defence policy. My first set of bilateral visits as Foreign Secretary was to Japan, South Korea and Singapore. The Defence Secretary is flying to Japan at the moment to build upon the agreement that we have made between the UK, Italian and Japanese Governments. We have made a long-term commitment that is being resourced. The carrier strike group’s main voyage to the region is building towards what is a permanent recalibration of our international focus, to recognise that the centre of gravity of world affairs is moving eastwards and southwards. We are responding to that.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s crystal-clear commitment that from 2025 we will spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence. I will be interested to know whether Labour will match that. Part of that spending, referred to in the document, is the AUKUS programme, which will be a world-class collaboration between the United States, Australia and us. Does he agree that that not only will help deter Chinese expansionism in the Pacific, but is a perfect example of global Britain?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. When I was running through the list of things that underpin our Indo-Pacific focus, I did not mention AUKUS, because I know that the Prime Minister will do so extensively later on today. My right hon. Friend asked whether I think the Labour party will match that commitment of 2.5% on defence spending. I say no, for two reasons: first, no shadow Defence Minister has made such a commitment; and secondly, the Labour party will not be office in 2025—we will.

Ukraine

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I start by echoing much of what has been said. It is very rare for us in this place to be in accord with one another—would that it was not the case that we had to talk about this at all, but it is, and on Ukraine we are in full accord.

I want to touch on some international comparisons. Estonia proposes an EU-wide ammunition purchase programme for supplying Ukraine. It would not have to be through the EU—pan-European or pan-NATO is probably a more helpful term in this legislature—but we need something to increase the co-ordination and depth of the ongoing ammunition delivery programme. I do not want in any way to undermine that which has been achieved, but it is quite clear that Russia is looking to prosecute a war of attrition for a very long time, and it would be helpful to demonstrate to the Kremlin that the west will meet that with renewed resurgence in its supplies to Ukraine.

Of course, doing so depletes the United Kingdom’s defence supplies and the supply chain has been caught short. That is not their fault, but the fault of a slightly less than strategic defence procurement plan—dating back many Defence Procurement Ministers, I hasten to add. We must ensure that we step that up at renewed pace. Interestingly, Norway has passed a five-year, £6.15 billion Ukraine support package and the terms on which it will be expended will be decided in concert with those in Ukraine. I wonder whether the UK should seek to emulate that, with ringfenced, dedicated funds over the next five years to send, again, a strong message.

I am not suggesting to the Foreign Secretary that the UK has not chipped in—of course it has, with many billions of pounds and no small measure of moral support as well—but such measures would help to show Putin that we are not going away and we are not shrinking from the challenge, however he wishes to present it. Canada, as other hon. Members have touched on, has changed its law to allow the seizure of Russian funds and started the process of seizing a first batch of frozen funds to send to Ukraine. The UK should follow suit in short order.

What progress has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office made with our friends in India, to demonstrate to them that it is not acceptable to ride two horses in this way and that Russia’s criminality cannot just be dealt with by turning a blind eye or holding their nose on the altar of cheap oil prices? It is either in the rules-based international system, or it is not; I wonder whether that information has been conveyed to India in the most robust terms by the United Kingdom.

China is a concern. We in the west need to develop a narrative that goes beyond cultural differences, that is not open to interpretation and that lays out extremely clearly to Beijing that, if it were ever to make the miscalculation to supply Russia with arms, munitions and other supplies that would help it to prolong this egregious invasion of Ukraine, that would be met with very significant consequences from the west. I would be interested to know what the United Kingdom Government are doing in that respect.

I will get on to air power in a minute, but the threat of escalation by Russia is material and we should concentrate closely on it. Over the last 12 months we have, perhaps understandably, mithered over the definition of whether something is lethal or defensive, whether it is tactical or strategic, and now, we have moved that on to air power. Ukraine has received an extraordinarily large amount of financial support and military assistance, but there is a pattern perhaps coming into view whereby Ukraine gets the weapons it was previously asking for while it is asking for the next set of weapons. We should redouble our focus on what, whether or which we can do to support Ukraine with air power.

In terms of logistics, as I have mentioned, the west, or certainly the United Kingdom, is running out of surplus or even stores in ready use and further equipment purchases will need to be made. However, I do not have confidence that the supply chain of the defence procurement apparatus as it exists currently in the United Kingdom is up to that job. I would welcome any reassurance that the Secretary of State can give me in that regard.

We should commit to a multi-year spending package of ringfenced money to support Ukraine; again, that would provide the clearest possible message. I am pleased, to a certain extent, that the United Kingdom is training combat pilots for Ukraine, but I am left wondering to what end. I also wonder what is happening to the combat pilots in training with the Royal Air Force, some of whom—I am not making this up—are having to wait eight or even nine years to become qualified. What is the knock-on effect of training Ukraine’s combat air pilots? That is not to say that it is not the right thing to do, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and we should see the whole picture before we celebrate perhaps prematurely.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The fast-jet training programme that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, which is known as the military flying training system, is broken and everyone involved in aviation knows it. But we also have some tranche 1 Typhoons that have a lot of time left in their airframes and are sitting in a warehouse having been taken out of RAF service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if given to the Ukrainians, a squadron of those could do a lot more to defend freedom, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) suggested a few moments ago, than it could sitting in a warehouse gathering dust?

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. He asks whether I agree with him, and I am afraid that I do not. My understanding is that although tranche 1 Typhoons may have hours left, by the time the penalty factor for what they did when they were flying is applied, there would not be many hours left. They may look like Typhoons, but their combat air systems are very old, and they are perhaps not exactly what Ukraine is looking for. That is nevertheless a valid point, and it leads me directly to my next point.

Not a single Typhoon in the United Kingdom is available for use by Ukraine, which makes me wonder what we are training its pilots on—unless we are training them on NATO combat air standard protocol. That is all we can do, because they will not be getting Typhoons—mark my words—and they do not actually want Typhoons. People talk about getting pilots for Ukraine, but pilots are just the tip of the arrowhead. They need maintenance crews, avionics specialists, refuellers and armourers. The logistic tail for a fourth-generation combat aircraft is enormously long, and none is quite as long as the Typhoon’s. What Ukraine actually needs is something more akin to the Gripen or the F-16, and the United Kingdom does not have any of those. That means that the United Kingdom is just part of the puzzle of working with allies in NATO and in Europe. The Gripen in particular is ideally suited to the types of facilities that Ukraine will be able to operate from.

The Secretary of State said that Ukraine must “take back more land.” I wonder how he intends for Ukraine to do that without exercising air superiority. There will be a spring offensive, as I think most Members agree. We need to make sure that that offensive belongs to Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to follow the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), as well as that of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).

I will add three points to the debate: first, on the importance of how we break the balance of force that we see arranged on the ground; secondly, on how we choke the oligarchs of war who are helping to supply Putin’s war machine; and thirdly, on how we commence the pursuit of justice. There is more to say about that, because I was unhappy to hear the Foreign Secretary, who is just leaving his place, not row in behind the Vice President of the United States and say that our Government had also arrived at the conclusion that Russia was committing crimes against humanity. One has to ask, how much more evidence do they really need?

We have heard the call loud and clear from two former Prime Ministers about the need to supply what Ukraine needs now. The truth is that both sides of the conflict will find it difficult to summon the 400,000 to 500,000 troops necessary to make a breakthrough one way or the other, so the challenge that may lie ahead is that Ukraine continues to suffer the pattern of more and more troops being thrown into infantry attacks under artillery fire in the east of the country and endless missile strikes on population centres. That is a grinding, terrible waste of life.

We have to leapfrog out of this bad habit that we have gotten into where first we say no, then we say yes, with an extended time period in between. On air defence, we said no to Patriot missiles until we said yes. On tanks, we said no until, months and months later, we said yes. Now, can we please just short-circuit the process and send the F-16s as fast as possible, with trained pilots? It is great to hear that we are training pilots, but at last week’s Munich security conference there was a clear consensus among Democrats and Republicans to send a very clear message to the President of the United States that it was time that fast jets were sent to support our allies in Ukraine. We heard directly from President Zelensky, just a few yards from this Chamber, that the wings of freedom are needed today, so let us jump out of the no and get to yes as fast as possible.

[Mr Francois]

We gave 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. Those are very capable tanks, but in and of themselves they will not change the whole course of the war. What they did do, however, was help unlock the delivery of hundreds of Leopards. What the Ukrainians really want are MiGs, which they are familiar with using, and F-16s. By the same argument, if we gave one squadron of older Typhoons that then unlocked hundreds of MiGs and F-16s, that would be worth doing, would it not?