Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people.

Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones.

I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty.

I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through.

When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children.

That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.

Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children.

Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation.

I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out.

The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children?

What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice.

I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, with a reminder to finish by 3.58 pm at the latest.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is a powerful advocate for global health—I think we can all see why he prefers to be on this side of the dais today rather than where you are, Ms Jardine.

Global health is everybody’s health. This year we have significant replenishments for two organisations: Gavi and the Global Fund, which work on the frontline to secure our population against diseases, which do not respect borders. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a unique alliance of Governments, private sector foundations, civil society organisations and vaccine manufacturers. As we have heard, Gavi has vaccinated more than 1 billion children in 78 low-income countries and saved more than 18.8 million lives.

In 2025, Gavi is seeking its eighth replenishment for its five-year strategic period, from 2026 to 2030. It is an impressive organisation; since becoming a shadow Minister in November, I have been pleased to continue to meet Gavi regularly and participate in roundtables as it approaches this crucial milestone. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria invests in sustainable health systems to eradicate those three diseases. It has saved an estimated 65 million lives. The Global Fund’s eighth replenishment is also happening this year, and it will cover the funding period from 2026 to 2028.

Global health is a good example of a positive impact that we can have through aid. If we look, for example, at neglected tropical diseases, we see that our science, technology and research sectors produced both of the world’s first malaria vaccines to be recommended by the World Health Organisation: Mosquirix and R21. During my time as Minister with responsibility for global health, I was fortunate enough to see the UK expertise in infectious diseases at first hand during a visit to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, back in 2020. At the time, it was a Conservative Government who announced £15.5 million to support the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in its research on preventing the spread of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, and in strengthening health systems in fragile countries.

The UK is often cited as a leader in global health. In answers to several of my written questions on the topic—the Minister knows this well—Ministers start by saying:

“The UK is one of the largest donors to Gavi”.

They then give the reply that many right hon. and hon. Members will be accustomed to—that we need to wait until the spending review, and that all global health investments are being looked at in the round.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Gavi relies heavily on philanthropic foundations,  notably the Gates Foundation, but there are concerns that they may have a disproportionate influence on setting the priorities for global vaccine programmes. Does the right hon. Lady agree that any reduction or pulling back of the UK’s support of those programmes could exacerbate those concerns?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Gavi has the ability to pull in many different donors, but perhaps the specific questions following the ODA cut should be directed to the Minister. Gavi is a good example of how partnership can deliver for the benefit of the most vulnerable.

Conservative Governments made significant interventions that contributed to the UK’s reputation as a global health leader. In 2015, we pledged £1.44 billion to Gavi over five years, and in 2020, when we hosted the global vaccine summit, we committed a further £1.65 billion. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. Those pledges to Gavi and the Global Fund were just one part of our leadership and efforts to strengthen global health, and an incredibly important one at that.

I note from responses to my written questions that Ministers are often quite keen to highlight our record on global health, but I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions about the Government’s record to date. Following the reduction in ODA to 0.3% of GNI, I ask the Minister: what does global health now look like from the strategic level of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? It would be helpful to know where the priorities are and whether the Government plan to continue the emphasis on multilateral NGOs such as Gavi and the Global Fund, or whether other models are to be considered.

Although the approach to global health may be changing under this Labour Government, the replenishment periods for Gavi and the Global Fund are rapidly approaching—in fact, Gavi’s is literally weeks away. I would therefore welcome some clarity from the Minister on the discussions he has had with representatives of both funds and other donor nations. I want to press him a little about the absence of any UK pledges to date. I have previously had no luck getting an answer on that through my written questions, so I will have another go today. Has he considered the impact of the UK’s apparent delay in pledging on our international reputation and our standing as a leader in global health?

[Sam Rushworth]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the UK’s track record on this has been quite impressive, given that other countries frankly punch below their economic weight, so this is not just about the UK’s contribution but about the role we play in ensuring other countries shoulder the burden?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I recall that during the last replenishment, there were many conversations going on to encourage other countries and partners to step up to the plate. The UK’s leadership had a real impact at that time. In a similar vein, what is the potential impact on other countries’ pledges? Is the Minister thinking about making a reduced commitment or no pledge at all? Rather than ongoing uncertainty, it would help other donors and NGOs to know what the UK is doing, so that they can plan.

The Minister will be aware that there is a range of financial instruments available to him. One is the international finance facility for immunisation, through which £590 million of our £1.65 billion pledge in 2020 was distributed. IFFIm accelerates the delivery of vaccines by making the money from long-term Government donor pledges available immediately, allowing Gavi to vaccinate more individuals, faster. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on any discussions he has had with Gavi and with IFFIm about its potential use to front-load any UK commitments.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I agree what a good model that is. Does the right hon. Member agree it is a model the Government could consider using for other things? An international finance facility for education has been released in the last few years. Does she agree that the Government could consider adopting this model across a range of different issues as we look to find alternative methods of development finance?

[Wendy Morton]

That is a really interesting point, because IFFIm has proved what can be achieved by working with other instruments. I hope that the Government will examine the options. The Minister may be able to share that information; it is not for me to say what the Government should do, but perhaps the Minister can do so in his response to the debate.

The global landscape of development is changing; we can see that across the rest of the world. For example, the US, which for so long has been an important anchor donor to a number of global health initiatives, has made dramatic reductions to USAID, so it would be helpful to know what discussions the Minister has had with his US counterparts and with other donor countries about co-ordinating our efforts, so we can maximise value for money in global health spend.

I will conclude as I started, by saying that global health is everybody’s health. I pay enormous tribute to the Global Fund and Gavi, which harness the power of donations from taxpayers in countries like the UK to end preventable deaths from treatable diseases in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Global health may sometimes seem like an abstract concept, but we only have to look back at recent history to see that infectious diseases do not respect borders and that global solutions are needed to keep us all safe.

Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This is the third time in a week that the Minister and I have met across the Dispatch Box to debate sanctions. Once again, I thank him for advance sight of his statement.

Sanctions are imperative in supporting the rules-based international system and punishing those who breach those rules. The last Conservative Government placed sanctions on Assad and his cruel regime, and helped to lead a co-ordinated approach with our allies on Syria. Britain put in place sanctions on Iran, and worked with the US to reaffirm our shared commitment to opposing those who threatened peace, security and stability in the middle east. In 2021, the UK put in place sanctions, including asset freezes, on Chinese Government officials for gross human rights abuses. Britain led international efforts to sanction Putin and those behind his war machine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We put plans in place to set up the office of trade sanctions implementation, which, as the Minister said, was formally established in October. It was set up to bolster our trade sanctions capability, crack down on companies that breach trade sanctions, and co-ordinate across Government to ensure that sanctions are implemented effectively.

At the time, the Minister announced a cross-Government review. We have not yet seen the report, but I wish to press the Minister on a few points. First, what changes are being made to the sanctions implementation and enforcement framework? What role does OTSI play in any changes? The Minister refers to robust action to increase sanctions evasion deterrence, but what specific measures are being considered? He also mentions a new enforcement strategy; when can we expect that to be published? I would welcome clarity on how the new joint sanctions intelligence function fits into our existing intelligence framework. How does he envisage that working with what we are doing with the US and our other Five Eyes partners?

As I am sure the Minister appreciates, thanks to our leaving the European Union, we now have our own sanctions framework. The flexibility to set our own framework and lead the charge with allies and partners cannot be squandered. Does the Minister expect the EU security pact to touch on the independence of our sanctions regime? We should look to build on the strong measures that we have placed on countries and entities. What progress is being made in identifying further sanctions to impose on those already targeted?

Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of groups and militia operating in Syria? How will he ensure that the relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? How often will he review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions? Will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? Will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations for Syria?

The critical mass of the current UK sanctions on Iran were introduced under the last Conservative Government. Sanctions form one part of the approach to tackling Iran, but what is the Minister’s broader strategy on Iran?

When we were in government, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. The economic pressure that we have collectively imposed with the international community has crippled the Russian economy and deprived Putin of $400 billion that could have funded his illegal war. We cannot afford to let up on exerting that pressure on Putin’s war machine. Part of that includes tackling Russian assets. What consideration has the Minister given to deploying assets from the sale of Chelsea football club to support Ukraine? Will he confirm a timeframe for deploying that money?

I would welcome clarity on what information is coming forward to the Minister about potential sanctions breaches and loopholes that are being exploited. Does the review sufficiently plug the gaps that have been identified? Will he update us on what action he is taking against any third party countries that are supporting the countries and entities we have already sanctioned?

Finally, how does the Minister plan to deepen our international co-ordination? What discussions have the Government had with the United States? Did the Government have advance knowledge of yesterday’s announcement? Will it have a bearing on UK policy on sanctions on Syria? Sanctions are a crucial tool in our diplomatic arsenal. We must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible to ensure that international norms are adhered to.

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaza: UK Assessment

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The situation in the middle east continues to cause concern. That is why we on this side of the House have been clear on the need to see the return of the hostages and a lasting ceasefire. Although we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, there are still 58 hostages held in Gaza by the Iranian-backed terrorists. Those who are still alive are being held in the most dreadful and appalling conditions, without access to aid and medicines. What they and their families have been going through for approaching 600 days is unimaginable. They must be released as a matter of urgency, so can the Minister give an update on the diplomatic steps being taken by the Government to secure the release of the remaining hostages, and what is Britain contributing to those efforts?

This conflict would have been over long ago, had Hamas released the hostages, and the House should not be in any doubt that Hamas and their Iranian sponsors are committed to wiping out the state of Israel. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, with international partners, to deal with the threat to peace, security and stability posed by Iran? We have constantly asked for a strategy to tackle Iran, so when will this come forward? The Government have shared our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, so can we have an update on the practical steps the Government are taking to secure this outcome and end the misery that Hamas are inflicting on Gaza and the threat they pose to Israel?

We have debated aid access to Gaza on several occasions, including in recent days, so can the Minister tell us exactly how much UK-funded aid, both directly and indirectly through multilateral organisations, is waiting to enter Gaza and give us a breakdown of what that aid is? The Government have known for a number of months about the concerns Israel has about the delivery of aid to Gaza and aid diversion, so can the Minister today explain what discussions have taken place with Israel, and what practical solutions Ministers have offered to support the delivery of aid that addresses its concerns? Has the Minister been directly engaged in the discussions that have taken place with Israel and the US over alternative ways to get aid into Gaza? Does he have a view on this and will the UK be participating?

We have also been clear that while we continue to press for humanitarian aid and accountability, we do not consider the actions in Gaza to constitute genocide. The case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is not helping—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we please stick to the time? The right hon. Lady is almost a minute over. We have to work within the timescales, and Members need to time speeches. Lots of Members need to get in, and we have to support each other. I think the Minister has enough to go on.

Sanctions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups.

All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine.

On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House?

Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion.

Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets?

Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future.

Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable.

We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

We know that education can make a real difference to a girl’s life chances, which is why the last Conservative Government committed to ensuring that every girl has access to quality education. However, we will now be spending less on development, so can the Minister give clarity on the commitments that the Government are making to support women and girls over the next few years? Which programmes will be kept and which will be cut, and how much will be invested in those programmes?

[Catherine West]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s humanitarian framework sets out our long-term approach through three policy priorities: providing humanitarian assistance for those in greatest need; protecting people at risk in conflict and crises; and preventing and anticipating future shocks and building resilience. When it comes to building resilience, the people most at risk are often women and young girls who fail to have access to education. The indices of educational attainment will be the basis on which many of these decisions are made.

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks.

I welcome this opportunity to debate sanctions on Syria and this measure that the Government have introduced, but before we get into the substance of the matter, may I raise with the Minister a point relating to the process? Will he explain why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office press release announcing the relaxation of sanctions was issued on 24 April and the legislation was signed by the Minister on 23 April, but it took a week for a written ministerial statement to be laid to Parliament announcing these changes, on 30 April? Can he explain why this discourtesy was shown to the House, and give an assurance that statements on changes to sanctions will in future be made to the House first whenever possible, and certainly in a timelier manner?

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has said in the House on multiple occasions, the Opposition are of the view that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. Syria is at a fork in the road, and there is still no guarantee which path it will take. The situation is very fragile and remains volatile, as clearly demonstrated by the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities in recent days. Millions of Syrians remain displaced, facing hardship and suffering, while the security situation on the ground is volatile, with the country still vulnerable to criminal gangs smuggling weapons, drugs and people; still at risk of continuing to be exploited by terrorists; and still exposed to the malign influence of Iran.

Few will shed tears for the end of the vile, tyrannical Assad regime, which bore responsibility for repression, torture and death on a truly horrific scale and, infamously, the use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, there is still an onus on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to prove that it is serious about putting Syria on the path to a future that is materially different and better than that under the monstrous tyranny of the Assads, including when it comes to the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. With that in mind, we need to judge HTS and the transitional Government solely on the basis of action, not words or statements about a future vision. Will the Minister give his latest assessment of the number of groups and militias operating in Syria, and say how he will ensure that this relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria?

Co-ordination of course is also important, so I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister what co-ordination, if any, he has undertaken with both the US and European allies on the approach to sanctions. The last Conservative Government helped to lead a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, but the UK does not appear to be trying to lead efforts on sanctions policy in the post-Assad period. We see key players in the international community now taking different approaches to the lifting of sanctions, when what we really need is consistency of message. We understand that the US is seeking to impose conditions on the lifting of sanctions, including over the removal of chemical weapons and counter-terrorism measures—indeed, there have been reports of letters being exchanged on these matters as the US seeks assurances—but it appears that the UK is not doing so. Will the Minister explain why he does not want to apply conditions? On what basis has he made the decision not to row in behind the US approach?

We recognise that regulation 5 of these regulations contains a list of high-level and laudable purposes for the UK’s decisions, but that is not the same as a concrete condition. On this point, the Minister will be aware that page 2 of the explanatory memorandum summarises the purposes of the regulations as being,

“to promote the peace, stability and security of Syria…to promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Syria, including in particular promoting the successful completion of Syria’s transition to a democratic country…to discourage actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Syria”.

Will the Minister explain what direct discussions have taken place with HTS about the requirements that we expect it to be able to fulfil? If he has not placed conditions on this decision, will he explain why he has not done so?

The Minister will be aware that the shadow Foreign Secretary tabled a written parliamentary question on 24 February on

“conditions he”—

the Foreign Secretary—

“plans to apply to the Government of Syria in relation to the relaxation of sanctions.”

The Minister who answered on 24 March did not give a direct response to that part of the question, so I would like to give this Minister the opportunity now to give a direct answer. Is this relaxation of sanctions directly linked to a clear set of conditions placed on the transitional Government, and will any future relaxation of sanctions be directly linked to conditions too?

It is also important for the Minister to explain what assurances, if any, he has been directly given by the transitional Government of Syria on adhering to the standards that we expect of them. What measures will be put in place to ensure that this relaxation of sanctions does not lead to investments and resources being abused? Syria remains a fragmented country, with different groups and militias exercising control, and conflict and violence still taking place. How often will the Minister review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions, and will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met?

I ask that because section 10 of the explanatory memorandum gives some details on the Government’s approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation, but seems to suggest that the Government will look only at the effectiveness of maintaining or relaxing the sanctions regime, rather than tightening it up, and that a specific review provision is not needed. The relevant section asks,

“What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?”

and section 10.1 states:

“If His Majesty’s Government determined that…it was no longer appropriate to maintain a sanctions regime or specific sanctions measures, that regime would be removed or amended accordingly. In the case of the 2019 Regulations, that would include the measures introduced by this instrument. As such, the Minister does not consider that a review clause in this instrument is appropriate.

Will the Minister clarify his approach to reviewing and monitoring, which is important? If the transitional Government or other entities in Syria are not acting in an appropriate way to deliver stability to Syria and protect rights, will the current sanctions regime be amended, or will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations?

Will the Minister commit to giving a regular update and statement to the House on the status of Syria and the progress, or lack of progress, being made, and whether he is considering any further amendments to sanctions? Does he expect to make any further amendments this year? On monitoring the impact, what criteria will the Minister use to judge whether the lifting of sanctions has had the effect he desires, including on the security front, which will also be important?

Turning to more specific provisions, on 25 April the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at HM Treasury issued a financial sanctions notice that updated references to the 310 individuals and 39 entities to which sanctions apply. With the Assad regime over, can the Minister confirm whether any of those individuals are still in Syria, or have all fled? We know that Assad is in Russia, but does the Minister know the whereabouts of other individuals?

Will the Government still consider adding names of individuals and entities to the list, should evidence emerge of the complicity in Assad’s crimes and the repression of Syria by those either currently in Syria or elsewhere? We agree those sanctions must remain in place, and those responsible for heinous acts be held to account. Will the Minister give details on the work under way with international partners and the transitional Government in Syria to bring those responsible to face justice? Will he give an update on his assessment of compliance with sanctions in place?

I now turn to the impact of the amendment. Section 9.2 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The lifting of sanctions creates trade and investment opportunities for the UK. The impact on UK growth is expected to be positive but negligible, due to the small size of the Syrian economy. Any such trade and investment with Syria will remain subject to other existing legal regulation including international sanctions.”

Does the Minister have an estimate of the impact this would have on UK businesses? Will support and assistance be provided to any UK businesses looking to invest in Syria as a result of these changes, to ensure safe operations? How will he monitor new investments in Syria, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the Syrian people and are not making their way into the hands of those who will undermine our objectives in Syria?

With regard to regulation 6 of the 2019 regulations, headed “Designation criteria: meaning of ‘involved person’”, the amendments would add references to the regulation applying to activities during the period of the Assad regime, which is defined in the regulations as the period ending on 8 December 2024. They state that those designated will be persons involved in a range of abhorrent activities, including

“repressing the civilian population in Syria”

and

“the commission of, or obstruction of an independent investigation into a serious human rights violation or abuse in Syria.”

Can the Minister confirm whether that will mean that anyone who may obstruct investigations into human rights abuses that happened under the Assad regime but where the obstructive actions took place after 8 December 2024, will not be covered by that provision? Ensuring that evidence is secured is vital to bringing criminal cases against those responsible. Anything that could compromise that must surely be a concern.

In the 2019 regulations, regulation 6 defines

“prohibited activities related to chemical weapons”

and regulation 7 lists

“stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons”

as actions that can lead to sanctions being applied. Will the Minister confirm whether those aspects of the regulations will apply to anyone who has been maintaining chemical weapons, or obstructing any efforts to investigate and dispose of chemical weapons held in Syria currently, since the fall of the Assad regime? Or does the measure apply only to persons involved in those activities up to 8 December 2024?

I am sure that the Minister will share our concerns about the risks of chemical weapons not being secured and disposed of. Can he give an update on the international efforts to deal with chemical weapons in Syria and any progress that the transitional Government are making on that issue?

Finally, only an appropriate and inclusive constitutional future will ultimately guarantee peace and stability for Syria, so we should make sure that our policy on Syria’s economic recovery, of which sanctions are of course a part, is not decoupled from ensuring that the right governance structures are in place. On that basis, what is the Minister’s latest assessment of transitional Government’s progress and the plans that they have laid out? We seek assurances on all those points, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to all those questions when he sums up.

Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate. It is fair to say that hon. Members who have contributed today have demonstrated their knowledge and the conversations they have had with the sector. I think we all agree that those who work in the humanitarian aid sector, especially in conflict zones, do an incredibly important job under very challenging circumstances.

From multilateral to localised grassroots organisations, there are so many in the sector to acknowledge, but in the interests of time I will be brief. First, I should like to thank the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, which the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and I have met recently. Its expertise and neutrality enables it to reach some of the most difficult areas, and it works in more than 90 countries. I also thank Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff, who I know work on the UK’s humanitarian programmes; they are highly dedicated individuals, who often work around the clock. We are grateful for their efforts.

Mine Awareness Day was 4 April, and I pay tribute to the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group. Those are examples of Great British organisations that work globally to lead efforts in de-mining and restoring land in post-conflict communities. There are some remarkable achievements, but as HALO and MAG demonstrate, there is so much more to do if we are to reach a mine-free world.

Provisional ODA spend figures for 2024 show that £1.4 billion of bilateral ODA was spent on humanitarian assistance—an increase of 60% from 2023. That really underlines the impact of global crises and conflicts. In the 2023 international development White Paper, we outlined tackling conflict and state fragility as a priority. Part of our vision for 2030 was greater emphasis on improving foresight and conflict prevention.

It is also worth remembering that the UK is uniquely placed to be a leader in this area, with our groundbreaking data science, AI, machine learning, and open-source intelligence capabilities. That new technology can be used to expedite forecasting of conflict and mass atrocity risks, buying time for a response from a few months to a few years in advance. There are some specific questions I would like to ask the Minister today. Could he update us on what his Department is doing to continue that work, and what discussions has he had with the UK science, technology, and research sectors to leverage expertise into conflict prevention abroad?

As well as the clear humanitarian need of civilians in conflict zones, colleagues are right to raise concerns about the safety of humanitarian workers delivering aid. I would like to press the Minister on a few of those conflict zones.

First, I will turn to Ukraine. In January 2025, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that there are 12.7 million Ukrainians in need, of which 6 million will be targeted by aid agencies in 2025. Can the Minister reassure us on what steps he is taking to support the safety of aid workers operating near the frontlines? Disinformation, including Russian disinformation, is another challenge that can compromise the safety of aid workers. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of disinformation on the ability of humanitarian agencies to function in Ukraine? What steps is he taking to counter it?

In Sudan, millions of innocent people have been affected by the appalling conflict and the humanitarian need is dire. It was regrettable that the Foreign Secretary’s conference in London failed to settle on a final communiqué among the parties present to agree a long-term political solution. Clearly, a transition to a truly inclusive civilian-led Government is crucial and we should not lose sight of that. On the ground, we know that aid access and delivery is an enduring challenge. What assessment has the Minister made of incidences of aid blocking in Sudan? What steps are being taken to protect humanitarian workers trying to deliver that aid?

In the middle east, we are in a very difficult moment with a breakdown of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. We need this Government to ensure that the UK is a proactive participant in efforts to find a way through. On aid access, can the Minister update us on the practical efforts he is making to unblock the current situation, including updating us on recent engagement with the Government of Israel on this? What is his assessment of the amount of UK-funded aid that is getting through?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

In the earlier part of the current conflict, where aid was blocked, there were air drops from different nations in the UN. I am not aware of the participation of the UK Government. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is an immediate need for every single channel through which aid can get into Gaza to be put in place and used?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will leave the specific point of air drops to the Minister, and perhaps he will pick up on that. Wherever the conflict is, it is incumbent on all players to do the utmost to make sure that aid gets through where it is needed. That is why those of us on the Opposition Benches often do, and will continue to, press the Government when it comes to that important issue of access, as I have done this afternoon.

I would also be grateful for an update on the Minister’s discussions following the deaths of the 15 aid workers in Gaza in March, and on the need for effective deconfliction in this conflict. Can he also tell us how his Department is working with the ICRC and other agencies to help ensure they can operate safely and to minimise the risks?

Finally, in Myanmar, despite a ceasefire agreed by the warring parties following the devastating earthquake, fighting has reportedly continued. We understand that it is a very hostile environment for traditional aid agencies operating in Myanmar, so the FCDO has opted for a grassroots approach to aid delivery. What recent assessment has the Minister made of the effectiveness of that approach in getting aid to where it is needed, and importantly, protecting aid workers? Has the earthquake affected the balance between working with localised grassroots organisations and more traditional humanitarian agencies? If we are working with more multilateral agencies, what steps is he taking to ensure they can operate safely?

There are too many good humanitarian organisations, and sadly too many conflicts, to name and discuss them in the short time we have today, but I want to be clear that that in no way diminishes their importance, or the impact on civilians and humanitarian workers grappling with their consequences. As I bring my remarks to a close, I want to again put on record our thanks to all those who put themselves at risk to deliver life-saving support to people in desperate situations. We are living in a more dangerous world and there are more competing demands for humanitarian assistance. It is essential that these brave individuals can work safely and without fear, so they can focus on supporting the most vulnerable.

Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is important that we put this all within the context of Britain’s relationship with Israel. Israel is a key security and defence partner for the United Kingdom, and it is the only democracy in the middle east. Its security matters and helps to keep us safe, including by dealing with threats that undermine our interests.

When the Conservatives were in government, we were able to have candid and honest conversations with the Government of Israel on all issues, because of the mutual trust and respect in our relations. It is only by maintaining that trust and respect that Britain can bring influence to bear on issues that really matter for peace and security in the middle east and, indeed, for us too, including on the course of this terrible conflict and, ultimately, on finding a sustainable end to the conflict, which is what we all want to see. That is more relevant than ever because of the current situation with the 59 hostages who are still being held. It is not in Britain’s interests, nor is it in the interests of peace in the region, if there are tense and difficult relations with Israel that would undermine our influence.

The Minister will be aware of his own Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advice on entry to Israel, but for the benefit of the House it states:

“The Israeli authorities decide if you can enter Israel… Some visitors may face longer searches and questioning, including those …who are considered to have publicly criticised the state of Israel”.

Does the Minister accept that British nationals visiting Israel—a country that is at war—should be aware of those requirements and consider them carefully before making decisions to travel, and that they therefore travel to Israel at their own risk?

I think it would also be helpful today to understand what the Minister considers to count as an official trip, and whether the FCDO was aware in advance of this trip. As MPs—[Interruption.] As Members of Parliament, we do not have diplomatic immunity, so what would the FCDO do—this is really important—if MPs were allowed entry and then arrested? [Interruption.] Moreover, who were the aides who accompanied the delegation and also returned to the UK? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have to be able to hear the shadow Minister. I understand that emotions are high. We have to make sure that we temper the debate.

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important and right that we ask some questions. Will the Minister update the House on the UK Government’s latest engagement with key interlocutors on efforts to find a way through the current, extremely difficult moment in the conflict? [Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Government Benches, but they will have the opportunity, I am sure, to ask the Minister questions themselves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is for the Chair to decide. Please continue.

[Wendy Morton]

As I have said before, Britain needs to be a proactive player and help to drive things to a better destination with practical solutions. Is any progress being made, including on the central issue of the hostages, who have been held in such cruel captivity by Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October? The return of the hostages to their loved ones by Hamas remains the key to a sustainable end to this awful conflict, and we have in our thoughts today, and every day, the brave families of the hostages, for whom this is an unimaginably painful time.

On the deaths of the 15 emergency workers last month, has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had official discussions with Israeli counterparts in recent days on their investigations, and what does the Minister make of Israel’s latest assessment? Clearly, it is important in all conflicts that there is the most effective deconfliction possible. As I say, we want to see a sustainable end to this conflict. On aid to Gaza, has the Minister sought to address Israeli concerns about diversion, which may help to unblock the current situation on access? Finally, we are yet to have a clear answer from the Government, despite repeated questioning, on how they envisage what remains of Hamas can be removed from power in Gaza, and what the UK’s diplomatic contribution will be to bringing that about.

[Hon. Members]

Shame!

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is very clear from Ministers’ answers that we still have no indication about which programmes and where will be affected by the planned reductions to ODA and from when exactly the cuts will be effective. We are told to wait for the spending review, but many organisations, including those tackling infectious diseases, are left to face uncertainty and to work at risk. Will the Minister tell us what instructions have been issued to his Department’s humanitarian aid programmes about what they are expected to do between now and the spending review in June?

[Stephen Doughty]

We clearly have difficult decisions to make, but the FCDO is not pausing all ODA programming and not creating a cliff edge in this year. We are focusing on ensuring that every pound will be spent in the most impactful way in the new context. That is a very difficult decision, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have set out. We will set out the details in due course, but we are listening closely to Members in this House and, indeed, to the many partners and stakeholders we work with on these important issues.