Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing the debate. We continue to follow developments stemming from this case at the ICJ carefully, and note that the ICJ itself has been far from unanimous about the advisory opinion. We understand that the Labour Government’s position is that they agree with the central findings of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, but will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that such court cases are an effective way to try to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and will he be clear that under no circumstances should we draw any kind of moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel? Let me address the immediate situation in Israel and Gaza, which remains extremely fragile. The announcement by Hamas that they are postponing hostage releases will be a cause of concern and anxiety for the families of the hostages, and all who care about their appalling captivity. Will the Minister explain what direct engagement our Government have had with the Israeli Government, the US Administration and our partners in the region in response? The hostages held in horrific and inhumane conditions in Gaza must be returned to their loved ones, both in accordance with the terms of phase 1 of the ceasefire and in the subsequent stage. We have been relieved to see the release of the hostages freed so far under the agreement, including British Israeli national Emily Damari. I sincerely hope that all those who have been freed from captivity can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma—and nobody should doubt that trauma. We have all seen the shocking scenes of hostages being paraded by Hamas prior to their handover, and the shocking images of the release of Or Levy, Eli Sharabi and Ohad Ben Ami on Saturday. We must also acknowledge the tragic death of 86-year-old Shlomo Mansour, who we now understand was killed during the appalling Hamas attacks on 7 October. His body has been held hostage in Gaza. We think today of his family and friends at what must be an unimaginably distressing time. The hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas are at the forefront of our minds, as are the poor families who have suffered so much and continue to wait anxiously for news about their loved ones. The news that eight hostages will not be returned to their loved ones alive is tragic. The days and weeks ahead may be very difficult for Israel and the Jewish community, and we must support them. We must again ask the UK Government to continue to work overtime alongside our partners to exert pressure and help to remove the obstacles stopping humanitarian access to those who continue to be held hostage by Hamas. That is an important point, and it does not always receive the attention it deserves. The Government must not jeopardise the UK’s relationship or undermine trust and confidence with the Government of Israel if they want to continue having a serious and in-depth dialogue about the present situation and the future of Gaza. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the delivery of British aid to Gaza since last week’s urgent question. As to what the future could look like, we are not even close to phase 3 of the current agreement and we should not get ahead of ourselves, but, to restate our long-standing position on regional peace, we support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process. Israeli hostages remain in captivity and every single one must be released. Ensuring that Hamas are no longer in charge of Gaza and removing their capacity to launch attacks against Israel are also essential and unavoidable steps on the road to lasting peace. Our immediate focus must be getting the hostages out and getting the aid in, and then making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict. If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, they need to implement the most significant reforms in their history, including to their welfare and education policies, and they must demonstrate democratic progress. That will clearly be important for their operations in the west bank, too. There are also steps we would like Israel to take, as we have said before, in relation to frozen funds and settlements. More generally, we want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords. I will comment briefly on the other major ICJ case, brought by South Africa, which I have serious concerns about. I do not believe it to be helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable end to the current conflict. To conclude, although formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment of a competent court, the Conservative Government when in power were very clear that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide—

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Almost there, Dame Siobhain. We will continue to carefully scrutinise the Labour Government, and I would welcome any updates from the Minister.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  Does he agree, though, that the 10% who cannot do it themselves in that way are potentially really losing out? There is also a group of pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and done the right things, but are too proud to apply for pension credit, let alone to go online to fill in a form.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for providing that clarity, but it took me longer than 16 minutes, so perhaps I am not as articulate as others.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making some really important points, particularly with the examples of pensioners who find themselves trapped. The crux of this issue the unfairness, but it is also about the speed with which this policy decision—this political choice—was made. Even as recently as 27 April 2024, the now Prime Minister was saying: “Britain’s pensioners deserve better. They deserve certainty, and for politicians to be straight with them so they can plan their lives.” This is not an example of fairness, it is not an example of certainty, and it is certainly not an example of being straight with pensioners.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I don’t think they are listening.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend— [ Interruption. ] I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon; I promoted her there, but I am sure that it is only a matter of time. Does she agree that when a political choice such as this is put in place, it removes the incentive from working people to get on in life, do well, do the right thing and save a little, because they know they will get kicked by a Labour Government?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing today’s debate. As others have pointed out, it is rather sad that the Labour Benches are empty today. I can only guess that Labour Members are not interested in this issue, or perhaps they did not receive the message from the Whips suggesting that they come along. We on the Conservative Benches speak to our constituents day in, day out. We knock on doors and listen to people, and we know that this issue is not going away. Thousands and thousands—millions—of pensioners out there are hurting, and they are worried about the lack of the winter fuel payment. To some, £300 may not seem like very much, but perhaps the Minister needs to be made aware that to someone on a fixed or low income, £300 is literally the difference between heating and eating. It enables them to turn their heating up when the winter weather hits. People who do not get the winter fuel payment will not get the cold weather payment either, so it is not just a single whammy; it has a multiplying effect. One of the most shocking, or saddest, things about this issue is that it was literally days into this Labour Government’s tenure that the Chancellor announced that she was scrapping the winter fuel payment, and just weeks ahead of the winter. We are still only in February—we have not seen the winter through yet—and we have already witnessed and felt plummeting temperatures. Our pensioners have had no time to prepare for this; no time to try to save, or to work out whether they can afford to have a bit of extra insulation in their homes. They have had no time to even fill in the form to apply for pension credit, hoping that they might be eligible for it. We have spoken today about the third sector helping our pensioners. Some pensioners go to the third sector for help with filling in their pension credit application form. I do not know whether the Minister has actually seen that form, but believe you me, I have. It is pages and pages—questions upon questions. I opened that document and thought, “Oh my goodness, where do I start?” I would like to think that I am quite intelligent and technologically minded, but even I found that form to be an absolute nightmare, so how does a person who is 83 and is sitting at home feel? Those pensioners might not have somebody who can help them to fill in that form, so they are excluded—not just digitally excluded, but excluded from being kept warm. I hope that the Government are listening today. I have also tabled a series of written parliamentary questions, because it was clear from the very beginning that the Government had not made a full assessment of what the situation looked like and what it might look like. That includes the impact on our health services and on social care, but fundamentally, this is about the impact on pensioners sitting at home and on their health. I have often struggled to get meaningful answers out of the DWP. I must admit that I table quite a lot of written questions and ask a lot of questions in the main Chamber, as my constituents would expect me to do, but of late, I have been trying to find out something really important: how many people who are eligible for pension credit were waiting for their winter fuel payment at the end of last year, and again as of 31 January. The DWP replied: “Where the customer is eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment, the Department aims to make this payment within 2 weeks of the award of Pension Credit. Customers won’t miss out on Winter Fuel Payments even if their qualifying benefit takes longer to process than usual.” I remind the Department and Ministers that some people cannot wait—they need that money. They need that payment to be processed now, while we are in the winter period. Those people have their bills to pay now, so I gently urge the Minister to do anything that he can to speed up payments to those who are eligible. That would be one tiny thing that might help some people. We rightly talk a lot about the people who are eligible, but there is also a big group of pensioners who are just over the threshold. They are the ones who are really hurting because they qualify for nothing. Pension credit is, I think, classed as a trigger benefit. If someone gets pension credit, it triggers the winter fuel payment. It is all means-tested. I completely understand that, but as I say, there are pensioners who are getting absolutely nothing. They are the ones who are really facing hard decisions. “Shall I put the heating on today? Shall I put the oven on today? Actually, I can’t afford to put the oven on. I don’t have a microwave. I might have to have a cold lunch.” That is no good if you are ageing and in ill health. The other anomaly that I want to raise is someone who is on attendance allowance but seriously ill. They do not have a huge amount of money, but are over the current eligibility level for pension credit. They are missing out on winter fuel payments as well, and they are often the people who really need extra heating at home. Again, it is the difference between keeping warm or not. We know that some people spend more time in bed in the hope that they can keep warm. For all the wonderful work that our churches and community organisations do providing places of welcome and helping in the community, a whole group of people cannot even leave their homes because of mobility and health issues. If we are not there to support them, what is their life like? Does it mean just lying in bed, feeling more and more isolated? We already know that social isolation is a problem among older people. I could go on and on, but I will resist doing so. We know that 14% of pensioners are in destitute poverty. Can we imagine what that must be like? I find it incredible that a Labour Government have made this callous decision on winter fuel. For those who are in receipt of pension credit, how can the Government continue to justify this policy? People are not being treated fairly, while at the same time the Government are in discussions with the Mauritian Government. We hear the sum of £18 billion talked about. The Government deny that, often saying that it is £9 billion. I frankly do not care whether it is £9 billion or £18 billion. I have strong views on what is happening with regard to the Chagos islands, but when we relate it to the winter fuel allowance, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) did in the House the other day, when she highlighted that that money is enough to pay winter fuel payments to all pensioners for the next 12 years, I think that starts to give some context about where the Government’s priorities lie.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  The estimated cost for the west midlands is in the region of £12.8 million, which is a huge amount of money. What this Government do not seem to understand is that when the pressure of national insurance is put on to businesses, people cannot squeeze and squeeze profit margins; in the end, that will impact employment, training, and so on. When it comes to the public sector, if we keep squeezing and squeezing, the money has to come from somewhere. Does that mean reduced public services—fewer police officers, as in this case—or will the burden come back on the taxpayer?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  When the right hon. Lady says that this change will not impact on employee’s payslips, she completely misses the point: whether in a business or the public sector, we cannot just keep squeezing and squeezing and expect things to continue as they are. If it is a business, we squeeze them out of business—there are no jobs; there will be no pay packet. If we keep squeezing the public sector, there will be no public services.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. She recently highlighted the significant increase in costs to police forces resulting from the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions. I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to our local neighbourhood police teams for their dedicated work in supporting citizens and communities across my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. They protect the public, help tackle crime at the grassroots level, and often go way above and beyond. Let me turn to the impact of the increased employer national insurance contributions on police forces. Tempting though it is, I will refrain from delving into the decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner to close and sell off the police station in Aldridge. However, I want to make it clear to my constituents that I will continue to stand up for them and for our share of policing resources. According to HMRC’s impact assessment, the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions—I would actually call them choices—will affect approximately 1.2 million employers, which, as we have heard today, includes police authorities. It is my understanding that for the West Midlands specifically, this policy choice—let us remember that that is what it is—will cost a staggering £12.8 million. In my view, that is £12.8 million that should be spent on frontline policing, especially if this Government are genuinely serious about tackling crime. If an average officer’s wage is, say, £35,000, by my calculations that £12.8 million could fund the equivalent of an additional 365 police officers just in one policing authority area alone. Last week, I raised that issue in the Chamber with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), particularly because she seemed a little unaware of the cost. I was left unclear about its local impact. I ask the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention to confirm whether the funds awarded to police authorities for the upcoming financial year to cover increased national insurance costs will be added to base budgets, or is this a one-off grant? In addition, has the new funding for the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers promised in the Labour party manifesto taken into account the additional burden of national insurance increases from April? Unlike the constituencies of some of my rural colleagues, my constituency is on the periphery of the west midlands; it is not entirely rural, but it is not exactly urban either. Consequently, we often find ourselves competing for resources with Birmingham and to some extent Walsall. I would be grateful for clarification today on the 13,000 additional officers promised in that Labour party manifesto, with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner saying that they will be funded by a neighbourhood policing grant. Can the Minister confirm how long the Home Office has budgeted for these additional officers, or will individual forces need to precept the ongoing costs? I ask because it is not just this year that we must consider; we must also look to the future. I will conclude by saying that we need clarity and we need answers. My constituents need reassurance that they will not be left facing the consequences of yet another poorly thought-out Labour policy or broken manifesto promise.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents do not object to immigration per se, and it is a myth that people who voted for Brexit did so purely on the basis of racism—far from it. People across my constituency want a fair immigration system, in which people stand in turn and come to this country fairly. Where the system has fallen down, and we now see ever increasing numbers of people choosing to come here illegally across the channel, we must have a deterrent to deal with the issue. Without that, we will continue to see and feel the effects of too many people coming into our country illegally. My constituents are clear that the way to smash the people smugglers is to have a strong deterrent. Look at Australia: when illegal migration first emerged as a major problem in 2001, the Howard Government took swift action to break the smugglers by having a deportation strategy. That policy was of course dismantled by the incoming Labour Government in 2007, yet the same Government were forced to reintroduce the Howard Government policy after five years of ever increasing numbers making their way to Australia through people smugglers who saw the elephant in the room—an immigration policy that had no deterrent. That is exactly what we have here in this country: an inadequate measure to deal with a major issue. Illegal crossings are up 30% since the general election. We need to see action, and now, not just tinkering around the edges of legislation. We need to see deterrents in place and working. Currently, there is no deterrent to stop the boats. Turning specifically to the Bill, it repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Much has been said about these two pieces of legislation, but what I see in front of me in this Bill amounts to sheer madness. It means that asylum seekers can refuse to take a scientific age assessment and consequently no longer be treated as over 18. How on earth do the Government plan to identify adults pretending to be children if they legislate to allow them not to have to take a scientific age assessment? That surely acts as a further tool in the armoury of the people smugglers, who I am sure are already poring over this legislation and identifying the loopholes. What does it mean for the safeguarding of those in our country who are tasked with dealing with these individuals? As it stands, the Bill would enable an unintended consequence around refusing a rescue, whereby someone on a small boat can claim they are a parent with a child and can therefore refuse rescue by French authorities, refuse return to France and continue to the UK. We need an understanding and a plan for what to do with someone who cannot be returned. We need third-party agreements, which are vital. That is why we put the Rwanda scheme and the Albania scheme in place. Guess what? It works. It is a route of return and a deterrent. Those coming illegally to the UK from Albania know that they will be returned. Disappointingly, the minute that this Labour Government came to power and signalled their intentions to scrap the deterrent within our immigration policy, the number of channel crossings once again started to rise—30% in seven months. I accept that as a Government we had far more to do, and our loss of trust with the British people was not least on this issue, but this Bill and this Government’s repealing of the Rwanda legislation will do nothing to improve the trust of this House and the British people and do nothing to make them believe their borders are safe. All it does is tinker at the edges. Our constituents want to see action, not just words. In all honesty, I cannot see anything in this Bill that gets to the heart of the problem, which has to be to smash the gangs. What is worse, I am left fearing that this proposed legislation simply gives a green light to the people smugglers that this country has open borders without any form of deterrent. For that reason alone, I cannot support this legislation.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As we make the important shift to new renewable energy, which we know is needed, there are a number of concerns on both sides of the House about the siting and appropriateness of battery energy storage systems. My own constituents have been left shocked by the planning inspector’s decision to green-light an application, against the democratic will of the council, for a battery energy storage system on the green belt at Chapel Lane. May we have a debate in Government time to enable us all to air our views and concerns?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The ceasefire remains fragile. There continues to be a long road ahead. We want the agreement to hold, and that means that each and every hostage must be released, in accordance with the terms of phase 1 of the agreement, and the subsequent phases. The videos we have all watched of the released hostages being reunited with their families are immensely moving. We cannot even begin to imagine the pain that they have suffered since 7 October 2023. We also hold firmly in our thoughts the hostages who remain in cruel captivity at the hands of Hamas, and the families who continue to anxiously await news of their loved ones. The awful news that eight hostages will not make it home alive must be unbearable for the families. We reiterate our call for the Government to do everything in their power, with partners, to push for humanitarian access to those who are still being held hostage. The UK should offer whatever practical support it can to facilitate the smooth release of hostages. The testimony of Emily Damari about the location of her captivity is also very serious, and a thorough and independent investigation is urgently needed. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on how the UK Government are formally responding, beyond calls for an investigation. On the subject of aid to Gaza, can the Minister give us an update on three points? First, what is the turnaround time for British aid—the time between it reaching warehouses in the region and its entering Gaza? Secondly, what metrics, if any, are the Government using to monitor the distribution of that aid when it has entered Gaza? Finally, since the ceasefire, have additional types and categories of aid been delivered?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  May I press the Minister on the specific point about the west midlands? She is talking about funding in the west midlands and I am also a west midlands MP. How does she think that the whopping bill that the west midlands force will face from employer national insurance contributions will impact on its budget? When it comes to money, if she is so passionate about neighbourhood policing, as indeed am I, what assurances can she give that funding from the abhorrent sale of Aldridge police station will come back into services for residents of Aldridge-Brownhills?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me that the closure of Aldridge police station has come on the watch of the Labour police and crime commissioner, who delayed and delayed making that decision for years.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that employer national insurance contributions are not being fully funded by the Government. I would be delighted to hear that I am wrong, because that is really worrying me, having spoken to my local council. On that basis, does the Minister not accept that by imposing this extra burden on local authorities, ultimately it is working people who will be affected? There will be fewer public services, less money going into social care, and pressure on council tax.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I set out my case during my speech, but since the hon. Lady is so passionate about apprenticeships, perhaps she can explain how the Government’s interest in employer national insurance will help with the creation of more apprenticeships. They cannot simply keep pushing and pushing business, and squeezing their profit margins, and expect them to be able to invest in employment opportunities and training.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate; I commend the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing it, particularly ahead of National Apprenticeship Week next week. We in this place appreciate that apprenticeships play a crucial role in developing skills, supporting businesses and providing opportunities for young people to embark on meaningful careers. I am proud of the progress that was made and am keen to see how it can continue. Between 2010 and 2024, the Conservative Government delivered 5.8 million apprenticeships, creating routes into 70% of occupations. In the last academic year alone, apprenticeship starts increased to 278,590, with 66% of those supported by the apprenticeship levy. Those figures highlight my party’s commitment to ensuring that young people and adults alike have access to high-quality training that meets the demands of our economy. Since 2020, we have also seen the successful roll-out of T-levels, another innovative qualification that combines study with workplace experience. Across my constituency, I have seen absolutely fantastic examples of apprenticeships making a real difference. Just last week, I met an apprentice called Stan at Surespan, a local access solutions business. It is a manufacturing business in Aldridge, but with global markets, and it is investing heavily in apprenticeships and technical training. In-Comm Training is another outstanding apprenticeship provider. Events such as the Brownhills jobcentre apprenticeship fair further demonstrate the enthusiasm and the need from both businesses and learners in supporting apprenticeships. It is important that we ensure that apprenticeships remain of high quality and accessible and that they are offered as a career choice alongside university. Although local businesses across my constituency are actively creating apprenticeships, I ask the Minister to confirm that the focus will remain not just on quantity, but on the quality of apprenticeships. I would also like to raise concerns about funding and accessibility for SMEs. That is really important, particularly with businesses feeling the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions—the jobs tax. We cannot just keep squeezing and squeezing small businesses. Without addressing that, we will not see increases in investment in employment and apprenticeship opportunities. I could speak a lot longer on this topic—as hon. Members may have guessed, I am rather passionate about it—but I am conscious that the clock is ticking. Apprenticeships are a crucial pillar of our education and skills system. They provide young people with the opportunity to learn while they earn, to support businesses in finding the skilled workforce they need and to contribute to our nation’s economy. Let us work together to make sure that there are more apprenticeships in future.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on Chagos?

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this important and timely debate. Our bilateral relationship with the United States is one to be cherished. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), represented our party at President Trump’s inauguration last month. We look forward with optimism to the opportunities presented by his election. However, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made, shall we say, choice remarks about the President, so it is fortunate for the Government that our ties go beyond the simply political. The friendship and affinity between our two peoples and countries are profound and deep-rooted, manifesting in millions of interactions each and every day—from nearly £300 million in trade and co-operation of defence and security, to shared cultural values and a commitment to prosperity and freedom. Our diplomatic ties bring all that together. As her posting in Washington comes to an end, I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce for her work as British ambassador to Washington. I had the pleasure of meeting Dame Karen when I was a Foreign Office Minister. This Friday will mark five years since her appointment, and she has served with distinction. One area that is ripe for development is our trading relationship. When we were in government, our total trade with the United States grew from £123.5 billion in 2010 to £294.1 billion in the four quarters to the end of the third quarter of 2024. Labour could go further and get moving on a UK-US trade deal from which every part of the UK stands to benefit. The deal that the Conservative Government were drawing up with the last Trump Administration is sitting on the shelf. Will the Minister commit to seizing this golden opportunity and dusting off our free-trade deal? What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to get back to the negotiating table with President Trump and finish what we started? In the absence of a full trade deal, do the Government have any plans to negotiate any new state-level agreements? In March last year, we signed a trade pact with Texas, which came just four months on from agreeing the UK-Florida memorandum of understanding. We also signed the Atlantic declaration in 2023. That declaration, and the accompanying action plan, forms the basis of an innovative partnership across the full spectrum of our trade relations. Will the Minister update us on what he and his colleagues have done since July to build on the Atlantic declaration and deliver on the action plan? I will turn now to defence and security co-operation between the UK and the US, which is particularly crucial within NATO. We have a key role in influencing other member states to do more. We hosted the 2014 NATO summit and made the Wales pledge. That leadership was dearly needed at a time when Britain was one of only four countries to meet their defence spending targets. Today, we need to step up to the plate once again. The Conservative party went into the election with a full funded plan to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. That was a serious and major financial commitment, but 2.5% should never be seen as an end state; rather, it is a further step on the road back to the sustained increase in defence investment that we need to fully upgrade our overall deterrence posture. Our defence policy programme will look at how we deliver more resources to the military and ensure that more funding is well spent. We will always be prudent with the public finances, but our approach to defence will be fundamentally threat-driven, with a total focus on delivering a safe and secure United Kingdom. Sadly, we see that Labour is now wobbling on its 2.5% commitment. As I have said, this is not about the number, but about our influence. If Labour fails to show the leadership in NATO that we did, we will be vacating our role as key influences in the alliance. Integral to our security partnership are the theatres in which we work closely with the United States, and one of the Government’s first acts was to rush the Chagos islands out of the door at any price, undermining that partnership. We have been calling for weeks for the Government to wait for the new US Administration to give a view, instead of trying to force through a deal. I am pleased that they have finally conceded that they need a steer from President Trump before proceeding. Will the Minister now confirm what discussions the Government had with the new Administration in the lead-up to the inauguration? We know that the Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Secretary of State and discussed Diego Garcia, so it is disappointing that we had to drag this fact out of the Government through written questions rather than the Government’s being candid in their read-out, which did not mention Diego Garcia. What are the Government trying to hide? What exactly did the Foreign Secretary discuss with Secretary Rubio in respect of the Chagos islands? Will UK and US autonomy of operations on Diego Garcia be absolutely guaranteed, or have the Government offered complete sovereignty, as is being reported in the media this afternoon? If, at the end of the term of the treaty, we cannot extend the period during which we exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia, will the UK-US base have to be decommissioned? This failure of diplomacy has so far never failed to bewilder. Rather than flogging our strategic assets along with the kitchen sink, Labour should focus on strengthening our shared defence capabilities. On China, it is difficult to reconcile the clear position of the United States with the this Government’s approach. For all the Chancellor’s kowtowing in Beijing, she returned with only £600 million over five years. Where was the China audit? I understand that work is under way, but it is not due to conclude until the spring. Did Foreign Office Ministers at least discuss the audit with the Chancellor before she set off? The response to my written parliamentary question today was, let us say, somewhat lacking in clarity. The read-out on gov.uk was murky, and instead of inviting real scrutiny, the Chancellor preferred to take questions from the state-run media of the Chinese Communist party, so perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to what was actually discussed. We know that the new US Administration are particularly concerned about China’s anti-competitive trade and economic practices. Which aspects of China’s economic practices did the Chancellor raise concerns about in Beijing? Hon. Members know that the root cause of so much of the suffering in the middle east is the Iranian regime. Through its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and, until its collapse, the Assad regime, Iran sows discord and misery. In April last year, we were in lock step with the United States in responding to Iran’s destabilising activity, including its direct attack on Israel. Through a co-ordinated package with the US, leading Iranian military figures were sanctioned, and we tightened the net on key actors in Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicle and missile industries, further limiting its ability to destabilise the region. Will the Minister tell us how the Government plan to work with our allies, especially the US, on a robust strategy towards Iran? If our American allies reassert maximum pressure on Iran, will the Labour Government be prepared to harden our policy to support that work? More broadly in the middle east, we all welcome the ceasefire deal that has been secured between Hamas and Israel, and we acknowledge the influence of President Trump in delivering that. It is so important that we work together with the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to build on the Abraham accords, to ensure that we see a lasting peace in the region. Will the Minister ensure that the UK is absolutely plugged into those discussions and at the forefront, alongside the US? On Ukraine, it is crucial that we continue to work extremely closely with the US, as we have since the very beginning of Russia’s illegal invasion. American security is on the line in Ukraine, as are British and European security. We therefore need to face the ongoing challenges of that war together. Like others, we are keen to learn more about the specific policies that the new US Administration plan to pursue. We are proud of how we led on support to Ukraine and its people during our time in government. Can the Minister update us on discussions with the new Administration regarding Ukraine, and on what plans there are to continue to build on our considerable support? To conclude, we have no closer ally than the United States. Over the past century, the essential partnership between our two nations has enabled us to lead on issues of global importance together. Our bilateral relationship is underpinned by deep ties between our people and civil societies, a thriving economic relationship, and the closest co-operation on defence and security. It is a friendship to be treasured, and we hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to strengthen it for years to come.