Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The latest data from the Environment Agency shows nearly 17,000 reports of waste crime across England in the past year, with the west midlands sadly showing the highest concentration of incidents. Waste crime costs the UK economy around £1 billion annually, and no doubt the Labour-led Birmingham bin strikes are not helping. Can we have a debate in Government time on the problem of waste crime and the need to take action to tackle both waste crime and the bin strikes, which have been going on for over 100 days?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport. This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond. Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project. The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking. Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%. In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery. Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing the debate. It is very timely, coming as it does one day before the Chancellor’s spending review announcement. It is more than three months since the Prime Minister announced the reduction in aid spending, yet we still await a clear picture of what that means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) eloquently set out. I appreciate that there are challenges for the Minister but, like the international development sector and partners, I still have many unanswered questions about what this means for UK development priorities, especially in the context of changes to USAID. Decisions about the levels of US aid are, quite rightly, a matter for the US Government, but we should acknowledge that this is the new reality we are working with. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to be across the changes and the detail, and to understand what they mean for the sector and our partners. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the changes to USAID? Understanding where the impact will be is crucial to ensuring that our programmes are as effective as they can be, given the global and domestic context. With that in mind, has the Minister assessed the number of UK aid programmes that are likely to be impacted and which sectors will be most affected? I would also be grateful for an update on her latest discussions with her counterparts in the US, as well as counterparts in other donor countries. Is she aware of any programmes or policy areas that the US is vacating where there might be appropriate opportunities for the UK to take on the mantle and further our own national interest? Global health, as we have heard today, is an area where the UK has made a significant and positive contribution, for example to Gavi and the Global Fund. In 2020, while we hosted the global vaccine summit, it was the Conservative Government who committed £1.65 billion to Gavi. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. These interventions really do matter: Gavi has saved 18.8 million lives and the Global Fund 65 million. Those are not numbers, but real lives, real people and real results. Sadly, we are yet to see a pledge from this Government. Another example of global health in action is the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa programme. By working with African partners and the World Health Organisation to help to detect and tackle future epidemics and drug-resistant infections, the programme was integral to stopping Africa’s worst Ebola outbreak in 20 years. It is therefore rather concerning that we read in the press that the programme is at risk. Diseases do not respect borders, and we need to understand the risk of the changes for us at home. What assessment has the Minister made, ahead of the spending review, to inform her about how the global health budget should be managed? On women and girls, the UK also has a good story to tell. In government, the Conservatives launched the women and girls strategy for 2023-30, which affirmed our commitment to the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. We worked with partners such as Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, demonstrating how the public and private sectors can work together to achieve maximum impact. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes are, as we have heard today, essential for saving lives and achieving gender equality, and, crucially, for empowering women. This is an area where the UK has a strong record of delivering. As we are sadly all too aware, conflict has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often, they are locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and to build peace. The women, peace and security agenda we championed in government is about building a more representative and effective approach to tackling conflict and advocating for women’s rights in an ever more challenging world. It matters because empowered and engaged women make societies more prosperous and more secure. The Minister’s colleague, the International Development Minister, recently told the International Development Committee that education and gender are likely to be impacted by the changes to ODA. As a priority, can the Minister therefore help us understand how that will impact on the FCDO’s work in women and girls’ education, SRHR, maternal health and the broader women, peace and security agenda? There are so many other areas I would like to raise in the context of changes to USAID. As ever, I am conscious of time, but it is important that we do not lose sight of, for example, strong institutions and capacity building, and tackling corruption and illicit finance. Without that, we cannot help partner countries to become stronger and better allies—something that is increasingly important in today’s ever more challenging world. De-mining in post-conflict and active conflict zones remains crucial. In that area, funding to the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—great examples of British NGOs—has helped not to just support the clearance of explosives, but to raise awareness of the danger of mines and, crucially, train and build capacity in countries so that they can help to clear the mines themselves. I would also like to touch on nutrition, which underpins good development. The recent Nutrition for Growth summit in March this year is yet another example of a sector left in limbo where the UK did not make a financial commitment. It has been clear throughout this debate that there are still many unanswered questions and much uncertainty in the sector. I know that I am not alone in having received answers to written questions telling me to wait for the spending review. My latest tally of such answers is 59, and the story is the same almost regardless of the policy area. Similarly, the Shafik review of international development appears to have been left gathering dust on the Foreign Secretary’s desk. There are so many unanswered questions, creating much uncertainty in an ever-changing and complex world of conflict. I have a specific and topical question to press the Minister on regarding ODA spending on Chagos. What funds from ODA will be used as part of the payments and support for Mauritius under Labour’s Chagos surrender deal? Finally, how have the changes to USAID impacted the Minister’s decisions on UK development priorities? Has her Department made a full sector-by-sector, country-by-country impact assessment ahead of tomorrow’s spending review that takes into account the new development landscape we are operating in? As we adjust to the new reality with respect to USAID, it is vital that the UK is alive to the impact on our international development programmes while ensuring effectiveness in our delivery. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I am sure, I remain patient and will wait until the spending review tomorrow, but let me reassure the Minister and her Department that if I am left with more questions than answers after that, I will keep asking those questions.

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 May 2025 · Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  This is the third time in a week that the Minister and I have met across the Dispatch Box to debate sanctions. Once again, I thank him for advance sight of his statement. Sanctions are imperative in supporting the rules-based international system and punishing those who breach those rules. The last Conservative Government placed sanctions on Assad and his cruel regime, and helped to lead a co-ordinated approach with our allies on Syria. Britain put in place sanctions on Iran, and worked with the US to reaffirm our shared commitment to opposing those who threatened peace, security and stability in the middle east. In 2021, the UK put in place sanctions, including asset freezes, on Chinese Government officials for gross human rights abuses. Britain led international efforts to sanction Putin and those behind his war machine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We put plans in place to set up the office of trade sanctions implementation, which, as the Minister said, was formally established in October. It was set up to bolster our trade sanctions capability, crack down on companies that breach trade sanctions, and co-ordinate across Government to ensure that sanctions are implemented effectively. At the time, the Minister announced a cross-Government review. We have not yet seen the report, but I wish to press the Minister on a few points. First, what changes are being made to the sanctions implementation and enforcement framework? What role does OTSI play in any changes? The Minister refers to robust action to increase sanctions evasion deterrence, but what specific measures are being considered? He also mentions a new enforcement strategy; when can we expect that to be published? I would welcome clarity on how the new joint sanctions intelligence function fits into our existing intelligence framework. How does he envisage that working with what we are doing with the US and our other Five Eyes partners? As I am sure the Minister appreciates, thanks to our leaving the European Union, we now have our own sanctions framework. The flexibility to set our own framework and lead the charge with allies and partners cannot be squandered. Does the Minister expect the EU security pact to touch on the independence of our sanctions regime? We should look to build on the strong measures that we have placed on countries and entities. What progress is being made in identifying further sanctions to impose on those already targeted? Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of groups and militia operating in Syria? How will he ensure that the relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? How often will he review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions? Will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? Will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations for Syria? The critical mass of the current UK sanctions on Iran were introduced under the last Conservative Government. Sanctions form one part of the approach to tackling Iran, but what is the Minister’s broader strategy on Iran? When we were in government, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. The economic pressure that we have collectively imposed with the international community has crippled the Russian economy and deprived Putin of $400 billion that could have funded his illegal war. We cannot afford to let up on exerting that pressure on Putin’s war machine. Part of that includes tackling Russian assets. What consideration has the Minister given to deploying assets from the sale of Chelsea football club to support Ukraine? Will he confirm a timeframe for deploying that money? I would welcome clarity on what information is coming forward to the Minister about potential sanctions breaches and loopholes that are being exploited. Does the review sufficiently plug the gaps that have been identified? Will he update us on what action he is taking against any third party countries that are supporting the countries and entities we have already sanctioned? Finally, how does the Minister plan to deepen our international co-ordination? What discussions have the Government had with the United States? Did the Government have advance knowledge of yesterday’s announcement? Will it have a bearing on UK policy on sanctions on Syria? Sanctions are a crucial tool in our diplomatic arsenal. We must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible to ensure that international norms are adhered to.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Like the Leader of the House, I am delighted that we will be having a debate on battery energy storage systems, but that is not my question for today. It will come as no surprise that I want to press her again on Aldridge train station. At Transport questions, I asked the Secretary of State a question, and she said that she would come back to me with an update and speak to Mayor Parker. Money has been taken away from the project, and I am struggling to get a response from the Mayor of the West Midlands to correspondence from months ago. Could the Leader of the House perhaps assist in that or offer us a debate in Government time on the importance of rail connectivity not just to my constituency but around the west midlands, particularly given that we await the review on the west midlands rail hub?

• 15 May 2025 · Rail Services: North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The midlands rail hub was backed by the previous Government. It will unlock and drive economic growth across the west midlands and beyond, including into Wales, and improve the performance of existing rail services. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement in her review of that project, or is this just another example of the Treasury reversing or holding up investment in our region?

• 14 May 2025 · Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups. All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine. On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House? Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion. Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets? Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future. Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable. We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms.

• 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.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the petition’s argument. I came to the debate because an unusually high number of my constituents signed the petition. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about disparities, does he not agree that a considerable number of pensioners feel aggrieved and hard done by at the moment—and rightly so—because of a number of a policy decisions? That is why it is worth the Government having a proper look at the petition and what it proposes, and not just the financial aspect. If pensioners were able, for example, to earn a little more before they hit the threshold, they would have more to put back into the economy, and those who continue to work might want to do so for a little longer.

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Helping more people off welfare and into work will require the support and good will of employers, which I fear those on the Government Benches do not fully recognise. How will the Minister achieve that move, having clobbered businesses with the jobs tax, which covers all sectors of businesses, hospices, charities and many employers?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of fly-tipping on communities in the West Midlands. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue, particularly as the debate coincides with the conclusion of the Great British spring clean, in which many colleagues, from both sides of the House, take part. Fly-tipping is a growing concern not only in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency but across the wider west midlands region and beyond, as I have noticed of late on my social media and in my inbox. Once people were aware of this debate, a number of them got in touch to say that they have fly-tipping issues locally. In some areas it has become a persistent and damaging problem. It is vital that we come together to explore practical solutions and collaborative efforts to tackle its impact on our communities. I consider litter and fly-tipping to be an expensive nuisance; that sums it up in a short and succinct way. Keep Britain Tidy, which does so much to raise awareness of fly-tipping and littering, estimates that local authorities in England dealt with 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24—up by 6% on the year before. Sixty per cent of all fly-tipping involves household waste. It costs the economy a staggering £1 billion, and there is enough fly-tipped waste to fill Wembley stadium 30 times over. It is shocking to see that amount of fly-tipping in this day and age. Of course, those of us who represent the west midlands are dealing with our own fly-tipping and littering situation thanks to Labour-run Birmingham city council’s bin strike. I am a bit disappointed that there are no Birmingham city representatives on the Government Benches, although there is a colleague from—is it Birmingham Northfield?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I was just about to come to. The reputation of a city and of a country is so important when we are trying to attract inward investment and grow our economy. It is only three years ago that, under the leadership of then Mayor Andy Street, Birmingham and the wider west midlands was showcased as the host of the Commonwealth games. Now, three years on, it feels like we are being showcased for all the wrong reasons: as a basket case because of a bankrupt council that cannot empty its own bins. Under the previous Labour leadership of Birmingham —before he was unceremoniously dispatched by the national executive committee—we were promised a golden decade. It is really disappointing. If this is a golden decade, I can only despair. It is important not to forget that this is the second time in only seven years that we have had bin strikes on our doorstep in Birmingham. Residents really do feel that enough is enough. The public health emergency—that is what it is now—has to end, not just for the residents of Birmingham, but for the residents in my constituency and all those bordering Birmingham who are feeling its effects. My local council, like other neighbouring councils, is looking at ways to assist Birmingham, but I feel that would be putting a sticking plaster on a problem that needs sorting out, and would come at extra cost. Can the Minister reassure us that if other local authorities helped, any costs incurred would be funded by the Government or by Birmingham city council? I do not feel it is the job of my local taxpayers to fund the clean-up of the Labour council’s streets in Birmingham. On fly-tipping specifically, I think we all agree that the challenges posed are significant. However, it is heartening to see that proactive leadership can make a real difference. I do not want to just speak about Birmingham: I want to highlight some good work on fly-tipping, because that is equally important. In stark contrast to the situation in Birmingham, where residents are enduring ongoing bin strikes, Walsall council has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to keeping our communities clean and safe. I pay tribute to the leadership there and to all the staff. Under Conservative leadership, Walsall has taken decisive action to combat fly-tipping and improve waste management. The results speak for themselves. Walsall’s operational teams work tirelessly to ensure that waste is collected efficiently, with one of the highest performance rates in the country. Over the past year, the council has successfully completed 7 million bin collections on time, achieving an outstanding success rate of 99.96%. In a climate in which some councils are failing to maintain basic services, it is only fair that we recognise that that level of dedication and public service is a testament to the commitment of the team in Walsall. By keeping our streets clean, Walsall council is not just ensuring a healthier environment but enhancing the quality of life for residents, supporting local businesses and making the area a more attractive place to live and work. Walsall’s innovative approach to tackling fly-tipping has been nothing short of remarkable. For example, the environmental crime scene project has delivered tangible, long-lasting results. The initiative was launched in February 2023 and treats fly-tipped areas as crime scenes, to deter illegal dumping. Since its introduction, reports of bulky waste fly-tipping have plummeted from 40 to just five a day. In some wards, perpetrators have removed up to 70% of the fly-tips. The environmental crime scene project has sent out a clear message: fly-tipping will not be tolerated in Walsall. The council has also organised a range of events that bring together councillors and volunteers to tackle fly-tipping hotspots across the borough. Thanks to an incredible network of dedicated litter pickers, over 67,000 bags of rubbish have been collected across the whole of the borough in the past five years. I hate to imagine how big a mountain of bags that is, but it quite some rubbish that has been collected by litter pickers, who have been doing this on a voluntary basis. In my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency, I know of groups such as the Pelsall Wombles, the Walsall Wood Wombles, the Pheasey Park Farm Pickers—I was out with them on Sunday—and so many individuals and community groups, including the Friends of Streetly Library, who are really making a difference. It has been heartwarming to see our local schools, such as Pelsall village school, get involved in the Great British spring clean initiative and others. As I walked over to Westminster Hall this afternoon, I noticed that Shire Oak academy had taken part in the great big school clean—I had not come across that initiative before, but it is a really good way of encouraging the next generation to take part.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for explaining that the police and crime commissioner has bid for some additional police officers, because try as I might, using written parliamentary questions and debates, I have been unable to find out how many police officers the west midlands will be getting out of the 13,000. Despite budgets and everything else, does the hon. Member agree that if someone is resident in Birmingham, where they have had a council tax increase of 17.5% in the last couple of years, all they want is to get the strike ended, their bins emptied and the streets tidy again?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I was hoping this was not going to be an entirely party political debate, because there is so much cross-party support when it comes to tackling these issues. My biggest concern is the magnitude of the Birmingham strike and making sure that it gets sorted out. Several right hon. and hon. Friends have been raising the issue. The amount of uncollected waste has risen to a staggering 21,000 tonnes, which is an eye-watering amount. It is also eye-watering that we now have rats as big as cats hurtling around the city. We all know that these squeaky blinders, as they have been named, do not respect borders. I have heard that some city residents are burning the waste, as they simply do not know when the next bin collection will take place. I have staff members who live in Birmingham and have not had their waste collected for more than a month, and who have had no recycling collection services all year. This is not right and not fair, so it is only right and proper that we call on the Government to sort it out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is not able to be present, but he agrees that the situation facing residents is abominable. Some residents are taking responsibility by going to recycling centres, which is sensible, but that is having a knock-on effect in constituencies such as mine, with people seeking to access our recycling centres in Aldridge. It was reported that on one occasion this brought gridlock to Aldridge. It is worth remembering that when that happens, Walsall council tax payers are left footing the Bill. At its worst, as has been observed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, in the absence of councils doing their job, sorting out the bin strikes and cleaning up the mess, people are driving out of the city to dump rubbish. We now have a bin strike that is a major public health emergency, as the Minister will be aware. Andy Street said last week that it is having a major impact on the reputation of Birmingham and the wider west midlands, which will take years to recover from. Birmingham is making headlines on a daily basis as far away as Australia, for all the wrong reasons. The longer the stand-off goes on, the worse the situation will become, with more than 4,000 tonnes of rubbish being added weekly to the current 21,000 tonnes.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. With the jobs tax and the increase in business rates, and as a result of US tariffs, it is vital that we stimulate the UK economy. What is the Chancellor’s plan, and can she expect us to see interest rates fall? Perhaps if she was listening to the question, she would be able to answer.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady may be pleased to hear that I will not mention rats and squeaky blinders today. I want to raise the problem of litter, which is an expensive nuisance. Last week marked the start of the Great British spring clean. Will she join me in thanking all the individuals, community groups and schools around the country that take part in this initiative? More importantly, many of them take part in such activities to help our communities day in, day out, throughout the year. Could we have a debate in Government time on tackling litter and fly-tipping, which blights so many of our communities?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Today, the Chancellor could have taken action to reverse the damage that she has done to people and businesses in my constituency and beyond, but she failed; she chose not to. What does she say to all the pensioners, farmers, businesses, charities, hospices and hard-working people who face her huge tax rises?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Nutrition for Growth Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this timely debate. He brings considerable knowledge and experience to it, not least as a long-standing International Development Committee member and as a tremendous advocate for global nutrition. Although the debate has been interrupted by votes, I have enjoyed it and found it incredibly interesting. It is fair to say that Members on both sides of this Chamber have brought considerable knowledge and perspectives, and I thank them for that. This debate is timely, coming ahead of the Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris later this week. The summit is happening at the end of the UN decade of action on nutrition, and it aims to foster dialogue and action among diverse actors from around the world to put nutrition at the heart of the development agenda. I was pleased to meet the French special envoy on nutrition, Mr Brieuc Pont, when he visited London in December as his country was preparing to host the summit. As Conservatives, we have very much led global action on nutrition. We convened the first Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, where 100 stakeholders endorsed the global nutrition for growth compact and where the UK committed £575 million to nutrition-specific programmes and to reaching 50 million people by 2020. The global nutrition report found that we have reached the commitments made in London in 2013 and in Milan in 2017. We went further in 2022, and pledged to spend at least £1.5 billion up to 2030 on nutrition objectives. Those included addressing the nutrition needs of mothers, babies and children, tackling malnutrition in humanitarian emergencies and making sure that nutrition is central to the FCDO’s wider work. In February, during her time as the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) reiterated that £1.5 billion commitment. I understand that she was due to attend the summit in Paris this week. Following the appointment of Baroness Chapman as Development Minister, will the Minister confirm today that she will attend the summit? Can this Minister also confirm whether the Government continue to stand by the £1.5 billion by 2030 pledge and what steps are being taken to ensure that nutrition remains embedded into the FDCO’s work? We are led to understand that the UK will not be making a financial pledge at the summit, and that the Government are preparing to make a policy pledge. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? As well as playing a key role in Nutrition for Growth summits, the previous Conservative Government led many other nutrition-related initiatives. In November 2023, on the same day as publishing the International Development White Paper, we hosted the Global Food Security summit to galvanise action to deal with hunger and malnutrition, including through cutting-edge UK-funded science and technology. The UK has a key role to play in solving these global challenges, especially through our superb science and technology and research sectors—the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) highlighted some of the work of Sheffield university. That is why the White Paper laid out our commitment to investing in agricultural technology and innovation, to address global challenges such as food security. I ask the Minister what plans there are to mobilise UK science and technology to support international development objectives such as supporting global food security. I appreciate that we are yet to see the full detail of the changes to ODA, and we have had no clear answers from Ministers about what the priorities will be. Will the Minister confirm what the impact will be on the UK’s overall nutrition spend? If the Government still intend to make a commitment in Paris, it would be useful to have clarity on what changes we can expect. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford East, said in answer to one of my written questions that the Government were committed to continuing the integration of improved nutrition outcomes alongside successes in other sectors such as health, agriculture and humanitarian. Will the Minister outline what specific measures the FCDO will support in each of these sectors? Members have been waiting since at least December for the Foreign Secretary to finish considering the international development review by Baroness Shafik. Can the Minister tell us if and when the Department plans to publish the review’s findings and when we can expect the Foreign Secretary’s response? Given the changes to ODA, it is only right that Members are given the opportunity to see the full detail of that review. In addition, has the review informed the wider decisions around ODA, or is it no longer fit for purpose following the changes? Let me turn now to some country specifics and to some particularly challenging contexts that underscore the importance of this debate. In Sudan the humanitarian crisis is rapidly deteriorating: over 30 million people are in urgent need of assistance, and we see devastating food insecurity. We know that there are challenges getting aid in and distributing it effectively, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that humanitarian aid can get through to Sudan and to open new routes? What guardrails are in place to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most, including women and girls? In Ethiopia the World Food Programme identifies that recurrent conflict, drought, disease and inflation continue to drive up humanitarian needs—5.8 million people required food support in 2024. In 2023 we announced a new funding package of £16.6 million to support more than 600,000 people with food supplies and other nutrition. Over half of those people were women and children, and they bore the brunt of the country’s worsening crisis. Between 2015 and 2020, UK nutrition-related interventions reached 5.54 million children under five, women and adolescent girls. What is the latest assessment of the scale of humanitarian need in Ethiopia, and which of the programmes currently operating in the region are expected to continue? Ukraine’s grain exports are crucial to ensuring global food security. Before Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion, Ukraine accounted for around 10% of global wheat exports and 12% of corn and barley exports. In 2023, Russia deliberately obstructed and withdrew from the Black sea grain initiative, and then attacked grain storage and export infrastructure. Thanks to Ukrainian resilience and innovation, our support and the support of international partners, as of February 2024 over 13 million tonnes of agricultural produce had been exported through the Black sea since September 2023. Those supplies are crucial for the resilience of global grain markets and global food security, and they are especially important for the developing world. Developing countries, including Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan, have received significant quantities of grain directly from Ukraine via that corridor. What is the Minister’s latest assessment of the quantity of grain going through the Black sea and of the resilience of Ukraine’s export infrastructure? To conclude, this week Nutrition for Growth convenes at a crucial moment for the world, and we wish the parties a successful summit. The Conservatives are proud of the leadership we showed in bringing international partners together and in embedding nutrition at every level of the FCDO’s work. I hope the Government will build on that foundation and continue to address these challenges.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Placemaking has to go hand in hand with infrastructure to make sure that there are additional school places and doctors surgeries to support the new homes. Employment and transport also matter. Otherwise, all we are doing is clogging up our transport systems and roads, and frustrating our local communities. What is the Bill actually doing to address the need to create and foster new communities? That is what it should be doing, but I think it is really missing an opportunity. Few in this House would say that we do not need homes. Homes need to be part of communities, but in its current format, I fear that the Bill is a developer’s dream. It is also a neighbourhood nightmare, because it does nothing to create resilient and sustainable communities where individuals where families can grow up and thrive. That is what we should be seeking to address through big pieces of legislation like this. In short, there are some good things in the Bill, but it is a missed opportunity.

• 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.

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

  More

  The point that Opposition Members are trying to emphasise is that the Government appear to be giving with one hand, but taking away with the other. The hospice sector is just one example of many sectors that have been adversely affected by the Government’s cruel tax.