Summit on Illicit Finance

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing a debate on an issue of significant importance to the UK’s national security and economic integrity.

There is clearly broad agreement across the House that illicit finance fuels corruption, organised crime, hostile state activity and conflict around the world. Dirty money undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and threatens our security at home and abroad.

The last Conservative Government took important steps to strengthen transparency, tackle economic crime and improve international co-operation, as my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. Under David Cameron’s leadership as both Prime Minister and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the UK was at the forefront of the global anti-corruption agenda, convening the first of its kind anti-corruption summit in 2016, and driving greater international focus on beneficial ownership, transparency and the recovery of stolen assets.

I am proud that when in government my party strengthened sanctions enforcement following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and sought to close loopholes that allowed illicit finance to flow through international financial systems. Against that backdrop, I welcome the Government’s commitment to host the illicit finance summit later this year. The Government have said that the summit will focus on global enforcement, asset recovery, illicit gold trading, property-based money laundering and the misuse of cryptoassets. Those are important priorities and areas where international co-operation is absolutely essential.

However, the success of any summit will ultimately be judged not simply by what is happening, but by the practical outcomes that it delivers. I have a number of the questions for the Minister. On Russia, what specific proposals will the Government bring forward to strengthen sanctions enforcement and close the remaining loopholes that enable sanction circumvention? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current enforcement mechanisms and what further action is being considered to target the networks and the intermediaries that continue to facilitate the movement of illicit Russian funds?

It is in that context that I raise concerns that the Government, in recent weeks, have quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian oil refined in third countries. Can the Minister explain what rationale justifies that decision when the Ukraine sanctions commissioner has directly told us that the Government’s actions

“may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”?

On Iran, illicit finance remains central to the regime’s ability to fund destabilising activities across the middle east. What discussions will take place at the summit on disrupting Iranian financial networks and strengthening international co-operation against sanctions evasion by the Iranian regime and its proxies?

The Government have rightly highlighted the importance of international partnerships. The Minister will know that the overseas territories play a vital role in supporting our economic interests and the global financial system. Can he update the House on the discussions that are taking place with the overseas territories’ Governments ahead of the summit?

Can the Minister also explain how the recent restructuring in the FCDO affects the UK’s ability to tackle illicit finance internationally? What assessment has been made of whether the FCDO currently has the resources necessary to meet the ambitions his Government have set out for the summit? Finally, what legacy does he expect this summit to leave behind? I raise that question because the 2016 anti-corruption summit and the work that followed helped to establish a framework for international action that endured well beyond the event itself. It is important that this summit has a legacy, too.

The Opposition support robust action against illicit finance and efforts to strengthen sanction enforcement, to combat corruption and protect the integrity of the international financial system. We want the UK to remain a global leader in this field, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Government intend to translate the ambitions of the summit into meaningful and lasting action.

Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing the urgent question, and to the Minister for his response. The imposition of tariffs is a bilateral matter for the US and Cuba. We are appalled by Cuba’s record of abusing its civilians’ political, civil and human rights. The Cuban regime’s record is shameful, and we should be wary of narratives that seek to explain Cuba’s current difficulties solely through external factors. The reality is that the Cuban people have endured decades of economic stagnation, political repression and the denial of basic freedoms under a one-party communist system, and any assessment of the present situation must acknowledge the wider context.

I turn to the Minister’s response. Can he tell the House what recent discussions Ministers have had with the US Administration regarding developments in Cuba and the actions of the United States? Can he set out what engagement the Government have had with the Cuban authorities? In those discussions, have Ministers raised concerns about human rights, political prisoners and democratic freedoms, alongside the humanitarian issues?

Finally, are the Government considering a humanitarian response and, if so, how will they ensure that that assistance reaches the Cuban people directly and is not diverted for the benefit of a regime with such a poor record on human rights and civil liberties? The House would really benefit from a clearer statement of the Government’s overall policy towards Cuba at what is clearly a significant moment for the country and its people.

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the constructive way in which she always engages in these conversations on the Floor of the House. I reassure her that I would echo, and expand on, her concerns about the Cuban Administration’s impact on human rights. To answer her question on engagement directly, I have met the Cuban ambassador since the beginning of this year, not only to discuss the challenges that the Cuban people are facing but to directly challenge the human rights conditions that they are facing. I can confirm that there is ongoing regular engagement between the British embassy in Washington and US State Department officials. More specifically, the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the former permanent under-secretary of state have had regular engagement with both Secretary Rubio and Deputy Secretary Landau to discuss the negotiations between the Cuban and US Administrations.

Draft Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Before I start, I add my thoughts on Jo Cox. She was a dear friend right across the House, and had that often unique ability to bring the whole House together on certain topics of mutual interest. Some aspects of international development in Syria were certainly among those.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I do not intend to keep the Committee long, but I have a number of questions because further clarity would be helpful to the Committee and the House. I will come to those shortly, but I want to make it clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the suffering that has been endured by the Syrian people after years and years of conflict, repression and instability under the Assad regime. We all want to see a more peaceful and stable future for Syria.

Sanctions relief in a fragile and uncertain environment inevitably carries risks, and Parliament is entitled to proper scrutiny of how those risks will be managed. The regulations revoke restrictions on the trade of gold, precious metals, diamonds and luxury goods, including automobiles, or cars. Given the obvious concerns about illicit finance, corruption and malign networks in post-conflict environments, I have to say that I was a little surprised that no formal impact assessment appears to accompany this statutory instrument. I listened to the Minister’s remarks, but will he explain why no impact assessment was considered necessary?

What assessment have the Government made of the likely financial and economic effects of the changes in the regulations, both within Syria and internationally? Related to that, I would like to understand what mechanisms the Government will use to monitor the consequences of the sanctions revocations. In particular, how will Ministers assess where any resulting financial flows ultimately go? Who will benefit from them, and is there a risk that funds or assets could be diverted towards destabilising activity?

Will the Minister say a little more about whom the Government expect the principal beneficiaries of the changes to be? The Government must surely have undertaken some assessment of which sectors or groups inside Syria are likely to gain most from the reopening of trade in high-value goods. They have suggested that sanctions easing may create opportunities for British businesses seeking to engage with the Syrian market, which is good, but if that is the case, what guidance will be issued to UK businesses to help them navigate what remains a highly fragile operating environment? Many firms will understandably be concerned about sanctions compliance and the risk of assets or investments ending up in the wrong hands.

I also want to ask specifically about the provisions relating to petroleum products and kerosene-type jet fuel. Will the Minister clarify precisely what the Government seek to achieve through the amendments in the regulations? Are the measures intended primarily as technical corrections to civilian aviation measures, or do they carry wider security implications?

Finally, while there have been some positive developments in Syria, serious concerns remain about sectarian violence and the protection of minority communities. We all want to see a stable Syrian state that is capable of countering ISIS and reducing wider regional instability, but progress must be accompanied by proper safeguards and oversight.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses. The Conservatives do not intend to oppose the regulations, but I hope he can provide the Committee with greater reassurance on how these measures will operate in practice.

International Parental Child Abduction

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate, shining a light on the topic of international parental child abduction and providing an opportunity to highlight the devastating impact that it has on families. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, for his very thoughtful contributions.

As we have heard, and as many hon. Members in this place know, cases of international parental child abduction are truly horrific and deeply distressing. The breakdown of relationships is often traumatic for all involved, especially for children, but when a parent has their child abducted and taken abroad, the consequences are profound. It is not only emotionally devastating, but financially draining for parents who are forced to fight, often for years, simply to secure contact with their child, let alone their safe return. Navigating courts, legal systems and bureaucratic processes across multiple jurisdictions is complex, it is costly and far too often it is unsuccessful.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has set out how deeply concerning and troubling these cases can be, and has illustrated the scale and severity of the problem. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, but I acknowledge that there are many more outside this place who are also be affected by this issue, and many hon. Members who are not in this Chamber, but who will have had similar items of casework in their constituency inboxes.

I am reminded of a case in my constituency. I had not long come to this place when someone from my constituency came to see me. Her child had been abducted. She, together with her family, the Foreign Office and particularly the ambassador in the country concerned, worked tirelessly over many months. In that case, they were successful and that child was safely returned to the UK, but I acknowledge that that is not the case for everyone. I also recognise that Ministers across successive Governments, alongside diplomats and officials, have worked and are working to raise such cases with the Governments concerned. I remember some of them from my time as a Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; they were often some of the most troubling cases that we could try to imagine.

Progress in securing outcomes and in reuniting children with their families in the UK is often unacceptably slow. Parents continue to fight tirelessly for their rights, yet their efforts are frequently obstructed, sometimes by the very authorities that should be upholding international law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has a constituency case that is known to the Minister and the FCDO, and she has asked me to raise it in this debate.

The case of Mr Tom Toolan highlights the challenges very starkly. Mr Toolan’s daughter, Rhian, was taken to Poland in 2018 by his former partner, despite a court order explicitly prohibiting her removal from the UK. Over the past eight years, he has been unable to secure her return. Rhian is now 12 years old. During that time, Mr Toolan has endured the anguish of missing his daughter grow up. He has missed birthdays, Christmases and countless irreplaceable moments. I am sure we would all agree that that is truly heartbreaking. At every stage he has faced frustration and delay. Despite the provisions of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, despite sustained diplomatic engagement and despite even the issuing of a return order by the courts involved, Rhian has still not been returned home, and Mr Toolan’s ordeal continues. He has said:

“The Hague Convention was designed to ensure that children unlawfully abducted would be returned within six weeks. But we all know that this does not work—particularly when appeals and procedural delays are used to prevent the return of an abducted child.”

Having incurred legal costs exceeding £160,000, Mr Toolan deserves answers, and so do others in similar situations.

I will use this debate to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what further steps are being taken to support efforts to bring Rhian home? More broadly, can the Minister outline the latest discussions he has had with international counterparts on improving the operation and effectiveness of the Hague convention? What assurances has he received and what concrete actions will follow? Will the Government establish stronger mechanisms to support the return of British children abducted overseas?

We know Mr Toolan’s is not an isolated case. The number of international parental child abduction cases has risen significantly in recent decades. Official figures show an increase from 272 cases in 2003-04 to 580 in 2012-13. Sadly, the true figure today may well exceed 1,000 annually—we do not necessarily know the full picture. Can the Minister provide an updated figure for the number of cases currently known to the Government? How many are being directly supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

Previous Governments undertook awareness campaigns to deter parents from taking children abroad unlawfully. What further preventive measures are now being considered? In addition, what steps are being taken to strengthen the enforcement of court orders designed to prevent abduction, particularly through the use of border controls and travel restrictions?

Finally, can the Minister set out the Government’s approach to holding countries accountable where they fail to comply with the Hague convention? In particular, how are the Government working with both signatory and non-signatory states to ensure that international obligations are respected, while strengthening co-operation and preventing delays in the return process? This issue demands urgency, resolve and sustained international co-operation. For the families affected, time lost is time that can never be recovered.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who have represented their constituents’ perspectives.

As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), rightly said, this is a deeply distressing topic, and I am conscious that I am addressing it in front of two colleagues who have been Foreign Office Ministers. I am sure that they share our thoughts for all families affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children who are going through such upheaval and uncertainty. I will respond to the points made today while being careful not to comment on individual cases or disclose personal details; I hope that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), will understand why I do not wish to comment in detail on her case.

[Wendy Morton]

Perhaps, if it is in order, the Minister could provide a written update to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Falconer]

I would be happy to. Hon. Members are welcome to contact me directly to discuss specific cases further. For those watching in the Public Gallery or at home, I am the Minister for consular affairs, though, for the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, these cases will often be dealt with by the Minister responsible for that region—the Minister for Europe in the case of Poland, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific in the case of Australia.

The Government take the issue of international parental child abduction extremely seriously. We are proud to be a party to the 1980 Hague convention. We work with more than 80 countries to support the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. That is an important principle that has been supported across the House this afternoon.

Where parents raise persistent problems with how the convention is applied, we raise those concerns directly with foreign Governments and will continue to do so whenever appropriate. At the same time, decisions on return ultimately rest with courts, often in the country where the child is located. Those courts must consider where the child is habitually resident, the child’s best interests and the child’s own views. Decisions about a child’s long-term future should be taken by the court that determines the child’s habitual residence.

We have put in place clear measures to try to prevent international parental child abduction and have published guidance on the practical steps a parent can take when they think there is a risk. I will focus on what happens in England and Wales because, as Members have pointed out, the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under a different law; for the purposes of clarity and time, it is probably better to focus on England and Wales, but if any hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or his colleagues, would like to write to me with questions on Northern Ireland or Scotland, I am very happy to take them up.

In England and Wales, concerned parents can get a specific issue or prohibited steps order to prevent a child from being taken out of the country. Our courts can order the Passport Office to withhold a British passport temporarily from a child at risk of abduction. The police can also issue a port alert if a parent is concerned that their child is likely to be taken abroad without their consent within the next 48 hours.

We continue to support our charity partner, Reunite International, which provides online prevention guides—not just for England and Wales, but for Scotland and Northern Ireland—to help parents understand and navigate the options of support available to them. When a child is abducted and taken abroad, our consulate staff provide compassionate support to the family. That can include practical guidance on travel, local systems and procedures and help making contact with the local authorities.

At the request of either parent, the Foreign Office can also formally express an interest in the case with the courts or authorities involved. We can also help families access specialist support, including through Reunite International, which should be able to provide expert advice. In relation to the 1980 Hague convention, the UK works closely with authorities seeking a return for parents. Our central authorities remain engaged throughout the process until the courts have reached a final decision.

It is important to be clear on roles. Decisions on enforcement rest with the authorities and courts of the country where the child is located. Our consular responsibilities mean that we cannot interfere in foreign legal systems, just as we would not accept foreign powers interfering in ours. We cannot compel enforcement, influence court outcomes or take part in any illegal efforts to return a child.

I have not seen the film that the hon. Member for Strangford describes, but I am not sure that I can use a credit card in the way he outlined to secure returns, however frustrating that may be. I recognise the deep frustration that many parents experience, especially when cases face long delays or return orders are not enforced. In those circumstances, the Government raise concerns with foreign partners at senior levels and press them to meet their obligations under the convention.

I turn to Poland, a country raised by a number of hon. Members. It is a close European partner. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about the shared history between our two countries—a history that includes my constituency of Lincoln, where many of those pilots set up as permanent residents. As she says, it is also one of the countries where we have the highest number of outstanding Hague return orders affecting British parents. We recognise the serious impact that Poland’s failure to enforce a number of return orders has had. That concern is reflected in rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and action by the European Commission.

That is why we raise international parental child abduction with the Polish authorities consistently and at senior levels. I can confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister raised it with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Sikorski in January, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Polish counterparts in October and, earlier this month, the British ambassador in Warsaw, alongside eight other diplomatic missions, wrote to the Polish Minister of Justice to seek a meeting and press for progress on these cases. I can assure hon. Members that the UK continues to play a full role. Some of those eight countries are members of the EU, and some are not.

Our officials continue to engage regularly with Polish authorities on enforcement. In April 2025, the UK Ministry of Justice hosted a joint workshop, alongside my Department, for Polish and UK authorities. We shared UK best practice on enforcement and discussed closer co-operation. We will continue to work with Poland and other partners to improve enforcement and outcomes for children and families.

I recognise the sensitivity and delicacy of the issues raised in relation to violence against women and girls and the very sensitive questions around domestic abuse. We recognise concerns raised in some contexts about how the 1980 Hague convention operates in cases involving domestic abuse. That is why we have sought to take a leading international role, serving on the steering committee of two Hague conference forums examining how the conventions operate where domestic abuse is present. Both those forums took place in the past two years. This is an active and ongoing effort on our part.

At home, we are working closely with victims’ organisations, the devolved Governments and the senior family judiciary in England and Wales. I am grateful for the kind recognition by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of the progress made recently in tightening the law in that area. We are also commissioning research into how the convention operates in domestic abuse cases so that future policy is grounded in evidence and focused on improving outcomes for children and survivors.

For countries that have not yet joined the 1980 convention, we actively encourage accession through both bilateral and multilateral engagement, while seeking solutions to existing cases in exactly the way the shadow Minister describes. Those efforts include the Malta process, which aims to improve co-operation in cross-border family law disputes involving children. We also work with Reunite International to support mediation as an alternative to court proceedings. Last month, in Lagos, our deputy high commissioner hosted a workshop with Nigerian partners focused on international parental child abduction and family mediation.

Members have reasonably asked me for figures. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead will permit me, I might ask the Minister for Europe to write to her specifically on cases involving Poland, but the Foreign Office are aware of 177 cases in 2024 and 167 in 2025.

We recognise the profound distress caused by international parental child abduction and take these cases extremely seriously. We work with partners through the 1980 Hague convention, raise concerns about enforcement and non-compliance at the highest level and press for improvement where systems fall short. We recognise that decisions on return ultimately rest with the courts and the authorities in the country where the child is located, so we must work with our partners abroad to build up their capacity where we are concerned about it.

On a personal note, supporting British nationals overseas remains a core public service performed by my Department and it is a key priority for me personally. We remain committed to prevention, stronger international co-operation and supporting affected children and families throughout what I know is often a long and painful process. I join the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead in paying tribute to the family members in the Public Gallery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and India to stop processing Russian oil?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Lady will know about the work we have already been doing on this crucial issue, which she is right to raise. We have been very clear on this. Under her Government, there was of course a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas imports, which we continued. We have gone further by announcing our intention to introduce a maritime services ban, and of course we will continue to co-ordinate with international partners on the issue she raises. We cannot allow those revenues to be used to fuel Russia’s terrible actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be given proper time to scrutinise the full details? Will he guarantee that scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process will take place before provisional application?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I set out yesterday, the timetable is not entirely in our control, because it relates to the other party in the treaty, the EU, and its processes. Mr Speaker, you will know that I brought forward the entire text of the draft treaty so that this House had a chance to scrutinise it. I have also provided briefings to the right hon. Lady and her colleague, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as I did yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will follow the CRaG process in the usual way. I will ensure that the House is kept fully informed and is able to scrutinise as appropriate.

International Development

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded.

We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test.

The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development?

The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK?

I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale?

Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller?

The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that?

Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed?

The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners?

There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion.

This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady obviously has a set of questions, but it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation we are in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010, who failed to respond to the end of the post-cold war dividend, and who left our overall public finances in, frankly, a perilous state by the time we reached the 2024 election. That situation left us with difficult decisions and choices to make. We are having to reverse some of the cuts they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending, and we are having to make difficult decisions to fund that.

The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions on particular areas, but I gently point out that she said nothing to explain what her approach would be under the Conservative party’s policy to reduce development spending to 0.1% of GNI—a two-thirds reduction in the funding we are setting out. There was no explanation of whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, vaccines or global health support.

I say to the House that we are honouring our commitments, such as those to the World Bank’s International Development Association programme. The ICAI will continue, and we are increasing funding for the British Council, but that will come from outside ODA funding. That will come from additional funding, because we recognise the hugely important role that the British Council plays across the world.

The new approach we are taking to support investment and to shift from donor to investor was encapsulated in the “new Approach to Africa”, published by my noble Friend Baroness Chapman before Christmas. That set out the equal partnership and respect that underpin the new framework for our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries.

On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are providing support that helps refugees in places like Chad, because we know that providing that support in region also prevents people from making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs. There are areas where we are reducing direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but we are working to increase investment in those areas through things like the World Bank and other programmes. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need and continue to champion international development.

Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place.

Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion. 

Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship.

There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly.

The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today.

Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish.

Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values.

In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values.

I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive?

Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally?

Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil.

Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London.

The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.

[Yvette Cooper]

On my visit to Kyiv last week, I announced nearly 300 new sanctions to target Russian revenue streams and military supply chains. More broadly, we are targeting not just the shadow fleet and the oil and gas companies in Russia directly, but those who might support them in third countries. That was our largest Russian sanctions package since 2022, and it is important that we get other countries to support that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?

[Mr Falconer]

I have tried to answer as precisely as possible on all the sections of the MOU. If the right hon. Lady has a particular area that she would like to raise, I am happy to address it, as I did the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I can confirm that I raised these questions in my most recent interaction with the Palestinian ambassador. She refers to what is sometimes described in public as “pay to slay”—the Tamkeen system. That is being externally audited by a United States auditor. Once we have that audit, we will be in a position to provide a further update to the House.

Gibraltar Treaty

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process.

For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully.

The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border?

On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects?

We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control?

The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest?

I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way?

On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever?

Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. I have to say that I have been rather disappointed by the tone today, and indeed the tone taken in the media over the last few days on these issues, not least as I provided a very full briefing to the shadow Foreign Secretary in advance. The idea that we have not been communicating about this treaty is simply not correct. In a spirit of generosity, I am happy to offer further briefings for the shadow Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary in order to go through any detail in the treaty they would like. There is nothing to hide. We welcome their scrutiny, and we welcome the scrutiny of this House.

The shadow Minister asked about the timeline. Of course, there is a process in this place, but there are also processes in the EU. We are committed to that and to laying the finalised text after signature of the treaty, which we expect to take place next month. Of course, it will then go through the appropriate processes in relation to CRaG.

The shadow Minister asked about sovereignty and about recourse and dispute mechanisms. First, I need to make it absolutely clear that sovereignty was never on the table in these negotiations. It is not in doubt. That is an absolute, and this agreement safeguards that. There is a range of recourse and dispute resolution mechanisms attached to the treaty. She is welcome to go through those; I am happy to explain them in more detail. We have very much kept to the double lock, which we set out at the start of the process.

The shadow Minister asked about the 90-day rule. British citizens are not free at the moment just to turn up in Gibraltar without going through immigration checks; they are already subject to a 90-day rule. That is important to clarify, because there seem to have been some misunderstandings of that in relation to all our overseas territories recently. There is not an automatic right, and Gibraltar of course maintains immigration and security checks.

The shadow Minister asked about customs. Gibraltar is not joining the customs union, but it is entering into a bespoke customs arrangement with the EU to ensure, crucially, the fluidity of goods. It has chosen to enter into those arrangements, and it is obviously for it to decide what alignment it needs for that. Again, I think that reflects a wider challenge: the Opposition would rather stick with the ideology of the Brexit years than make pragmatic arrangements that deliver for the people of Gibraltar or indeed the people of this country. Crucially, the agreement is about facilitating trade. It is about facilitating the flow of goods and removing the checks and delays that have caused such frustration in the past.

The shadow Minister asked about the ECJ. I am happy to speak to her further about that. There is full detail in the treaty. She asked about the ECHR. Of course, we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that, notwithstanding the reforms that we are seeking in the wider debates going on outside this place.

The shadow Minister asked for an absolute assurance about our military activities at Gibraltar. I can absolutely assure her that nothing, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded in the way that we, and indeed our allies, have done from the base. That was an absolute condition that we set. I am pleased with Spain’s very co-operative approach. It is a key NATO ally, and we co-operate with it in the defence and security of Europe. I am glad that we now have a co-operative and positive spirit of engagement not only with Spain, but with the EU and a range of partners.

Fundamentally, this agreement is good for Gibraltar, it is good for stability, it is good for prosperity and it is good for security. It is supported by the Government of Gibraltar, which was our primary concern throughout this process as well as protecting UK interests. I think we should all respect and get behind the Government of Gibraltar in support of this agreement.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?

This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?

Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?

Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, I would find the Conservatives’ position more plausible had they not held 11 rounds of these negotiations. The attempt by Conservative and Reform Members to act as though there was no issue to be addressed, and as though the reason they started 11 rounds of negotiations was some sort of lack of focus—[Interruption.] If there was no issue to address, I am not sure why right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Government began the negotiations. I can assure the House that the treaty will go through the full parliamentary process in the usual way, and we are discussing these questions with the Americans in the usual way.