Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I will address directly the matter of settlements in a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. Diplomacy is about rolling up our sleeves and putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. I believe that if the Minister wants to have real sway with the Government of Israel, there has to be meaningful dialogue, but at the moment there is no dialogue between this Labour Government and Israel, despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains. That is because of the decisions that Labour has made—from suspending export licences when Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks and recognising a Palestinian state when hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity. By deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze, Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground. None the less, settlement expansion in the west bank is not helpful for achieving the long-term peace that we all want to see. [Interruption.] That has long been my party’s position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to bear down on settler violence. We on the Conservative Benches do support a two-state solution: one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the E1 situation? Are the Government doing anything at all to help the Abraham accords expand or to unblock issues holding up a broader regional peace? Finally, will he update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to hold elections in November and whether he is concerned by the PA’s lack of progress on the total overhaul of curricula and welfare policy, which is so clearly needed?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Too little, too late—that will be the legacy of this Labour Government. Earlier today, the Prime Minister admitted that capital projects including roads and energy infrastructure will no longer go ahead as planned to pay for this package. In the interests of transparency, can the Secretary of State tell the House which projects in the west midlands will now be delayed or cancelled, and does he not agree that it would be far better to get a grip of Labour’s ballooning, out-of-control welfare bill than to cut the infrastructure our regions need?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the truth that we have a Government who said they were prepared to meet the threats that we face as a country, yet are simply dithering and delaying? With all the infighting on the Labour Benches, what hope is there for our country at a time when we need sustainability and certainty, not chaos?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely not. I stand here not as a Brexiteer, but as somebody who was a reluctant remainer. I voted for remain partly because of the security of our country, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no way that I regret that decision. I am a pragmatic Brexiteer—like most of our country—but it is no good him standing there and bemoaning this, that and the other; the decision about the defence investment plan falls on his Government. If it is such a good idea, what has stopped them—I notice the Government Benches are empty—just getting on and delivering it for the sake of our country?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing a debate on an issue of significant importance to the UK’s national security and economic integrity. There is clearly broad agreement across the House that illicit finance fuels corruption, organised crime, hostile state activity and conflict around the world. Dirty money undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and threatens our security at home and abroad. The last Conservative Government took important steps to strengthen transparency, tackle economic crime and improve international co-operation, as my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. Under David Cameron’s leadership as both Prime Minister and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the UK was at the forefront of the global anti-corruption agenda, convening the first of its kind anti-corruption summit in 2016, and driving greater international focus on beneficial ownership, transparency and the recovery of stolen assets. I am proud that when in government my party strengthened sanctions enforcement following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and sought to close loopholes that allowed illicit finance to flow through international financial systems. Against that backdrop, I welcome the Government’s commitment to host the illicit finance summit later this year. The Government have said that the summit will focus on global enforcement, asset recovery, illicit gold trading, property-based money laundering and the misuse of cryptoassets. Those are important priorities and areas where international co-operation is absolutely essential. However, the success of any summit will ultimately be judged not simply by what is happening, but by the practical outcomes that it delivers. I have a number of the questions for the Minister. On Russia, what specific proposals will the Government bring forward to strengthen sanctions enforcement and close the remaining loopholes that enable sanction circumvention? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current enforcement mechanisms and what further action is being considered to target the networks and the intermediaries that continue to facilitate the movement of illicit Russian funds? It is in that context that I raise concerns that the Government, in recent weeks, have quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian oil refined in third countries. Can the Minister explain what rationale justifies that decision when the Ukraine sanctions commissioner has directly told us that the Government’s actions “may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”? On Iran, illicit finance remains central to the regime’s ability to fund destabilising activities across the middle east. What discussions will take place at the summit on disrupting Iranian financial networks and strengthening international co-operation against sanctions evasion by the Iranian regime and its proxies? The Government have rightly highlighted the importance of international partnerships. The Minister will know that the overseas territories play a vital role in supporting our economic interests and the global financial system. Can he update the House on the discussions that are taking place with the overseas territories’ Governments ahead of the summit? Can the Minister also explain how the recent restructuring in the FCDO affects the UK’s ability to tackle illicit finance internationally? What assessment has been made of whether the FCDO currently has the resources necessary to meet the ambitions his Government have set out for the summit? Finally, what legacy does he expect this summit to leave behind? I raise that question because the 2016 anti-corruption summit and the work that followed helped to establish a framework for international action that endured well beyond the event itself. It is important that this summit has a legacy, too. The Opposition support robust action against illicit finance and efforts to strengthen sanction enforcement, to combat corruption and protect the integrity of the international financial system. We want the UK to remain a global leader in this field, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Government intend to translate the ambitions of the summit into meaningful and lasting action.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Draft Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Before I start, I add my thoughts on Jo Cox. She was a dear friend right across the House, and had that often unique ability to bring the whole House together on certain topics of mutual interest. Some aspects of international development in Syria were certainly among those. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I do not intend to keep the Committee long, but I have a number of questions because further clarity would be helpful to the Committee and the House. I will come to those shortly, but I want to make it clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the suffering that has been endured by the Syrian people after years and years of conflict, repression and instability under the Assad regime. We all want to see a more peaceful and stable future for Syria. Sanctions relief in a fragile and uncertain environment inevitably carries risks, and Parliament is entitled to proper scrutiny of how those risks will be managed. The regulations revoke restrictions on the trade of gold, precious metals, diamonds and luxury goods, including automobiles, or cars. Given the obvious concerns about illicit finance, corruption and malign networks in post-conflict environments, I have to say that I was a little surprised that no formal impact assessment appears to accompany this statutory instrument. I listened to the Minister’s remarks, but will he explain why no impact assessment was considered necessary? What assessment have the Government made of the likely financial and economic effects of the changes in the regulations, both within Syria and internationally? Related to that, I would like to understand what mechanisms the Government will use to monitor the consequences of the sanctions revocations. In particular, how will Ministers assess where any resulting financial flows ultimately go? Who will benefit from them, and is there a risk that funds or assets could be diverted towards destabilising activity? Will the Minister say a little more about whom the Government expect the principal beneficiaries of the changes to be? The Government must surely have undertaken some assessment of which sectors or groups inside Syria are likely to gain most from the reopening of trade in high-value goods. They have suggested that sanctions easing may create opportunities for British businesses seeking to engage with the Syrian market, which is good, but if that is the case, what guidance will be issued to UK businesses to help them navigate what remains a highly fragile operating environment? Many firms will understandably be concerned about sanctions compliance and the risk of assets or investments ending up in the wrong hands. I also want to ask specifically about the provisions relating to petroleum products and kerosene-type jet fuel. Will the Minister clarify precisely what the Government seek to achieve through the amendments in the regulations? Are the measures intended primarily as technical corrections to civilian aviation measures, or do they carry wider security implications? Finally, while there have been some positive developments in Syria, serious concerns remain about sectarian violence and the protection of minority communities. We all want to see a stable Syrian state that is capable of countering ISIS and reducing wider regional instability, but progress must be accompanied by proper safeguards and oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses. The Conservatives do not intend to oppose the regulations, but I hope he can provide the Committee with greater reassurance on how these measures will operate in practice.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Fuel Costs: Support for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  Labour is at war with motorists, and Reform’s idea of protesting about fuel prices was revealed at their non-event yesterday—and, indeed, its members are not even here today. Only we on the Conservative Benches are standing up for our motorists and our constituents. Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to help our constituents, our businesses and our motorists, and adopt our plan to extend fuel duty relief—yes or no?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Russian Federation: Financial Pressure · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded. We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test. The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development? The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK? I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale? Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller? The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that? Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed? The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners? There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion. This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Freedom of Religion or Belief in China · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China. I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place. Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion. Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship. There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly. The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today. Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish. Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values. In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values. I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive? Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally? Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil. Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have just returned from visiting Ukraine last week. It is clear to me that Ukraine still needs help with procurement of missiles, interceptors and sanctions on the shadow fleet, but the role of the US also remains critical. Does the Secretary of State think that it really helps persuade the US to stay strong on Ukraine, when, as a close ally, the UK U-turns over the use of our air bases to attack Iran?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  This is a critical time for Ukraine. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the UK must continue to proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Four years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict—the innocent civilians, the families of brave servicemen and women, the Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, all those who have suffered life-changing injuries and those who have lost their homes. At the start of this conflict, the then Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson, with cross-party support in this House, rallied the world behind Ukraine. We supplied weapons, provided humanitarian aid, championed their cause and opened our homes to those fleeing Putin’s brutality. We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, supported by an axis of authoritarian states seeking to extinguish democracy on our continent. Russia’s increasing reliance on Iranian drones and weaponry underlines that this conflict is no longer confined to one border; it is part of a wider alignment of regimes determined to undermine the rules-based international order. We must remain united in defending shared values and the principle that aggressors should never succeed. It is crucial that there is a clear united front in support of Ukraine. Recent Russian attacks including those on Kyiv, which last year also damaged a British Council building, underline why the UK and our allies must urgently deliver the military support that Ukraine needs. Putin still aims to subjugate Ukraine; the Euro-Atlantic alliance must ensure that he fears the consequences. Russia’s response to recent ceasefire proposals shows why the west must remain resolute. Britain and our allies must continue maximum pressure on the Kremlin while supporting Ukraine on the battlefield. As always, it is ultimately for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation to decide its own future. Any settlement must secure justice and lasting peace for its people. Territorial concessions would reward aggression. Putin has shown repeatedly that he is not serious about peace, and Britain must lead the way on sanctions and international pressure. I am fortunate to have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I look forward to returning again soon. I am conscious that not just Front-Bench colleagues but many colleagues from across this House and the other place have travelled to Ukraine, and it is such a strong and clear symbol of our unwavering support. For me personally, each visit has left a deep and lasting impression. I remember standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea platform in 2021, reaffirming the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, when I returned to Ukraine in 2023, it was a different country—a country living with the daily realities of war. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones, yet their resolve was, and still is, undiminished. That spirt—defiant, democratic and determined—must guide our response in this House. One of the gravest crimes committed during this war is the abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, which I know hon. Members from across the House take incredibly seriously. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and communities, transferred to Russia, or Russian-occupied territory, stripped of their identity, subjected to so-called re-education and, in many cases, illegally adopted. This is not an unintended consequence of war; it is a deliberate policy designed to erase Ukraine’s future. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in response to these crimes, but words and warrants alone are not enough. In summing up, will the Minister set out what concrete steps the Government are taking, with allies and international partners, to secure the return of those children, and to ensure that those responsible are pursued without delay or hesitation?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend speaks with not just eloquence, but so much experience. We should all listen to colleagues who bring that expertise and knowledge to this place. I absolutely agree; it would be madness to do that. That point further demonstrates the importance of working really closely with our allies as we continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours and its fight. We must confront the growing threat posed by Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, which the Secretary of State mentioned. These vessels are not only a sanctions loophole, but a direct security threat to our shores and those of our allies. Reports of ship-to-ship transfers, insurance evasion and deceptive practices are deeply concerning. If Russia can bypass the oil price cap through this illicit network, the effectiveness of our sanctions regime will be undermined. I hope that later today, the Minister can outline what further action the Government are taking, alongside partners in the G7 and NATO, to crack down on the shadow fleet, tighten enforcement in UK waters and financial markets, and ensure that British insurers, ports and service providers are not inadvertently enabling sanctions evasion. As we mark the fourth anniversary of this brutal invasion, our task is clear. We must provide Ukraine with the tools to defend itself, maintain crippling pressure on Putin and ensure that peace is built on justice, not concessions. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand firm, we strengthen our own security; if we hesitate, we embolden aggressors everywhere. I am in no doubt that this House will speak with clarity this afternoon. However, the test for the Government is whether their actions will match the scale of the words, and I really hope that the Minister will give us that assurance. Britain’s support is not symbolic; it is concrete—it is military aid, humanitarian help, sanctions enforcement and diplomatic leadership. We must continue to lead with purpose. Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle, and we will stand with it until victory is secured on Ukraine’s terms.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  If I am honest, I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had just received that award and that recognition, but it is absolutely fitting. It demonstrates to the people who badmouth hon. Members and say that we do nothing that there are many good people in this place. She deserves that honour. I know many other hon. Members are very committed to Ukraine; a number of them are in Ukraine or on their way back. Some of them may even be heading to this Chamber—only time will tell. It is unusual for a shadow Minister to take an intervention from the Secretary of State, but I am pleased that he brought this important matter to our attention. Starting under the last Conservative Government, the UK’s support has been world-leading. It has given £3 billion per year in military aid since 2024, £12 billion in total, including humanitarian assistance, and advanced weapons, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 tanks. Operation Interflex has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil. We hosted the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference, raising over $60 billion towards reconstruction. The 100-year partnership, negotiations on which commenced under the Conservative Government, demonstrates our shared commitment to enduring co-operation on trade, security, education, science and culture. We know that sanctions work. We also know that Russia’s economy is under severe strain. That pressure must continue, including targeted pressure on refineries in China, Turkey and India that are buying Russian oil. Mobilising frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s war effort is crucial. The £2.26 billion UK loan from immobilised Russian assets is welcome, but more must be done, and needs to be done immediately. What further progress has been made on unlocking additional Russian assets, and why has more decisive action not yet been taken? The UK should lead on innovative, legal solutions with our allies and the City of London, to make more resources available to Ukraine right now. Like us, the United States has been deeply invested in this conflict. American security is tied to Ukraine’s survival, and US military support has been indispensable. How are the Government ensuring close co-ordination with the US and other NATO allies on military aid, sanctions, and strategic support?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete? This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap? Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent? Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive. This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance. Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it. There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort. The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that. Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action. I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach. The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children? Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice? I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance. Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education. If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow? Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought? Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence? I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access? More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity. I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead. Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked. The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington: “Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”. We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

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