Black History Month

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paulette Hamilton]

Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to ensure that equality and opportunity are at the heart of this Government’s five missions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just to help Back Benchers, when you intervene on a Member, it is up to them whether they want to take the intervention; you do not need my authority.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the work she does. She will be aware of the importance of tackling barriers to opportunity, and that everyone, regardless of their race, background, religion or colour, should be able to get on in life. That mission of tackling barriers to opportunity is one of the key priorities of this Government, and I will certainly be talking further about the work we have done in the last year, and will continue to do in this Parliament, to ensure that Britain is a place where anyone and everyone can achieve their ambitions.

I was speaking about the important date of 28 August 1963. Three weeks later, on 17 September, Raghbir Singh, a Sikh, became Bristol’s first bus driver of colour. On a personal note, it was also in 1963 that a young Sushil Kumar Malhotra made his way to the United Kingdom from India by ship to start work as an engineer in London. This was the environment in which my father took his first steps in the United Kingdom. His journey, like the journeys of many whom I met yesterday, was one of courage; he was navigating a United Kingdom that, at the time, had no race laws. He was setting up in life, dreaming of and hoping for a better future for his family.

In Bristol yesterday, local community artist and activist Julz Davis recounted the story of the impact of the Bristol bus boycott and subsequent campaigning against the colour bar by Paul Stephenson, who passed away last year. His campaigning caught the attention of future Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who contacted Paul and promised to bring in a race relations Act if elected. Harold Wilson kept his promise, and Labour introduced the Race Relations Act in 1965, the UK’s first ever anti-racist law. It was strengthened in 1968, 1976 and 2000 before being superseded by the Equality Act 2010. This year, we proudly mark the 60th anniversary of the Race Relations Act, and our theme for this Black History Month is, “Legacies of Action: understanding 60 years of change and challenge”. The racism that our forebearers experienced and that shaped their everyday lives must not be forgotten, even as we continue to make progress to redress the past.

As we continue to acknowledge and celebrate the lives and achievements of black Britons, I want to mention a few others. Last summer, I joined Lord Simon Woolley, principal of Homerton College and deputy vice chancellor of the University of Cambridge, for his charter night. As the first black man to lead an Oxbridge college, he and other inspiring leaders, such as Professor Ijeoma Uchegbu and Sonita Alleyne, two other black Cambridge college heads, are transforming one of the oldest academic institutions in the world, helping to ensure that our institutions are inclusive and truly representative.

While we celebrate Maro Itoje proudly captaining England and the British and Irish Lions this year, we remember the racist abuse that John Barnes received from his own fans at the height of his career in the 80s and 90s and, indeed, the more recent racist abuse of black England players, called out by England manager Gareth Southgate as “unforgivable”. In so many ways, we as a nation have come far, but the battle is not yet won.

We know that it remains the case for too many people in 2025 that their access to opportunity is determined not by work ethic or talent, but by assumptions based on race and ethnicity; that people who have lived here for generations, who work hard in our schools and hospitals, who defend our country, who raise families and who shape the very fabric of our communities up and down the country are told, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) highlighted, that they do not belong here. We can all be clear that there is still so much to do. Indeed, the fight for racial equality is not over.

Throughout its history, Labour has consistently built on the foundations of the Race Relations Act 1965 to outlaw discrimination based on race in employment and housing and to place legal duties on the police and public bodies. Each new law took crucial steps to build a fairer society and has laid the foundation for progress that continues today. That is why we are building on past successes to tackle racial discrimination today, and it is what drives our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and put equality at the heart of our plan for change.

Today we can celebrate the most diverse Parliament in our history and a series of further firsts, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) becoming the first black Deputy Prime Minister and the first black Lord Chancellor. Over the last year, I am proud of the work that we have done in government, in the Windrush reset that we announced last October and in taking forward our work on equalities.

Let me say a few words about the appalling injustice of the Home Office Windrush scandal. I said last year that the fact that people who came to Britain to help at a time of great need should later be made to feel that they did not belong here was, and remains, an outrage. Ros Griffiths, chair of the Friends of Windrush Square, opened the “Windrush Untold Stories” exhibition at the Home Office this week. She said:

“When the Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury Docks in 1948, it brought more than passengers, it brought promise. It brought teachers, nurses, engineers, artists and dreamers. It brought a generation that helped rebuild Britain after the war, laying the foundations for the society we live in today.

But Windrush Untold Stories reminds us that history is not only what is recorded, it is what is lived. For too many, that journey of hope became one of hurt. The Windrush scandal revealed the pain and injustice experienced by people who had given so much to this country.

This exhibition is about bearing witness, reclaiming dignity and ensuring that the lessons of the past are never forgotten. It is also about celebrating the resilience, creativity, and brilliance of the Windrush Generation and their descendants, people who despite adversity, continued to build, to create and to love.”

The exhibition has been displayed as part of this Government’s fundamental reset of the approach after the Home Office-Windrush scandal, in which we have re-established the Windrush unit in the Home Office and recruited a Windrush commissioner—the Reverend Clive Foster MBE—who will serve as an independent advocate for those affected by the scandal, assure delivery of the Windrush compensation scheme and make recommendations to embed lasting change in the Home Office and across Government. We have implemented the new single named caseworkers process for the Windrush compensation scheme to streamline the process and increase transparency. I am proud that we have also launched a £1.5 million grant-funding programme for organisations at grassroots level to provide advocacy and support for people who need help with the compensation scheme application process.

No serious ambition to face those challenges and tackle inequality is possible without also prioritising the perspectives of those affected, with communities telling us the nature and impact of discrimination. We must do what too many Governments before us have neglected to do: listen. That is why, in March, we announced a new race inequality engagement group, chaired by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, to help the Government’s plans to seize opportunities and remove barriers to racial equality.

The group’s core aim is to strengthen the Government’s links with ethnic minority communities, enabling effective two-way dialogue on the Government’s work to tackle race inequalities. The group met for the first time in June at 10 Downing Street, at a meeting joined by the Prime Minister. In September, I joined the group as it held its first thematic roundtable in Birmingham, one of our most diverse cities. There, the group closely examined the actions taken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council to build trust and confidence with black communities through the vital police race action plan, and reviewed the work with the British Business Bank and others on tackling barriers to finance for ethnic minority entrepreneurs.

Everyone has the right to feel safe and protected by those who have been granted the power to uphold the laws of this country. That is a minimum expectation. We have a long tradition of policing by consent: order is maintained primarily by a trusting relationship between the police and the community. That must apply to every community, without exclusion or exception.

I am also proud that we are building on the foundations of the past to deliver a legislative programme to address many of the inequalities that persist in our society. We are committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers. Our public consultation on ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting closed in June, and we are considering the responses in order to inform our next steps in developing the legislation. The measures will be taken forward in the upcoming equality (race and disability) Bill, which we have committed to publishing in draft within this parliamentary Session. We will work closely with businesses on developing and implementing that commitment to ensure that reporting is beneficial and helps to identify tangible actions.

[Seema Malhotra]

Indeed, the hon. Lady and I have sat on many a Committee to scrutinise legislation, and I understand the desire for clarity. There are still stages to go through to ensure that we fully consider the responses to the consultation, and work with the Leader of the House on bringing forward that draft legislation, but I will endeavour to keep the House updated on progress.

We know that claimants face significant barriers when bringing pay discrimination claims on the grounds of ethnicity or disability. That is why we have committed to making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minorities and disabled people.

I look forward to today’s debate. I thank all hon. Members who are here to take part in what I am sure will be a celebration of a defining characteristic of our country: its diversity. We recognise that that diversity is in the very fabric and essence of our institutions and our society. The languages we speak, the food we eat and the culture we enjoy are a result and reward of a country that is confident with difference, that faces outward to the world, that is proud of its identity, and recognises, as we all do, that what is so important is that we have more in common.

Indeed, the story of our nation is a story still being written—a story of contribution, of recognition, of hope, of ambition, of partnership, of continuing conversation, listening and learning, and of ensuring that all voices are in the room. I will share a quote that I read yesterday at the Rebel Curators project in Bristol:

“We share a common history, but yours is quite different you see, so when I talk about liberty, it is through my eyes that it must be. And if we have to rebuild then I think first you should ask me.”

In this Black History Month, we mark not only the stories of individual achievement, but the story of a nation—because black history is British history. Parliament must foster that collective national spirit. It must be a place that reflects the richness of modern Britain and drives the work of reconciliation through inclusion, representation and opportunity. Our strength is in our unity of purpose. When every community can see themselves in the national story and know that national purpose cares for them, and when every young person knows that there is space for their firsts too, then we will truly be the country that we claim to be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

If the House will indulge me, when listening to the Minister I was thinking about my own parents’ stories, especially that of my mother, who would carry me into this country. Who would have thought that I would make history by sitting here in the Speaker’s Chair? But my mother’s story is far more relevant, and her name is Farzand Begum.

I call the shadow Minister, and my constituency neighbour, Mims Davies.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very proud of my constituency neighbour; it is wonderful to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

This year’s Black History Month theme is “Standing Firm in Power and Pride”. It invites us to reflect not only on the achievements of black Britons but on the strength, resilience and leadership that have shaped our nation. This is rightly a moment to honour those who stood firm in the face of adversity, led and continue to lead with pride, and transformed institutions, communities and culture. I am jealous of the Minister’s visit with Lord Woolley of Woodford. When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, I tried hard to coincide with him but covid got in the way, so I am delighted that the Minister was able to achieve that.

The Conservatives agree with the Minister, and I would like to state clearly that black history is British history. Black Britons have shaped the nation in which we live in ways that we are only beginning to recognise and grasp; I fully recognise that myself, as I learn more. So I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly and, in the spirit of many a Thursday afternoon debate, I am sure we all recognise that there has been progress, and that there is always more to do.

From sport to science, politics to public service, black Britons have been woven into the fabric of our society and they have become household names and inspirations. They include members of the current team of victorious Lionesses, as well as those from previous teams. One of the most wonderful ladies who I have had the chance to meet is Nikita Parris—I am a big fan—but others include Alex Scott, Jess Carter and many more. They prove that people can be black, British and proud, which is a message that we need to hear right now.

Other inspirations include Dame Floella Benjamin, who sits in the other place—I am showing my age and my era when I say that she was on my screen when I was growing up—and the amazing age-defying Naomi Campbell—wow!—as well as Idris Elba OBE, Sir Lewis Hamilton and Sir Steve McQueen. I join the Minister in wishing Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon a very happy birthday for tomorrow.

When we think of athletes, we remember Jessica Ennis-Hill and Katarina Johnson-Thompson. HerMove East Grinstead, which is championed by the town mayor, is trying to get more women involved in sport. We also have the “This Girl Can” campaign, but HerMove is a growing focus in my town and across the country. We were delighted when Dame Kelly Holmes gave it her seal of approval, showing that she is inspiring another generation.

As the Minister rightly said, each generation stands on the shoulders of previous pioneers. It is right that we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Race Relations Act 1965, which is a landmark in our legislative history. Standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box, I find it remarkable how many turning points and changes happened in this very building. How amazing that we, as elected representatives, get to stand on the shoulders of those previous pioneers and work together. As we commemorate this milestone during Black History Month, we reflect on how far we have come and reiterate how far we have to go.

We remember the lives and legacies of pioneers, such as Paul Stephenson, who led the Bristol bus boycott in 1963, and Lord Herman Ouseley, the former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. Among others, their courage and conviction laid the groundwork for progress that we see today. Some 14% of Members of Parliament come from ethnic minority backgrounds, which is progress. Representation is matched by action. We are still working on that in the Conservative party, but we continue to push in that direction.

We honour the Windrush generation, just as the Minister did, whose story is central to black British history. The voyage of those on the Empire Windrush is now rightly seen as a defining moment that led to the contribution of Caribbean migrants, including many who made immense changes to our NHS. Some 7.4% of NHS staff are black, building on the legacy that began with thousands of Caribbean women answering the call to fill staffing shortages in the 1950s and 1960s, giving up their lives to help us with our lives.

That gives me a chance to mention the pin that I am wearing—I have got so many on today; I feel like we are pinned up sometimes—which is the Black History Month badge that I got from Amazon. Who would have thought it? Amazon! It really has everything, doesn’t it? I recently visited Amazon in my constituency and I was given a badge of the Amazon emblem, Peccy, who is a little parcel. There was a display and it has been doing some work with staff in my constituency. We really see everything in the wonderful job of being an MP, and that was wonderful to see.

As the Minister highlighted, black history in Britain did not begin with Windrush. It stretches back centuries. The first black MP is believed to have been elected in 1767. Many children rightly know and recognise the immense contribution Mary Seacole made during the Crimean war. That speaks to our nation’s long-standing and complex history, which we all need to understand and learn about.

This week we celebrated the 220th Trafalgar Day. Despite the horrendous and shameful role that Britain played in the Atlantic slave trade in the 18th century, the 19th century saw a turnabout, with the Royal Navy being used to hunt down slave ships. It is estimated that up to 150,000 Africans were liberated from slavery in America as a result of those direct actions, which we should rightly be proud of and all grow to understand.

I am proud too that when the world faced an enemy of the utmost racism during the second world war, 16,000 Caribbean men and half a million Africans served Britain to fight back against the tyranny that faced them. Those stories are often airbrushed from our national memory and not fully understood, so challenging those omissions is part of Black History Month and something that we must all do.

We must also confront the present. The racism and abuse in the Euro final in 2021 was a stark reminder of the work that is still needed, as the Minister said. There is still too much racist abuse on social media, particularly around sport. As sports Minister, I took that head-on and worked incredibly hard to tackle that abuse on the pitch, which has been seen too often in sport. Sport should provide an opportunity to celebrate, so I know that past and current colleagues will continue to work tirelessly on the issue of racism and wider issues.

Our landmark inclusive Britain action plan tackled racial disparities, and I am particularly proud of that initiative from our time in Government. Before we left office, we delivered on 62 of the 74 actions in just one year after the plan was announced. As a Minister, I was proud to work on access to investment, social mobility and entrepreneurship for all in government. It is vital that this Government build on that and lean into it, as the Minister said. It is vital to understand ethnicity pay gap reporting, and I would be keen that, when she can, the Minister shares the responses to enable scrutiny and understanding of any potential legislation.

As Members of Parliament, we must ensure that Black History Month remains a space for reflection, education and, importantly, celebration, and never division. It must not become a political football. As the Leader of the Opposition has said and as I have reiterated from the Dispatch Box today, teaching black history as British history is vital, including highlighting the contributions of figures such as Lord Ribeiro, a pioneer in keyhole surgery, and Lionel Turpin, a world war one veteran whose story deserves further recognition.

I look forward to celebrating with others the outstanding contributions of those in our constituencies and further afield of whom we are so proud, and hearing contributions from Members across the House. I agree with the Minister: this is a positive story that we can all continue to write. We can celebrate unity, we can reject tokenism and we can boost real opportunities and outcomes, so that social mobility is truly here for all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives me huge pleasure to call the Mother of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I do agree. We have to be very careful about talking about progress when, as my colleague says, a lot of the debate on race is pursued by using code, but the issue still remains the colour of our skin. The hue and cry about immigration today does not apply to migrants from Hong Kong or Ukraine. I am not in favour of that, but the targeting and constant demonisation of migrants clearly highlights a theme; sadly, the theme is racism.

Matters are hardly any better for the long-established black and Asian British communities in this country. Sadly, we have had successive Governments who attempt to deny the existence of racism at all. One issue that I feel very strongly about is educational underachievement. Even after poverty is accounted for, mixed white and black Caribbean children and black Caribbean children have among the lowest levels of educational achievement. Among other things, black children see three times the amount of exclusion as white children. They are going into university in greater numbers, but the proportion is lower than in the population as a whole.

The levels of exclusion for children—both black and white—have alarming consequences for their life chances. A former director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, said that on the day a child is excluded from school, they might as well be given a date and time to turn up in prison. If we wish seriously to address the life chances of this generation of black and minority ethnic children, we really have to address issues in relation to education. To my knowledge, none of the four past Secretaries of State for Education—or even the current Secretary of State for Education—have ever mentioned black children and education. They prefer instead to speak solely of the disadvantages of white working-class pupils.

I will give another example of this rampant colour-blindness when it comes to education: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, makes no mention of race. This year’s child safeguarding practice review says that there is a significant silence when it comes to talking about race and racism in child safeguarding. I have worked for many years on issues in relation to black children in education, and I plead with Ministers to start to address this issue. We are talking about millions of children who are being failed by the system.

What is true of education is true for black and Asian people throughout their lives and across all important areas, such as jobs, pay, housing, healthcare and mental health, as well as in all aspects of the criminal justice system. I remind the House that black people face higher police stop-and-search rates, higher rates of arrest and higher rates of conviction, and are more likely to receive custodial sentences for longer periods. There is a two-tier justice system in this country, and the victims are black people and, increasingly, Muslim men.

On top of all that, those suffering these indignities have to listen to a daily diet of claims that they are all a drain on public services. Without migrants, many of our public services would not be as strong as they are. They have to hear that they get preference in housing—which is a sick joke, as anybody who deals with housing casework in ethnic minority communities will know. They have to hear that they are all sexual predators and paedophiles, which is the most monstrous lie straight from the 1930s political playbook. Finally, they face the indignity of being told that those who want to take to the streets, try to burn asylum seekers out of their accommodation and randomly attack Muslims have “legitimate concerns”.

It is one thing to wax sentimental about the bravery and accomplishments of an earlier generation, but they were, without exception, migrants. I am confident that they would want a debate that looks not just back, but forward to a fairer and more just society in relation to race and migration. I am aware that many Members of this House are not paying attention to this debate, but hopefully some civil servants will read it in Hansard.

My parents came to this country in the 1950s. They did not come to be a drain on the public sector, or to harm society in any way. They came to help rebuild Britain after the second world war, they came to contribute and, yes, they came to make a better life for their children. I have to pay them credit; I have to honour them and that whole generation—so I ask the Minister and the House that we move beyond the sort of debate we are having on migration and that we address issues in relation to race, including education and crime. We have to look at those issues. Otherwise, everything we are saying in today’s debate is purely lip service.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is an honour and a privilege, although also slightly daunting, to follow the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who speaks so powerfully on this subject.

This year’s theme for Black History Month, “Standing Firm in Power and Pride”, speaks to a long and ongoing history of courage, resilience and leadership—of driving change in the face of injustice—and to the pride, purpose and strength found in black communities around the world. We owe an enormous debt to the black British community; from the Windrush generation’s foundational role in building the NHS to the countless trailblazers who pushed boundaries in politics, the arts, science and activism, their legacy is woven into the fabric of this country. However, the work is far from done. Too many people still face daily injustices, from racism and hate speech to unequal opportunities and barriers that prevent full participation in society. Prejudice continues to harm lives, communities and trust. We must acknowledge that reality and act to change it.

I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to standing firm in this fight. We reject racism in all its forms and are determined to drive meaningful change, but very sadly, we saw again last summer that racism is still far too prevalent in our society. It creeps into everyday life, especially for people of colour, including my constituent who told me at a surgery last week that his wife no longer feels welcome. He told me that he fears for the future of his mixed-race children and desperately wants more politicians to stand up and stand firm against prejudice and hate—to call it out for what it is. It is vital that those of us with platforms do so.

I want to be clear: racism is abhorrent. It is not representative of my wonderful, diverse community in Chelmsford or, by and large, our wonderful country as a whole, and it must be called out. Like the rest of the UK, Chelmsford has a proud history of being a welcoming home for everyone and, for the avoidance of any doubt, I am proud to say that we are better for it. Recognising this, my party and I are clear that we must address past injustices, including implementing the Windrush lessons learned review and ending the Conservatives’ hostile environment policy.

Let me turn to an issue that is very close to my heart: maternity services. I think everyone across the House knows that maternity services in general are in dire straits. Indeed, although I applaud the incredible hard work of midwives and NHS staff who are battling a system that is so obviously not fit for purpose, the problem is so systemic that a casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that women have only been giving birth for a few years. I and countless others have spoken on this matter on many occasions. It is crucial that the Government implement the immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review and reverse their decision to end the ringfencing of £100 million for vital improvements to maternity care. I mention this specifically today because Liberal Democrats are clear that we must urgently address the appalling, disproportionately high maternal mortality rates for black women and eliminate racial disparities in maternal health. This must happen right now. It surely cannot be right that we continue to accept these inequalities today on the promise that there will be more parity in the future.

Looking to our friends in other countries, I recently returned from a British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Senegal in west Africa. It was wonderful to return to a country where I had spent a year as a student. It was especially heartening to see the progress that Senegal has made in the intervening quarter of a century, and the pride with which its elected officials talk of the strength of their democracy, in a region beset by violent conflicts. They are keen to strengthen ties with other countries around the world, especially the UK. Like us, they are ambitious when it comes to increasing trade—working together for the mutual benefit and growth of both of our economies—and to tackling the huge inequalities that persist. It is clear to me that working together with our friends across the world is what truly helps keep us all safe; indeed, I wear a pin today as a symbol of the new UK-Senegal friendship group that we have formed to further that aim.

Closer to home, I pay tribute to some of my own constituency’s local organisations, which affirm this year’s Black History Month theme of “Standing Firm in Power and Pride” day in and day out. The Over 50s Black Men Forum—a not-for-profit group that has been established in Chelmsford and across Essex for some years, and is chaired by my constituent, Enitan Kane—does excellent work improving the health and community voice of black men over the age of 50, and aims to reduce future dependency on the NHS among older black men. Working with UK Government Departments, the NHS, local councils and sports organisations, O5BM now has projects across much of the south and east of England, providing critical support for community-led programmes that improve this marginalised group’s health, that tackle inequalities and that challenge prejudice.

More recently, O5BM has launched an oral history project. Its title, “Soro Soke - O5BM”, is from a Yoruba phrase translating to “speak up”. As it says, it is highlighting

“the untold stories, memories, and experiences of older Black men in Essex,”

encouraging them to

“speak out, raise their voices, and demand change”.

Creating such projects, where black people are given space to remember and celebrate their cultural heritage, communities and local stories, is so important. As O5BM points out, this is true for a number of reasons—from Essex-born black British youth learning about the experiences of their elders to celebrating the joyfulness of our diverse communities in Essex, and creating an inclusive and accurate history of our British Isles more broadly. We must all preserve history, teach younger generations about how far Britain has come, and draw inspiration, knowledge and courage from such stories to continue the work of challenging discrimination and improving the lives of the black community.

On that note, Black History Month also presents a wonderful opportunity to build community, which is one of the greatest tools we have against division and hatred. In my constituency, the New Generation Development Agency is running some brilliant community events, supported by Chelmsford city council and the local business improvement district, Chelmsford For You. Whether it is NGDA’s “Chattie ‘n’ Pattie” drop-in sessions or providing an open space for people to share their views and experiences of race equality, these events provide space for the recognition of local black community voices and teach others how to be better allies. They help us all to better empathise and strengthen our relationships with our neighbours. They reinforce that humans really are not that different from one another, and we should all be sceptical of those who claim otherwise. We all have dreams, we all experience loss and love, and we all have one life.

This Black History Month, as we honour the pioneers, the local activists and the next generation, Liberal Democrats are clear: we stand with you; we will stand firm in your power and pride; and we will continue working for a more just, equal and inclusive United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dawn Butler.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all very proud that you have made history and sit in that big Chair for lots of people to see.

I welcome the Government’s decision to hold today’s debate on Black History Month in Government time—something that I have called for many times. Before I forget, I want to congratulate Brent council on its excellent Black History Month event yesterday. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for her speech—her words are always really quite moving. The only thing is that when we look behind the shadow Minister and see none of her colleagues, it makes us think that she is the only one who thinks like that in her party. However, we are glad that she does, and we chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament together, and we do that very well. I am pleased that we have at least one good voice in her party.

October is an exhausting month for a lot of us, and that is not just because it is Diwali, and yesterday was Hindu new year, and we celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas, too. I was proud yesterday to wear my sari in the Chamber, and I wrapped it myself. I did 50-odd squats trying to get in to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions—I was not called—and my sari stayed intact, so I was proud of myself. October is also Breast Cancer Awareness Month, although I have avoided a lot of that this year, as it is triggering, but we cannot avoid talking about Black History Month.

I saw a powerful affirmation on Jools TV that goes:

“I love myself, I love my skin, I love my hair, my melanin”.

I thought that was so amazing. It is for kids, but adults can take a lot from that, too. Since last year’s Black History Month, we formed the Parliamentary Black Caucus. The founding members include Josh Babarinde, the Mother of the House, Diane Abbott—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not read out the names of Members; their constituencies will suffice.

[Dawn Butler]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should know better. I will have to google all their constituencies. Anyway, we have some amazing founding members of the black caucus, and that will go from strength to strength.

Among all the positivity, I am tired. When we see 110,000 people marching in London led by a far-right racist, it is absolutely exhausting. It is triggering, too, and not just for me, but for my parents’ generation and for everybody who has ever suffered racism. It is true that not everybody on the march was racist, but there definitely were a hell of a lot of racists on that march. When people say, “I want to get my country back,” I wonder, “Back from whom?” There is a South African calling the shots. The racism that has increased and escalated since March is not even new; it is quite old, and it is from the apartheid era and slavery.

I will read the House just a few of the racist messages that have been sent to me. One said:

“You’re not English and you don’t belong in the country, deport yourself”.

ChadKing97 said:

“There is no ‘our’ you african monkey”.

RojamWej said: “Pipe down monkey”. Bahicks1905 said: “Fuck off you ape.” Another one said:

“You are going home. You know it, we know it.”

It just gets worse and worse, and it is not new. They have not even upgraded their racism. It is just old, pathetic and annoying, but it is scary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With hope and optimism, I hope Adele gets that message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Oh sorry, he has moved—how could I miss him in that jacket? Talking about making some noise, the hon. Member’s jacket has made a splash in the Chamber today. He rightly spoke about pride in being black and British, and that was brilliant to hear.

The hon. Member and others spoke about prostate cancer rates for black men. The Prostate Cancer Support Organisation recently held an event in my patch with the East Grinstead and District Lions club. Just last Saturday, more than 1,000 men came to the Meridian Hall for the seventh annual event to get checked. Sometimes it is in those less formal places that people can have conversations that tackle stigma and concerns around health. As we have heard from other Members, sometimes it is people like Brian and his team starting those conversations that gives people the confidence to go to the NHS and other more formal structures. That gives me the opportunity to gently but I think rightly challenge the men’s and women’s health strategies. This is not just about waiting lists; it is about real interventions and change for people.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned the Scottish word for “cuddle”. The Welsh word, “cwtsh”, was quite a new one for me. She spoke about everyday miracles. I think there is a danger, in all this negativity, that we miss those everyday miracles in our constituencies. That is not to mention the miraculousness of dentistry over the decades—over history—and how vital those people have been to us.

The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly spent much of his time reflecting on the value of our Select Committees and of addressing the outcomes for black people in the NHS. I urge him to work with his party on the issues of birth and women’s health. The Government rightly say that they are committed to the women’s health strategy. Again, I implore Ministers to remain committed to working together on that, because we know what a difference it can make.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about being radical—he said that being radical is about implementation. They say that the first iteration of policy is operations, so let us get this going so that it can really make change. There are so many changes in NHS England. Rightly, we are all taking a forensic look at that, but there is a lack of interest in outcomes for Wales, and a lot of money is going in directions that we might not always be comfortable with, so let us use this opportunity to challenge inequalities.

The Minister for Equalities mentioned the ethnicity pay gap reporting. It is vital that we fully understand the scrutiny and consider potential legislation.

I know that for the hon. Member for Brent East— I hope that I can call her my hon. Friend—this is so personal. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and many of us will have been wearing pink on various days and highlighting events across Parliament. Women from all backgrounds need real advice. We talked about stigma around prostate cancer and black men’s health, but we also need to ensure that for women there are conversations about breast health and breast cancer. Sadly, we are still seeing poorer breast cancer outcomes for women in ethnic minority communities. Breastcancernow.org has a brilliant symptoms checker for every woman to use. When I was working with Wellbeing of Women on issues related to the menopause for black women, it struck me that the outcomes and workplace experiences are still too wide-ranging. This is a great opportunity to raise those issues.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned “No Blacks, No Irish” signs. My dad was the main contractor for Brighton and Hove council in the ’70s and ’80s, and he employed many Irish people. In fact, I thought that most people spoke with an Irish accent. It was quite a surprise to me growing up that there was a Sussex accent, which is remarkably different. I remember those days of “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” and so on. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. That was a real experience for families and it shaped people. I thank him for sharing that.

The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) highlighted local organisations, trust, and the approach of churches—that is important. The Hope church in East Grinstead does great work in my patch, particularly on job search and helping men in particular not to feel alone.

To conclude, let us work with energy in Black History Month to boost real opportunity across society and produce real outcomes, real change and real understanding. I say that MP stands not for Member of Parliament but for “most persistent”, because our job is to stand up for the voiceless. We must confront racism and make a direct difference. By being true to the theme of this Black History Month, which is “Standing Firm in Power and Pride”, and through our strength, resilience and leadership in this House and across our communities, we will see real change. That change lies in all our hands and will happen by us working together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To wind up for the Government, on her first outing as a Minister, I call Taiwo Owatemi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I just wanted to say that most of the things the hon. Lady has said from the Dispatch Box were brilliant, and I believed every word, apart from that she is a mother—she looks so young.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That may be outside of the scope of this debate. Minister, you may wish to respond.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I will take the compliment—I thank the shadow Minister very much.

As this debate has made clear, this nation has a rich and proud history of breaking down barriers and opening doors for everyone to thrive—one that speaks directly to this year’s Black History Month theme, “Legacies of Action”. This is our legacy, and our action remains ongoing, beyond the measures that my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities and I have set out today. We should not be satisfied with where we are; we still have a long way to go. Our fight for equality is urgent, and it continues.

There have always been those who seek to create division—who do not wish to see communities not just surviving, but thriving together. They will tell us that incorporating different types of people into our nation is something new that has been forced on us. To them, I say this: tell it to the black dockworkers, sailors and business owners of 18th-century Liverpool and Bristol, who built communities in the face of prejudice; tell it to the Windrush generation, who helped rebuild Britain after the war and made this country home; and tell it to the campaigners, artists and leaders of today, who continue to drive change and enrich every part of our national life. This is Britain—diverse, determined and proud. We have thrived because of that diversity, and we would not be the nation we are without it. Let us tell those stories and write new ones—stories of black Britons who have shaped, built and enriched this country. That task is as vital now as it has ever been, and with our first black president of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, the great David Harewood, together with the brilliant Cynthia Erivo, I am sure that the future of our country’s storytelling is bright and bold.

Finally, I thank all Members, not only for their powerful contributions to today’s debate but for the work they are doing across the country throughout Black History Month. Later this week, I will be joined by journalist Trish Adudu, musician Sandra Godley OBE and Detective Inspector Andrew Mitcham at the University of Warwick, helping to break down barriers and open doors to opportunity for the next generation. I know that many Members are also marking Black History Month in their constituencies, sharing stories, championing change and helping to build a fairer, more inclusive Britain for us all. It is that energy, dynamic enthusiasm and sincerity that gives me hope—hope that the fight for equality will not only be continued, but that it will one day be won.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Black History Month.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”; please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are acceptable.

Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, I can inform the House that I, as Chairman of Ways and Means, am minded to select amendment 7 and new clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and amendment 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), for separate decision at the end of the debate.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in section [The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments] are discharged.”

This amendment together with NC2 would prevent the Treaty from coming into force until the Government has published any legal advice or risk assessments regarding the UK’s ability to extend its rights over Diego Garcia after the initial period specified in the Treaty.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius.

(1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include—

(a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue;

(b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;

(c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and

(d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius.

(1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”

Amendment 9, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) Before sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must—

(a) seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands; and

(b) seek agreement to a referendum for Chagossians on self-determination within any negotiations which take place under paragraph (a); and

(c) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that take place.

(1B) Within two months of the report being laid before the House of Commons under paragraph (1a), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.”

This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State establishes a public consultation of Chagossian people residing in the UK on the Treaty.

(1B) The public consultation under section (1A) must be established within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

This amendment requires the Government to establish a public consultation with the Chagossian people residing in the UK, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty.

(1B) A statement made under subsection (1A) must be made within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

This amendment requires the Government to make a statement before Parliament outlining proposals for a public consultation on the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty.

(1B) The Secretary of State must lay the impact assessment under section (1A) within 2 months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment requires the Government to publish an impact assessment detailing the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom, including in financial and security terms, of the Treaty within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, before the Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act can come into force.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (b).

This amendment removes section 2 (b) of the Bill which aims to remove citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory from the list of British Overseas Territories recognised under the British Nationality Act 1981, thus preserving British Chagossian’s nationality and associated rights.

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at beginning insert—

“With the exception of the subject matters listed in subsection (3A),”.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(2A) An Order under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment provides that any order made under the Act would need to have the approval of each House of Parliament.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 40, leave out

“is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament” and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House”.

Amendment 5, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) An order under this section relating to Diego Garcia, or the rights of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom, may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out “see section 1(2)” and insert “see section 1(1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Clause 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Approval of payments to Mauritius by the House of Commons—

“(1) No payment may be made by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius under Article 11 (1)(a) of the Treaty without the approval of the House of Commons.

(2) No development framework under Article 11 (1)(c) may be agreed by the Government of the United Kingdom with the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(3) No payment may be made under any development framework agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius without the approval of the House of Commons.

(4) The approval required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) must be in the form of a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This new clause requires parliamentary approval for any payment by the UK Government to the Government of Mauritius under the Treaty.

New clause 2—The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament any legal advice and any risk assessments given to the Government relating to—

(a) the ability of the United Kingdom to extend the duration of the Treaty’s provisions for the additional period of 40 years (“the additional period”) specified in Article 13(2) of the Treaty, including—

(i) any advice pertaining to the automaticity, or otherwise, of the UK securing the additional period;

(ii) any obligations placed on both parties to negotiate the additional period;

(iii) any risk assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom’s strategic interests of not securing the additional period; and

(b) the ‘right of first refusal’ offered to the United Kingdom should the additional period not be negotiated at the end of the Treaty’s initial duration under Article 13(5) of the Treaty, including whether such a right exists if the additional period expires without a further extension being agreed.”

New clause 3—Written instrument on the Marine Protected Area: approval by the House of Commons—

“(1) No written instrument on the establishment and management of its Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago provided for by Article 5 of the Treaty, including any changes to current restrictions on fishing, commercial and extractive activities, may be agreed to by the Government of the United Kingdom unless—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the written instrument,

(b) the written instrument and an explanatory memorandum has been published, and

(c) period A has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period A, that the written instrument should not be agreed.

(2) Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.

(3) ‘An explanatory memorandum’ has the meaning given in section 24 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”

This new clause provides that any written instrument on the Marine Protected Area will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons in a process equivalent to that required for treaties under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

New clause 4—Ecological status of the Marine Protected Area—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act and within every subsequent two years, lay before both Houses of Parliament and publish a report on the status of the Marine Protected Area (the ‘MPA’).

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) numbers of different species of coral, fish and molluscs in the Marine Protected Area;

(b) coral reef resilience;

(c) fish stocks;

(d) ocean acidification;

(e) any degradation of the marine or terrestrial environments; and

(f) a complete record of the vessels (nature and flag) that enter the MPA.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report regularly on the status of the Marine Protected Area.

New clause 5—Reports to the Intelligence and Security Committee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every year subsequently, report to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, established under section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, on the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the buffer zone.

(2) The report in subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the security of the buffer zone;

(b) the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum;

(c) the presence of any foreign security forces on the islands, whether civilian or military;

(d) a complete record of the vessels, including their nature and flag, that enter the Marine Protected Area;

(e) a complete record of the notifications the United Kingdom has given the Government of Mauritius about activity on Diego Garcia;

(f) a complete record of any information passed from the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, including any military operations, personnel movements, infrastructure development, communications, and logistical support.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘buffer zone’ has the meaning of the 24 nautical miles surrounding the island of Diego Garcia.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report annually to the Intelligence and Security Committee about the security of the military base on Diego Garcia and the security of the buffer zone.

New clause 6—Report on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the Treaty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act, and each subsequent year, on the impact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’) has had on the operation of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually about the impact that the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea has on the operation of the Treaty.

New clause 7—Rights of Chagossians—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Chagossian community based in the United Kingdom on the implementation of the Treaty.

(2) The matters the Secretary of State must consult on shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) the Government of the United Kingdom’s response to any consultation by the Government of Mauritius on the regulations to establish a Trust Fund under Article (11)(b) of the Treaty; and

(b) any areas of dispute concerning the rights of the Chagossian people that arise between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius, before such disputes are formally discussed in the Joint Committee under the dispute settlement process established in Article 14 of the Treaty.

(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and at least once every subsequent year, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the efforts of the UK Government to uphold the rights of Chagossians under the terms of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Chagossian community in the UK on the discharge of the UK Government’s obligations under the Treaty, and to report annually on how the UK Government has upheld the rights of Chagossians.

New clause 8—Report on compliance of the Treaty and the Act with UN General Assembly Resolutions on Decolonisation—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must produce a report on the compliance of the Treaty agreed with the Government of Mauritius, and the provisions of section (2) of this Act, with the following Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly—

(a) Resolution 567 (VI),

(b) Resolution 648 (VII),

(c) Resolution 742 (VIII),

(d) Resolution 1514 (XV).

(2) The report specified in subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, within two months of its publication, the Secretary of State must ensure that a substantive motion relating to the report is tabled, and moved, in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.”

New clause 9—Marine Protected Area: Progress Reports—

“(1) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the progress made in establishing; and

(b) managing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.

(2) The reports required under subsection (1) must include—

(a) a list of any meetings held during the twelve-month period between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius in which the Marine Protected Area was discussed;

(b) a summary of the non-financial support and assistance provided by the Government of the United Kingdom in the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area; and

(c) the costs incurred by the United Kingdom, including any money paid by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Mauritius, in connection with the establishment, and management, of a Marine Protected Area.

(3) Within two months of a report being laid before the House of Commons under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.

(4) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must seek to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to secure additional guarantees of its commitment to the development and preservation of a Marine Protected Area.”

This new clause requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress in establishing and managing, and to seek negotiations on securing further guarantees of Mauritius’s commitment to, a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.

New clause 10—Annual report: Treaty implementation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of commencement and every twelve months thereafter, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty during the most recent financial year; and

(b) progress on the UK’s implementation of the Treaty.”

This new clause requires the Government to publish an annual report on the expenditure of public funds made under the Treaty and on the progress of the UK’s implementation of the Treaty.

New clause 11—Annual Parliamentary Oversight and Approval of Expenditure—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every financial year, lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, an estimate of the expenditure that is anticipated to be incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom in connection with the commitments made under the terms of the Treaty, including, but not limited to—

(a) any payments made or to be made, or financial commitments entered into, with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius in accordance with the Treaty; and

(b) the costs associated with the continued administration, maintenance, and operation of Diego Garcia.

(2) If the payments incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom are greater than those anticipated in the estimate specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons, for its approval, a supplementary estimate.”

This new clause provides for an estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure to be incurred by the UK Government as a result of the Treaty and the UK’s continued involvement in Diego Garcia.

New clause 12—Review of the welfare and needs of Chagossians residing in the UK—

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake, and publish the findings of, a review of the welfare, integration, and general needs of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom.

(2) In undertaking the review specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult representatives of Chagossians residing in the UK, including community organisations.

(3) Within a month of publishing the report specified in subsection (1), the Government must make time available for a debate in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on a substantive motion relating to the report.”

This new clause requires the government to undertake a review of welfare and integration of Chagossians in the UK within a year Act receiving Royal Assent with a substantive motion relating to the report of the review tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 13—Impact of this Act and the Treaty on Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, consult with—

(a) Chagossian persons residing in the United Kingdom; and

(b) bodies representing, or working with, the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom regarding the impact of this Act and the Treaty on the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom.

(2) The terms of reference for the consultation specified in subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to the impact of this Act and the Treaty on—

(a) the socio-economic status of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom;

(b) the family life of the UK based Chagossian community; and

(c) any implications for the Chagossian community residing in the United Kingdom, of changes to British nationality law.

(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament summarising—

(a) any findings from the consultation; and

(b) any steps the Government intends to take as a result of those findings.”

This new clause requires the Government to consult the UK based Chagossian community on the impact of the Act and the Treaty, and to publish the findings of the consultation.

New clause 14—Duty to produce proposals for a referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act.

(2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.”

New clause 15—Review of the operation of the Treaty—

“(1) Within five years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commence a review of the operation of the Treaty.

(2) The review must include, but need not be limited to, an examination of whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue being a signatory to, or to seek the termination of, the Treaty.

(3) A report summarising the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Government to undertake, within five years of the Act receiving Royal Assent, a review of the operation of the Treaty and publish its findings, including whether it is in the UK’s national security interests to continue to be a signatory to the treaty.

New clause 17—Access to the archipelago under the Treaty—

“In any discussions with the Government of Mauritius relating to the provisions of Annex 1(3)(d) of the Treaty, the Secretary of State shall not give consent to the presence of any Indian or Chinese security forces, either civilian or military in nature, in the Chagos Archipelago.”

This amendment would require the Government to withhold consent, in any discussions with Government of Mauritius held under the provisions of Annex 1 (3) (d) of the Treaty, to the presence of any Indian or Chinese civilian or military security forces in the Chagos Archipelago.

[Wendy Morton]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Chairman, and to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, as we open this Committee of the whole House to debate Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill.

It has been more than a year since the surrender of the Chagos islands was announced, with the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary—now the Deputy Prime Minister—and the Attorney General waving the white flag of surrender and putting the demands of their left-wing lawyer friends above the British national interest. Since then, Labour has denied this House a vote on the whole treaty under the 21-day process in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and has kept details secret from us.

Over in Mauritius, the Prime Minister of that country has been bragging about how he squeezed concession after concession after concession out of Labour. It is shameful that we have found out more about the treaty from debates in the Mauritius Parliament and statements by its politicians than from Ministers accountable to this House. It has been five months since the Prime Minister of this country signed away £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money, stumbling through a press conference rather than coming to this House to face scrutiny and challenge.

At a time of serious fiscal challenge for the public finances, Labour has imposed a £35 billion surrender tax on our country—money that could fund public services here in Britain or support an easing of the tax burden. Instead, it will be handed over to a foreign Government who are using this resource to cut taxes for their citizens. Not only is it shameful, but Ministers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by using accountancy methodologies and valuations to try to show a far lower cost. Even then, it is an extraordinary figure of £3.4 billion. The Chancellor may struggle with numbers, but the British people do not. They can add up, and they see what the real cost of this is. On top of that, Ministers still cannot tell us from which budgets in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence the money will come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to find out that the National Security Adviser does not speak to his deputy? [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not think we need this chuntering from the Front Bench. Can we ensure that the speech remains within the legislation that we are debating and voting on tonight?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will endeavour to do so, Madam Chair. In fact, I will more than endeavour; I will do so.

The reason this is relevant is that it speaks to new clause 5. While the Government have their head in the sand in respect of Mauritius’s relations with China—this is why it is important, Madam Chair—their first argument is that Mauritius will not be influenced by China, and is it not awful of us to suggest that it might be. I raised this question with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), back in October last year. I raised concerns that Mauritius was an ally of China and was open to influence from that country. With the disdain for which he is now famous, the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed that. He said that Mauritius was not a Chinese ally because it was not part of the belt and road agreement in Africa.

When we look at the relationship between China and Mauritius, however, we see that they have strong bilateral ties that go back to 1972, on economic co-operation and diplomatic support. China is the largest trading partner of Mauritius, which entered into a free trade agreement with China—the first such free trade agreement that China has entered into on the African continent. Perhaps it did not need to belong to the belt and road agreement in addition to its free trade agreement.

There is influence expressed through investments, loans and grants. China built the international airport terminal for Mauritius. It has invested in the Jinfei economic and trade co-operation zone—a flagship belt and road initiative—and between 2000 and 2012 China also funded 47 development projects in Mauritius through loans and grants. So forgive me, Madam Chair, if I do not swallow the argument that Mauritius is wholly beyond the influence of China.

The Government say, “If Mauritius is under the influence of China, don’t worry, because China don’t support this deal. China will be arguing against this deal.” We were told by the Prime Minister that China, Russia and Iran do not support the Chagos deal. Therefore, presumably my geopolitical security fears must be wrong. Well, Ministers have repeatedly been asked for the evidence that China does not support this deal, and none has been provided to date. If I am wrong on that, perhaps the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box where China has expressed its concerns about this deal.

If you were to listen to the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, even you, Madam Chair, would be forgiven for thinking that China is thoroughly in favour of this deal, because he sent “massive congratulations” to Mauritius and said that China “fully supports” Mauritius’s attempt to “safeguard national security.” That is the definition of doublespeak if it does not mean that China is wholly in favour of this deal and is celebrating it with Mauritius. I am not convinced, and neither are the Government.

[Mike Kane]

I am fond of the hon. Gentleman, who speaks of “doublespeak”. It was not long ago in my political lifetime that the former Member for Witney, the then Prime Minister, invited His Excellency Xi Jinping for a pint in The Plough at Cadsden, in Oxfordshire. As he departed back to China from the airport in my constituency, I sat with the Prime Minister as he fawned over the Chinese Administration like it was some papal visit. What is going on with the Conservatives? Are you divided on what our approach to China should be?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Kane, do not use the word “you”, because that refers to me.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not often compared to the noble Lord Cameron, but it is absolutely right that as the geopolitical environment changes, so should our policies. We on this side of the House are realists.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

As I was in government at the time, I can answer the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane): the golden decade proposed by the then Chancellor, with whom I did not get on very well, was a disaster. If anything should have been learned by that, his Government should have learned that when you sup with the Chinese, you better have a very long spoon, because they suck you in. We got nothing out of those 10 years, and now look at us.

[The Chairman]

Order. Mr Mayhew and colleagues who hope to intervene, let us remember the scope of the debate in front of us.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again.

We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister?

Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny.

The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case.

This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security.

I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Mr Jim Shannon. If people have contributed, they should make their way back to the Chamber. Danny Kruger, I am looking at you to whip your colleague.

[Danny Kruger]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Ukraine

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest situation in Ukraine, on the recent strikes against Kyiv, on our continuing support for Ukraine, on our response to continuing Russian aggression, and on a major new package of sanctions against Russian oil and gas that I am announcing today. It is a pleasure to do so on the same day we have welcomed Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, to the House of Commons—a sign of our strong and continued friendship.

It is a reflection of the importance of Ukraine’s security to the Government and to all of us here in the UK that my first statement to the House from the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary is on Ukraine, just as Ukraine was my first visit when taking up the role a month ago. Let me also thank and pay tribute to my predecessor in this role—the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—for his work in representing our country on the world stage with great principle and distinction, and in showing such strong and continued leadership in supporting Ukraine.

Three and a half years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has failed in his war aims. He is failing on his military objectives, on the economy and on his political objectives for both Ukraine and Europe, thanks to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people and the support and determination of Ukraine’s friends. As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK. President Zelensky stands ready to hold talks for peace, but President Putin seeks only to escalate war. He will not succeed.

Now is the time not just to continue with our steadfast support for Ukraine’s defence, but to substantially increase the pressure on Russia’s economy and on Putin’s war machine. Major new UK sanctions against Russia’s biggest oil companies and shadow fleet and new concerted actions with our partners will choke off oil and gas revenues and hit at the heart of Putin’s economy and war machine. We are determined to support our Ukrainian friends and to stand up for our own security.

What was clear to me in Kyiv a few weeks ago, and what is clear to everyone visiting Ukraine, is the enduring courage and unbreakable spirit of the Ukrainian people. I saw at first hand the damage from an Iskander missile on Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers building just 10 days after the British Council offices were also damaged. I met families whose lives had been uprooted, their homes destroyed and their children’s education torn apart. I also met up with two teenagers who lived with us in Castleford during the first year of the war and who have now returned. Despite the drones, the bombardments and the disruption to their lives and their schooling, they continue to train as international standard ballroom dancers. Like Ukrainians across their country, they will not let Russia destroy their dreams.

That is what Vladimir Putin will never understand about the Ukrainian people. For three and a half years—indeed, since 2014—he has questioned their resilience. For three and a half years, he has doubted the commitment of their allies. For three and a half years, he has been proven wrong. Everywhere I went in Kyiv last month, I saw a nation resolute in its fight.

Despite the huge Russian mobilisation efforts in the last three years, Putin remains as far away from achieving those military goals as he has ever been. In this war that Putin started, Russian losses are now 20 times higher than Soviet losses in Afghanistan. In this war that Putin continues to pursue, Russia is now struggling to equip its forces. In some areas, stocks are so low that they have resorted to using military kit from the 1950s. As a result of this war that Putin refuses to end, the International Monetary Fund has revised down Russian growth forecasts and military spending now outstrips social spending for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We know, however, that with increased desperation comes increased danger. In recent weeks, Putin has engaged in provocative and reckless violations of NATO airspace in Estonia, Poland and Romania, and NATO stands together against that action, resolute and ready to act. His recent bombardment of Ukraine has seen some of the largest attacks in Europe since the height of the second world war. Civilian casualties have risen nearly 40%, with children killed in playgrounds, hospitals and schools destroyed, and civilian energy infrastructure targeted. Just yesterday, a UN aid convoy was hit delivering vital assistance to a frontline community.

While we continue to strive for peace in Ukraine, we must be steeled for the war to continue, and that means focusing on four priorities. First, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to stand up to this latest onslaught. In my meetings with President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Sybiha in September, I reaffirmed the UK’s ironclad support. We are providing £4.5 billion of military support for Ukraine this year—more than ever before—with over £150 million-worth of air defence and artillery delivered in the last two months alone. We have used our co-chairmanship of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to galvanise partners, raising over £2 billion through the UK-run International Fund for Ukraine to support the most urgent military needs. During that Kyiv visit, I announced £142 million in UK aid to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That will include our largest emergency energy support package since the start of the war to restore and repair water, heating and electricity systems.

Secondly, we will ramp up the pressure on Russia to ensure that their escalation comes at a clear cost. I am today setting out a further and new set of sanctions—among our strongest so far—to tighten the pressure on Russia’s economy. This will be the second set of sanctions I have announced in a month and I am ready to go further still. This will take the total UK-imposed sanctions on Russia-related individuals and entities to over 2,900.

At the UN Security Council last month, I told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly, shortly before he walked out of the chamber, that

“we will target your ailing economy, your oil and gas revenues…the defence industry making your munitions, because we know for Russia, the price of war is piling up.”

With immediate effect, we are sanctioning Russia’s two largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, the two biggest Russian energy firms ever targeted by UK sanctions. That is part of an extensive new sanctions package of 90 targets that include refineries around the world that are responsible for importing Russian oil, suppliers of drone and missile components and 44 shadow fleet vessels, further disrupting the network of tankers that transport Russia’s oil.

The UK has now sanctioned more shadow fleet vessels than any other partner, taking billions of dollars-worth of Russian oil off the market. We are sanctioning not just Russian individuals and companies, but organisations in third countries that continue to support the Russian war effort with all the damaging consequences not just for Ukraine but for Europe’s stability. The sanctions stop UK businesses and individuals from trading or transacting with the actors that we have targeted. Importantly, we are also strengthening our co-ordination with the EU, which is finalising a new wave of sanctions. We urge countries across the world to go further, working with us in targeting Russian oil and gas.

President Zelensky has made clear in recent months that he supports a full, unconditional ceasefire and is ready to meet Putin for talks to achieve a just and lasting peace. President Trump has urged peace and ceasefire talks. Instead, President Putin seeks only to escalate the conflict. That is why this co-ordinated economic pressure is so urgent and important to get him to change course.

Thirdly, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the financial support it needs to recover and that Russia is the one to pay. The whole House will be aware of Ukraine’s acute financing needs, both now and in the long term, so we are pushing at every level to ensure that frozen Russian assets can be used to meet those needs. They were on the agenda of the G7 Finance Ministers when they met on 1 October, and the Chancellor is in Washington today, again pressing for progress with her counterparts, as I have done directly with our European partners. We will continue to argue that the full value of Russian sovereign assets must be used to support Ukraine. The EU has developed a proposal for reparations loans for Ukraine, which we welcome. The Prime Minister discussed this with Chancellor Merz and President Macron on Friday, and we expect and hope that further progress will be made in the coming weeks.

Finally, while we are prepared for this war to continue, we must also keep working and preparing for peace. We have seen in recent days what is possible when the international community builds a consensus for peace. We know too the huge international co-ordination that has come behind the US peace initiative in the Middle East and the huge international effort that will be needed to ensure it is implemented. Those same principles on international co-ordination and effort over time are important for Ukraine. That is why, together with France, the UK Government has convened over 30 countries in several meetings of the coalition of the willing, encouraging contributions towards a multinational force that would stand ready to deploy to Ukraine upon a ceasefire or peace agreement to help regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces so that Russia is never able to attack again. We are also implementing the 100-year partnership signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in January, making real our commitment to stand with Ukraine not just today or tomorrow, but over many decades to come.

While Ukraine continues to show its endless reserves of strength, Vladimir Putin continues to show his endless depths of depravity. Time and again he has shown his willingness to threaten the security and sovereignty of other nations, to threaten democracy and undermine the world order and to kidnap tens of thousands of children. From cyber-attacks in Moldova to the deployment of mercenaries in the Sahel, Russia’s actions seek to topple Governments, fuel conflict and spread instability far beyond Europe’s borders. That is why the UK continues to support Ukraine—not just to help brave people to defend themselves, but to make clear that aggression does not pay and that Putin does not win, that force will be resisted with strength and that criminals will be held accountable. Ukraine’s security is our security, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As the Foreign Secretary, with prior agreement with the Chair, was allowed to speak a little while longer than the allocated time, the same will be allowed to those on the Opposition Front Benches. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response, and I am glad to face her across the Dispatch Box again. I think she and I have probably missed each other. This time round, we agree on some things, which is perhaps a new experience for both of us.

I checked, and I think that the last time the right hon. Lady and I were opposite each other—although we were on the opposite sides of the House then—was on 5 September 2022, the day that Liz Truss was confirmed as Prime Minister. It was perhaps not quite such a good day for the right hon. Lady, who then lost her place as Home Secretary. It was also not such a good time for the country.

Interestingly, after our exchanges on that day, the next discussion was on Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), now the Defence Secretary, speaking from the Opposition Benches, began his remarks by observing that it was day 194 of a war that Vladimir Putin had expected to be over inside a week. He saluted the bravery of the Ukrainian resistance and pledged the Labour party’s full backing for every aspect of what the right hon. Lady’s Government were doing at the time. Now here we are on day 1,330, and all of us in this House are still full of admiration and respect for the Ukrainian resistance, and determined to support Ukraine in the face of the continuing Russian onslaught.

I welcome the continuation of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s cross-party support for the Ukrainian people, for the actions that we need to continue to take to support Ukraine in its defence, and for the pressure that we need to exert. I can assure her that we will continue to support Ukraine’s defences, and to look at what more we can do. The Defence Secretary has also set out new partnerships; in particular, we are working with Ukraine on developing new drone technology, learning from its technological experiences, and helping it with production.

The right hon. Lady raised issues about third countries—China, India, Turkey and other European countries that have continued to be involved in purchasing things from Russia. We want as wide a consensus as possible on economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine. I continue to raise this with many different countries, including some of those that that she referred to. Also, in our sanctions package, we are including sanctions against entities operating in third countries; we need to continue to do so.

We need to be clear that the ability to target Russian sovereign assets needs to be about mobilising the assets, and going further to ensure that there is an effective way to do that. We believe that there is, and we have been working with the EU on that. We will continue to put considerable pressure on as many countries as possible to join us in taking action on Russian sovereign assets. I think that all of us in the House—or at least the majority of the parties here, with one unfortunate exception—are clear that we need to continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, not just now, not just tomorrow, but for the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine.

I am pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary is going to take further advantage of Britain’s unique sanctions regime by extending it against Russian individuals and companies, but she knows—perhaps better than most, given her previous experience—that a regime is only as good as its enforcement, and there are times when doors need to be kicked down. It worries me that officials from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation told the Treasury Committee a year ago that they had issued only one £15,000 fine against a British business for engaging with a sanctioned individual. How many British businesses have faced financial penalties for direct or indirect breaches of sanctions on Russia or the Russian state since then, and what has been the value of those fines?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the point that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has raised, and I thank her for her considerable work and expertise, and thank the Committee for its work in this area. As she will know, the Foreign Office sets out the framework for sanctions and then works with the Treasury on enforcement. Following the publication of the cross-Government review on enforcement in May, the Government are committing to stronger action to make compliance easier, but also to deter non-compliance, and to ensuring proper enforcement.

I am advised that so far in 2025, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation penalties have totalled over £900,000, and there has been a £1.1 million compound settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In April, the National Crime Agency secured the first convictions for breaches of Russian financial sanctions, but I am happy to work with the Chancellor to ensure that my right hon. Friend has any further information that she wants on that topic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the announcement of fresh sanctions aimed at cutting Putin’s oil and gas profits. It is vital that we make use of all the tools at our disposal to undermine his war machine, and we know that oil and gas revenues are primarily used to fund it. These measures are a further step in the right direction, but I encourage the Government to go even further.

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that UK-owned or insured liquefied natural gas carriers have facilitated the transport of £45 billion of Russian gas since the start of the full-scale invasion. That means that 76% of the total export value of Russian LNG was carried on UK-owned or insured vessels. It is unconscionable that UK businesses are still contributing to Putin’s coffers, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to banning the provision of maritime services, including transport and insurance, for Russian gas? Will she engage directly with the maritime insurance sector, a large proportion of which is based in the UK, to find practical ways to implement such a ban?

I was very pleased to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to progress plans to use the full value of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s war effort. That is a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for action on for some months. The Government need to move at pace as Ukraine continues to face Putin’s relentless assault, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the timetable she is looking at for new funds becoming available from frozen assets? Can she outline how those funds will be allocated, and if barriers to seizing those assets are put in place internationally, can she commit to the UK Government acting unilaterally when it comes to seizing the assets held in the UK?

It is more than three years since Roman Abramovich sold Chelsea football club. In June, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Government were ready and willing to take legal action to finally secure the £2.5 billion generated from the sale that is earmarked for additional support for Ukraine. It appears, however, that the Government’s bark has been worse than their bite so far, as we have heard no more about how the Government intend to pursue those assets. What concrete action have the Government taken since June to secure them?

We all hope to see a just peace in Ukraine. When we do, thoughts will switch to reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State commit to provide full UK backing, including funding, to the Council of Europe’s register of damage for Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The forcible deportation—the kidnapping—of almost 20,000 Ukrainian children by Russia is one of the most disturbing aspects of this war. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of supporting those families. We have been supporting organisations such as Bring Kids Back UA and Save Ukraine, which are supporting efforts to return Ukrainian children. Just two weeks ago, Baroness Harman attended the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children event at the UN General Assembly. We will continue to do all we can to support the return of those children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Fifty years ago, I was working down the corridor here for Margaret Thatcher. I make that point to give an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute, on the centenary of her birth, to the lady who won the cold war with Ronald Reagan. The other point I want to make is: why did we win the cold war? We did not fire a single bullet; it was all about economic pressure on the Soviet Union—Russia’s precursor, of course. Following the point made by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), I think the whole House is determined and united on the issue of Russian assets. I also serve on the Council of Europe, and everybody there is passing motions trying to propel this forward. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that we can make progress on this, because the way to bring down this regime and end the war is, as we did with the Soviet Union, to break them economically?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for refugees and for those who have come here on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other Ukrainian schemes. As she will know, the Government have set out provision for the extension of the visas. I think the point to which she refers is to do with the Home Office mechanism and the timings of when applications can go in. I will raise that issue with the Home Secretary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

The Foreign Secretary mentioned that Speaker Stefanchuk of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—was in the Gallery earlier today. He also met members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, when he drew a parallel between western sanctions packages and versions of the Apple iPhone: it feels like we see a new one every other week. Rather than the gradual introduction of sanctions on Russia, will the Foreign Secretary work with the United States and other allies to introduce a sanctions package that will really hurt Russian oligarchs in the pocket?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind colleagues that we have another statement followed by the business of the day. Questions do not require a preamble. They should be sharp and to the point.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her appointment and welcome her remarks about the consensus on the war in Ukraine holding up well across the vast majority of the Chamber. She is a fresh set of eyes. Will she look at the efficiency of some of the aid? Might we work more closely with organisations such as the Come Back Alive foundation, or can more work be done in Ukraine? I think that the UK is doing a good job on this, but a fresh set of eyes is always welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise issues about broader technology. That is why we need to ensure that our sanctions regime is continually updating and responding. We have seen immense improvements in Ukrainian technology on different responses, particularly around drone technology and countering drone technology. We need to recognise the expertise and strength of the Ukrainian people and the country of Ukraine and to continue to show our support at every level.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That concludes the statement on Ukraine. I will allow the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the second statement.

Ambassador to the United States

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have a substantial speaking list and this debate is time-limited to three hours, so Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit. I call John Slinger.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues—there are children in the Gallery. Let us keep our language tempered and ensure that we are being moderate in everything we say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I assume that everyone who is bobbing wishes to contribute—there seems to be a lot of movement in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage, because Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the “best pal” of a paedophile and advised that paedophile to use his time in prison as “an opportunity”—truly shocking.

There are two separate issues that require proper examination: first, the judgment of the Prime Minister, and secondly, whether he inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the judgment of the Prime Minister. We know now that as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, he received a two-page document outlining some of his links to the paedophile, and yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. He made the appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully incompetent judgment.

Last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson’s links to this paedophile, the Prime Minister made the judgment—as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic—not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. He then made the judgment to come to this House and say he had confidence in the man about whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it inappropriate to ask the detail of. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is that they do due diligence, but no—not our Prime Minister.

That brings me to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said twice that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, and yet he knew the day before about a cache of emails, which he did not want to know the detail of, on Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein. The day after, the Prime Minister fired Lord Mandelson. Is it credible to believe that one can have confidence in a man, given those two facts that came about within a 24-hour period?

Secondly, even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that “full due process” had been “followed during this appointment”. We now learn that that is not the case, because the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large. Those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint, or it was carried out afterwards—it was not carried out “during”.

For that reason, regrettably, I conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons and the British people. Therefore, the Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew and when, why he made those decisions, and why he chose not to ask for detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.

To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.

A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.

Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is. Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the House that when the Leader of the Opposition puts their hand on the Dispatch Box and seeks to intervene, the Minister gives way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I hope it is a proper point of order.

[Dr Evans]

I would hate for the Minister to mislead the House inadvertently, because I raised the examples earlier of Sky News and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who raised concerns about Mr Mandelson. Even in this debate, we heard evidence of what the Opposition have been doing, including talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador back in May.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have heard enough. That is not a point of order.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others.

The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call David Davis to wind up the debate.

Middle East

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Rishi Sunak.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that the whole House will want to join me in wishing you a very happy birthday.

I warmly welcome and support what the Foreign Secretary said about Iran, and in particular the joint E3 statement on imposing snapback sanctions. Tehran is a threat not just to regional security, but here at home, and he will know that our security services have foiled over 20 different Iranian-backed plots. He will have seen today that Russia and China have joined in a letter saying that they will work with Tehran in the UN to thwart snapback sanctions. Could he update the House on the work we will do with our allies on enforcement and, crucially, make it clear to companies and banks that there will be severe consequences for those that break the sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I hear the strength of passion from the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him to look closely at our sanctions policy, which he would struggle to find from any other Government in the developed western world. We have had three packages of sanctions in the last year alone and two on Government Ministers; I do not think France has yet sanctioned Ministers. We have done a considerable amount.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know this is a very sensitive subject, but I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep his answers on point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think we all hear the frustration of the Foreign Secretary. He is leading in a way that other nations have not on this challenge, but it is that leadership role that we are looking to as a House. I think we all understand that nations individually have limited impact but that pressure can be brought to bear collectively. Can he tell us, for example, what more he is doing with his colleagues in the world community to stand with the Israeli opposition to Netanyahu and the Israeli hostages calling out his murderous behaviour?

The Foreign Secretary comes to the House and tells us that the famine is man-made, which is a war crime. What more is he doing to report the Israeli Government to the ICC or to say that we will recognise Palestine not as a threat but as a statement of positive intent with our colleagues? Above all, how are we working with our colleagues in Europe? The honest truth is, not a single child from Gaza who urgently needs medical assistance has yet come to the UK, but the European Union and World Health Organisation programme is getting children out at pace and at speed. What more could we be doing to work with them so that those children could come within days? They have already been cleared by Israeli officials. No, we must not judge ourselves by other countries; we must judge ourselves by whether we have truly done every single act we can. There is more that we could do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Lengthy questions just deny other colleagues the opportunity to speak.

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working with our European counterparts. When I speak to Kaja Kallas and other European Foreign Ministers, what I get is the deep frustrations that she has heard me express in my answers. I remind my hon. Friend of the further £15 million that I have announced today to support humanitarian efforts, and in particular the supply of medicines in the area. The decisions that I announced at the UN a few weeks ago are absolutely not unilateral; they are working with other partners as we make an assessment on the ground of the situation prior to the UNGA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The statement will conclude at 8 pm because we also have a statement on Ukraine. Colleagues will need to be as fast as they can.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

In hearing from the Foreign Secretary that 132,000 children are at risk of dying from hunger, one can only feel utter revulsion. I recognise what the Government have done, but in their public diplomacy with President Trump, their strategy appears to be to pander to him. Again, I understand why the Government have chosen to do that, but how concerned is the Foreign Secretary that their legacy in the middle east will be the same as that of the previous Labour Government: to be a poodle to an out-of-control American President amid horror?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have tried to go as fast as I can, and I apologise to all the colleagues who are disappointed, but the final question goes to Tom Hayes.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

What happened on 7 October was inhumane: Hamas are terrorists and the hostages must be returned immediately and safely. Israel is behaving insufferably and what the Israeli Government are doing is unacceptable. The International Criminal Court has indicted Israeli leaders for the war crime of starvation. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Israeli Government are guilty of violating articles of the fourth Geneva convention. Will the Government do all that they can to support British prosecutors and our British courts to arrest war criminals and hold them to account?

[Mr Lammy]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I too am sorry that other colleagues who wanted to ask questions were unable to do so today, but I am sure that much of the global community will see the strength of feeling that has been shown in the Chamber this afternoon in relation to this horrific war. As Foreign Secretary, it is my great honour to stand shoulder to shoulder with those giants of this Chamber who gave us the international humanitarian architecture that we have, and to be crystal clear in our support for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is the end of the statement on the middle east.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 April, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General raising a number of matters to do with domestic legal issues and our international obligations with regard to this conflict, but 132 days later, I have yet to receive a reply. What steps can I take to elicit the information that I need from the Foreign Secretary?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but the right hon. Member has put his concerns on the record and they have been heard by Members on the Front Bench, including the Foreign Secretary himself.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will remind the House that the Foreign Office has been responding to two crises in this past week. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will update the House on the Government’s extensive efforts to assist those whose loved ones lost their lives in Thursday’s devastating Air India plane crash. Just nine days ago, I was in Delhi, strengthening our friendship. Our nations are mourning together, and my thoughts are with those suffering such terrible loss.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to the middle east. Early last Friday morning, Israel launched extensive strikes across Iran. The targets included military sites, the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, key commanders and nuclear scientists. The last 72 hours have seen Iranian ballistic missile and drone strikes across Israel, killing at least 21 Israelis and injuring hundreds more, and Israeli strikes have continued, including on targets in Tehran, with the Iranian authorities reporting scores of civilian casualties. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that his operations will

“continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat”.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has said Israel “must expect severe punishment”.

In such a crisis, our first priority is of course the welfare of British nationals. On Friday, we swiftly stood up crisis teams in London and the region. Yesterday, I announced that we now advise against all travel to Israel; that is in addition to our long-standing travel advice not to go to Iran. Today, I can update the House: we are asking all British nationals in Israel to register their presence with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so that we can share important information on the situation and leaving the country.

I can announce today that we are further updating our travel advice to signpost border crossing points, and we are sending rapid deployment teams to Egypt and Jordan to bolster our consular presence near the border with Israel. That presence has already been supporting British nationals on the ground. Israel and Iran have closed their airspace until further notice, and our ability to provide support in Iran is therefore extremely limited. British nationals in the region should closely monitor our travel advice for further updates. The situation remains fast-moving. We expect more strikes in the days to come. This is a moment of grave danger for the region. I want to be clear: the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes against Iran. This is military action conducted by Israel.

It should come as no surprise that Israel considers the Iranian nuclear programme an existential threat. Khamenei said in 2018 that Israel was a “cancerous tumour” that should be “removed and eradicated”. We have always supported Israeli security. That is why Britain has sought to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through extensive diplomacy. We agree with President Trump when he says that negotiations are necessary and must lead to a deal. That has long been the view of the so-called E3—Britain, and France and Germany, with whom we have worked so closely on this issue. It is the view of all the G7, which has backed the efforts of President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff. For more than two decades, it has been the cross-party view in this House. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord Hague of Richmond led diplomatic efforts on this issue, as did Baroness May of Maidenhead and the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. This Government have continued to pursue negotiations, joining France and Germany in five rounds of talks with Iran this year alone. Ours is a hard-headed, realist assessment of how best to tackle this grave threat. Fundamentally, no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Just last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors passed a non-compliance resolution against Iran, the first such IAEA finding in 14 years. The director general’s comprehensive report details Iran’s failure to declare nuclear materials. Iran remains the only state without nuclear weapons accumulating uranium at such dangerously high levels. Its total enriched stockpile is now 40 times the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its nuclear programme is part of a wider pattern of destabilising activity. The Government have taken firm action in response.

When Iran transferred ballistic missiles for use in Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we imposed extensive sanctions, including against Iran Air, and we cancelled our bilateral air services agreement. In the face of unacceptable Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threats here in the UK—there have been some 20 foiled plots since 2022—the Crown Prosecution Service has for the first time charged Iranian nationals under the National Security Act 2023, and we have placed the Iranian state, including the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme.

A widening war would have grave and unpredictable consequences, including for our partners in Jordan and the Gulf: the horrors of Gaza worsening, tensions in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq rising, and the Houthi threat continuing. That is why the Government’s firm view is—as it was last October, at the time of the ballistic missile attack on Israel—that further escalation in the middle east is not in Britain’s interests, or in the interests of Israel, Iran or the region. There are hundreds of thousands of British nationals living in the region, and with Iran a major oil producer and with oil flowing through the strait of Hormuz accounting for a fifth of total world oil consumption, escalating conflict poses real risks for the global economy. As missiles rain down, Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, but our priority now is de-escalation. Our message to both Israel and Iran is clear: step back, show restraint, and do not get pulled ever deeper into a catastrophic conflict, the consequences of which no one can control.

The Prime Minister chaired Cobra to discuss the situation last Friday, and spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Prime Minister is now at the G7 summit in Canada, discussing with our closest allies how to ease tensions. The Government have deployed additional assets to the region, including jets for contingency support for UK forces and, potentially, our regional allies concerned about the escalating conflict. In the last 72 hours the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and I have been working flat out trying to carve out space for diplomacy. I have spoken to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar and Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi, underlining Britain’s focus on de-escalation. I have also met the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, and had calls with United States Secretary of State Rubio, European Union High Representative Kallas, and my counterparts from France and Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Those conversations are part of a collective drive to prevent a spiralling conflict.

This new crisis has arisen as the appalling situation in Gaza continues. This weekend, hospitals in Gaza reported that over 50 people had been killed and more than 500 had been injured while trying to access food. This Government will not take our eye off the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. We will not stop calling for aid restrictions to be lifted and for an immediate ceasefire, and we will not forget about the hostages. This morning I met Yocheved Lifschitz and her family, whose courage and dignity in the face of Hamas’s barbarism were a reminder of the plight of those still cruelly held in Gaza. We will not stop striving to free the hostages and end the war. Our vision remains unchanged: an end to Iran’s nuclear programme and destabilising regional activity, Israel secure in its borders and at peace with its neighbours, and a sovereign Palestinian state, as part of a two-state solution. Diplomacy is indispensable to each of those goals. Britain will keep pressing all sides to choose a diplomatic path out of this crisis. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks, for the cross-party support that I sensed in them, and for her questions, which I will certainly endeavour to answer.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about our contact with the IAEA. I can confirm I spoke to Director General Grossi just a few days ago—certainly before the action last week—and discussed his report. She asked what the latest is on that. She will know that the assessment was that the enriched uranium stockpile is now standing at 8,413 kg, which is more than 40 times the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action, with the total stockpile considered to be nine significant quantities of highly enriched uranium.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked what co-ordination we had done, given that information, and I want to reassure her that I have been in close touch and worked in concert with my French and German colleagues over this period—with the three of us co-ordinating our work across our political directors, but also as Foreign Ministers—in our messaging to the Iranian regime. I can also confirm to her that we will be speaking to the Iranian regime again in the coming hours to raise those concerns and heighten what I said about the need for diplomacy at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary quite properly asked about our long-standing relationship with Bahrain, and I can confirm that the Minister for the Middle East has spoken to Bahrain. She asked about our long-standing relationship with Jordan, and I can confirm that I have spoken to Foreign Minister Safadi in the last few days. We continue to co-ordinate with our Jordanian friends, and to offer them whatever support we can at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary obviously asked about our ongoing relationship with Israel. She will know that our relationship with Israel remains a complex and intense one. As she would expect, I have spoken to Foreign Minister Sa’ar on numerous occasions, and of course I spoke to him again on Saturday, when he was in a bunker and separated from his family; I offered him condolences.

As hon. Members would expect, the United Kingdom and Israel co-ordinate and work together in such times. We have disagreements, of course—we have discussed that over the Dispatch Box—particularly about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but we recognise that, as we speak, there are many Israelis in their bunkers. There have been 21 casualties over this last period and over 500 people injured. There is a sense of trauma compounding trauma in Israel, and I want to reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we recognise that.

The Prime Minister is of course discussing these issues with President Trump at this time, and the G7 meeting is going on we as speak. I also want to reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary about our contact with hostages. I met hostage families just today, and I undertook to raise that issue again in this place. They asked me to ensure that, with this crisis, we do not take our eye off the situation in Gaza. That is why I made it a part of my statement.

The shadow Foreign Secretary quite rightly asked about state threats from the Iranian regime and the IRGC. I refer her to the work of Jon Hall, who has found gaps in our legislative framework in relation to how we deal with these state threats. I am pleased about the arrests that have been made recently, but we will be coming forward with the appropriate legislation to deal with the state threats from the IRGC in the coming months.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is completely understandable that Israel feels threatened by a bellicose neighbour with uranium mines and a nuclear programme, but the rest of the world is unanimous in saying that the way to deal with Iran is through discussion, negotiation and a nuclear agreement. There once was such a deal, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Baroness Cathy Ashton among others, but that deal was derailed by President Trump, egged on by Israel. Now, belatedly, even President Trump has come to the view that the solution has to be a nuclear agreement with Iran secured through discussion and diplomacy. Yet in the middle of that, Israel has decided that the solution is a regional war. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must remain firm, with the rest of the world, in urging both Israel and Iran to step back from a conflict? Military action can predict only one thing; it will not stop the Iranian nuclear programme, but it will ensure the deaths of innocent victims on both sides.

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right to put on record our thanks to former EU High Representative Baroness Ashton for all her work to get the JCPOA agreement. The previous Government and successive leaders of the Conservative party also worked to secure that agreement. It is hugely important that we get back to diplomacy. It is right to say, though, that the assessment of the IAEA is that there has been deception from the Iranian regime. How do you account for having stockpiles that are 40 times over what they should be, if you were sticking to the agreement? That is why we must come together, yes, calling for restraint, but we do need diplomatic action. Iran cannot have nuclear capability, full stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep his answers short.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Does our closest ally, the United States, agree with this position on the situation? If not, what do we differ on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Let me just put on the record the huge admiration that I am sure many across this House have for what was formerly known as Persia and the great history of the Iranian people—how remarkable they are, and how awful it is that they are suffering under this horrendous regime. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, the airspace over Iran is closed at the moment. We have advised against travel to Iran for many, many years because of our concerns. However, our embassy staff will do all they can to support British nationals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary knows that many of us have been prepared to speak up again and again on behalf of suffering Palestinians and be a critical friend of Israel, but will he agree that on this occasion we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli ally? The fact is, Iran is a death cult, and death cults like the Nazis or Iran cannot be appeased simply through diplomacy. Iran is cocking a snook at us—it is inches away from a nuclear bomb. I am sure he is going to make this absolutely clear, but will the Foreign Secretary therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our American ally in proclaiming the right of Israel to exist at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have only another 15 minutes to go, so long questions are just taking away time from other colleagues.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcome in particular the measures about bolstering our consular support. He has also made reference to our assets and the hundreds of thousands of British citizens in the wider region. What reassurance can he give us that their wellbeing is being thought about and that preparations are being made, should the conflict escalate further?

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the statement, which has been going on for about 90 minutes.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an hour and a half of questions. It is very unusual for almost every Member in this House to be speaking with one voice. I wonder whether she could give me some guidance. When something is the preserve of the Executive, meaning that it is only the Government who can take action—for example, on international sanctions, on arms sales and on many of the points we have been discussing today in relation to Netanyahu or other Ministers in the Israeli Government—how can Members in this House, who have spoken with one voice today, ensure that actual change is made? In this case, it is the responsibility not of this House but of the Government, and they do not seem to be listening at the moment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has most definitely put her point on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but there are many opportunities that she can take up to put pressure on the Government; the Table Office can advise on that.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues can see by just looking around the Chamber that not everybody is going to get in. This statement has already gone on for an hour. I will try to go fast, but I need your help, with short questions and shorter answers.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Can the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly what arms have been supplied to Israel over the past six months? What arms are being supplied now to Israel? What is RAF Akrotiri being used for? Is it supporting the Israeli war machine? Can he inform the House categorically that no component part of an F-35 jet made in Britain is being supplied to Israel, for it to continue its bombardment of Gaza?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The House has debated this issue regularly for many months—in fact, for well over a year. However, we must remind ourselves why we are doing this. It is because brutal terrorists burned, raped, murdered, and tortured innocent citizens and took hostages, and then continued a conflict against Israel. In his expressions of anger today, the Foreign Secretary could have been much more balanced. Instead of talking about attacking hospitals, why is he not condemning the terrorists who use hospitals as bases, knowing the consequences? Instead of talking about the lack of aid, why is he not recognising the aid that is given, and the fact that that aid must not be allowed to be abused by terrorists in Israel, and—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Our constituents are watching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Fourteen thousand babies is the number: 14,000 babies will die in Gaza within the next 48 hours if aid is not let in. Minister, I ask you, does your Government honestly believe that what is happening in Gaza is not a genocide? What are your Government doing to stop genocide in Gaza? It seems that you are comfortable in supplying weapons to a state that is equally comfortable in starving children. I finish by asking: what actions are you going to take? Perhaps you could expel the Israeli ambassador.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “What actions are you going to take”? The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not appropriate language. I should not have to repeat myself.

[Mr Lammy]

We took action when we suspended the sale to Israel of arms that could be used in Gaza, which we did back in September. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the remarks I made then and to recognise that decision made by me and this Government.

Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement. I promised to update the House on this issue at the earliest opportunity, and I am glad to have the chance to do so today. For those Members who want to get into the full details, they are being published on gov.uk.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury, and a vital foreign policy and national security tool. They are used to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, and to demonstrate our values. Our sanctions support UK interests, protect our citizens, and defend international peace and security. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, as we debated in the House yesterday. As I said then, the UK has sanctioned over 2,400 targets under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion dollars since the invasion began—an amount of money that would have allowed him to prosecute this terrible war for many more years. Since July 2024, this Government have introduced over 500 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s entire fleet.

President Zelensky is serious about peace, agreeing in principle to a full, unconditional, and immediate ceasefire. His readiness for that peace is demonstrated by his being in Türkiye. Meanwhile, Putin has dodged and delayed, all the while raining down terror on Ukraine. If Putin does not engage seriously on peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table.

Alongside taking measures against Russia, we are using designations to uphold human rights and promote democracy around the world. Just last month, we targeted pro-Kremlin operatives responsible for destabilising Moldova, and we sanctioned corrupt officials in Georgia and Guatemala for undermining democracy and the rule of law. We will not stop there. We will continue to expose malign activity wherever we find it, using the full range of sanctions tools at our disposal to shape the world for the better. Sanctions play a crucial part in the Foreign Secretary’s mission to tackle corruption and dirty money, which is vital to protect the UK from criminals and safeguard our democracy. In January, the Foreign Secretary announced our new world-first legislation to use sanctions to crack down on those fuelling irregular migration.

This Government are committed not only to using sanctions effectively, but—this is the main focus of the statement—to ensuring that they are enforced rigorously. That means punishing serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecutions. In opposition, we recognised that there was a need for greater focus on sanctions enforcement. Since we came to office, we have been working across Government on this, as well as liaising with law enforcement partners and industry. In October, we launched the office of trade sanctions implementation, which has new civil enforcement powers to crack down on those seeking to soften the blow of our sanctions. At the same time, we introduced civil powers for the Department for Transport to enforce transport sanctions.

We have reinforced the office of financial sanctions implementation in His Majesty’s Treasury—known as OFSI for short—and the multi-agency Joint Maritime Security Centre, enabling them better to tackle evasion and develop new tools targeting the Russian shadow fleet, including in the English channel. The investments and improvements that we have made are already paying off. Last month, OFSI imposed a penalty of £465,000 on a major law firm’s subsidiary for breaches of sanctions linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We also saw the UK’s first successful prosecution under the Russia financial sanctions regulations, thanks to excellent work by the National Crime Agency. I commend it and its teams for the incredible work that they have done. I expect to see more enforcement action in the coming year—I obviously cannot go into the details of that in the House, but we should be assured that our teams are working effectively in a range of agencies and across Government.

Funding from the economic deterrence initiative has been critical to strengthening our capabilities and maintaining the UK’s reputation among its allies. That initiative is bolstering sanctions work in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. For example, in the British Virgin Islands, it has enabled the NCA to support enforcement and combat potential circumvention. Excellent work has been going on in that regard, and we hosted OTs and CDs at Lancaster House just a few months ago, to collaborate and ensure that we are improving capability across those territories.

I turn to the enforcement review. I am determined to go after those who try to evade our sanctions. In October, I launched a cross-ministerial review to look at how we can improve UK sanctions implementation and enforcement. A strong sanctions regime is crucial for achieving our foreign policy goals and, in turn, building a secure and prosperous UK. This forward-leaning review had three goals: first, to make it easier to comply with our sanctions, which will help businesses to support us in our shared goals; secondly, to increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and make it clear that avoiding sanctions does not pay; and, thirdly, to enhance our ability to take robust action against those seeking to evade our measures. We are publishing the report on the conclusions today, and I am glad of this opportunity to set out how we will ensure that the UK’s approach continues to set a gold standard.

We know that the vast majority of businesses agree with our sanctions and are keen to work with us to make sure that they are enforced. To simplify compliance, we have launched a new email alert system to keep UK businesses updated on designations, legislation, licences, and other related topics. We are also making our guidance clearer and easier to access, providing further clarity to UK industry on ownership and control, and introducing a single sanctions list for all designated persons. We will also assess the benefits of creating a single reporting point for suspected breaches. To give our sanctions extra bite and deter evasion, we will publish a new enforcement strategy, making clear the consequences of non-compliance. We will look at new options to accelerate civil penalties for financial sanctions breaches, including via an early settlement scheme, and we are dedicated to strengthening our enforcement tools and ensuring that we have the necessary powers, capabilities, and intelligence.

We have already taken action. Last month, we introduced measures to prevent designated individuals from holding director roles in the UK, protecting our brilliant British businesses. The Department for Business and Trade is updating laws to protect workers who report breaches of financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, giving them crucial whistleblower protections. Those actions, taken together and at pace, will further improve our world-class sanctions regime, allowing the UK to project strength and promote the rule of law across the world.

But we are not satisfied with just those measures. We are committed to exploring other areas, so that we can go even further and deeper to improve enforcement. A number of those areas will take longer to scope; I will be able to update the House on them in due course. We will explore options for more effective join-up on intelligence, including the merits of a new joint sanctions intelligence function. We will consider the introduction of sanctions end-use licensing controls for exports with a high risk of sanctions diversion.

We will continue to support the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies in enhancing their enforcement capabilities, and will explore enhancing transport powers to target specific aircraft with sectoral sanctions. As appropriate, we will update Parliament when additional outcomes have been scoped, including those that require new or amended legislation. We have brought forward a number of pieces of sanctions legislation recently; in addition, we expanded our Russia regime this week into a range of areas, and varied our Syria regime in the light of changed circumstances there.

Let me conclude by reiterating this Government’s commitment to strengthening the implementation and enforcement of UK sanctions. As we deliver the actions set out in the review, we will continue to engage across Departments and with industry, wider stakeholders and international partners to maximise the effectiveness of our work. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for her broad welcome for this work. I will do my best to answer as many of her questions as I can.

The shadow Minister asked me about the overall review. As I said, it is being published now and she can peruse that when she can; I encourage other hon. Members to look at that as well. We welcome feedback and suggestions on it. To summarise a couple of the key themes, we recognise that different sectors are at different levels of maturity with sanctions, and that Government communications and engagement need to reflect that. Some areas need more assistance; there is a lot of will, but they need support. Some of the measures can be very technical and we want to ensure that businesses can comply. Direct engagement between Government and industry is important, as that has the highest impact on compliance.

We need to bring together our efforts so that they are understood. A range of different agencies are doing important and distinct work, but that needs to be understood by the layperson. We need to improve our guidance and ensure we bridge any gaps in unclear regulations. We need to ensure that people understand the consequences of breaching sanctions, as well as the options. If they voluntarily disclose measures, as a number of businesses and others have done, there are ways forward.

The shadow Minister asked me about intelligence and co-operation with other countries, which is crucial. We will explore how that intelligence function works, but I can assure her that there is already a huge amount of co-operation between us and key partners, including in the United States, the EU and elsewhere. Cross-Government co-operation is also important. Our officials work incredibly hard and I pay tribute to the incredible team in the sanctions unit at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and in other Departments, because they do remarkable work.

The shadow Minister asked specifically about co-operation with the EU. It is important that we co-operate with the EU on sanctions, as we do already. That is being considered, along with a range of measures, as we approach the important summit next week. I assure her that our sanctions policy remains our own, but we can often have maximum effect when we work in co-ordination with others. The EU is progressing its own packages against Russia and others.

On third country circumvention, I have paid particular attention to that issue; indeed, I had meetings just this morning to raise concerns on that specific issue with a partner country. Such meetings are a feature of pretty much every week, and we are bearing down on all the routes that might support measures that undermine our sanctions. On the sale of Chelsea football club, we are determined to see the proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly, but this is a complex legal issue. The UK is working with international partners, has engaged with Abramovich’s team and is exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.

On Syria, the shadow Minister knows that we updated the regime this week, and we remain with those sanctions against the Assad regime, but we have removed restrictions on others. We reserve the right to introduce new sanctions in future circumstances on any regime, but we will keep the situation there under close review and respond to the changing circumstances. We will judge the new Government by their actions.

On Iran, we announced on 14 April further sanctions to tackle the domestic threat posed by the Iranian regime by sanctioning the Iranian-backed, Sweden-based Foxtrot criminal network and its leader, Rawa Majid, for their role in attacks against targets across Europe. We took very firm action in relation to the supply of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the illegal war in Ukraine. We remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon, and we are committed to using all tools available to ensure that, including using the UN sanctions snapback mechanism if necessary.

Lastly, the shadow Minister asked about enforcement, how we are having an impact and what difference is being made. I have already given some examples, but another example is that in April, the National Crime Agency secured the first criminal convictions for the breaches of Russian sanctions. Dmitry Ovsyannikov was found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations and money laundering after receiving £76,000 from his wife and a new Mercedes from his brother, who was also found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations. They were sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and 15 months imprisonment suspended for 15 months respectively, so the right hon. Lady can be absolutely assured that all the appropriate authorities are acting.

These investigations are often complex and necessarily are not made public. I urge the House to bear with some of our excellent teams in different agencies as they seek to enforce on these regimes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Minister already knows my view that, as we develop our sanctions policy, Parliament should be more engaged so that we can have collective knowledge and all feed in to the best possible sanctions policy. We do not have enough of that at the moment, and there is more that we should do. One thing that Members would do is suggest more creative ways of using sanctions and more lateral thinking, but, in the end, it does not matter how creative or eye-catching a sanction is: if it is not enforced, it means nothing. My concern, and the concern of many, is that there are simply not enough investigations being done for breaches of sanctions, particularly against British companies. I have listened very carefully to the rapid way in which the Minister gave his statement and read carefully what is in it, but nothing in it says that more resources will be put into actually investigating potential breaches of sanctions. We can change rules and give more powers, but if there are not enough people actually kicking down doors—literally or otherwise —to ensure that companies are not breaching sanctions, we are frankly wasting a fantastic opportunity.

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend is no stranger to these issues, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her on them in my conversations with her. I welcome the work of her Committee in that regard. I gently say that there has been a significant amount of parliamentary scrutiny of sanctions—including two occasions this week already, as the shadow Minister mentioned, as well as the course of our debate, FCDO oral questions and my statement today—but I am absolutely committed to engaging with parliamentarians. We have held a number of roundtables, and I hope to continue to do those on a regular basis. We welcome all advice and information from parliamentarians. It is often not possible to come back to the House, particularly on specific information and suggestions. My right hon. Friend will understand the importance of our not commenting on possible future designations, because doing so would lessen their impact.

My right hon. Friend rightly raises the challenge of the actual resources for enforcement. They are across a range of agencies and Departments and are subject to ongoing discussions in the spending review, but, having witnessed the work of a number of those organisations, I can assure her that they are doing some absolutely incredible work. I will give another example: in March, the office of financial sanctions implementation announced the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of £465,000 against HSF Moscow for breaching UK sanctions and publicised the lessons that industry can learn from that case. There is example after example, and I want to see more of them. I will continue to work with our enforcement agencies and others to ensure that is the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the cross-party consensus we have heard today that an effective sanctions regime is one of the most potent tools at our disposal to promote the UK’s ideals and interests abroad. It has formed a vital pillar in the strategy to punish Putin and undermine his ability to prosecute the war in Ukraine. However, our sanctions regime must be coherent and consistently applied to be effective. I know that the Minister is personally committed to that, and I welcome today’s report, yet the disparate responsibilities across Departments and agencies have sometimes worked against the effectiveness of our approach despite the hard work of officials, to which the Minister has already referred.

What lessons can the Minister point to from the review that will ensure that future development and application of our sanctions policy will be truly joined up across the many agencies in Government? Following President Trump’s meeting yesterday with President al-Sharaa, our approach to sanctions in Syria is a critical test of that approach. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will consider lifting further sanctions on Syria only if sanctions relief is preceded by clear progress towards political inclusion and the protection of minority groups and women in Syria?

The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly urged the Government to use sanctions more robustly against the leaders of countries that have taken actions against British values or in violation of international law. May I therefore urge him to use the impetus from the review to take a fresh look at three cases? Will he and officials urgently review the application of sanctions on supporters of the Georgian Dream party, including Bidzina Ivanishvili and Irakli Kobakhidze, who are working to suppress democracy in Georgia? Will they review that for officials in Hong Kong who have led the suppression of democracy in the city and the extraterritorial intimidation of democracy campaigners resident in the UK? Will they also review that for the extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who continue to advocate for the conquest of Gaza and the forced displacement of Palestinians from the occupied territories?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which I have repeatedly raised with the leaders of the overseas territories and indeed with the Crown dependencies. We have seen robust action on sanctions, both in implementing sanctions and working with our authorities to ensure that we have the biggest enforcement effect. I have mentioned the recent meetings we had at Lancaster House with sanctions enforcement officials, as well as the specific example of BVI. The National Crime Agency has been working with the British Virgin Islands on a range of issues, and that work has been very productive, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that transparency contributes to effective sanctions. I have repeated my expectation that OTs and CDs should introduce fully accessible public registers of beneficial ownership, but the OTs also agreed at last year’s Joint Ministerial Council to introduce legitimate interest access registers. We have seen real progress from a number of them, although some others are not quite there yet. My hon. Friend can be assured that I am not resting in raising serious concerns about this issue, and I will continue to do so over the weeks ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Richard Foord, a member of the Select Committee.

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

The G7 oil price cap prevents us from selling shipping and insurance services to companies carrying Russian oil when it is sold above $60 per barrel. I appreciate that the Minister might say that he cannot preannounce future sanctions—I think we all understand that—but has the UK advocated with G7 allies for reducing that price cap further, given that in recent weeks, the price of crude oil has dropped below $60 per barrel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

This Government have been clear that we will take every measure possible to crack down on irregular migration and those who facilitate the cruel trade in human beings, trafficking them across continents and countries. That is one of the reasons we are introducing the new regime. We will be bringing forward the legislation in due course, and at that time we will be able to discuss the exact details of the proposals; we aim to bring that forward as soon as possible so that we can start taking actions. That is just one of the measures we are taking, and I regularly engage with European and other partners to deal with the whole chain of smuggling gangs and illegal migration. That is exactly what the Prime Minister will be setting out in his visit to Albania.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The final question goes to the ever-patient Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Listening to comments from across the House, I am reminded of a conversation I had this week with one of my constituents, Anne Strike, who is a victim of polio; she raised her concerns about the recent cases of polio found in conflict zones. I know how important residents of Harlow see it to tackle breaches of UK-imposed sanctions. The Minister has touched on this a bit already, but will he tell me what progress we have seen on enforcement measures in recent months?

India-Pakistan: Escalation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is well known to this House that there are, of course, a range of wider issues between India and Pakistan, and Kashmir is one of them. However, on this most delicate of days, it is important that the House remains focused on the importance of de-escalation. That is my key message from the Dispatch Box today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The terrible terrorist attack last month brought death to 26 civilians and rightly shocked and appalled many. Yesterday’s military strikes by India and the subsequent exchange of artillery fire in Kashmir mark a deeply concerning escalation. The prospect of New Delhi and Islamabad engaging in further tit-for-tat military action risks destabilising the entire region and leading to more civilian deaths. Their status as nuclear powers also generates severe global risks. It is vital, therefore, that both Governments work to de-escalate the current crisis.

Maintaining open lines of communication is key to preventing escalation and enabling a diplomatic off ramp for both Governments. Will the Minister therefore provide more detail on the conversations that he says have taken place overnight with Government representatives in New Delhi and Islamabad? What steps are the Government taking to help maintain an open dialogue between both Governments? Will he also confirm whether additional resources are being provided to support British nationals in Pakistan and India to ensure their safety?

Given our shared history, and now as a Commonwealth partner to India and Pakistan, the UK has a particular responsibility to support efforts at mediation and to help prevent retaliatory actions that could contribute to more deaths on both sides. Will the Minister describe what plans the Government have to engage international partners at the UN to support mediation efforts?

Yesterday’s strikes follow a series of escalatory measures taken by India and Pakistan over the past week, in addition to the cessation of military activity. It is vital that these countermeasures are wound back. Will the Minister confirm what, as part of mediation efforts, the Government are doing to press India to reinstate the Indus Waters treaty and Pakistan to reopen its airspace?

Indian and Pakistani communities across the UK will be very worried by these new developments, and it is vital that they are fully supported. In addition to the remarks the Minister has already made, will he provide more detail on what steps the Government are taking across all Departments to support communities here in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members need to temper their language and not use statements such as “misleading the House”.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Twenty six people lost their lives in the Pahalgam terrorist attack, and now 26 people lost their lives in yesterday’s attack. The truth remains that no evidence has been presented to anybody—any national or international partners—to say that Pakistan was, indeed, responsible for the attack on Pahalgam. I thank the Minister for coming so soon to the House and for all his efforts in trying to de-escalate. But to actually get de-escalation, and if India is so certain, does he agree that India should share that evidence with the world to justify this barbaric attack killing 26 people and attacking mosques in the middle of the night?