Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  I will be delighted to do so, Ms Vaz. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I perhaps should abandon my prepared speech and just go for it. Across the country, our high streets are facing huge pressure. I think all of us in Westminster Hall this morning understand that. Shopkeepers are doing everything they can to keep trading, but they face the double hit of the jobs tax and the bodged business rate reforms, and at a time when our retailers are disappearing, all too often we are seeing those retail units being replaced by vape shops, nail bars and so on, so it is time that real businesses had more support. In my constituency, Brownhills High Street—you know it very well, Ms Vaz—is home to some fantastic independent retailers, such as Fairy Good Cakes, which is one of my favourites, The Jack ‘Jigger’ Taylor and the butchers A. E. Poxon & Sons. They are serving our local community, but they face a challenging environment that is made more challenging at the minute by the emergence of a sinkhole in the high street. The reason I raise that is that it highlights why, when our high streets have to be closed for emergency work, it is so important that we support local businesses—that we all get out there on the high street. Do not talk; take action—go and put the pound in the tills of these local businesses that work so hard. In Brownhills, we are fortunate to have received some Pride in Place funding and I hope that the Government will work with me and the community to deliver that. I hope we will be able to receive help with the redevelopment of Ravenscourt, a gap in the high street where we have been working for years to seek some improvement and regeneration. Will the Minister pick up on that for me as well? I hear day in, day out about the challenges that our businesses face. Briefly, I want to raise an issue that has not yet been raised: car parking. We need car parking that works in the interests of residents and businesses. In Aldridge, some of my residents have recently received a £100 parking charge simply for dropping off family and friends and waiting for a short time on yellow lines, not red lines—

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion. Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key. Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support. On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised. Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.

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

  More

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

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing the urgent question, and to the Minister for his response. The imposition of tariffs is a bilateral matter for the US and Cuba. We are appalled by Cuba’s record of abusing its civilians’ political, civil and human rights. The Cuban regime’s record is shameful, and we should be wary of narratives that seek to explain Cuba’s current difficulties solely through external factors. The reality is that the Cuban people have endured decades of economic stagnation, political repression and the denial of basic freedoms under a one-party communist system, and any assessment of the present situation must acknowledge the wider context. I turn to the Minister’s response. Can he tell the House what recent discussions Ministers have had with the US Administration regarding developments in Cuba and the actions of the United States? Can he set out what engagement the Government have had with the Cuban authorities? In those discussions, have Ministers raised concerns about human rights, political prisoners and democratic freedoms, alongside the humanitarian issues? Finally, are the Government considering a humanitarian response and, if so, how will they ensure that that assistance reaches the Cuban people directly and is not diverted for the benefit of a regime with such a poor record on human rights and civil liberties? The House would really benefit from a clearer statement of the Government’s overall policy towards Cuba at what is clearly a significant moment for the country and its people.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  From volunteer gardeners to gardening clubs, litter pickers, Wombles, community groups and church groups, across Aldridge-Brownhills there are some fantastic volunteer organisations. As most across the House know, this is Volunteers Week, so will the Leader of the House join me in recognising all those who do so much to support our local communities? In particular, some in my constituency will be recognised this evening at Manor Farm Community Association.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 23 Mar 2026 · Rail Connections to London: Rural Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep this short, as I am conscious of time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate on rail connectivity between London and what she refers to as rural towns. My constituency is not exactly rural—we are on the edge of the west midlands—but the rail line she talked about runs right through Aldridge-Brownhills, hence I am speaking in this debate. I was very fortunate to travel on a recent charter service that took in the whole of the line—a number of Members were able to travel on that train—but I had to hop on in Walsall. I will come shortly to the reason for that, because the service passed right through Aldridge in my constituency. The proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and midlands railway line—the WSMR line, as we refer to it—should and could be a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Finally reconnecting us to the rail network, it would unlock jobs, growth, investment, access to education and social links, some 60-odd years after the last passenger services left Aldridge. Sadly, however, we in Aldridge have no railway station at all, and we are at risk of missing such opportunity because of the Labour mayor. We saw new stations open at Willenhall and Darlaston just last week—projects delivered thanks to the leadership and funding of the former mayor, Andy Street—but Aldridge, by contrast, is very much in the sidings at the moment, because the Labour mayor has stripped away the funding for our station. The project had been promised to my constituents and funding had been set aside by the previous mayor, Andy Street. I want to be clear about what that means: if WSMR goes ahead—and Members should be in no doubt that I sincerely hope it does so—we could soon see trains running from Wrexham to London, which would be great, and they would be going straight through Aldridge, but they would not be able to stop, all because of the decision not to build the railway station. The reality we face is passenger trains running through our village and our communities, but my constituents being left standing on the trackside watching them pass by, which would be a complete failure of priorities. I cannot let this opportunity go without saying to the Minister that an open-access bid from WSMR is a great idea—this evening, we can show our support for it—so please will he back this line and the connectivity that our region needs? However, I challenge the decisions that risk leaving communities such as mine behind, because Aldridge does not need or want passenger services that simply run through the constituency; it needs a station where the train can actually stop.

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

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

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  For this scheme to work, we need vacancies for young people, yet we have a Government who are squeezing the very businesses that are needed to create opportunities and jobs for young people through business rates, energy costs and national insurance increases. The result, sadly, is that businesses up and down the country are going bust and unemployment is going up. I urge the Secretary of State, rather than apply an expensive sticking-plaster to this problem, to speak with the Chancellor and ask her to reverse the jobs tax.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last Saturday, hundreds of people from across my constituency came together on a march, led by Mr and Mrs Edwards and David Smith from Aldridge, on the importance of the green belt for our communities. May we have a debate in Government time on the benefits of the green belt for our communities and our environment?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Feb 2026 · Gibraltar Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process. For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully. The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border? On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects? We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control? The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest? I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way? On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever? Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 23 Feb 2026 · Draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for setting out the draft order. The Caribbean faces profound and overlapping challenges, and we recognise that the Caribbean Development Bank contributes to supporting resilience, stability and development across the region. Nevertheless, given the pressures on the aid budget, it is right that Parliament seeks clarity on priorities, governance and outcomes. The special development fund is the bank’s primary concessional window, and the 11th replenishment comes at a moment of acute vulnerability for many Caribbean states. Hurricanes and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, placing extraordinary strain on infrastructure, public finances and social systems. Disaster preparedness, climate resilience and rapid recovery must therefore be central to how these funds are deployed. My first question to the Minister is about priorities. What strategic objectives has the UK pressed for in this replenishment, and did the bank agree to them? How will funding balance long-term development with urgent disaster response, particularly for the small island developing states repeatedly hit by hurricanes? Secondly, what influence does the UK retain as a contributor? Can the Minister set out how the UK uses its voice within the Caribbean Development Bank to shape investment decisions, policy standards and value for money? How closely is that aligned with wider UK development and foreign policy objectives in the Caribbean? Briefly, I will turn to measurement and accountability. What criteria will be used to assess whether this replenishment is delivering results? How will those outcomes be tracked and what reporting will be provided to Parliament? Will the Government commit to regular updates on the impact? There is also a growing geopolitical context that cannot be ignored. China has increased its footprint across the Caribbean through finance and infrastructure, so how is the development bank ensuring that its lending offers a transparent, compelling and high standards alternative? What role is the UK playing in reinforcing those safeguards? On preparedness and recovery, can the Minister update the Committee briefly on how the bank is working with the private sector, including the world-class insurance industry in the City of London, to improve risk insurance, catastrophe financing and faster recovery after hurricanes? His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of the Caribbean Development Bank, and we will not oppose the statutory instrument this evening, but, of course, scrutiny matters. Clear priorities, measurable outcomes and transparent reporting will be essential if the funding is to deliver real resilience for Caribbean nations and value for money for the UK taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

  More

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

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point so well. It is deeply worrying that in the Walsall borough, in my constituency, youth unemployment is higher than the national average. The truth is that youth unemployment has skyrocketed under Labour’s watch. Does my hon. Friend agree that a big part of the problem is that we have a Labour Government who do not understand that the more they squeeze business, the more they squeeze job opportunities for young people?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates, this is an issue where we share an interest. He can rest assured that I do and will continue to raise it with Walsall council. It really does matter. I know the case that he refers to. What happened was a tragedy. Local campaigners such as SCAR—Stonnall Campaign About Roads—have long called for action. I pay tribute to some of our local road safety campaigners—Jayne Preston, who will love having a mention in this place, even though it is in sad circumstances; and also Colin Roberts. They have done tremendous work and continue to raise the issue of road safety and that of the victims as well. Let me also take the opportunity to acknowledge the charity RoadPeace, a national charity for road crash victims, with which I have worked locally. For more than three decades, the charity supported bereaved families and campaigned for safer roads. Its recent closure as a charity is deeply saddening. It should remind us all of the human cost of what happens when we get road safety wrong. While I welcome some recent funding for safety measures on Chester Road near this particular blackspot, residents are rightly asking where the wider plan is. We cannot add hundreds of homes without first investing in the roads and the junctions that residents rely on every day, even before any more homes are built. This will be development without infrastructure. If housing targets are imposed, which is very much what is happening in the west midlands in my area, infrastructure funding must be part of it. Roads, junctions, traffic management and public transport links must come before houses are occupied, not years afterwards. The midlands and north Wales do not need more warm words or long-term plans that never quite materialise. We need transport that works at a price that people can afford. Across buses, rail and road, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery; young people priced off the buses; rail schemes left half funded; towns told to wait; housing built without infrastructure. Things do not have to be this way. We know what works, but what is missing is action and delivery. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government want people to believe in their plans for growth, they must start matching ambition with delivery. Our region is ready to play its part, but it cannot do so with stalled projects and permanent delay. Our communities have waited long enough. It is time to stop reviewing and deferring, and to start delivering the transport that actually works. I genuinely look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to make this happen. I will happily meet with him to discuss Aldridge station, to see what more we can do to ensure that the Mayor of the West Midlands understands why this matters, why I keep banging on about it, and why I will keep doing so until it is delivered.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be absolutely clear that Mayor Andy Street allocated the money for Aldridge station. I questioned both the Transport Secretary and the Treasury about that money, and I had a reply explaining that this Labour Government had moved the money out of the budget for Aldridge station. Had the mayor left the money in place, Aldridge station could have been funded and delivered by 2027. The only money that Mayor Parker has allocated to Aldridge is for doing some initial groundworks. The business case is already there. This is not about funding; it is about politics, I am sad to say.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  We agree on many things—alongside Aldridge train station, of course. The midlands rail hub would unlock capacity, allow more frequent services, and make new and reopened stations viable. However, when I ask Ministers whether the scheme is fully funded, the answer is always the same: £123 million has been allocated, not to deliver the project but merely to progress the next phase of development. The remainder, which is an estimated £1.75 billion, is still described as being “subject to future funding decisions.” We were told that the midlands rail hub would be delivered in full. The previous Conservative Government committed £1.75 billion in the 2023 Network North plan to deliver it. That funding has since been pulled by the Labour Government, leaving the full delivery of the project in limbo. I would be happy if the Minister could provide, in his response to this debate, the clarity that this project is fully funded to delivery, because it is critical to making sure that the west midlands, and the greater part of the region, keeps on moving, and we have that much-improved connectivity that enables new routes to be opened up and greater passenger capacity. The Government now talk about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but without the midlands rail hub there will be no midlands engine to power it. We need both, and we need them to be delivered. There is the same uncertainty when Ministers are asked about passenger services on the Sutton Park line, which remains freight-only. Any future passenger use is said to depend on additional capacity, which is the very capacity that the midlands rail hub was meant to provide. There is no timetable, no commitment, and sadly no plan. This is policy paralysis; infrastructure is not funded and then a lack of infrastructure is used as the reason why nothing can progress. The midlands rail hub either will or will not be built, but indefinite reviews and partial funding help no one, least of all residents in my constituency and across the west midlands, and our local businesses. That brings me to Aldridge train station. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am raising this. Why? Because it matters. Aldridge is a major settlement of some 25,000 people, but it has been without a passenger railway station for decades, despite clear demand and a growing population. Under the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, funding was identified, land was secured, and the project was moving towards delivery. Local people were given a timeline and told that a new station was coming. Then priorities changed. A review happened. Funding was redirected. The project was placed under review and Aldridge train station was pushed into the long grass—some might say, into the sidings. It did not fail a business case; it fell victim to political decisions, with the Government allowing the secured funding for the station to be moved to pet projects of the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands. Rest assured, I will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity, as the Leader of the House is all too aware from Thursday business questions, because it matters. When pressed on rail expansion in the north and east of the west midlands, the answer is always the same—future funding, future capacity, under review. Aldridge is told to wait. Sutton Park is told to wait. But my constituents have waited for long enough. I want to highlight the importance of open-access operators. Services such as the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway could bring new connectivity and competition, with trains running along the Sutton Park line through Aldridge—but because Aldridge still has no station, those trains will pass straight through. Open access has a role to play, but only if the infrastructure is delivered. Supporting open access must go hand in hand with delivering projects such as Aldridge station. I am hugely supportive of this project, but it must stop in Aldridge. I have focused on public transport, but roads are equally critical. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our roads remain very much the backbone of local travel. Here too, our development needs are racing ahead of infrastructure. Large-scale housing proposals—another topic I regularly raise in this House—on green-belt land around Stonnall Road and Bosty Lane would add hundreds of new homes without the road upgrades needed to support them. Those roads already feed into Chester Road, which is sadly an accident blackspot, with a tragic history of serious injuries and fatalities.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are talking about the UK’s second largest city. I really worry about its reputation and about the distinct lack of political leadership. Our mayor seems to want to wash his hands of the issue. I try and try to raise the matter in this House, much to the annoyance of Mr Speaker, but I know that there are residents across Birmingham, and friends of mine, who find this deeply frustrating. They pay their council tax, and do not get this most basic of services.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  No—with all due respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, there may be only two parties who can find a resolution, and I would be the first to admit that I am not a trade union specialist nor a trade union member, but I am saying there needs to be leadership on behalf of the residents, with someone saying that we need to get this resolved once and for all. That is what is absolutely lacking. If the Mayor of the West Midlands will not show any political leadership, Ministers should surely show some. Where are the leaders of Labour Birmingham city council? Councillor John Cotton walked away from negotiations on 9 July; that is 196 days ago today. To me, that is not political leadership; it is letting down the communities that he serves and that elected him. We constantly hear the refrain that the hands of the political leadership at Birmingham city council are tied, because, of course, of the intervention of the commissioners, which was highlighted earlier. If we accept that, then we also have to accept that the commissioners are the appointees of the Government, and are now—under this Government—responsible to Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is surely where we should be getting the political leadership, or even common sense, that is badly needed to resolve this dispute once and for all. This strike is harming residents, it is harming local communities and it is harming our reputation. As recently as last week, civic leaders were calling for urgent action to end this dispute, and they quite rightly commented: “Waste collection is not an optional extra, it is a fundamental public service”. The Government must take heed, because waste collection is a fundamental service. When people cannot manage waste collections, they cannot manage their local authority, because they have fundamentally let down their residents at the most basic level. To conclude, now is the time for action on the part of this Government to get to grips with waste management in Birmingham, to ensure that this ongoing industrial action stops impacting not just Birmingham residents but those in the wider west midlands, including the borough of Walsall.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am not. The reason why the commissioners were put in place was that Labour-run Birmingham city council was failing. That is why the commissioners came in. I am saying that we are facing a lack of political leadership. I try to raise this issue in various fora, but nobody seems to want to get it resolved. What bothers me most is that there are residents who pay their council tax and who need a voice. They need somebody to stand up alongside other Birmingham MPs and councillors and say, “It is time to get this fixed.” The other reason why I am standing up on this issue is that I have constituents who work in the sector. They are being impacted, as are the peripheral parts of my constituency, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). It is my constituents who have to pay the extra cost for the extra fly-tipping. That cannot be fair. The net result of cancelling recycling is that the already poor figure of 22% has plummeted to just 15%. There are major fly-tipping hotspots right across the city; when bins go uncollected for months on end, fly-tipping respects no borders. In Pheasey Park Farm ward, which borders the Birmingham city council area, we have seen a constant uptick in people crossing the border to fly-tip. In all of this, the point about the consistent lack of political leadership keeps cropping up. Where has the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands been through all of this? Nowhere. As recently as 18 December, he said on Radio West Midlands: “I don’t employ the workforce”. He also said: “I have done all I can.” To be honest, to the outside world that does not appear to have been an awful lot—that is my reply, Mr Mayor. The mayor may not employ the workforce—I get that—but he knows the reputational damage that is being done not just to Birmingham but to the wider west midlands. As the most senior elected politician in the region, he should have been far more proactive and visible in ensuring that a resolution was found, or in encouraging people to get round the table to sort the situation out. Does anyone believe that had Andy Street still been the Mayor of the West Midlands, he would not have moved heaven and earth to ensure that the escalation of the strike was stopped, and the dispute resolved, at the earliest opportunity? I am pretty damn certain that he would have done so. Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, some of whom were appointed as far back as September of last year, have responded to me and others in the House, but it appears that they have not even held meetings with the leaders of Birmingham city council so that a resolution can be moved towards.