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.

Ukraine

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

This is a critical time for Ukraine. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the UK must continue to proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Four years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict—the innocent civilians, the families of brave servicemen and women, the Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, all those who have suffered life-changing injuries and those who have lost their homes.

At the start of this conflict, the then Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson, with cross-party support in this House, rallied the world behind Ukraine. We supplied weapons, provided humanitarian aid, championed their cause and opened our homes to those fleeing Putin’s brutality. We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, supported by an axis of authoritarian states seeking to extinguish democracy on our continent. Russia’s increasing reliance on Iranian drones and weaponry underlines that this conflict is no longer confined to one border; it is part of a wider alignment of regimes determined to undermine the rules-based international order. We must remain united in defending shared values and the principle that aggressors should never succeed. It is crucial that there is a clear united front in support of Ukraine.

Recent Russian attacks including those on Kyiv, which last year also damaged a British Council building, underline why the UK and our allies must urgently deliver the military support that Ukraine needs. Putin still aims to subjugate Ukraine; the Euro-Atlantic alliance must ensure that he fears the consequences. Russia’s response to recent ceasefire proposals shows why the west must remain resolute. Britain and our allies must continue maximum pressure on the Kremlin while supporting Ukraine on the battlefield. As always, it is ultimately for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation to decide its own future. Any settlement must secure justice and lasting peace for its people. Territorial concessions would reward aggression. Putin has shown repeatedly that he is not serious about peace, and Britain must lead the way on sanctions and international pressure.

I am fortunate to have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I look forward to returning again soon. I am conscious that not just Front-Bench colleagues but many colleagues from across this House and the other place have travelled to Ukraine, and it is such a strong and clear symbol of our unwavering support. For me personally, each visit has left a deep and lasting impression. I remember standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea platform in 2021, reaffirming the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, when I returned to Ukraine in 2023, it was a different country—a country living with the daily realities of war. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones, yet their resolve was, and still is, undiminished. That spirt—defiant, democratic and determined—must guide our response in this House.

One of the gravest crimes committed during this war is the abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, which I know hon. Members from across the House take incredibly seriously. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and communities, transferred to Russia, or Russian-occupied territory, stripped of their identity, subjected to so-called re-education and, in many cases, illegally adopted. This is not an unintended consequence of war; it is a deliberate policy designed to erase Ukraine’s future. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in response to these crimes, but words and warrants alone are not enough. In summing up, will the Minister set out what concrete steps the Government are taking, with allies and international partners, to secure the return of those children, and to ensure that those responsible are pursued without delay or hesitation?

[John Healey]

I am really impressed and pleased that the right hon. Lady has laid such stress on Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children and his attempt to brainwash them, about which there are strong sentiments from Members of all parties. Will she recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) is in Ukraine at the moment, and has just been presented with the Ukrainian Order of Merit for her work on exactly this concern?

[Wendy Morton]

If I am honest, I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had just received that award and that recognition, but it is absolutely fitting. It demonstrates to the people who badmouth hon. Members and say that we do nothing that there are many good people in this place. She deserves that honour. I know many other hon. Members are very committed to Ukraine; a number of them are in Ukraine or on their way back. Some of them may even be heading to this Chamber—only time will tell. It is unusual for a shadow Minister to take an intervention from the Secretary of State, but I am pleased that he brought this important matter to our attention.

Starting under the last Conservative Government, the UK’s support has been world-leading. It has given £3 billion per year in military aid since 2024, £12 billion in total, including humanitarian assistance, and advanced weapons, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 tanks. Operation Interflex has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil. We hosted the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference, raising over $60 billion towards reconstruction. The 100-year partnership, negotiations on which commenced under the Conservative Government, demonstrates our shared commitment to enduring co-operation on trade, security, education, science and culture.

We know that sanctions work. We also know that Russia’s economy is under severe strain. That pressure must continue, including targeted pressure on refineries in China, Turkey and India that are buying Russian oil. Mobilising frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s war effort is crucial. The £2.26 billion UK loan from immobilised Russian assets is welcome, but more must be done, and needs to be done immediately. What further progress has been made on unlocking additional Russian assets, and why has more decisive action not yet been taken? The UK should lead on innovative, legal solutions with our allies and the City of London, to make more resources available to Ukraine right now.

Like us, the United States has been deeply invested in this conflict. American security is tied to Ukraine’s survival, and US military support has been indispensable. How are the Government ensuring close co-ordination with the US and other NATO allies on military aid, sanctions, and strategic support?

[Dr Murrison]

It appears that we are being teed up for some sort of deployment to Ukraine at some point in the future. Does my right hon. Friend recall that in a similar debate on 3 March 2025, the Prime Minister said that he was working with the US to provide

“security guarantees that are worthy of the name—that is, one that has a forward-leaning European element, but a US backstop and US backing”?—[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 41.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be utter folly to deploy British troops without those US guarantees?

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend speaks with not just eloquence, but so much experience. We should all listen to colleagues who bring that expertise and knowledge to this place. I absolutely agree; it would be madness to do that. That point further demonstrates the importance of working really closely with our allies as we continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours and its fight.

We must confront the growing threat posed by Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which the Secretary of State mentioned. These vessels are not only a sanctions loophole, but a direct security threat to our shores and those of our allies. Reports of ship-to-ship transfers, insurance evasion and deceptive practices are deeply concerning. If Russia can bypass the oil price cap through this illicit network, the effectiveness of our sanctions regime will be undermined. I hope that later today, the Minister can outline what further action the Government are taking, alongside partners in the G7 and NATO, to crack down on the shadow fleet, tighten enforcement in UK waters and financial markets, and ensure that British insurers, ports and service providers are not inadvertently enabling sanctions evasion.

As we mark the fourth anniversary of this brutal invasion, our task is clear. We must provide Ukraine with the tools to defend itself, maintain crippling pressure on Putin and ensure that peace is built on justice, not concessions. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand firm, we strengthen our own security; if we hesitate, we embolden aggressors everywhere. I am in no doubt that this House will speak with clarity this afternoon. However, the test for the Government is whether their actions will match the scale of the words, and I really hope that the Minister will give us that assurance. Britain’s support is not symbolic; it is concrete—it is military aid, humanitarian help, sanctions enforcement and diplomatic leadership. We must continue to lead with purpose. Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle, and we will stand with it until victory is secured on Ukraine’s terms.

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

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for setting out the draft order.

The Caribbean faces profound and overlapping challenges, and we recognise that the Caribbean Development Bank contributes to supporting resilience, stability and development across the region. Nevertheless, given the pressures on the aid budget, it is right that Parliament seeks clarity on priorities, governance and outcomes. The special development fund is the bank’s primary concessional window, and the 11th replenishment comes at a moment of acute vulnerability for many Caribbean states. Hurricanes and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, placing extraordinary strain on infrastructure, public finances and social systems. Disaster preparedness, climate resilience and rapid recovery must therefore be central to how these funds are deployed.

My first question to the Minister is about priorities. What strategic objectives has the UK pressed for in this replenishment, and did the bank agree to them? How will funding balance long-term development with urgent disaster response, particularly for the small island developing states repeatedly hit by hurricanes? Secondly, what influence does the UK retain as a contributor? Can the Minister set out how the UK uses its voice within the Caribbean Development Bank to shape investment decisions, policy standards and value for money? How closely is that aligned with wider UK development and foreign policy objectives in the Caribbean?

Briefly, I will turn to measurement and accountability. What criteria will be used to assess whether this replenishment is delivering results? How will those outcomes be tracked and what reporting will be provided to Parliament? Will the Government commit to regular updates on the impact?

There is also a growing geopolitical context that cannot be ignored. China has increased its footprint across the Caribbean through finance and infrastructure, so how is the development bank ensuring that its lending offers a transparent, compelling and high standards alternative? What role is the UK playing in reinforcing those safeguards?

On preparedness and recovery, can the Minister update the Committee briefly on how the bank is working with the private sector, including the world-class insurance industry in the City of London, to improve risk insurance, catastrophe financing and faster recovery after hurricanes?

His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of the Caribbean Development Bank, and we will not oppose the statutory instrument this evening, but, of course, scrutiny matters. Clear priorities, measurable outcomes and transparent reporting will be essential if the funding is to deliver real resilience for Caribbean nations and value for money for the UK taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive.

This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance.

Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.

It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it.

There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort.

The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.

Armed Conflict: Children

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that.

Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action.

I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach.

The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children? Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice?

I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance. Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education.

If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow? Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought?

Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence?

I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access?

More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity. I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational?

Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead. Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have actually answered every single one of the right hon. Lady’s points already, if she had listened. We have been one of the leading countries in driving forward proposals for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. We are working with other countries on that and will continue to do so because we think it is a priority. On the humanitarian work, work has been done by the CMCC, but it goes nowhere near far enough. We are seeing deteriorating conditions in many areas because of the winter conditions, and the removal of non-governmental organisations simply goes backwards. On the board of peace, it is different from what was proposed, and that is why international discussions are under way, and we will see where they end up. But let us be clear that it is the Palestinian committee and the Palestinian people who need to lead the running of Gaza going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Foreign Secretary will have heard President Zelensky’s warnings last week about the supply of air defence missiles—we must heed them. Will the Government make more weapons available, scale up production immediately or broker new military aid packages with our allies to ensure a constant supply of missiles?

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. He has long been a determined and principled advocate for human rights, and it is entirely fitting that he brought this important issue before the House for debate. I thank Members from across House for their many contributions.

The debate is not about whether Magnitsky-style sanctions are justified—they are—but about whether they are being used as effectively as they should be, and whether the Government are doing enough to ensure that they deliver real consequences for those responsible for the gravest human rights violations.

The UK has one of the most developed autonomous sanctions regimes in the world. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, introduced by the last Conservative Government, gives Ministers the power to impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses and corruption. That framework was designed to give the UK the ability to act decisively, in co-ordination with allies and without delay. Ministers spoke of a regime capable of reaching from Xinjiang to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and to the persecution of the Rohingya. Those ambitions were right, but the test is how the regime is applied in practice, because sanctions that are slow, inconsistently applied or weakly enforced do not deter abusers; they signal hesitation.

Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on Russia, and rightly so. Since launching its illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been responsible for widespread and systematic abuses, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK’s response has been significant. It was under the last Conservative Government that the framework for these measures was put in place; as a result, around £28.7 billion in Russian-linked assets have been frozen, but freezing assets is only part of the picture. How is this sanctions regime being enforced? How many investigations has the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation opened in the last year? How many enforcement actions have been taken, and how many penalties have been imposed? Without visible and credible enforcement, there is a real risk that sanctions become something that can be managed, worked around or even absorbed as a cost of doing business.

Several Members have raised the issue of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet—the vessels and networks used to evade sanctions and to continue exporting oil. The Government have sanctioned a number of ships, which is welcome, but, as others have said, the shadow fleet is consistently adapting. It relies on complex ownership structures, opaque insurance arrangements and ship-to-ship transfers designed to obscure origin and destination. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has made clear from this Dispatch Box, enforcement needs to be relentless, not only identifying vessels but targeting the wider networks that enable this activity.

That brings me to a recent example that raises important questions about enforcement. Recent reporting has suggested that sanctioned Russian crude oil was delivered to a refinery part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal, a UK-resident businessman, using vessels that had already been blacklisted by western authorities. Those shipments reportedly involved ship-to-ship transfers and other practices commonly associated with sanctions evasion. Those reports may ultimately lead to enforcement action, and I have written to the director of OFSI to seek clarification, but they underline a wider point: if sanctions are to be effective, they must follow all those involved in enabling sanction busting, not just the ships themselves. That includes those who benefit from, facilitate, finance, or fail to exercise proper oversight over, the continued flow of Russian oil revenues.

When credible concerns are raised about potential sanctions circumvention involving UK-linked individuals or businesses, there must be confidence that those concerns are examined rigorously and without hesitation. Does the Minister know whether OFSI is actively assessing the activity reported in connection with Mr Mittal’s refinery? How does OFSI approach cases where supply chains are deliberately complex, span multiple jurisdictions and are designed to obscure accountability? How are the Government ensuring that enforcement action keeps pace with increasingly sophisticated attempts to evade sanctions in the energy sector?

It is also reasonable to ask whether the Government are prepared to apply the same level of scrutiny where individuals with UK links hold influential positions, such as directorships in major international institutions, banks and multinational companies, while also being connected to sectors implicating Russian energy flows. Can the Minister confirm that no individual, however prominent, and no corporate structure, however complex, is treated as being beyond scrutiny? Sanctions must be applied consistently and without exception, because their credibility depends on it.

Magnitsky-style sanctions were never intended to apply to Russia alone; they were designed to target serious human rights abuses wherever they occur, so let me turn to a number of other areas. First, there is Sudan, which has been mentioned today. We welcome the sanctions already imposed on individuals associated with the RSF, but the situation on the ground remains dire. Civilians continue to suffer, particularly in Darfur, so what more is being done? Are further designations under active consideration? How are sanctions being used alongside diplomatic efforts at the UN and with regional partners to press for a ceasefire and accountability?

Secondly, let me turn to people smuggling and human trafficking. These crimes, which have been mentioned today, involve exploitation, violence and abuse on a large scale, often facilitated by corruption and financial secrecy. In 2025 alone, more than 41,000 illegal migrants crossed the channel in small boats—nearly 5,000 more than in the previous year. Have the Government considered whether Magnitsky-style sanctions could be used more systematically against the leaders of those criminal networks, particularly where there is evidence of corruption or serious human rights abuse? What assessment has been made of that option?

There are a number of long-standing and deeply concerning situations in which Magnitsky sanctions remain highly relevant. In Hong Kong and China, the UK has sanctioned some officials for abuses in Xinjiang and for undermining rights and freedoms. That was the right decision, but serious concerns remain; for instance, not a single Chinese or Hong Kong official has been sanctioned in connection with the dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, despite more than 200,000 Hongkongers relocating to the UK. The recent guilty verdict against Jimmy Lai is a stark reminder of the continued assault on the rule of law, press freedom and judicial independence in Hong Kong. Are the Government actively considering Magnitsky-style sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that case, including those responsible for political interference in the judicial system?

I also ask the Minister what action is being taken against those responsible for placing bounties on the heads of activists—including individuals now living here in the UK—in acts of clear transnational repression. The US has already sanctioned officials linked to those bounties; why has the UK not followed suit? More broadly, these issues sit alongside growing concerns about foreign influence and intimidation here in the UK, including through the proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, and the need for the effective implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. How confident is the Minister that the UK’s sanctions policy, its approach to foreign influence, and its response to transnational repression are properly aligned?

Turning briefly to Iran, as we have seen, the regime’s response to peaceful protest has been brutal. Arbitrary detention, torture and executions continue, so what further steps are being taken to sanction those responsible for repression, and how is the UK working with partners to ensure that Iranian officials involved in those abuses cannot move or hide assets abroad? In Myanmar, nearly four years after the coup, the military junta continues to carry out widespread abuses against civilians, so are additional designations being prepared, and how is the UK ensuring that sanctions remain targeted, relevant and effective over time?

Finally, I turn briefly to Venezuela, where decisive action taken by the US against the Maduro regime has once again underlined the seriousness of the human rights and democratic crisis facing that country. Against that backdrop, can the Minister set out clearly the Government’s current approach to Venezuela sanctions, how human rights considerations are being reflected in policy, and whether Magnitsky-style sanctions remain firmly on the table?

[Joe Powell]

Would the shadow Minister consider briefly responding to my question about whether she thinks it is appropriate for the shadow Attorney General to be simultaneously advising shadow Ministers and a sanctioned Russian oligarch?

[Wendy Morton]

I am happy to respond. I refer the hon. Gentleman and his colleague who also raised that question, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), to a letter that Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General, has published. That letter sets out the position very clearly.

Returning to the subject of the debate, when we step back, a clear pattern emerges: sanctions only work if they are enforced rigorously, applied consistently and backed by the political will to follow the evidence wherever it leads. As such, I will close with a few final questions for the Minister. How are the Government strengthening enforcement against sanctions evasion, particularly in complex sectors such as energy and shipping, and where do they see as the next priority for designations? What steps are being taken to improve transparency and accountability to Parliament? If sanctions are to serve their purpose, they must be more than symbolic; they must be enforced, credible and consistent. That is what victims of human rights abuses deserve, and that is what the UK’s reputation as a serious and principled actor on the world stage requires.

International Human Rights Day 2025

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing this debate, and for his thoughtful and reflective introduction, marking International Human Rights Day 2025. Every year on 10 December we pause to reaffirm the universal and enduring values that underpin the universal declaration of human rights. This year’s theme is “Human rights: our everyday essentials”. At a time of turbulence and unpredictability, when many in our own country and across the world feel a growing sense of insecurity, the reminder that human rights are the foundations of dignity in our daily lives could not be more important.

Fundamental rights are under immense and sustained pressure. An axis of authoritarian states is working deliberately to undermine the international order and the very concept of universal rights. In Iran, the tyrannical regime continues its repression of women and minorities, censoring the media, jailing dissenters and enforcing coercive control. In Russia, President Putin has entrenched a political environment incompatible with free and fair elections: criminalising free speech, shutting down NGOs and exporting violence through his illegal invasion of Ukraine.

China’s actions remain profoundly concerning, from the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to the steady erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. The national security law is now routinely deployed to silence critics, including Jimmy Lai who, at 78 and in ill health, remains in solitary confinement for nothing more than speaking out. Tibet, too, remains one of the most heavily suppressed regions in the world. Sadly, those are not isolated cases; as we have heard in this debate, there are many other examples. They represent a challenge to the international system itself, and they demand a response that is marked in both principle and resolve.

Today, though, I will speak particularly about those suffering in active conflict zones. In Sudan, the ongoing conflict has seen civilians targeted indiscriminately. Satellite evidence points to mass killings and the disposal of bodies by the Rapid Support Forces. What progress has been made since the international humanitarian conference that the Government hosted, and what further steps will the UK take to ensure that commitments translate into protection for civilians on the ground?

In Ukraine, the forced deportation and re-education of children by the Russian state remains one of the most shocking war crimes of our generation, with an estimated 45,000 children abducted. It is shocking. Some are placed with Russian families under coercive adoption programmes, while others undergo militarisation training. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the Government’s work to support efforts to secure the return of these abducted children to their parents? I know there is a lot of interest in this topic right across the House.

It is in this wider context of global crises that we must also carefully assess the UK’s spending on development and ensure that the aid budget is spent wisely and effectively against clear priorities. How are the Government ensuring that the UK upholds human rights and protects the most vulnerable abroad?

In the middle east we all share the deep hope that diplomatic efforts will soon secure a full and sustained end to the conflict. But we cannot discuss the human impact of the conflict without remembering the final Israeli hostage, whose continued captivity prolongs trauma and prevents healing. To be clear, all hostages must be released and humanitarian access must be upheld.

This debate falls on the final day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to highlight the alarming rise in the online abuse of women and girls. One in three women in the UK has experienced online abuse. Technology promised empowerment, yet for too many it has become a tool of coercion, harassment and intimidation.

The UK has a proud tradition of defending human rights, freedoms and the rule of law. From the Opposition Benches we have continued to press the Government on their commitments, whether on consular rights for citizens facing human rights violations abroad or on the need for robust action in relation to our adversaries who seek to undermine international law.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does the shadow Minister think that the Opposition’s current position has changed markedly from their position when they were in government?

[Wendy Morton]

We have made our position very clear when it comes to the defence budget. Obviously, as we get nearer to another election, we will set out more detail.

Today—International Human Rights Day 2025—is an important day. It is a really good opportunity for us all to come together, not just to highlight some of the many cases around the world but to show that the UK has a proud record of standing up for and defending those rights.

As the Opposition, it is important that we continue to hold Ministers to their word, because the protection of human rights goes far beyond party lines; it speaks to who we are as a nation and the role that we seek to play in the world. Let us work together across this House to ensure that the rights and freedoms we cherish become a lived reality for all.

Draft International Development Association (Twenty-First Replenishment) Order 2025

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. As he will expect, I have a number of questions on which some further clarity would be helpful for the Committee.

His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the long-standing role that the UK has played in supporting IDA, which is the World Bank’s concessional arm, working in some of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world. We also recognise the scale of the challenges facing those countries, from conflict and food security to the growing pressure of climate shocks and debt distress. IDA has been, and remains, an important part of the global response.

However, the draft order legislates for payments of up to £1.98 billion in UK aid, which is an extremely significant commitment. Therefore, Parliament deserves some clear and detailed assurances about how this money will be used, what impacts it is expected to deliver and how the Government intend to oversee it. Can the Minister explain, in broad terms, how IDA allocates where resources go under this replenishment? What balance does IDA expect between grants and concessional loans? What criteria are used to allocate funds between countries, particularly those facing acute debt pressure? As the UK shareholder, what role have the Government played in deciding where taxpayers’ money will go?

Secondly, can the Minister set out the themes and priorities that the UK argued for during the IDA21 negotiations? IDA covers a wide agenda, from health and climate resilience to education and digital infrastructure, so it would be helpful to know where the Government have sought to focus UK influence, not least in view of the reduction to the aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3%. Do the themes and priorities meet UK development objectives, and how have key UK interests been prioritised?

On the issue of debt sustainability, can the Minister reassure the Committee that IDA’s lending will not compound existing debt vulnerabilities? Have any safeguards been strengthened since IDA20? What assurances can the Government give that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used for debt reduction where countries have been trapped into debt by China? ODA should not be paying down debts to China.

Turning to oversight, what monitoring and evaluation arrangements does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office rely on to demonstrate that UK contributions to IDA21 deliver measurable outcomes and value for money? How often will Parliament receive updates on performance and progress against UK objectives? Will the FCDO publish a report on delivery against measurable outcomes?

Governance is another key area. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any changes to IDA’s transparency, accountability or anti-corruption safeguards, which should give Parliament confidence in how this replenishment will operate? Finally, can the Minister say whether the UK sought particular conditions or expectations from other donors during the negotiations? How do the Government intend to use the UK’s seat on IDA’s board to ensure alignment with our bilateral work, so that efforts are not duplicated?

IDA remains an important development instrument, but the scrutiny of large multilateral commitments is essential. We hope the Minister can address those points and we look forward to his response.