Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

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

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

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 6, page 3, line 40, leave out

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

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

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

Clause 5 stand part.

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

This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Clause 6 stand part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) coral reef resilience;

(c) fish stocks;

(d) ocean acidification;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the security of the buffer zone;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 7—Rights of Chagossians—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Resolution 567 (VI),

(b) Resolution 648 (VII),

(c) Resolution 742 (VIII),

(d) Resolution 1514 (XV).

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

New clause 9—Marine Protected Area: Progress Reports—

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

(a) the progress made in establishing; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 10—Annual report: Treaty implementation—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) any findings from the consultation; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

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

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

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

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Is the simple truth not that this deal is cheaper than what was proposed by the Conservative party in government, and actually has more protections baked into it?

[Wendy Morton]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs a little memory check, because we did not propose a deal.

The British Chagossians, some of whom are watching from the Gallery—I pay tribute to them for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years—have been betrayed by Labour. Their rights have been ignored, as have their fears, leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and coming here. Labour’s surrender Bill, as presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine protected area—one of the most important and largest marine environments in the world—which has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific research and development. That is at risk, and promises and aspirations announced by Ministers to ensure that it continues are not reflected in the Bill.

Shockingly, Labour’s surrender Bill as drafted does nothing to safeguard, defend and protect our national security. Labour is surrendering British sovereignty and territory to a country that is increasingly aligned with China.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady describes this as a surrender Bill. Can she please tell me which flag will be flying over the Chagos islands if this is a so-called British surrender? It will be a British flag that is flying. Is that a point she understands?

[Wendy Morton]

There will be one flag that is flying, and that is the white flag of surrender.

Thousands of Mauritian public officials are being trained—or should that be “indoctrinated”?—by China on courses the Chinese are paying for. Both Russia and China are signing partnerships with Mauritius, but Labour’s surrender Bill fails to protect our interests.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Reports today suggest that China and India are entering into negotiations to sign leases to islands surrounding those on which British military operations will continue under the proposed lease agreement. Does she think that connection to China would be a risk and pose a threat to national security?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is 100% right, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this Bill and have done so from the very start.

The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. Mauritius is in discussions with India about a security role that it can play in the archipelago, and the UK is not even in the room. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, one can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret with China and Russia. There has been a report that China is already negotiating with Mauritius for Peros Banhos. When he speaks, perhaps the Minister can tell us what he knows about that.

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

I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister, but can he actually give me the reassurance that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps he can answer that question when he responds to the debate later.

The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret. If such discussions are taking place, that would undermine the assurances Ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows that this Government kowtow to the Chinese Communist party, leading it to threaten our interests here. Now, they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia, our military assets and our interests in the Indo-Pacific.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has highlighted the Prime Minister misleading—perhaps I have to say inadvertently misleading —us about the cost of this, when the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that it is £35 billion. More than that, he was suggesting in his press conference that China, Russia and others—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Oh, I cannot say “misrepresented”. Having inadvertently confused the £35 billion that is actually going out with the £3.5 billion he claimed was going out, the Prime Minister, equally inadvertently, Ms Nokes, made out that China, Iran and Russia were in the column—he used the word “column”—of those opposing this deal, although I think each and every one of them came out publicly to say how much they welcomed it. Can my right hon. Friend share any knowledge about that with us?

[Wendy Morton]

I think my right hon. Friend makes some very interesting points, and perhaps not surprisingly, one might ask the question: are the Government sleeping with the enemy here?

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Wendy Morton]

If the Minister will allow me, I will just finish this point. The key thing we are asking for is a reassurance from the Minister, and he will have more than ample opportunity later to respond to the points I am making.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but she and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have raised China, Russia and Iran. Why does she think that the United States, our closest security ally, backs this deal if there is any possibility of any of the fantasy things she is suggesting taking place. They cannot take place, because the treaty prevents them. She clearly has not read it.

[Wendy Morton]

It can be very easy to back something when you do not have to pay for it, but let us move on.

Now, the Government are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia and our military assets and interests in the Indo-Pacific. Labour’s surrender Bill is bad for British taxpayers, bad for our national security, bad for the marine environment and bad for the Chagossians. It also grants Ministers huge powers to make further decisions and avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 1 would in effect block Labour’s surrender treaty coming into force and the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory unless and until Ministers reveal the legal advice they have received about Britain’s ability to extend and exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia after the initial 99-year period. The Government constantly claim they have secured the military base, but they have totally failed to do that. All they have done is pay Mauritius £35 billion to lease back a base we currently own, but only for 99 years. We have no certainty whatsoever about the fate of the base after the 99-year period. After paying Mauritius £35 billion, it would kindly give us the option to extend the treaty for another 40 years, but on what terms? If we extend it, will Mauritius make it conditional on more extortionate payments? What if we are outbid by a hostile power? In fact, what is to stop China putting in a bid? If no agreement is reached before the specified deadline and the base is offered to another country, what will happen to all the fixed assets belonging to Britain? We have had no answers from the Government on any of these vital points, which is unacceptable, and the terms of the treaty and the Bill, as they stand, are reckless.

Amendment 7 is necessary because the Government’s legal justification for surrendering the Chagos islands constantly shifts, because it has no legal basis. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) explained on Second Reading, the Government’s entire legal case is spurious. Many of us have been asking where the binding judgment we are constantly told is inevitable would actually come from. No credible answers have been forthcoming. We know it cannot be the International Court of Justice, and we know that a case at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea would see the UK able to put forward a decent legal argument. Then the Government completely contradicted their own argument about the electromagnetic spectrum. They are planning to dissolve a strategically invaluable British overseas territory, and they cannot even tell us on what legal basis they are doing so.

It looks as though this is part of a wider sinister picture—the Government’s relationship with China. We know that the Government are desperate for Chinese investment to help grow our economy, which they are trashing with their reckless economic policies. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has credited China for its support in enabling Mauritius to gain sovereignty over the Chagos islands. Why? Because China wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius, which it believes to have strategic advantages. Once again, the Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up for our strategic interests against China. Amendment 7 would flush out the truth once and for all.

Taken together, amendments 3, 6 and 5 would delete a huge and unacceptable Henry VIII power that the Government are brazenly trying to award themselves, and would give this House the oversight it is entitled to on the implementation of the treaty. It is wholly unacceptable—in fact, it is quite outrageous—for the Government to give themselves such a sweeping power that they could, through an Order in Council,

“make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.

This is a totally open-ended power. The military base itself is in scope, and so are the rights of Chagossians. The House should not be deprived of a voice on these matters of huge concern. Our amendments would ensure that this House has a voice and a vote. That is totally right and proper.

Turning to our new clauses, the Government could have inserted a money authorisation clause into the Bill. They chose not to and no wonder. The Government want to spare their own disgruntled MPs the ugly spectacle of having to vote in favour of spending tens of billions of their constituents’ money to Mauritius, as Britain’s economy sinks under the weight of the Chancellor’s inflation, unemployment, debt and taxes. Labour is asking the hard-pressed British taxpayer, already struggling under the weight of the Chancellor’s punitive tax rises, to stump up £35 billion to lease back a territory we already own and which we are not legally obliged to give away. As it leaves pensioners vulnerable and cold, destroys family farms and crushes businesses, the Minister is content to send our constituents’ hard-earned money to Mauritius with no strings attached, allowing the Government there to cut taxes—tax cuts over 6,000 miles away and tax rises at home. And Labour is inflicting this surrender tax on the British people because of its abject failure to negotiate. We all know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses, but this is a new low. At seemingly every twist and turn, this Government have rolled over and capitulated to the demands of the Government of Mauritius.

[Graeme Downie]

The right hon. Lady mentions that she does not believe there is a legal basis. What was the legal basis for the previous Government, when they conducted 11 rounds of negotiation and achieved absolutely nothing?

[Wendy Morton]

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past year and several months, but we have gone over this time and again in this Chamber. There was no legal basis. We stopped—[Interruption.] Maybe I will repeat this very slowly for his benefit: we stopped the negotiations.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but I must, Ms Nokes, correct the record here. This has been a repeated argument, by the shadow Minister and others, claiming that the then Government stopped the negotiations. They did not. In fact, they carried them on. There was a gov.uk statement on 24 February reflecting the continuing of the negotiations by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). Indeed, they carried on into May, just before the election. It is there in writing on the previous Government’s own website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

We have made it very clear, repeatedly, at the Dispatch Box. Lord Cameron, the then Foreign Secretary, stopped the negotiations.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to make some more progress.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is doing a very good job of forensically demolishing the Government’s case, such as it is. May I just correct what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box? There is a very great difference between carrying on and discussing negotiations, and doing a deal. As I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then Government would never, ever have done this deal. Secondly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will probe the Minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour party—a Labour Government—has slashed development spending from—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That is a very long intervention. Perhaps the shadow Minister should take over.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. and gallant Friend and constituency neighbour makes some very, very important points. He adds a certain weight and clarity to these discussions, and I urge Labour Members—certainly the newer Members—to listen to his wise counsel.

The House of Commons should be given a vote on the payments and that is the purpose of this amendment. In scope will also be the Chagossian trust fund, which, inexplicably, British taxpayers capitalise and Mauritius then distributes. We pay and Mauritius has total control over how it is spent. We will have no say over its governance and British Chagossians have no guarantees that they will benefit from it. How can that be right? The least this House and British Chagossians deserve is a vote on sending the money. What possible explanation could the Government provide against that?

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The former Government set up a trust fund of £40 million for the Chagos islanders. After four years, only £12,000 had been spent. That is how they treated Chagossians under the last Government.

[Wendy Morton]

The point, though, is where is this money coming from? This House has not had a vote. Where is the transparency? Where is the democracy ?

Turning to new clause 2 and amendment 2, as we have already discussed, the duration of the agreement is a matter of serious national security concern. There are too many unanswered questions about what could happen to the base. We need to understand the basis on which the Government have settled that, especially as the then Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October 2024 that the Government would have a right to extend the lease, which we do not, and the Mauritian Government claim the UK gave up a unilateral right of extension at their request. If that is true, it would be a scandal. No wonder we never get straight answers from Ministers. But then, it was also a scandal for Labour to sign the agreement with a previous Mauritian Government just before that country went into an election, only for there to be a change of Government who then wanted to change the deal and extract more money. Extending the agreement is essential, because we simply cannot lose the base. The House deserves to see the advice that the Government are relying on when they ask us to sign this £35 billion blank cheque.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Bill, if there is no agreement, although we can be first offer, Mauritius can decide simply to close and fold the base, leaving it completely void, so there is no protection against that?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. This goes to the heart of the Bill. There are so many unanswered questions, which Conservative Members have been raising time and again. For example, how likely are we to be able to extend the base? What will the structure of the negotiations be? What conditions could Mauritius impose, given that it will have our negotiators over a proverbial barrel? How watertight is the first right of refusal?

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

What happens if the base is not secured? Will it need to be decommissioned? How could we prevent an adversary inheriting our fixed assets? What is the role of the United States in all this? These are serious matters, and the House needs serious answers. The purpose of the amendment is to secure those answers.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

In this House, there is often talk about millions of pounds for this and billions of pounds for that. It is difficult sometimes to get in one’s mind the scale of the money. Last year, the Chancellor said that she was going to raise national insurance and lower the threshold. We know how much damage that has done to the country, yet it was said at the time that it would raise £25.7 billion. That would not even pay for this deal. That is the amount of money they are going to give away today.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really valid point by putting that into context. There is only one thing that will result from the Government insisting on pushing this through: tax rises. I reiterate my earlier point that we still do not know which budget the money is coming from: FCDO or MOD. Who is going to pay for it?

New clause 3 will give Parliament a vote over the agreement on the Chagos marine protected area. The Chagos MPA is one of the jewels in the crown of the Blue Belt programme, a magnificent achievement of the last Conservative Government and a globally significant contribution to marine protection. It should not be altered without consent. At present, we apply among the strictest criteria to the Chagos MPA and it has been very well preserved, unlike much of the Indian ocean, which has suffered terribly in recent years.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

We are not talking about a small area. The British Indian Ocean Territory spans 640,000 square kilometres of ocean. The Government’s treaty with Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius to establish and manage a new MPA, but we are being asked to fly blind with this Bill, because no agreement has been reached on what the MPA managed by Mauritius will look like.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The marine protection zone was agreed by all parties. It is a sustainable protection zone. There has never been any debate or dispute about it; Mauritius has fully supported it all along and guaranteed its continuation. I do not understand why the shadow Minister is raising these matters. Does she believe that Mauritius will not look after the area properly? It seems to me that there is an attitude that is disrespectful of Mauritius and its determination to preserve the pristine nature of the ocean around the islands.

[Wendy Morton]

I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on many of those matters. We have raised questions about this issue time and again, and we have simply not received the answers from Ministers.

[Dr Luke Evans]

This issue has been disputed. Is it not the point that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea cannot pass judgment on sovereignty because of the ruling that was made between Mauritius and the UK on marine protection back in 2015? That was under annexe VII, which was tried and tested. Britain was found wanting on that, because we had not properly talked through what should happen with the Mauritians. What the Mauritians actually wanted to do was to open it for fishing. How can we assure the protection for this area? That is why we need to amend the Bill.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why we have continued and will continue to probe the Government on the MPA. We have not had answers to our questions; we have not had the transparency that I think this House deserves.

It is very possible—in fact, it is very likely—that Labour has committed Britain to helping Mauritius dismantle an MPA that we ourselves established. There are no assurances that we will not be committing British resources to actively harm our own interests and undo our work. Mauritius does not have the capability to manage, monitor or enforce an MPA. It does not have the infrastructure at sea or any such experience. It would leave the stocks in those waters exposed to real risk of pillaging, including by Chinese vessels. It is not likely to have the will to do so either, as we know the economic potential of the waters is of interest to Mauritius.

Despite the Government’s ludicrous and insulting claim that those who oppose this deal side with Russia and its friends, Mauritius has been developing closer ties with Russia on marine matters, announcing as recently as May 2025 that the two countries are strengthening their ties on marine innovation, including marine research, while Mauritius’s close relationship with China—a strategic partnership, no less—opens up the possibility of Chinese fishing trawlers in these waters. It is therefore absolutely right that this House gets a say over the fate of the MPA, and the CRaG-equivalent process set out in our new clause would provide for an appropriate level of scrutiny.

New clause 4 would require regular reporting on the ecological status of the Chagos MPA, which is necessary for the same reason as new clause 3. The Government have bound us to support Mauritius to manage the MPA, so there must be scrutiny of what the Government are doing and the ecological consequences. There are widespread concerns across the House on the future of the MPA, and Ministers have so far failed to give any answers or any assurances; when asked, they have said that they do not know about the future and cannot tell us what resources and costs will be incurred to meet these obligations. Given our role in managing the MPA, the UK should be able to access the data required for this report. This new clause reaffirms our commitment to the MPA.

We recognise the sensitive nature of the military arrangements on Diego Garcia, but oversight of the agreement is none the less essential. New clause 5 would allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny while respecting the need to protect critical information. The new clause covers the key areas of security consideration and will act as a catalyst for the Government to maintain their own monitoring of each area. We believe that that is critical as there are holes in the provisions. There must, for example, be agreement on upgrading infrastructure in the buffer zone, such as sensors—but what if there is no agreement? Likewise, the treaty stipulates that Mauritius and Britain must jointly decide on the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Of particular importance in new clause 5 are paragraphs (d) and (e). On (d), we must ensure that only vessels that should be in the area are in the area, and that Russian and potentially even Chinese vessels are deterred from entering—I have already mentioned the closer ties and partnerships between Mauritius and those countries, which should concern all of us.

With reference to paragraph (e), the treaty states that the United Kingdom agrees

“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia”.

Given the huge range of security threats in the Indo-Pacific and the middle east, it is far from impossible that in future this mechanism may need to be used. It is important that the notifications are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as once again it would force the Government to log and monitor the mechanism, including any operational impacts it might have. We know that there are genuine concerns that third countries—potentially even China—might try to establish themselves in the archipelago, and the arrangements in the treaty must be monitored to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to stop that happening.

New clause 6 probes the Government’s argument that a legally binding ruling under UNCLOS would have an impact on our ability to operate the electromagnetic spectrum, and impede air and sea access as well as the ability to patrol the area around the base. We take issue with that assertion, not least because there is an argument that provisions under article 298 of UNCLOS allow for exemptions relevant to disputes concerning military activities. The Government have not addressed this issue when we have probed, including on Second Reading, so we have had no choice but to table this new clause to test the Government’s assertion.

I turn finally to new clause 7. The British Chagossian community have been treated appallingly by this Labour Government. Twice the deal has ended up in the courts because of the way Labour has ridden roughshod over their concerns. This Bill sells them short, too. The resettlement programme for the Chagos islands under this treaty is entirely in the hands of Mauritius—a country to which, I should add, Chagossians feel little affinity. Indeed, we have seen many Chagossians arriving in the UK from Mauritius in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will respond to that from the Dispatch Box, because it is clearly concerning that they have been moved to take this action.

The Bill also stops British overseas territories citizenship being awarded on the basis of descent from a person born on the Chagos archipelago. Sadly, we cannot amend the treaty through the Bill; it just is not within the parliamentary rules. However, new clause 7 would require the Government to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of the treaty—including on the establishment of the trust fund, which we capitalise and Mauritius distributes—and on areas of dispute arising between the UK and Mauritian Governments prior to their being discussed at the joint committee created by the treaty. It also requires the Foreign Secretary to present a report to Parliament within six months of the Act becoming law, and in every subsequent year, on how Chagossian rights are being upheld under this agreement. We have a national obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian community, and the Conservatives will always stand up for their rights.

To conclude, taken together, our amendments and new clauses will hold the Government to account. Let us be clear: the Conservatives oppose this surrender Bill, its colossal costs and the adverse impact on our defence and security. Accepting these amendments and new clauses will simply strengthen accountability and transparency.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I have set out the security and geopolitical importance of the treaty many times in this place, and would therefore have appreciated the opportunity today to engage with detailed scrutiny of the treaty and the defence arrangements it enables. Sadly, that is not the line that the Opposition are going down. Instead, we are faced with a series of wrecking amendments that do not attempt to improve the Bill in any way. They are designed to force the Government to let our allies down, undermining our international credibility and reputation, and creating greater geopolitical risk and legal and security risks to our base on Diego Garcia.

If Opposition amendments were passed today, it would be impossible for us to meet our commitments in a timely way by implementing the agreement with Mauritius that Ministers have completed—an agreement that the Conservative Government started and carried through 11 rounds of negotiations but now want to throw back, no matter the damage that it would do to our nations. At no point have they made clear the legal basis for starting the 11 rounds of negotiations in the first instance.

I fully understand and sympathise with the motivation behind amendment 9. The creation of the Chagos islands as a separate territory created a deep injustice, because it was bound up in the dispossession of the Chagossians, but that historical injustice cannot simply be undone. We cannot turn back the clock, however much we might want to do so. The question of a right to return is not remotely simple, because access to Diego Garcia is inevitably a serious question of security. People obviously cannot return to exactly where their families lived, because of the highly sensitive military facility that now stands in their place. Perhaps a limited right of return could be negotiated, but that would engage security procedures that are secret and involve the UK and the US as well as Mauritius, as was acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). The amendment imagines that if the negotiations were rejected by even the narrowest of margins, the entire treaty would fall apart and would need to be renegotiated afresh, significantly increasing geopolitical risk to the base and our interests. Perhaps the Minister could invite some assistance on this point from those who conducted the first 11 rounds of negotiations.

Let us get real: there are reasons why international treaties are negotiated by the Government and subject to democratic scrutiny in this House and through these procedures. What the Liberal Democrats are proposing amounts to making a UK foreign and defence policy dependent on a referendum, and that includes vital defence interests that are shared with the US and other allies. That referendum would apparently comprise non-UK citizens just as much as it would British Chagossians. Frankly, I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats more than others would have learned from the disastrous experience of Brexit that making foreign policy by referendum is not the wisest course of action.

The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to speak about the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the Minister for setting them out a bit more detail.

In the context of these regulations, it is important to come straight to the point: Labour has lost control of our borders. I therefore have a number of important questions to ask the Minister. The Government first announced the new sanctions regime in January, which is 10 months ago, and only now are we seeing the enabling legislation come before Parliament. Why has it taken so long to get here? That delay hardly reflects a sense of urgency on the part of a Government who claim to be serious about stopping the boats and smashing the criminal gangs. Crucially, when will we see the sanctions take effect? Has the FCDO identified targets? How many individuals or entities are being considered? Is it tens, hundreds or just a handful? It would also be helpful if the Minister could give us the confidence to know that the sanctions unit has sufficient resourcing and expertise to deliver on the new regime, while also maintaining capacity to deal with existing sanctions work on Russia, Iran and other priority areas.

The test for any sanctions regime is not its announcement, but the implementation and the impact. The measures must lead to real disruption of trafficking routes, real consequences for those financing or profiting from the trade and, ultimately, fewer people illegally crossing the channel. Unfortunately, the Government’s record speaks for itself, as it is important again to note in the context of the regulations: this year we have seen record high numbers of small boat crossings, with more than 34,000 already, including over 1,000 in just one day the other week. Meanwhile, more asylum seekers are being housed in hotels than when this Government came to office.

Ministers promised to “smash the gangs”, but the gangs are still operating, the boats are still coming and the traffickers still see the UK as a soft target. And no wonder, given that Labour—including the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary—voted against life sentences for people-smuggling gangs, the very same gangs that this Government now claim they want to smash.

To be clear, the previous Conservative Government delivered the powers that this Government now claim that they want: powers to impose visa penalties on countries refusing to take back their nationals; a landmark returns agreement with Albania, which cut illegal crossings from the country by more than 90%; and a deterrent approach to illegal migration that our European partners are now seeking to emulate. Instead of building on that record, this Government have repealed the Rwanda deterrent, weakened our border laws, and allowed illegal immigrants to claim asylum and even access British citizenship.

To conclude, the Government must show that the measures in this regime are more than just another announcement or gimmick, like the one in, one out deal with France that has removed just over a couple of dozen people while thousands more have arrived. The Opposition will not oppose these regulations today, but we expect to see them work.

Ambassador to the United States

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let us be crystal clear: this emergency debate is about honesty, integrity and the credibility of this Labour Government. It is about what the Prime Minister knew about Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, and when he knew it. The public deserve the truth, but instead they have been treated to evasion, delay and, as my constituents have been clear, a cover-up.

The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well known, as we have heard this afternoon. The vetting process surely should have raised red flags, yet the Prime Minister—yes, the Prime Minister—oversaw the appointment. Where is he today? He is perhaps happier to talk to the BBC than at the Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister told us himself that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, even as the questions mounted and the damning Bloomberg emails were about to surface. That surely was not an accident; it was a choice, and one that goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.

Let us remind ourselves what the emails revealed: Mandelson offering words of support to a convicted paedophile. Those were not casual contacts but sustained and deeply troubling links. Yet when the Prime Minister was pressed on what he knew, his story shifted: first, perhaps ignorance; then an awareness of media inquiries; and then the claim that he had not seen the contents of the emails until the last moment. All the while, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was in touch with Lord Mandelson for “much of the day” before PMQs. Which is it? The House deserves answers to the most basic questions about a scandal engulfing the Prime Minister and his former ambassador.

The lapse is not isolated, however. Two of the Prime Minister’s most senior appointments have unravelled in recent weeks. It seems to me that Labour likes to lecture us all about integrity, but in little more than a year in office it is mired in scandal, putting loyalty to insiders ahead of the basic decency that the public rightly expect.

While the Government tie themselves in knots, our country faces grave challenges. Last week, Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace, testing NATO’s resolve. Bond rates here at home have hit their highest level in 30 years. Illegal migrant boat crossings reached record numbers in 2025. In the west midlands, bin strikes roll into their sixth month, while Labour MPs from that city and region sit silent. In my constituency, swathes of our precious green belt are under siege because of Labour’s planning reforms. Those are the issues that my constituents expect this place to be focused on. Instead, the Prime Minister is distracted by a scandal of his own making.

To get back to the central question, what must happen now? I think the answer is simple. The Mandelson-Epstein files must be released in full, urgently and without caveats. That means the two-page vetting document and the evidence behind it; all correspondence between the chief of staff and Lord Mandelson; the communications between the Foreign Office, No.10 and our embassy in Washington about the Bloomberg files; and any other documents presented to the Prime Minister in making the appointment. This House and the public we serve have a right to see them.

Recess will be upon us within hours, but this scandal cannot and must not be sent into recess in the hope that this failing Government can sweep it under the carpet. The longer that Labour refuses to publish the files, the more damning the conclusion becomes, and the more damaging it is to democracy in our country and to the trust of the public.

The Labour party went into last year’s election on a slogan of change, but every day it is demonstrating that it is change for the worse. At a moment when we should be projecting clarity, strength and integrity on the world stage, we are instead led by a Prime Minister who is distracted by scandal and paralysed by poor judgment. It is time to end the rumour, publish the files and finally put the country before narrow party interests—nothing less will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

At a time when we face global development spending reductions across critical areas such as global health, women, peace and security, girls’ education, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition, Ministers have chosen to increase energy and climate spending by £244 million—an increase of 59%. Could the Minister explain the rationale for that significant increase and outline how those funds will be allocated, particularly as, unlike in 2024-25, no breakdown of political priorities is available for scrutiny?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have just said, we will set out the detailed allocations in due course; they will be informed by impact assessments. The right hon. Member rightly raises the issue of women and girls. Of course, less money does not mean less action, and we see our work on women and girls as essential for development and our UK missions overseas. We have appointed Baroness Harman as a UK special envoy for women and girls. We are amplifying the voices of women’s organisations and movements, including in climate-affected contexts, and embedding gender equality across our international action. That is absolutely a priority for us, and we will set out the details of individual programmes, informed by those impact assessments, in due course.

Sudan

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for pursuing this matter.

The situation in Sudan is dire. We are deeply concerned by the International Criminal Court’s findings last week that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may be being committed in Darfur. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with the UN warning on 30 June of drastic cuts to life-saving food aid for Sudanese refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. Sudan has been identified as the global hunger hotspot of highest concern, and without immediate humanitarian assistance, the risk is terrible. With recent attacks on UN aid convoys, can the Minister provide her latest assessment of the situation and the extent of aid blocking? How is she ensuring that UK aid—including the £120 million announced at the April Sudan conference—will reach those who need it, and that aid workers are protected?

More broadly, what new measures are the Government taking to compel the warring parties into a ceasefire, to allow more aid in and to facilitate deconfliction for its delivery in the meantime? How has the Minister supported Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference, and what is her assessment of the effectiveness of these processes? Despite the spending review, we are yet to understand what the 0.3% figure means for bilateral aid, so will she confirm the bilateral spend for Sudan this year?

Sudan matters. It is not in the UK’s national interests for the crossing of red lines in this conflict to persist, to have the displacement of people on this scale, nor to see the further destabilisation of this region of Africa.

[Catherine West]

The right hon. Lady asked about the last week’s ICC finding. We acknowledge the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s critical findings that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have well been committed, and are continuing to be committed, in Darfur. This is an important milestone in the ICC’s investigation into crimes committed in Darfur, and the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and breaches are called out and investigated. The UK remains committed to securing accountability for those responsible for atrocity crimes. This includes reporting the fact-finding mission’s mandate and the ICC’s ongoing investigation.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the attack on El Fasher and the targeting of aid workers. That is an absolute disgrace and a clear violation of international law, and we condemn it. She asked what more we have been doing recently. We attended the important consultative group on Sudan in Brussels on 26 June, and contributed to discussions with the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy on Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, on his plans to convene proximity talks with the warring parties, including on protection issues.

Finally, the right hon. Lady raised the important question of the spending review. As I am sure she is aware, we have a lot of lessons to learn from last time the aid budget was reduced, because the National Audit Office criticised the way those reductions were made in-year, without consultation, and questioned whether that was value for money. Instead, the Government will take a long-term look at this, and have a glide principle over the three remaining years of this Parliament.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing the debate.

The Conservatives are clear in our support for a two-state solution delivered in the right way at the right time. The only way forward is a solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future.

There are several factors making progress towards a two-state solution more difficult. First, on Israeli settlements in the west bank, our position is as it was in government and is well understood: settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence.

In February last year, we took action in government by sanctioning extremist Israeli settlers who violently attacked Palestinians in the occupied west bank. We raised the matter of settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions, and in December 2023 the UK and 13 partners released a statement calling on Israel

“to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle…settler violence in the occupied West Bank.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest conversations he has had with his Israeli counterparts and other partners.

I turn to the Palestinian Authority, where reform and credible governance are essential requirements for peace. The Palestinian Authority must prove that they are capable of governing. That should start with key reforms, including on elections, education and ensuring broader freedoms. In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 5.58 pm.

[Wendy Morton]

In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, but we were left with more questions than answers. On elections, can the Minister confirm the “shortest feasible timeframe” referenced in the MOU for the Palestinian Authority to hold presidential and parliamentary elections? Does he believe that they are currently capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, what steps is he taking with allies to build that capacity?

[Andy Slaughter]

What is the practicality of holding elections when the Israelis will not recognise the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem as being able to vote? Given the situation in the west bank, let alone that in Gaza, how are they supposed to organise elections? Is that not just utopian?

[Wendy Morton]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making reference to the points in the MOU.

I turn to other elements of the MOU. On education, we need to see the plans for educating a new generation of Palestinians in a way that nurtures peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbours. Will the Minister commit to laying out in greater detail his Government’s expectations on education reforms from the Palestinian Authority?

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s 2002 “Human Rights and Democracy” report cited human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, and in February, Reporters Without Borders raised press freedom violations in the west bank. The MOU committed to advancing freedom of expression, media freedom and civil liberties. Can the Minister outline what specific steps are being taken on those issues? Progress by the Palestinian Authority on a reform agenda is vital for peace, and the Government must do all they can do support that.

Iran has been committed to the destruction of Israel for decades, and behaves in a way that damages any prospect of peace in the region. Last month’s International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was in breach of its obligations with respect to its nuclear programme. It is an authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people and sows instability and suffering through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies. For that reason and others, Iran must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and we stand with our allies who are working to stop it. We all want to see peace and stability in the region.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. We must see the return of the remaining hostages from Hamas captivity. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his efforts to get new aid routes opened, and more aid getting in and going to where it is needed. I would also be grateful for confirmation of the bilateral humanitarian aid spend that will be provided this financial year, following the spending review.

Finally, I want to touch on the FCDO’s assistance to British nationals in the region, which has been raised in the House. I acknowledge the recent loosening of FCDO travel advice. It is my understanding that the sixth and final evacuation flight left Tel Aviv on Sunday 29 June, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update and reassure us that all the British nationals who requested evacuation have been helped.

We all want to build a better future for the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That must be centred on a credible two-state solution, and we want our Government to do all they can to proactively pursue that goal and deal with the challenges impeding progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Education is a basic right, and ensuring quality education for every girl is essential to building a more equitable world. In 2023, the Conservative Government launched the women and girls strategy to deliver on the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. Does the Minister stand by the commitment to ensure that at least 50% of aid reaches women and girls? Most importantly, will she confirm the 2025-26 official development assistance spending for global education following the spending review?

[Catherine West]

We are committed to supporting women in all that we do. We are supporting, for example, 200,000 displaced children with education interventions in Sudan and reaching Sudanese refugee populations in six countries through £14 million of funding for Education Cannot Wait, which the right hon. Member may know from her time as a Minister—was that one of the programmes she cut? UK support through the international finance facility for education will unlock up to $1 billion in additional and affordable education. Our equality impact assessment will be published shortly so that she can analyse the exact pounds and pence.

USAID Funding Pause

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing the debate. It is very timely, coming as it does one day before the Chancellor’s spending review announcement.

It is more than three months since the Prime Minister announced the reduction in aid spending, yet we still await a clear picture of what that means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) eloquently set out. I appreciate that there are challenges for the Minister but, like the international development sector and partners, I still have many unanswered questions about what this means for UK development priorities, especially in the context of changes to USAID.

Decisions about the levels of US aid are, quite rightly, a matter for the US Government, but we should acknowledge that this is the new reality we are working with. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to be across the changes and the detail, and to understand what they mean for the sector and our partners.

What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the changes to USAID? Understanding where the impact will be is crucial to ensuring that our programmes are as effective as they can be, given the global and domestic context. With that in mind, has the Minister assessed the number of UK aid programmes that are likely to be impacted and which sectors will be most affected? I would also be grateful for an update on her latest discussions with her counterparts in the US, as well as counterparts in other donor countries. Is she aware of any programmes or policy areas that the US is vacating where there might be appropriate opportunities for the UK to take on the mantle and further our own national interest?

Global health, as we have heard today, is an area where the UK has made a significant and positive contribution, for example to Gavi and the Global Fund. In 2020, while we hosted the global vaccine summit, it was the Conservative Government who committed £1.65 billion to Gavi. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. These interventions really do matter: Gavi has saved 18.8 million lives and the Global Fund 65 million. Those are not numbers, but real lives, real people and real results. Sadly, we are yet to see a pledge from this Government.

Another example of global health in action is the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa programme. By working with African partners and the World Health Organisation to help to detect and tackle future epidemics and drug-resistant infections, the programme was integral to stopping Africa’s worst Ebola outbreak in 20 years. It is therefore rather concerning that we read in the press that the programme is at risk. Diseases do not respect borders, and we need to understand the risk of the changes for us at home. What assessment has the Minister made, ahead of the spending review, to inform her about how the global health budget should be managed?

On women and girls, the UK also has a good story to tell. In government, the Conservatives launched the women and girls strategy for 2023-30, which affirmed our commitment to the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. We worked with partners such as Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, demonstrating how the public and private sectors can work together to achieve maximum impact. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes are, as we have heard today, essential for saving lives and achieving gender equality, and, crucially, for empowering women. This is an area where the UK has a strong record of delivering.

As we are sadly all too aware, conflict has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often, they are locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and to build peace. The women, peace and security agenda we championed in government is about building a more representative and effective approach to tackling conflict and advocating for women’s rights in an ever more challenging world. It matters because empowered and engaged women make societies more prosperous and more secure. The Minister’s colleague, the International Development Minister, recently told the International Development Committee that education and gender are likely to be impacted by the changes to ODA. As a priority, can the Minister therefore help us understand how that will impact on the FCDO’s work in women and girls’ education, SRHR, maternal health and the broader women, peace and security agenda?

There are so many other areas I would like to raise in the context of changes to USAID. As ever, I am conscious of time, but it is important that we do not lose sight of, for example, strong institutions and capacity building, and tackling corruption and illicit finance. Without that, we cannot help partner countries to become stronger and better allies—something that is increasingly important in today’s ever more challenging world.

De-mining in post-conflict and active conflict zones remains crucial. In that area, funding to the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—great examples of British NGOs—has helped not to just support the clearance of explosives, but to raise awareness of the danger of mines and, crucially, train and build capacity in countries so that they can help to clear the mines themselves.

I would also like to touch on nutrition, which underpins good development. The recent Nutrition for Growth summit in March this year is yet another example of a sector left in limbo where the UK did not make a financial commitment.

It has been clear throughout this debate that there are still many unanswered questions and much uncertainty in the sector. I know that I am not alone in having received answers to written questions telling me to wait for the spending review. My latest tally of such answers is 59, and the story is the same almost regardless of the policy area. Similarly, the Shafik review of international development appears to have been left gathering dust on the Foreign Secretary’s desk. There are so many unanswered questions, creating much uncertainty in an ever-changing and complex world of conflict.

I have a specific and topical question to press the Minister on regarding ODA spending on Chagos. What funds from ODA will be used as part of the payments and support for Mauritius under Labour’s Chagos surrender deal?

Finally, how have the changes to USAID impacted the Minister’s decisions on UK development priorities? Has her Department made a full sector-by-sector, country-by-country impact assessment ahead of tomorrow’s spending review that takes into account the new development landscape we are operating in?

As we adjust to the new reality with respect to USAID, it is vital that the UK is alive to the impact on our international development programmes while ensuring effectiveness in our delivery. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I am sure, I remain patient and will wait until the spending review tomorrow, but let me reassure the Minister and her Department that if I am left with more questions than answers after that, I will keep asking those questions.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the lead Member to wind up.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to have heard such excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and others who have direct experience in this important field.

To repeat the words of the Minister for Development in the other place, this is a very difficult time for the development sector. The world is changing and the post-world war two consensus is under significant strain. We face increasingly complex, interconnected and politically charged global issues. As we have heard, cuts to USAID, combined with funding decisions by other donors, including the UK, will have significant implications for tackling global development challenges. We are working closely with partners to understand the impact and provide support.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she has asked lots of questions, which is, of course, part of her job as spokesperson. However, she might want to cast her mind back to the period between February 2020 and December 2021, when she was the Minister and got the axe out so quickly that there were in-year funding cuts, job losses and an enormous tremor across the sector. I remember many people coming to see me, as the Opposition spokesperson, and saying, “Could the Government not at least take a considered view over time, not rush to do these things and try to have some respect for the sector?”

[Wendy Morton]

In my comments, I was appreciative of the challenges that any Government faces in such circumstances. However, I gently remind the Minister that this is now happening on her Government’s watch and, as she rightly acknowledges, my job as the shadow development Minister is to keep asking those questions. What the sector needs is certainty, and the Government clearly have not learned that.

[Catherine West]

On the tone of the speech by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), we should also remember the 2010 to 2015 period, when cut after cut in public funding inflicted quite a deal of pain on the recipients of that public funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to ensuring that half our development budget goes to women and girls?

[Catherine West]

It would be unwise of me, the day before the spending review, to give an exact figure. However, I reassure the right hon. Member that we will give extra-special attention to working with women’s organisations, particularly local organisations in crisis and climate-affected contexts, which I know are close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. We will mainstream gender equality to put women and girls at the heart of everything we do.

We now have a champion for women, Baroness Harman. Some Members may remember her from this House, and she is not to be taken lightly. She will go over our proposals with a fine-toothed comb and support the work we do to help women political and economic leaders, like her, and activists in their home countries—those who have real legitimacy with their populations—to ensure that development and humanitarian programmes integrate women’s perspectives and needs, and address the barriers that they face. That is as relevant in conflict and peacebuilding as it is in education.

I will make some further brief points on global health. We will continue to invest in multilateral funds such as Gavi and the Global Fund. I know many here are champions of that work. There was an emphasis in this debate on child nutrition, which is paramount.

Moving on to the question of climate and nature, we will tackle climate change by backing investments that help countries to grow green and resilient economies. When we consider the COP meetings abroad, we see, following disasters and emergencies, that there is so much poverty and so much aid has to be spent. We must work harder through our financial institutions to bring forward prevention schemes for very climate-affected areas. Pakistan and the speech that Sherry Rehman made at COP two years ago come to mind, as do the Pacific islands—an area that my brief covers—which are literally under threat of sinking. Those are the sorts of areas where climate interventions are crucial and where climate will continue to be a very important point.

Members have mentioned some of the real hotspots we are looking at at the moment, including Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Myanmar, and I will briefly emphasise the importance of our humanitarian response. Colleagues will remember that following the dreadful earthquake in Sagaing in Myanmar, through support from the UK public together with the Disasters Emergency Committee match-funding UK citizens’ contributions, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was able to provide £25 million in total, equivalent to China, to those who were suffering. The International Development Committee has heard from Dr Sasa and others from outside Myanmar who are championing proper political reform, so that less aid will eventually be required once the political system gets up and running there.

Afghanistan has been mentioned as a crucial area, particularly for women and girls. I want briefly to talk up the importance of the BBC World Service and its Bitesize learning modules, through which women can listen to the radio and learn English and other basic subjects. That came out of covid, and it is an example of excellence. When a young mother with perhaps eight or nine children is washing their clothes, she can listen to English and hope one day to be able to use that to empower her and her family, and also hopefully to have an improved future. Those sorts of interventions are incredibly important.

The UK remains committed to playing a leading role in international development. We will work with our partners, including the US and the global south. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) did sound very evangelical in his speech, I liked it. I think it is important that we do have a moral heart in a lot of the work we do. We know that working with the US and the global south to reimagine a development system that meets our shared priorities, builds new partnerships, and harnesses the power of trade, AI, technology and private capital will not be quick or easy. But by working together, we can build a system that is inclusive, effective and gives voice to all who have a stake in it.

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.

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.