Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and Members from across the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has actually been to Sudan, which is a rarity in this place. I have not been to Sudan, but I have known the horrors of war.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate because, jostling for attention with other terrible conflicts across the world, Sudan is often forgotten, despite the catastrophic situation there; indeed, it is experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. More than 150,000 people have been killed, nearly 15 million have been displaced, 33 million need humanitarian support, and 40% of Sudan’s population faces severe food insecurity. Yet, the warring parties continue. The Rapid Support Forces and the Sudan armed forces constrain aid deliveries to those most in need. They continue to commit massacres on scales that beggar belief. Appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated daily against women and girls.

Of course, among those barbarous acts, worshippers are being abused, minorities targeted and places of prayer levelled. The religious freedoms of the 2019 draft constitution have collided with the reality of war. The warring parties have attacked religious sites. In particular, the RSF appears to prize places of worship because of their strong walls: fighters take churches and mosques, often threatening and killing clerics and pastors to do so, and then violently clear the area of civilians. In turn, the SAF bombards those places of worship, targeting the RSF and other rebel groups.

The destruction of religious sites is a terrible thing, but worshippers pay the highest price when good and evil collide. We have seen that far too many times: the drone attack on the El Fasher mosque that killed more than 70 people; the airstrike, days before Christmas, on a church in Al Ezba in 2024, which killed 11, including eight children; and the visit without notice of SAF fighters, accompanied by police officers and religious extremists, to demolish the Pentecostal church in El Haj Yousif.

It is not only places of worship that are being targeted. Practices that have been prohibited post al-Bashir are being carried out with impunity. Religious discrimination is reportedly rife. Vulnerable minorities are being forced to convert. Many are denied work, food or education until they abandon their faith. Hudud laws are being used to target minorities, yet the Sudanese authorities are in no state to prevent or prosecute public floggings, which had been outlawed.

[Jim Shannon]

Those who renounce their Christianity and want to convert, or Muslims who want to convert to Christianity, are denied fundamental economic rights. They face the complete forfeiture of any family inheritance, domestic violence and abandonment without financial recourse. Those who were once Muslims and are now Christians lose even their most basic rights. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and it is absolutely despicable to see what is taking place.

[Lincoln Jopp]

When these things take place, it is abhorrent to the whole House.

Laws mean nothing when the state lacks even the most basic capacities to enforce them. Among this chaos, bad actors are thriving. We have long known that Russia deploys mercenaries in Sudan in return for a free hand to smuggle gold and a Red sea port for Putin. There are reports that the Houthis are using the chaos in Sudan to smuggle weapons to their terrorist forces in Yemen.

In keeping with the topic of this debate, Iran is using its links to Islamist paramilitaries to perpetrate Sudanese civilians’ suffering. For example, the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade is a Sudanese Islamist militia that has contributed tens of thousands of fighters to the civil war. The US has placed sanctions on the BBMB, but the United Kingdom has not. BBMB fighters have reportedly been involved in arbitrary arrests, torture and summary executions. The BBMB has benefited from training and weapons provided by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the same organisation that the Minister’s party, when in opposition, promised to proscribe. The Government are almost two years into their time in office, and only this week did they publish the text of the legislation that will make that happen.

With that in mind, will the Minister tell us whether he has considered following the US’s lead and sanctioning the BBMB or even proscribing it? How do the Government plan to use the global human rights sanction regime created by the previous Conservative Government to crack down on religiously inspired Iranian agitation in Sudan? Indeed, does the Minister see a wider role for the human rights sanctions regime in cracking down on abuses of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan?

Will the Minister tell us how the Government are pursuing accountability for the religious abuses we have heard about today? How are they gathering evidence of those abuses? Since Sudan was last raised in this House, what have they done to support the collection of evidence of war crimes, so that those responsible can be held to account? How is the UK using international courts to pursue those responsible for such atrocities?

On the big picture, I know that the House is united in wanting to see the immediate end to hostilities in Sudan. We are all aware that pressing the warring parties into a ceasefire, and hopefully an eventual sustainable peace, will require combining our efforts with those of our international allies. How is the Minister using the UK’s role as the penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council to ensure that humanitarian aid is reaching those in desperate need? How is he using that role to tighten the screws on the warring parties, pressing them into a ceasefire and ending this barbaric conflict?

Finally, when did the Minister last engage with his US counterparts on their peace efforts in Sudan, and what specifically is the UK contributing to those efforts? Has he, or any of his colleagues, had discussions with other members of the Sudan Quad about their push for peace? How is the UK supporting the Quad in achieving the goals we hold in common: securing a humanitarian truce followed by a permanent ceasefire, securing a commitment to protect civilians and supporting an inclusive Sudanese transition to establish a civilian-led Government in Sudan?

The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience. The freedom of religion or belief abuses being carried out are utterly barbaric. Britain must exert every ounce of influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately, to secure lasting peace and to hold to account those responsible for the crimes being committed in the name of, and against, religion.

Middle East

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Today, we have introduced new, strong sanctions against organisations that are operating, fuelling funds or trading in the illegal settlements. We have different sanctions regimes, including geographic and thematic regimes. We believe that the regimes need to be strengthened, and we are looking at ways to do that that give us more flexibility to respond to different circumstances.

Obviously, in the case of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we want to be able to target the illegal settlements and the trade and activity there, but we do not want to impact on the long-standing, legitimate trade that runs right across Israel with organisations and businesses and provides links between communities. Other countries that have looked at how to do it, and what mechanisms to use, have found it challenging and raised different practical issues, but we continue to look with our international allies at what measures could be strengthened to address exactly those issues and to promote the cause of peace and security.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What exactly are the Brits going to contribute to the multinational maritime mission in terms of hardware? Has Ukraine offered up its two Sandown-class mine-clearing vessels and crew, which are currently in Portsmouth?

[Yvette Cooper]

The multinational maritime mission is led by the UK and France. We have set out and been looking at particular assets that can be provided as part of the mission. It is, of course, multilateral—the point is that it needs to include a range of different countries. We have had discussions with Ukraine, as have many Gulf countries, because of its particular expertise in drones and modern technology in terms of air defences, and support has been provided for some of the Gulf partners.

The precise assets used in practice will depend on what is needed at the point at which—we hope—settlement will be reached. One of the points discussed as part of the settlement is whether Iran will do the de-mining, which would clearly be most effective because it laid the mines in the first place. We would like Iran to do it first, if that is possible.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I am genuinely shocked that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his party as a whole, would support a reckless political stunt of this nature and promote arrival on an island that is not suitable for human habitation, with lives being put at risk. That he and his party would support and encourage people to be put in that position is, quite frankly, shameful and absurd, given their commentary on other issues in relation to irregular migration. I find it absolutely astounding. I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman here.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. There have been many discussions over the amount of money that was going to be paid, and the methodology and how it was reached. I am prepared to park those discussions on the basis that provision has indeed been made in the Government’s budget lines to pay for this treaty, which is now in abeyance. For the time that it is in abeyance, can the Minister tell us that 100% of the amount that would have been paid to Mauritius will now go into the defence budget and pay for hard power?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am not part of the Treasury team, and it is not for me to respond to those points. In the interim, we remain responsible for the BIOT Administration, as well as the long-standing arrangements between us and the United States regarding the crucial operations on the base. The hon. Gentleman is aware, as I have set out on many occasions, of the priceless value of the capabilities there. That is why we set out this treaty and this deal as the best way to secure those capabilities.

Middle East

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree about the importance of maritime law, freedom of navigation and the law of the sea. Those are fundamental international principles and that is why the UK, as an international trading nation, has long supported them. It is also one reason why we have supported Bahrain’s UN Security Council resolution—we were a co-sponsor—because we also see the UN charter as part of the underpinnings of international law.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I am slightly struggling to see what it adds to the answer to the urgent question we had yesterday, but it is always nice to see the Foreign Secretary. When she asks the US Government to de-escalate, what do they say in response?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long been clear that, ultimately, we need a swift resolution to this conflict. We are providing the basing support for the US to be able to take defensive action against the military launches and the weapons that are being pointed at the Gulf, and we are also providing broader defensive support, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need a swift resolution. We also know that, as the conflict ends, we will need a negotiated settlement that will prevent Iran from being able to rearm and pose an ongoing threat to the region and beyond. That is the best way to get stability and security in the UK’s national interest.

Strait of Hormuz

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

It is my understanding that Ministers were not consulted or indeed advised on that attendance. The issue has been ongoing since, I think, 2015, and was likely to have been under the previous Government as well.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister has come here to give us a pretty vague response of, “We’re in discussions with allies about making a plan,” and does not want to give us any more detail than that; I can potentially see why. When he has those discussions with allies, will he please remember that the British taxpayer kindly gifted two Sandown class minehunters to the Ukrainian navy and that we have trained up their crews, who are now at a NATO standard? The Defence Committee visited them in Portsmouth, and they were proud of those credentials. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that Ukraine seems to be leaning into supporting allies in the Gulf. Therefore, when the Minister is having discussions with allies about making a plan, will he bear that in mind? Of course, those craft cannot deploy back to the Black sea because of the Montreux convention, and I believe the crews are there and ready to operate.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into the detail of individual pieces of kit and equipment, but I welcome the fact that Ukraine has engaged with Gulf partners on the lessons it has learned, particularly in relation to drone technology. That is important. It is, of course, absolutely right that Ukraine’s focus remains on its needs and defending itself against Russia’s barbarous aggression, and I can assure him that our commitments to Ukraine remain absolutely iron-clad in that regard, but I do not want to get into commenting on individual pieces of kit and equipment.

International Women’s Day

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Let me start by paying huge tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for her maiden speech. She spoke with grace, poise and purpose, and her constituents are very lucky to have her representing them here, whether they voted for her or not. Members on the Conservative Benches will know that I am not overly competitive—I just have to win everything—so I was rather devastated that she made a far better maiden speech than my own meagre offering after the 2024 general election.

The hon. Lady said she wanted to put Gorton and Denton on the map, and she certainly put it on my radar. As she was listing the distinguished people from her constituency, I wondered whether she would get around to mentioning Ethel “Sunny” Lowry, who was born in Gorton, and was the first British woman to swim the English channel in 1933. I know what hon. Members are thinking: surely I have some neat segue to other women doing water-based heroics from my own Spelthorne constituency. I would not like to disappoint them.

In 1903, at 111 White Hart Lane in Barnes, young Amy Gentry was born to a Cockney father who had worked his way up and become a publisher. They bought a camping plot on Hamhaugh island, which is the southernmost point of the River Thames, and also the southernmost point of my constituency. She went there from the age of one—her dad got a boat and they used to love messing around in it. Before she was 10 years old, the people on Hamhaugh island had gymkhanas, and she was entered into a dinghy racing contest, which I think she won, and which clearly gave her a taste for competition.

The war then intervened in Amy’s growing up, and hon. Members will be only too aware that in 1918 we passed in this place the Representation of the People Act. The tide was turning in respect of votes for women, women’s individuality and women expressing themselves. In 1920, Weybridge rowing club decided that they would form a women’s section—considerably revolutionary at the time. They got a group of young ladies together and trained them in how to row properly, and the women’s rowing movement began.

In 1925, young Amy Gentry went over to the charity regatta in the Netherlands, where she competed against France, Belgium and Holland. By 1927 the sport had developed that much further that there was an eights competition on the Oxford and Cambridge course between Putney and Mortlake. She wrote at the time that she felt like she was rowing backwards at times—obviously, literally she was rowing backwards, but she did not feel like she was going anywhere—so dreadful were the conditions.

In 1932, her father went to a boat builder and asked, “If you build my daughter a boat, will she win?” The boat builder said, “She will,” and indeed she did. She carried all before her from 1932 to 1934. She became the secretary of Weybridge rowing club, and by 1939 she was its chair. She was the driving force in women’s rowing in the country.

One of the clubs that had been useful and had adopted women’s rowing with some enthusiasm was the Vesta rowing club, which set up the first women’s regatta. At the time, a gentleman from the club said:

“While I do not approve of rowing for women, as they will do it anyway the best thing I can do will be to help them do it properly.”

We can see what the attitudes were at the time. Nevertheless, Amy was fantastic at it. She retired from the highest level of the sport in the late 1930s.

Obviously, the second world war came around, and in 1939 she became the secretary to Barnes Wallis. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the dam busters raid, Barnes Wallis was instrumental in developing the bouncing bomb. He and Amy Gentry would go to Silvermere lake, where he would fire various projectiles from a catapult across the lake—sort of a high-grade stone skimming competition—and then he and Amy would row out to collect them to see how they fared. Barnes Wallis was a pretty serious guy, but when that they were rowing out to one of the projectiles, Amy pointed out, “Wallis, you may be in charge, but I am in charge in this boat. Sit down.”

After the war, rowing went from strength to strength. We were represented in the European championships in 1952 and in 1954, carrying all before us at the national and international levels. As a slight aside, at the 1954 European games Amy Gentry handed out some prizes to one of the crews, including to a young lady called Bette Shubrook, a member of the London rowing club. She had met her soon-to-be husband at the London rowing club on regatta on Boxing day. His name was Graham Hill. She went on to be Bette Hill, and she became the only person to be married to and the mother of a Formula 1 world racing champion.

Amy was instrumental in bringing the European championships here in 1960, and she was awarded the OBE in 1969. She died in June 1976 in Stanwell in my constituency. The significance of that date is a sad irony: she did not quite live to see the moment one month later when women were allowed to compete in rowing in the Olympic games, in Montreal.

In the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, when the women’s crews go under Barnes bridge in the latter stages of the race, they pass a huge pub on the south bank of the River Thames called the White Hart, which is at the end of White Hart Lane, where Amy Gentry was born. If hon. Members happen to be watching in a month’s time and see that moment, perhaps they will join me in raising a glass to the remarkable woman, Amy Gentry.

Consular Assistance

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are heading home. As we saw with our own charter flight, for which there was still a great deal of complexity, there will likely be bumps in the road, but we will get everyone home. We will ensure that we attend to their safety and security at every step. Anyone who is worried about their loved ones getting home, or about particular vulnerabilities, should please be in touch in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for his statement, and express a certain amount of sympathy? Like him, I ran evacuations under fire, and it is pretty chaotic. He and his officials will inevitably attract some criticism—that is the nature of the beast, as he knows.

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a number of pre-emptive measures that he took prior to the conflict starting. It was quite a long list, and included surface-to-air missiles and the radar early warning system. The one obvious gap in that list was sending a ship to the Mediterranean, which is now obviously the first thing that the Government have done as a result of events. Was the decision not to send the ship as part of that pre-emptory package a question of capability or intent? Was it that the Government could not send a ship, or that they did not want to?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the constructive and reasonable tone of his question—and not just because he has the finest first name in Parliament. Let me provide some additional commentary on HMS Dragon, given that it has been a subject of such interest. As he will know, decisions are based on operational factors. Force protection is at its highest level in the eastern Mediterranean. The decision about HMS Dragon was brought to the Chief of the Defence Staff and Ministers in the light of the increasingly reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran across the region, and it was signed off immediately.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am honoured to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing the debate. I worked in international development for many years, specifically on water sanitation and hygiene, so I also appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury about our strong support for the BBC. I would like to thank all the FCDO staff currently working very, very hard on behalf of my constituents who are in the middle east. The very quick response we have been able to put up, with flights coming in straight away, is commendable. It just shows the strengths and abilities of our embassies across the world, and how important they are.

I am delighted that after years of weakness, isolation and decline in our international standing under the Tories, Britain is firmly back on the international stage, leading on the international response to Ukraine, making the forgotten war in Sudan a priority, and transforming our relationship with Europe—worth mentioning on the day that the FAC released our report on the UK-EU reset.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady remember who led on the international response on Ukraine?

[Fleur Anderson]

This is not a party political issue. We have led on Ukraine for many years and we still are doing so. I am very proud of the role we have played, under both Governments. The Labour Government are now moving forward far further and far faster. I am also proud that we recently signed the global ocean treaty.

This debate is on the spending in the Department. I am concerned about the continuing cuts in aid, and that they are undermining our strong, and growing, international position and undermining our security. I am concerned about the false division that has been put up between defence and development. It is not defence or development. Defence and development are important for our strategic interests and security. Development spending is not charity; it is strategic investment. Our development budget is one of the most effective tools we have for sustaining British influence. Defence and development should not be seen as competing priorities, but I fear that they are seen as such. Defence responds to crises; development works to prevent them. Development underpins our conflict prevention around the world. A defence posture without sustained development investment risks becoming permanently reactive to events. Good development is good defence.

I am very concerned that the FCDO’s workforce faces reductions of up to 25%. The FAC has repeatedly asked where those cuts will be made. Which staff? Which programmes? Do the cuts match the priorities given by Ministers? I am concerned that they do not. We are not given the answers that we need to scrutinise this very big change in our country’s priorities, and at a crucial time in international relations that are so important for our security. It is important for my constituents to know what our foreign affairs priorities are and whether they are being matched in terms of staffing and budgets.

This is called an estimates debate for a different reason, but estimating is all we can do as a Committee—if MPs cannot see that the priorities given by Ministers are being backed up by spending and action, we cannot properly scrutinise their work. It is also a real concern for development agencies and local organisations on the ground in the countries where we are working, which are not able to plan their work as they do not know what the spending will be.

In the past year, £500 million has been cut from the ODA budget. Aid to Africa, at the time of the Africa strategy being released, has fallen by £184 million. Support to Sudan has been reduced by roughly 18%, at the very moment it faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, despite it being a stated priority.

Global health is also a priority for this Government, and rightly so. As I said, I previously worked in water and sanitation. I went to work for WaterAid before I was an MP because, when I had worked with other aid agencies, I had seen the impact that conflict and water have on a community. With action on both those things, a community can have peace—if a community has the water needed for crops and its health, it frees up girls and women from having to go off to get water; instead, they can go to school. It leads to development and resilience against insecurity, which stops conflict. That is what we should be seeing. However, £550 million has been cut from global health programmes. Let us not forget the lessons from covid.

Some £206 million has been cut from education, gender and equality programmes. There is a 25% reduction in women, peace and security funding, despite a feminist foreign policy being a stated priority. I am glad that the proposed cuts to the BBC World Service have been highlighted as well. We have a huge benefit in our BBC World Service. Trust in this service has built up over decades, and any reduction in that gives space to China and Russia. Cuts to development leave room for the Chinese Government to step in, as I have seen in countries across Africa. Cuts in poverty reduction fuel instability and conflict. Cuts in conflict prevention programmes that have been built up for years, which are locally led and are working, are dangerous.

The 0.7% target was not a vague aspiration, but a manifesto commitment that this party stood on. It remains important for our security. I know that these are difficult times for development spending, but we need to keep talking about that as an aspiration. I am concerned that the official policy of His Majesty’s Opposition is now to reduce spending to 0.1% of GDP. I do not know where that will leave our country.

Will the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the soft power superpower we have in the BBC, to conflict reduction, to the education of girls, to water, sanitation and hygiene, and to global health? Will he confirm that we are committed to working with the poorest countries, not using the move towards investment as a move towards working only with middle-income countries? Lastly, will he confirm that all these commitments will be backed up with funding and our fantastic staff in our embassies on the ground?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. Would she like to give us a couple of examples where overseas development aid has prevented crises in the way that she describes?

[Monica Harding]

I would love to, and I will come back to the hon. Member with those at another point, but I am up against the clock at the moment. As I go through my speech, there may be some examples.

Aid is not charity, as the Minister for International Development suggested to the International Development Committee. It is a strategic tool that makes Britain safer and secure. It reduces the drivers of migration to these shores and strengthens health systems before pandemics cross borders. While we retreat, China and Russia expand their influence across Africa, the middle east and south Asia, filling the vacuum that we leave. UK aid to Africa has already been reduced by £184 million.

Countries such as Ethiopia, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and fragile Sahel states—tinderboxes—have seen significant bilateral cuts, alongside a very thin Africa strategy released quietly before the Christmas recess. Africa has the world’s youngest and fastest-growing population and a projected $30 trillion economy by 2050. It represents a huge future trading opportunity, but our cuts risk weakening those relationships—relationships on which our country’s growth relies.

Even international climate finance, which has been rhetorically protected, could fall by nearly £3 billion, we are told by The Guardian. Programmes such as the biodiverse landscapes fund, the blue planet fund and the climate and ocean adaptation and sustainable transition programme are under threat, and support for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which we co-designed, has yet to materialise. Intelligence chiefs have warned that the collapse of ecosystems like the Amazon and coral reefs will not just risk our climate obligations but trigger food shortages and unrest and lead to war reaching our shores.

In reality, the cuts are even worse than they look. Around 20% of the aid budget is projected to be spent on in-donor asylum costs by 2027-28, meaning that the amount reaching people overseas could fall to just 0.24% of national income. Is the British taxpayer aware that the money earmarked for the poorest in the world is being spent on asylum hotels in this country?

What is most striking about these supplementary estimates is not only their scale but the absence of a coherent strategy underpinning them. There has been no clear argument made, no case put forward and no honest reckoning with what is being lost and what the impact will be. There is no published road map explaining which capabilities we are prepared to lose and whether we intend to rebuild them later. There has been no serious articulation of why slashing bilateral aid strengthens Britain’s long-term interests. There is just a quiet hope that the cuts will land without anyone looking too closely.

In fact, the future of the very organisation tasked with scrutinising the UK’s aid and development spend—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—is in doubt. One of its inquiries is on the impact of the Government’s ODA cuts. The very oversight mechanisms that hold the Government to account are being dismantled.

I will briefly turn to our soft power institutions. I will not dwell on them because other Members already have. The BBC World Service and the British Council—two of Britain’s most powerful instruments of influence, funded at a tiny cost to the taxpayer—are having their budgets eroded, the latter burdened by a Government loan with interest payments of up to £15 million a year.

Then there is the vital question of capacity and expertise. The FCDO is planning staff reductions of up to 25%, and the Department for Business and Trade, which works in-country to promote trade relations, is facing a 20% staffing cut, yet the Government have failed to produce a workforce plan before the cuts. It is cuts for cuts’ sake. All of this represents a hollowing-out of capability. Rebuilding that expertise later is neither quick to do nor cheap, and it is very difficult to bring back once it has been torn down.

The question is unavoidable: what is the plan? The Government must change course and set out a clear, binding timetable to return to 0.7%. I look forward to the Minister updating us on how he will do that. The Liberal Democrats will take a different approach to funding the defence uplift, and we have laid it out in this House. In the meantime, the Government must act to limit the damage that these cuts will cause. That means backing meaningful debt relief for low-income countries, redirecting the share of the aid budget spent on in-donor asylum costs back to aid, and safeguarding vital accountability mechanisms such as the ICAI.

In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, rising instability and growing humanitarian need, Britain faces a choice: we can be an engaged, outward-looking power, shaping events, building partnerships and investing in prevention; or we can shrink our presence, reduce our expertise and hope that the consequences do not rebound on us—a decision to retreat, a decision for the short term, not the long term. The Government’s cuts show that we are drifting towards the latter. Once expertise is lost, once trust is eroded, and once influence is surrendered, it is far harder to recover than it is to protect.

Britain still stands tall in the world, but these cuts threaten to diminish that. Britain does not lead by retreating. We lead by showing up, keeping our word and standing with our partners when it matters most. I urge the Government to reclaim our moral authority, rebuild our global influence and lead once again on the world stage.

Gibraltar Treaty

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that he is hugely respected, by me and others in this House. I can assure him that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. Obviously, it is for them to decide the arrangements that they want to put in place to ensure their prosperity going forward. They are fully supportive of this agreement, which we think will be good for jobs and business in Gibraltar, good for the people of Gibraltar and, indeed, good for the prosperity of the whole region. I think it reflects a spirit of pragmatic co-operation with the EU, which we strongly welcome.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he reassure the House that the team who have negotiated the draft treaty that he has brought before us today have had nothing to do with the team that negotiated the disastrous Chagos deal? That deal is, I believe, as of yesterday, on pause, although No. 10 appears to be gainsaying that slightly now.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered many questions in this place on Chagos, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that read-across between these processes is completely erroneous. This is an agreement that is good for Gibraltar. It has been agreed by the Government of Gibraltar, and we have worked closely with the EU to ensure that it works for the prosperity and security of the people of Gibraltar. As I have said many times, it is hugely unhelpful to draw false comparisons between Chagos and the British Indian Ocean Territory, and indeed other overseas territories. Indeed, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has specifically cautioned against doing so—the hon. Gentleman might want to listen to him.

Draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2026

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the first time. The draft order will permit the UK Government to make financial contributions to the special development fund of the Caribbean Development Bank up to the stated values.

The Caribbean region is important to the United Kingdom, and our history and values are closely intertwined. Twelve of the 53 Commonwealth states are in the region, along with five out of the 14 UK overseas territories. There is a large Caribbean diaspora in the UK, and a significant number of British nationals visit as well as reside in the Caribbean. The Caribbean has strong economic links to the UK, and the UK was the destination for almost 10% of Caribbean goods exports in 2025. Although small in population size, countries in this region have a significant voice on global issues and in international organisations, including the United Nations. We have shared interests in areas such as tackling climate change, global financial system reform, combating crime and violence, and fostering trade and inclusive economic development.

The Caribbean Development Bank, or CDB, is the sole multilateral development bank that is exclusively focused on the Caribbean region, providing more than $312 million in 2024. The UK has a long-standing partnership with the CDB. We were one of the founding members and are the joint largest non-regional shareholder, with a 9.3% shareholding. The CDB plays a key role in the achievement of the UK’s regional development objectives of supporting sustainable development and tackling the impact of climate change.

Allow me briefly to take the Committee through the background and the purpose of the draft order. The special development fund, or SDF, is the consensual arm of the Caribbean Development Bank, which provides loans and grants to the most vulnerable countries in the region. It aims to reduce poverty, support human development, and strengthen climate and economic resilience across the Caribbean. It is replenished by donors every four years, and contributions to the fund come from regional and non-regional member countries of the Caribbean Development Bank, as well as from non-members. In line with our strategic shift towards multilateral assistance, the UK will commit up to £21 million to the SDF to maintain our position as the second largest donor.

The draft order will allow for the provision of the core funding by the UK. This replenishment will play a crucial role in supporting regional efforts to meet the sustainable development goals. The SDF will focus on promoting economic development and supporting increased resilience, with a particular focus on environmental resilience.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us who the largest donor will be?

[Chris Elmore]

If the hon. Member will give me two moments, I will get the correct name for him, because the list is not in front of me. It is in fact Canada—I am grateful to the officials on my left.

I will go through each point in turn. The SDF will build resilience against environmental stresses and disasters. It will fund climate adaptation, disaster risk management, biodiversity preservation and sustainable energy. That will include 10 km of new or improved sea defences and drainages, 6 MW of renewable energy and a reduction of 30,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually. The SDF will ensure that Caribbean infrastructure, agriculture and small businesses are supported to thrive. It will do so by training over 10,000 agricultural workers, improving 2,000 hectares of land, providing $75 million in credit to over 1,000 small businesses, half of which will be women-owned businesses, and building or upgrading 200 km of roads.

The SDF will support poverty reduction efforts in the region and improve living conditions by targeting the most vulnerable communities. That will include improving water and sanitation for over 30,000 households, building or upgrading 1,700 classrooms, training over 18,000 teachers and improving learning conditions for 350,000 students. It will also improve financial systems and practices so that individuals, Governments and organisations can better manage risks and respond to uncertainty. Twenty Caribbean Ministries, Departments and agencies will benefit from strengthened systems and services. The SDF will strengthen and modernise institutions so that they can respond effectively to challenges. It will support digital transformation in 11 Caribbean Ministries and agencies to help them operate more efficiently.

The SDF is an essential lifeline to the region’s most vulnerable people who have faced multiple crises over the last few years, including climate-related shocks to which the region is exceptionally vulnerable. Supporting the SDF will help us to achieve our objective of a bigger, better and fairer global financial system that delivers for everyone and is fit for the future.

To conclude, the Caribbean Development Bank special development fund is instrumental in achieving UK objectives in the Caribbean region. The financial contributions covered by the draft order will deliver UK international development and foreign policy objectives in some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. I commend the order to the Committee.