Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is the first time I have spoken in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I will keep my comments short and respectful, and respectful of others. I am also conscious that none of us in this place underestimates the enormity of the decision that we face today. I do not believe it is a heart or a head decision; that over-simplifies a very complex matter. I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the intentions of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in bringing forward this Bill, but I would just gently say that in this place, good intentions do not always yield the good results that we might all strive for. As I have monitored the progress of the Bill, I have continued to struggle with it, and nothing in it has changed my mind. The importance of these debates is monumental; that is underpinned by the literally thousands of comments and emails I have had from my constituents in Aldridge, Brownhills. Some have been writing to me on this matter since before the first debate at the end of November. As the Bill has proceeded through this place, I have also struggled with the way that it has been likened to previous moral and ethical legislation; I would argue that the process is very different from that which went before. Hon. Members are correct that some of the most pioneering social legislation of the post-war period was introduced via private Members’ Bills, most notably the Abortion Act 1967 and the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexuality. It would be remiss of me not to point out that both those Bills went through an extensive, Government-led public inquiry, which paved the way for legislation. A medical advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Peel, considered the Abortion Bill, and the Wolfenden committee considered the laws on homosexuality. I am afraid that advice is sadly lacking for this Bill. The Government have set up a wide range of policy reviews, and it would have been totally appropriate for such a review to have been sought on this matter. Much has also been made in this debate of the idea that the Bill is a slippery slope, and that in the future the Bill will be extended and extended; that point is made because of what we see in other countries. As a modern society, we must come to terms with having a conversation and a debate on death. I do not believe that today has to be the end of that conversation, but I genuinely do not believe that the Bill is in the right place to go forward to the House of Lords, and I will therefore vote against it.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, the Bill is broad in scope. Before I turn to the couple of amendments that I support, I want to recognise that the Bill’s scope is evidenced by the breadth and number of amendments and new clauses. It is worth gently reminding ourselves that a number of the measures were carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill, which sadly fell due to the general election almost a year ago, though there are obviously new clauses and amendments. I hope the Minister is in listening mode, in change mode and is willing to work across the House, and I hope that she accepts some of these amendments, because they would go a long way to further improving this legislation. I have read through the Bill, and much of it goes right to the heart of the communities we seek to serve and represent. There are topics in the Bill that regularly pop up in my inbox and I am sure into colleagues’ inboxes as well. I want to cover two specific areas. The first is fly-tipping and littering—an issue that I have spoken about on many occasions in this Chamber since I was first elected. I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). In an intervention earlier, I touched on the cost of littering to the country. I think I said that it was £1 million, but I meant £1 billion; I hope that can be firmly corrected, because it is a big difference. [ Official Report , 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 189.] (Correction) The principle is the same—it is money that could go back into our communities—but £1 billion spent on managing littering and fly-tipping is a huge amount of money that could otherwise buy a huge amount of services for constituencies up and down the country.

• 13 May 2025 · Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. I welcome this opportunity to debate sanctions on Syria and this measure that the Government have introduced, but before we get into the substance of the matter, may I raise with the Minister a point relating to the process? Will he explain why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office press release announcing the relaxation of sanctions was issued on 24 April and the legislation was signed by the Minister on 23 April, but it took a week for a written ministerial statement to be laid to Parliament announcing these changes, on 30 April? Can he explain why this discourtesy was shown to the House, and give an assurance that statements on changes to sanctions will in future be made to the House first whenever possible, and certainly in a timelier manner? As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has said in the House on multiple occasions, the Opposition are of the view that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. Syria is at a fork in the road, and there is still no guarantee which path it will take. The situation is very fragile and remains volatile, as clearly demonstrated by the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities in recent days. Millions of Syrians remain displaced, facing hardship and suffering, while the security situation on the ground is volatile, with the country still vulnerable to criminal gangs smuggling weapons, drugs and people; still at risk of continuing to be exploited by terrorists; and still exposed to the malign influence of Iran. Few will shed tears for the end of the vile, tyrannical Assad regime, which bore responsibility for repression, torture and death on a truly horrific scale and, infamously, the use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, there is still an onus on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to prove that it is serious about putting Syria on the path to a future that is materially different and better than that under the monstrous tyranny of the Assads, including when it comes to the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. With that in mind, we need to judge HTS and the transitional Government solely on the basis of action, not words or statements about a future vision. Will the Minister give his latest assessment of the number of groups and militias operating in Syria, and say how he will ensure that this relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? Co-ordination of course is also important, so I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister what co-ordination, if any, he has undertaken with both the US and European allies on the approach to sanctions. The last Conservative Government helped to lead a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, but the UK does not appear to be trying to lead efforts on sanctions policy in the post-Assad period. We see key players in the international community now taking different approaches to the lifting of sanctions, when what we really need is consistency of message. We understand that the US is seeking to impose conditions on the lifting of sanctions, including over the removal of chemical weapons and counter-terrorism measures—indeed, there have been reports of letters being exchanged on these matters as the US seeks assurances—but it appears that the UK is not doing so. Will the Minister explain why he does not want to apply conditions? On what basis has he made the decision not to row in behind the US approach? We recognise that regulation 5 of these regulations contains a list of high-level and laudable purposes for the UK’s decisions, but that is not the same as a concrete condition. On this point, the Minister will be aware that page 2 of the explanatory memorandum summarises the purposes of the regulations as being, “to promote the peace, stability and security of Syria…to promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Syria, including in particular promoting the successful completion of Syria’s transition to a democratic country…to discourage actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Syria”. Will the Minister explain what direct discussions have taken place with HTS about the requirements that we expect it to be able to fulfil? If he has not placed conditions on this decision, will he explain why he has not done so? The Minister will be aware that the shadow Foreign Secretary tabled a written parliamentary question on 24 February on “conditions he”— the Foreign Secretary— “plans to apply to the Government of Syria in relation to the relaxation of sanctions.” The Minister who answered on 24 March did not give a direct response to that part of the question, so I would like to give this Minister the opportunity now to give a direct answer. Is this relaxation of sanctions directly linked to a clear set of conditions placed on the transitional Government, and will any future relaxation of sanctions be directly linked to conditions too? It is also important for the Minister to explain what assurances, if any, he has been directly given by the transitional Government of Syria on adhering to the standards that we expect of them. What measures will be put in place to ensure that this relaxation of sanctions does not lead to investments and resources being abused? Syria remains a fragmented country, with different groups and militias exercising control, and conflict and violence still taking place. How often will the Minister review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions, and will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? I ask that because section 10 of the explanatory memorandum gives some details on the Government’s approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation, but seems to suggest that the Government will look only at the effectiveness of maintaining or relaxing the sanctions regime, rather than tightening it up, and that a specific review provision is not needed. The relevant section asks, “ What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation? ” and section 10.1 states: “If His Majesty’s Government determined that…it was no longer appropriate to maintain a sanctions regime or specific sanctions measures, that regime would be removed or amended accordingly. In the case of the 2019 Regulations, that would include the measures introduced by this instrument. As such, the Minister does not consider that a review clause in this instrument is appropriate. Will the Minister clarify his approach to reviewing and monitoring, which is important? If the transitional Government or other entities in Syria are not acting in an appropriate way to deliver stability to Syria and protect rights, will the current sanctions regime be amended, or will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations? Will the Minister commit to giving a regular update and statement to the House on the status of Syria and the progress, or lack of progress, being made, and whether he is considering any further amendments to sanctions? Does he expect to make any further amendments this year? On monitoring the impact, what criteria will the Minister use to judge whether the lifting of sanctions has had the effect he desires, including on the security front, which will also be important? Turning to more specific provisions, on 25 April the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at HM Treasury issued a financial sanctions notice that updated references to the 310 individuals and 39 entities to which sanctions apply. With the Assad regime over, can the Minister confirm whether any of those individuals are still in Syria, or have all fled? We know that Assad is in Russia, but does the Minister know the whereabouts of other individuals? Will the Government still consider adding names of individuals and entities to the list, should evidence emerge of the complicity in Assad’s crimes and the repression of Syria by those either currently in Syria or elsewhere? We agree those sanctions must remain in place, and those responsible for heinous acts be held to account. Will the Minister give details on the work under way with international partners and the transitional Government in Syria to bring those responsible to face justice? Will he give an update on his assessment of compliance with sanctions in place? I now turn to the impact of the amendment. Section 9.2 of the explanatory memorandum states: “The lifting of sanctions creates trade and investment opportunities for the UK. The impact on UK growth is expected to be positive but negligible, due to the small size of the Syrian economy. Any such trade and investment with Syria will remain subject to other existing legal regulation including international sanctions.” Does the Minister have an estimate of the impact this would have on UK businesses? Will support and assistance be provided to any UK businesses looking to invest in Syria as a result of these changes, to ensure safe operations? How will he monitor new investments in Syria, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the Syrian people and are not making their way into the hands of those who will undermine our objectives in Syria? With regard to regulation 6 of the 2019 regulations, headed “Designation criteria: meaning of ‘involved person’”, the amendments would add references to the regulation applying to activities during the period of the Assad regime, which is defined in the regulations as the period ending on 8 December 2024. They state that those designated will be persons involved in a range of abhorrent activities, including “repressing the civilian population in Syria” and “the commission of, or obstruction of an independent investigation into a serious human rights violation or abuse in Syria.” Can the Minister confirm whether that will mean that anyone who may obstruct investigations into human rights abuses that happened under the Assad regime but where the obstructive actions took place after 8 December 2024, will not be covered by that provision? Ensuring that evidence is secured is vital to bringing criminal cases against those responsible. Anything that could compromise that must surely be a concern. In the 2019 regulations, regulation 6 defines “prohibited activities related to chemical weapons” and regulation 7 lists “stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons” as actions that can lead to sanctions being applied. Will the Minister confirm whether those aspects of the regulations will apply to anyone who has been maintaining chemical weapons, or obstructing any efforts to investigate and dispose of chemical weapons held in Syria currently, since the fall of the Assad regime? Or does the measure apply only to persons involved in those activities up to 8 December 2024? I am sure that the Minister will share our concerns about the risks of chemical weapons not being secured and disposed of. Can he give an update on the international efforts to deal with chemical weapons in Syria and any progress that the transitional Government are making on that issue? Finally, only an appropriate and inclusive constitutional future will ultimately guarantee peace and stability for Syria, so we should make sure that our policy on Syria’s economic recovery, of which sanctions are of course a part, is not decoupled from ensuring that the right governance structures are in place. On that basis, what is the Minister’s latest assessment of transitional Government’s progress and the plans that they have laid out? We seek assurances on all those points, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to all those questions when he sums up.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is important that we put this all within the context of Britain’s relationship with Israel. Israel is a key security and defence partner for the United Kingdom, and it is the only democracy in the middle east. Its security matters and helps to keep us safe, including by dealing with threats that undermine our interests. When the Conservatives were in government, we were able to have candid and honest conversations with the Government of Israel on all issues, because of the mutual trust and respect in our relations. It is only by maintaining that trust and respect that Britain can bring influence to bear on issues that really matter for peace and security in the middle east and, indeed, for us too, including on the course of this terrible conflict and, ultimately, on finding a sustainable end to the conflict, which is what we all want to see. That is more relevant than ever because of the current situation with the 59 hostages who are still being held. It is not in Britain’s interests, nor is it in the interests of peace in the region, if there are tense and difficult relations with Israel that would undermine our influence. The Minister will be aware of his own Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advice on entry to Israel, but for the benefit of the House it states: “The Israeli authorities decide if you can enter Israel… Some visitors may face longer searches and questioning, including those …who are considered to have publicly criticised the state of Israel”. Does the Minister accept that British nationals visiting Israel—a country that is at war—should be aware of those requirements and consider them carefully before making decisions to travel, and that they therefore travel to Israel at their own risk? I think it would also be helpful today to understand what the Minister considers to count as an official trip, and whether the FCDO was aware in advance of this trip. As MPs— [ Interruption. ] As Members of Parliament, we do not have diplomatic immunity, so what would the FCDO do—this is really important—if MPs were allowed entry and then arrested? [ Interruption. ] Moreover, who were the aides who accompanied the delegation and also returned to the UK? [ Interruption. ]

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Housing and homes matter, but so too do democracy, accountability and, really importantly, local communities and the local environment, yet the Bill scales back the ability of every planning committee in the country and reduces council involvement in decision making in its local authorities and wards. It creates a major democratic deficit, with councillors unable to have a voice or a say when deciding on a development. This is classic top-down socialism from a Secretary of State who has herself protested to local councillors in her constituency to oppose developments. From the outset, the Bill aims to expedite development, but we must not allow that to come at the expense of our green belt and the wildlife that it protects, because, once lost, those spaces will be gone forever. There is growing discussion and concern about the so-called grey belt—the piecemeal erosion of our green belt—which risks setting a dangerous precedent. Surely the focus should be on a genuine brownfield-first strategy, unlocking underutilised urban land before reaching for our green spaces. I urge the Government to strengthen the Bill by putting green belt protection and nature at the heart of planning and ensuring that the pursuit of growth never comes at the cost of our environment and communities. The top-down approach to housing targets, which has been embodied by the Government, is a disgrace, and it places additional pressure on boroughs like Walsall, which is being asked to do the heavy lifting for areas such as Birmingham. The Government have insisted that housing targets for Walsall rise by an eye-watering additional 27%, while housing targets in Birmingham are reduced by nearly half. I could say that that may be because of the trash currently in Labour-led Birmingham and mention the squeaky blinders, but I will avoid doing so today. The Bill does little to prioritise the regeneration of our town centres and our high streets. There is no clear strategy to unlock urban brownfield sites at scale. There are pub sites crying out for development. Nor is there the necessary investment to make high street renewal a reality. Let us be clear: a brownfield-first strategy requires more than warm words; it needs real funding and a clear plan. The Bill lacks both. Brownfield sites often require remediation, yet there is no meaningful financial support to bring them back into use. We have seen it work in the west midlands at the Caparo site in Walsall under the work of our previous mayor, Andy Street. Another area that the Bill fails to address is the 1 million planning consents for new homes in this country. Not one of those proposed new build properties will ever get built if the Bill simply makes it easier for developers to drive a coach and horses through our green belt. Placemaking must go hand in hand with infrastructure—

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the point. What we see instead is Labour Members continuing to blame their economic inheritance. That is simply not correct. The chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility said: “Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”. I wonder what the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, makes of all this. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, he endorsed Labour. What many people now see is a Government who do not really understand the role that so many charities play in supporting the NHS, communities, older people, young people, families, and patients—people who are sick and sometimes terminally ill. For example, why would they protect the public sector and the rest of the NHS from the national insurance tax, but not general practice? Analysis from the Institute of General Practice Management estimates that it will cost each practice an average of £20,000 a year. How many staff hours is that equivalent to? How many hours of a GP’s time or a practice nurse’s time is that? I have spoken to a number of local charities, and we have heard from others today. Every pound that the Labour Government squeeze out of them through the jobs tax is an extra pound that cannot be spent on frontline services—an extra pound that they have to find just to stand still. I find it so hard to believe that this Labour Government are also taxing those who provide vital hospice care. How can they talk of helping palliative care with one hand, while clobbering hospices and care providers with extra taxes with the other? I can be cynical at times but I see a complete lack of business expertise, knowledge or experience among those on the Labour Benches. Just visiting businesses is not enough to understand how a business operates. I speak to them in my constituency on a weekly basis. The chair of the CBI has stated that “business has been milked as the cash cow”. We simply cannot expect small businesses, or indeed any business, to just be squeezed and squeezed, thinking, “Well, they’ll just increase their costs and pass them on to the end user.” The end user cannot afford them, as we have heard this afternoon. Ultimately, something will have to give: hours, training, development and jobs. Just yesterday, we were in this Chamber debating the Government’s welfare reform. At the heart of the issue, I really believe people want to get back into work. They need support to do that, but they also need employers and businesses to have vacancies so that they can support them back into work. What I, like others, see in this legislation is the Government taxing businesses out of creating the vital jobs that this country so needs to get the growth that we do not have at the moment. As I mentioned, attendance on the Government Benches is somewhat threadbare, giving the appearance that the Government do not care. We have heard from Labour Members who do care, just like we on the Opposition Benches care. I draw my remarks to a conclusion by urging Members on the Government Benches and those listening outside to reflect very carefully. We all have the opportunity today to do the right thing—to protect and help charities and hospices and, by virtue of that, to protect and help some of the most vulnerable in our country and society. We have the opportunity to protect jobs and help businesses to create opportunities and, by virtue of that, to help working people who aspire to a better life. I end quite simply by urging those on the Government Benches to think again and to do the right thing.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Farming is the backbone of this country, not only providing us with the food we need to feed our families, but acting as a steward of the land that we hold dear. Farmers do so much more than grow our food: they protect the countryside, create jobs and contribute immensely to rural economies. My constituency may not have as large a farming population as some others, but believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker: the farmers we do have are vital to the national picture, as the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), recognised during his recent visit to some of my local farmers. Their efforts support local communities, provide employment and contribute to food security, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. I also pay tribute to the farmers who took valuable time off the land today to bring their tractors down to Parliament and support us here in this debate. I suspect there may even be some sitting in the Gallery upstairs. Changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026 will have a profound consequence for family farms, including those in my constituency. The removal of the 100% relief above the first £1 million in agricultural and business property could mean farmers are forced to pay inheritance tax at 20% on the value of their property above the threshold, which will push many of them out of business.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, which has clearly attracted a lot of interest from colleagues in the House. This is a deeply sensitive and complex issue that has persisted for decades and requires careful and measured discussion, and it is fair to say that we have seen that in Westminster Hall today. Naturally, given our history in the region and the role that the United Kingdom played in the partition of these territories, many look to us to mediate. It was not the policy of the last Government to prescribe a solution to the situation in Kashmir, as it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. However, we must not shy away from raising human rights concerns that may arise as a by-product of the dispute. Therefore, it is vital that allegations of human rights abuses are investigated thoroughly, promptly and independently. Can the Minister outline how her Government are pressing both India and Pakistan to ensure that their domestic laws align with international human rights standards? Central to today’s debate, of course, is understanding what assessment the Government have made of ongoing human rights abuses in the region. India and Pakistan are both close friends of the United Kingdom and, importantly, both are members of the Commonwealth, a unique institution that does so much to foster unity between nations that share the common values set out under the Commonwealth charter. Article II of the charter insists upon a commitment to human rights, specifically “respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights”. Both India and Pakistan have expressed their strong belief in the Commonwealth’s role as a platform for constructive dialogue. Given that, what are the Government doing to utilise the Commonwealth as a forum to encourage dialogue between India and Pakistan on protecting human rights and on this geopolitical issue more generally? What conversations has the Minister had with the secretary-general of the Commonwealth to prevent any potential future violations of the Commonwealth charter? Regional instability in south Asia does not exist in a vacuum, so we must consider the broader geopolitical landscape, particularly the influence of China in the region. Continued tensions in Kashmir could create opportunities for external actors to further their own strategic interests, potentially undermining peace efforts and increasing regional instability. It would therefore be helpful to understand what assessment has been made of the potential security implications of China’s involvement in the region. Will China’s role in Kashmir make an appearance in the Government’s China audit? A crucial part of the human rights discussion is the issue of freedom of religion and belief, which remains a concern in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where religious minorities continue to face discrimination and persecution. What assessment have the Government made of the state of religious freedom in Kashmir? The Prime Minister’s recent appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was welcome, but it is important to understand whether the envoy will be tasked with examining these concerns and engaging with counterparts in India and Pakistan on the matter. As we engage in this discussion, I urge the Government to provide clear answers on how they plan to ensure that the UK remains a voice for stability, dialogue and human rights in Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have endured decades of uncertainty and hardship. What are the Government doing to prevent a further escalation of tensions? How do they intend to use their diplomatic influence to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table? His Majesty’s Government, through their diplomatic networks in New Delhi and Islamabad, must continue to encourage both sides to engage in dialogue and pursue lasting diplomatic solutions. How frequently are the Government raising this issue with counterparts in India and Pakistan? Can the Minister provide specific examples of recent diplomatic engagement on this matter? With all that in mind, the UK must continue to encourage constructive dialogue, promote and defend international law and human rights, and work towards a future that prioritises peace, security and stability in the region.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for providing us with this platform to show the House at its best, coming together in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. It is a chance for us to stand together in solidarity. Three years ago, the world watched in horror as Russian forces launched their brutal, full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. The images of tanks rolling across the border and the shelling of innocent civilians will remain seared into our minds forever. Yet, despite the Kremlin’s relentless aggression, the Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary courage, determination and resilience, and we have shared some of those stories in here today. They continue to fight not just for their homeland, but for the principles that underpin our own security here: democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023. Each visit left a very deep impression on me. In 2021, I had the honour of standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. When I returned in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I am a board member—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—the contrast was stark. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones in the conflict. Their resilience was, and still is, unwavering; their determination is undimmed. It is that spirit of theirs that must continue to guide us in this place in our response. The UK has led the way in supporting Ukraine. The previous Conservative Government were among the first to provide advanced weaponry, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision weapons and air defence systems. We played a key role in training Ukrainian troops and co-ordinating international military aid, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid until the decade’s end. However, that support must continue to ensure Ukraine has the weapons and the strategic backing needed to defeat Russian aggression. Let us be clear: this is not just about helping Ukraine. This is about our own national security. Russia’s actions represent the most blatant breach of sovereignty and territorial integrity seen in Europe since the second world war. If we falter in the face of that aggression, we invite further instability. We know that Putin’s ambitions do not stop at Ukraine’s borders. The threat that he poses to NATO allies, including in the Baltic region, is real and growing. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. That is an important step, albeit overdue, and I commend the Government for recognising, as my party does, that our security requires sustained investment. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the power of people-to-people solidarity, as my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Romford West—I hope I got that right. [ Interruption. ] I am being prompted that it is Chingford and Woodford Green.

• 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.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Cadet Forces · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I will mention the representation that our cadet forces make in our local communities, because I too see it week in, week out, particularly on Remembrance Sunday. I think of the 1444 Brownhills squadron, the 425 Aldridge squadron and T.S. Vigo in Walsall Wood—there are many of them, but I will mention just a few. As a Member of Parliament, they make me incredibly proud when I see them. I hope that we can continue to support those groups up and down the country as well as all the people who work behind the scenes—the volunteers and the families—to support them in the work they do to serve our communities.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely welcome today’s Second Reading of the Bill. Having brought two private Members’ Bills through Parliament from the Back Benches, I wish the hon. Gentleman every success; it can be a long journey. Will he say more about the impact of solar panels on the environment and the green belt? In the shift towards using more solar panels, I fear many of the panels will be installed on prime agricultural land. I am disappointed that in Walsall, the planning inspector has just given permission for a battery storage facility on the edge of my constituency, right by a conservation area. I feel strongly that we need to look at alternative places for solar panels in order to protect communities and our green belt.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman touched on the word “mandate”. I think most people would accept and acknowledge that the Government were elected on a mandate for change, but would he agree that one of the reasons why there is so much traction and engagement with this petition, including in my constituency, is that people feel so let down and disappointed? We have seen so many manifesto promises broken already.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Aldridge Train Station · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of Aldridge train station. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development of a new train station in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency and its funding through the city region sustainable transport settlement, known as CRSTS, which is less of a mouthful. I will start with a little background about Aldridge-Brownhills and where we have got to with the development of a train station. Currently Aldridge-Brownhills is one of only 49 constituencies in this country that do not have a passenger train station and one of three in the West Midlands combined authority area. That is worth remembering. As in so many other areas, we lost our station in Aldridge due to the 1960s Beeching cuts. The last passenger train left Aldridge in 1965. Although we still have a freight line with freight trains operating on it, we do not have passenger services, but what we do have is a vision and determination to once again see passenger train services stopping at and running through Aldridge. Things began to change in 2017. Following the first West Midlands mayoral election and the establishment of the West Midlands combined authority under Andy Street, the mayor laid down a bold and ambitious transport plan for the West Midlands region up until 2040.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  This centrally driven intervention drives a coach and horses through green belt areas such as Aldridge-Brownhills and through local democracy. How will the Minister ensure that local communities are respected and have a voice, so that we build the right homes in the right places?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Georgia · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks so far. The shocking and disturbing scenes in Georgia have been hard for all to witness, and I note the statement put out by the Foreign Office this morning. We share the Government’s deep anxiety over the situation in Georgia. What is happening in Georgia matters. From the law on foreign influence to election irregularities and the excessive use of force in recent days against protesters and journalists, we are witnessing Georgia being dragged down a dangerous path. It matters for the Georgian people, for our important bilateral relationship, and for the wider Euro-Atlantic community, which sincerely seeks closer ties and a deeper friendship with Georgia. Our clear and unambiguous aim should be to support the Georgian people, and that includes their desire for a future rooted in the Euro-Atlantic community. Will the Minister confirm she has told her Georgian counterpart, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down the aggressive rhetoric, de-escalate the situation on the streets and stop blaming others for the current tensions? Will she also commit to pulling every diplomatic lever to support the Georgian people as they go through this dark period? Finally, and more broadly, I will circle back to the question I asked last week at Foreign Office questions, because this is a clear example of the dangers of Europe becoming a more contested space. Will the Minister urgently come forward with a plan that builds on the work of the previous Government to be more muscular in leveraging our soft power, so that we can counter attempts to sow division and instead bang the drum for the Euro-Atlantic community? We need to demonstrate to countries in Europe and around the world that a partnership with us, and choosing democracy and openness, is the best route to prosperity.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who always brings such knowledge and expertise to the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). I congratulate her on making her making speech and thank her for sharing her passion for her constituency with us. It is apt that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of your great knowledge of this policy area. Although we do not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, there is nonetheless a valuable and dynamic relationship between London and Taipei, underpinned by strong commercial, educational and cultural links. We also have a solid partnership in other important areas, including health, as we saw particularly during the pandemic. The work of the British Office Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in London is highly commendable and benefits both of our peoples, for example with a wide range of exchanges and visits, including on environmental, educational and judicial themes. We also have a significant trading relationship, which we call on the Government to continue to promote. Trade in goods and services rose from £5.5 billion in 2014 to £8.3 billion in 2023, which is a substantial increase. We want more British businesses to benefit from Taiwan’s impressive economy and prominent trade and investment links with the wider region. Within the current structure of our unofficial relationship, there is more we can do to maximise the benefits to both of our peoples, and we will push the Government to do so. It is right that the UK continues to lobby in favour of Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. In her response, will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current plans on that front, including on the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organisation technical meetings? The Government must not overlook the risks Taiwan has to contend with. There have been some worrying early signs, which we want to see put right. Members on the Conservative Benches harbour concerns that the relationship Labour is carving out with Beijing is all give and no take. Today provides the Minister with an opportunity to dispel the widespread impression that this Government are making concessions with nothing in return. Labour has called in the application for a new super-embassy in London and is desperately performing verbal contortions on issues that should be very straight- forward, including the national security law in Hong Kong. We firmly believe that law should be repealed and we are not afraid to say so publicly. Will the Minister name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices or human rights? As far as I can see, we are yet to receive a convincing answer. We are very clear that what Labour must not do is sacrifice the UK’s voice on the threats facing Taiwan on the altar of closer relations with Beijing. We have already seen signs of naiveté. Within a day of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, which the Prime Minister hailed as an opportunity to bring about a “strong” and “consistent” relationship where “surprises” would be avoided, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. It makes the Prime Minister’s boast that the UK would be a partner “committed to the rule of law” look rather hollow. The Prime Minister’s response to these entirely unjustified jailings and his inability to sufficiently publicly condemn them has raised eyebrows too. It has not gone unnoticed and we will not let that point go. The Government need to be much more clear eyed about the threats and challenges posed by China, whether in relation to Hong Kong or Taiwan. We are concerned by reports that the Foreign Office tried to exert pressure to postpone an inward visit by the former President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. The FCDO has said it “does not recognise” the description of events set out in the reports, which in Westminster language means that it does not deny that this happened. Will the Minister give the House the explanation it expects? What actually happened? Will the Minister also confirm that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have explicitly raised serious concerns in their respective meetings with President Xi and Wang Yi about any activity that risks destabilising the cross-strait status quo? Did they say, in no uncertain terms, that we stand firmly against any unilateral attempts to change the status quo? For reasons that are well understood, we have a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. It is our deep conviction that the tensions, which have understandably received a great deal of attention in this afternoon’s debate, should be resolved peacefully. That is what will best serve people on both sides of the Taiwan strait, as well as the Indo-Pacific region and the wider world. That peace and stability matters for the rules-based order, for trade and for the health of the global economy, and we should not shy away from saying that. We hope that people on the two sides of the Taiwan strait will renew efforts to resolve differences peacefully through constructive dialogue and not under a cloud of coercion or threats. Much of the debate on this subject revolves around the constitutional status of Taiwan and its relationship with China. Yet we should never lose sight of Taiwan’s domestic achievements in its own right, because they are deeply impressive: a flourishing and vibrant democracy, a strong judiciary and one of Asia’s most dynamic economies. Taiwan is also a vital manufacturer of semi- conductors, which is one of the most important pieces of tech in the world. For all those reasons and many more, we will press the Government to deepen and grow our relationship.

• 26 Nov 2024 · UK Soft Power · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whether it is the findings of the election monitors in Georgia, interference in the recent elections in Moldova, the illegal invasion of Ukraine, or the chill felt from the Baltics to Bucharest, Europe today is a much more contested space. This is the moment to pin our colours to the mast and be much more active in supporting those with Euro-Atlantic aspirations. How will the Minister build on the efforts of the last Government and use our considerable soft power to be much more proactive?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Recent events at the West Midlands Fire Authority, regarding failures of governance, leadership, financial discrepancies and staff grievances, highlight deep-rooted and troubling problems, and I am afraid there are too many unanswered questions. Will the Government ensure that there will be an independent and transparent public inquiry, so that the West Midlands Fire Authority meets the obligations and standards that my residents, and people across the west midlands, rightly expect and deserve?