Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by joining the Minister in expressing the Opposition’s sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent wildfires in Spain.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our starting position is that an agreed legal basis for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU is needed. Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. Businesses in both Gibraltar and Britain need certainty. British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty, and the many thousands of frontier workers need certainty. We need to have proper scrutiny, not least because an acceptable deal between Gibraltar and the EU has to do many things at once. It must uphold unequivocally and without qualification British sovereignty over Gibraltar and the express will of the people of Gibraltar to be part of the British family, not Spain. Every Government has a duty to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom and the British family wherever it exists. It must also deal with the practical realities of the frontier and Gibraltar’s economy.

However, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, with the treaty signed and provisional application under way, and even with the final sections of the frontier fence now removed, Parliament has still not been afforded a proper debate in Government time to scrutinise this agreement. Since the agreement was announced, the shadow foreign affairs team has asked five urgent questions and numerous oral and written parliamentary questions to try to establish the Government’s intentions, often receiving unsatisfactory non-answers. The FCDO is responsible for Britain’s treaty obligations, but it has been the Government of Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who have all too often kept Members of this House informed. I thank them for that.

Even today in this statement, there is no mention of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and scrutiny, so I ask again for confirmation that the 21 sitting day CRaG process will apply. Will the Minister set out the timetable for that today? We cannot have a repeat of the way the Government have tried to avoid scrutiny with the Chagos deal.

On the substance of the deal itself, starting with the military base, can the Minister offer an unambiguous and unequivocal guarantee that nothing in this agreement constrains the operation, freedom of action or sovereign control of His Majesty’s armed forces in Gibraltar? Britain’s military base is not a matter for compromise, negotiation or shared competence. It is sovereign British territory, serving vital British and NATO interests.

On the entry of British commercial goods, including British foods, into Gibraltar, can the Minister confirm whether the new process has been stress-tested with British businesses and when guidance for businesses will be published?

On the movement of people, having a fluid border with Spain—a key request of the Gibraltar Government—clearly comes with trade-offs, and we should recognise that. The decision to have Schengen checks in a British overseas territory is obviously one such compromise, and there is understandably a real strength of feeling about it, notwithstanding that Gibraltar has always had its own entry requirements, including for Brits.

In the light of reported chaos at the border, it is imperative that the Government get this right. Given the totally chaotic way that the EU has introduced its entry-exit systems across Europe, it is imperative that we do not see a similar situation at Gibraltar airport. The Conservatives will be watching. What tabs is the Minister keeping on the roll-out of the new checks by the EU, and what is his recourse if British nationals end up being disrupted by EU issues?

Gibraltar’s new residency regulations came into force on 14 July. What assessment has the Minister made of their impact on the ability of British citizens to live and work in Gibraltar? What is the anticipated impact on British citizens of retirement age wishing to relocate permanently to Gibraltar? Do the Government have contingency plans to support Gibraltar if the Spanish Government stage any provocations for their domestic audience now that the border fence is down?

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar has expressed concern that the UK-Gibraltar concordat envisages circumstances in which the UK could act without the consent of Gibraltar’s Government or people on treaty matters. What is the Minister’s response? If there were to be a change of Government in Gibraltar, what would the implications be?

To conclude, Gibraltar is as British as any of our constituencies. Britain and NATO rely on Gibraltar’s strategically vital military base. In an age of insecurity, the base is indispensable for our country. Any deal to secure a long-term future arrangement between Gibraltar and the EU needs to be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny in this House. The Government should know that, and they should expect that Opposition Members rightly desire to understand what this treaty means in practice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate at a pivotal moment for Gibraltar. It is somewhat extraordinary that, although the provisional application of the UK-EU Gibraltar treaty is expected in a little more than a week’s time, Parliament has still not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise an agreement of such significance.

Let me begin by making one thing absolutely clear: we welcome the fact that a deal has been reached. Businesses in Gibraltar and across the UK, frontier workers, and British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty. Above all, Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. This agreement helps to provide that by giving businesses, residents and those who rely on the frontier a clearer framework for the future. I am also proud of the work undertaken by the previous Conservative Government. Those negations were never straightforward, as I know from personal experience. They sought to balance Gibraltar’s prosperity with the practical realities of the frontier, our constitutional responsibilities as a sovereign power and our unwavering commitment to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar wish.

Welcoming a treaty does not mean dispensing with scrutiny, however. On 23 April, the Government of Gibraltar confirmed that the treaty had received unanimous approval from all EU member states, and that provisional application is expected to begin on 15 July. We know, because the Government of Gibraltar have helpfully kept parliamentarians informed, that the treaty will be formally signed before then, although even now no date has been publicly confirmed. We also know that the final sections of the frontier fence will be removed on 15 July, allowing fluid movement across the land border for frontier workers, residents and visitors, before the treaty proceeds towards full ratification in the following months.

Those are constitutional, economic and practical developments of huge significance, yet it has been the Government of Gibraltar, rather than His Majesty’s Government, who have kept Parliament involved as events have unfolded. That should concern every Member of this House, regardless of their party, because Ministers are accountable to this Parliament for United Kingdom treaty obligations. Since the agreement was announced, Members of both Houses have had to rely on urgent questions, oral questions and written parliamentary questions simply to establish the Government’s intentions. I know that the Minister is aware of that.

When the draft treaty was published on 26 February, the Minister assured the House that the Government welcome scrutiny, but the answers that we have received have too often amounted to little more than references to previous statements or generic replies that fail to engage with the substance of the questions being asked. That is not meaningful scrutiny, and it is not how Parliament should be treated.

The question before us is no longer whether there should be a treaty; it is whether Parliament will be permitted to scrutinise it properly before it takes effect. The Government have repeatedly said that they are committed to transparency and respect for Parliament. If that commitment means anything, it must surely apply to a treaty of this constitutional significance.

We are now only days away from provisional application, and fundamental questions remain unanswered. Parliament still does not know when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, whether elements of the agreement will begin operating before Parliament has completed its scrutiny, and what opportunities Members will have to debate it further. These are not procedural technicalities. The CRaG exists because Parliament recognised that international treaties should be subject to democratic scrutiny before they bind the UK. If substantial parts of the treaty are allowed to take effect before Parliament has had a meaningful opportunity to consider it, many will understandably question what practical value that scrutiny is intended to have.

For those reasons, I hope the Minister will answer some straightforward questions today. Will the Government commit to providing time for a full, substantive debate on the treaty in both Houses before provisional application begins? When precisely do Ministers intend to lay the treaty before Parliament under CRaG? What assessment have the Government made of the constitutional implications of allowing provisional application before Parliament has completed its scrutiny under that Act? Do Ministers genuinely believe that the standard 21-day scrutiny period is sufficient for an agreement of this constitutional, economic and strategic importance? I believe those are reasonable questions that parliamentarians should not have to drag out of the Government.

This debate is about more than process. As we have heard, companies involved in cross-border trade need certainty and clarity about customs arrangements, regulatory compliance and border procedures. Ministers have spoken about the opportunities the agreement presents, but opportunities must be matched by preparedness. Businesses cannot prepare for new arrangements if Government guidance does not arrive until implementation is already under way, and Parliament cannot properly represent those affected if Ministers do not provide the information necessary for proper scrutiny.

The Government should therefore answer some practical questions today. Can the Minister explain in clear terms whether any new checks, controls or administrative procedures will govern the movement of British troops or military equipment to and from the military base? Given Gibraltar’s strategic importance, Members will rightly wish to understand exactly what arrangements are envisaged. Will the Government set out the precise process by which British goods will enter Gibraltar under the new arrangements, whether by land, sea or air, and explain how they differ from the arrangements that businesses operate under today? What engagement have the Government had, both before and since the treaty was announced, with British businesses that export or import goods into Gibraltar? What assessment have Ministers made of the readiness of those businesses for implementation, and what support is being provided?

The Government have spoken confidently about the benefits of closer co-operation with Spain, but what contingency plans are in place should Spain seek to create difficulties or exert pressure once the frontier fence has been removed? Gibraltar’s scrutiny and prosperity should never depend on good will alone. The Minister should also explain the rationale behind the governance arrangements for Gibraltar airport in the treaty, including the proposed operating structure, and why Ministers believe those arrangements are in Gibraltar’s long-term interests. What discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with the Government of Gibraltar regarding the parliamentary lock that the Gibraltar Parliament has indicated it wishes to have over implementation of the treaty? How do Ministers intend to respect Gibraltar’s democratic institutions as the agreement process progresses?

I would like to place on the record my appreciation for a significant recent development. The Government of Gibraltar have announced that Gibraltar has been removed from Spain’s list of non-co-operative jurisdictions, bringing to an end a designation that had remained in place since 1991. That is undoubtedly welcome news, and it represents another positive step in strengthening Gibraltar’s international standing. Once again, however, many Members first learned of that through media reports rather than from the Government. Gibraltar occupies a unique constitutional position, and the UK retains responsibility for its external relations. It is therefore entirely reasonable for Parliament to expect timely information from our Government on developments of such significance.

No one in this House wishes to see unnecessary delay or to undermine the progress that has been made. However, supporting Gibraltar and scrutinising the Government are not competing objectives; they are complementary responsibilities. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to repeat previous statements, but to provide the timetable for scrutiny that Parliament has been seeking for many months. Please tell us, Minister, when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament, what opportunities Members will have to debate and vote on it and why the Government believe that Parliament should be expected to scrutinise a treaty only after key parts of it have already begun to take effect.

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham for securing this important debate, which has provided an opportunity to discuss the treaty. But as I have set out, this debate should not take the place of the vital, detailed scrutiny of the treaty that this place deserves. I await the Government’s setting out the detail; now is the Minister’s opportunity to do so. If the Government are confident that the treaty commands support, they should be confident enough to subject it to full parliamentary scrutiny before its provisions take effect.

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

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement.

I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain.

I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty.

We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory.

Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister set out the timeline today and assure us—

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Wendy Morton]

He is nodding, so I will sit with bated breath.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith.

What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that.

My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later.

Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process.

It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it.

As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it.

Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar.

The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that.

The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point.

Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail.

I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.

[Wendy Morton]

It was along those lines, but for absolute clarity, does the Minister envisage the treaty coming forward before we break for recess?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues.

Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place.

To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March:

“It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.”

I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament.

I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place.

On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate.

Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure.

Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform.

Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve.

After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians.

The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there is another way of doing things, which is working alongside church groups and faith-based organisations. Does she feel that that is a possible way to spend money and have influence more wisely?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too.

Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance.

That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga.

Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.

Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance?

If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding?

I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners?

I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families?

Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I will address directly the matter of settlements in a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. Diplomacy is about rolling up our sleeves and putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. I believe that if the Minister wants to have real sway with the Government of Israel, there has to be meaningful dialogue, but at the moment there is no dialogue between this Labour Government and Israel, despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains.

That is because of the decisions that Labour has made—from suspending export licences when Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks and recognising a Palestinian state when hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity. By deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze, Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground.

None the less, settlement expansion in the west bank is not helpful for achieving the long-term peace that we all want to see. [Interruption.] That has long been my party’s position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to bear down on settler violence.

We on the Conservative Benches do support a two-state solution: one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the E1 situation? Are the Government doing anything at all to help the Abraham accords expand or to unblock issues holding up a broader regional peace? Finally, will he update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to hold elections in November and whether he is concerned by the PA’s lack of progress on the total overhaul of curricula and welfare policy, which is so clearly needed?

[Mr Falconer]

I will deal first with the latter points raised by the Opposition spokesman. Yes, we continue to talk to the Palestinian Authority, including on the reform agenda and the need for elections.

It is an undeniable fact that I am the middle east Minister who during my time recognised a Palestinian state, and sanctioned Israeli Ministers who now regularly take to the airwaves to issue in the most bloodthirsty terms encouragement for some of the activity that I am being asked about today. I am afraid that an inevitable consequence of the actions announced from this Dispatch Box is that the warmth of my relationship with my counterparts in Israel has indeed suffered, but this Government will not hesitate to stand up for principles, which I think are supported right across this House.

The right hon. Lady could not have failed to hear the groans from behind her on the Conservative Benches. I know, in recognising a Palestinian state, that I was of course supported by Labour Members behind me, but I think I was also supported by Conservative Members behind her.

Summit on Illicit Finance

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

[Chris Elmore]

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

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

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Parental Child Abduction

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Stephen Doughty]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Stephen Doughty]

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

International Development

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvette Cooper]

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

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

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

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

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