Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.
I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.
Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will
“have noticed this act of total weakness.”
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.
Priti Patel
Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.
This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, I will continue.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Pinkerton
I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.
In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.
At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.
We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.
On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.
I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.
Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.
Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I will try to be brief. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made a set of arguments predicated on the case for national security. It is therefore important to take on the question of how secure we are. Look at the economic security that this Government inherited: 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, and wages that had grown at a consistent 2% a year flatlining. Look at the impacts of the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives: in early 2025, the UK’s GDP was between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost between £180 billion and £240 billion of output. This is important, because it relates to the credibility of the Opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Hayes, this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the Opposition. Let us get to the point quickly.
Tom Hayes
Moving forward three pages—those pages were a condensed history of how our country was left completely insecure by the Opposition—to look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that in the House. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile states and enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide. That is, in large part, why the US Administration have backed what this Government have been pushing forward. Recent operations against high-value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe.
With this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards, a UK-controlled electromagnetic spectrum, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone and a ban on foreign military presence on the outer islands. In the interests of giving a briefer speech, I am going to put down the two pages that further explain the way in which the treaty reinforces the UK’s relationship with the Chagos islands and supports our national security.
We have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many urgent questions, statements and debates in the House. The Opposition talk about the importance of national security. This country is facing some of the gravest threats to our national security. We are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation daily. Our security services are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.
Dr Luke Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Luke Evans, you need to stop using points of order to continue debates. No doubt Mr Hayes is going to get right to the point and then conclude very quickly.
Tom Hayes
I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.
I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.
I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:
“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”
That is wholly unwise.
I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.
This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.
Stephen Doughty
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.
The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.
I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.
Graham Stuart
I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.
The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.
Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.
There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would impose a charge on public revenue that has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendments 2 and 3 are therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
After Clause 5
Cost of the Treaty
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Stephen Doughty.)
Arctic Security
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I begin by expressing my condolences to all affected by the terrible train crash near Cordoba last night and thanking the Spanish emergency services who responded overnight and throughout today. I am sure the House will join me in thinking of the people of Spain at this distressing time.
With permission, I will make a statement on Greenland and wider Arctic security.
On the evening of Saturday 17 January, President Trump announced the intention to impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK over the future of Greenland. This is a serious moment for our transatlantic discussions and partnerships, so let me outline to the House the UK’s response, which rests on three key principles. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Its future is a matter for Greenlanders and the Danes, and them alone. This reflects the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity to which the whole House is committed. Secondly, the use or threat of tariffs against allies in this way is completely wrong, unwarranted and counterproductive. Thirdly, Arctic security is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic. It can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO. So instead of divisions that only aid our adversaries, we now need a serious and constructive dialogue about our Arctic security that is built on respect for sovereignty and collective security and the rules that underpin our alliance.
As the Prime Minister set out this morning, the north star for the Government’s foreign policy is to stand up for the UK’s national interest and to defend and advance Britain’s security, Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s values, and we do so through the alliances and partnerships we build abroad that make us stronger here at home, including alliances where that transatlantic co-operation between Europe and North America has long been vital. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our close and deep-rooted partnership with the United States is a hugely important part of our security and our prosperity. The depth of our co-operation on intelligence sharing and defence helps keep us safe, and our trading relationship and the new agreements we have reached in the last 12 months are driving billions of pounds of investment in the UK, supporting jobs across the country. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will be very direct about our differences, as he was in speaking to President Trump yesterday, because standing up for the UK national interest means defending the principles that underpin stable and enduring international co-operation. That means respect for sovereignty and respect for long-standing allies.
Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, Denmark has long been one of the US’s closest allies, a proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK and the US, including at real human cost in recent decades. Rooted in that partnership, the US already has in place a 1951 treaty with Denmark that provides for an extensive US security presence in Greenland. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure, and tariff threats like this are no way to treat allies.
The tariff threat has come following the co-ordinated preparations for the annual Danish programme of activities under the Arctic Endurance framework, which is focused on addressing Russian security threats in the Arctic. Last week, at the request of the Danish Government, one UK military officer currently based in Denmark joined a planning group visit in an observational capacity. These sorts of visits are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure.
A trade war would hurt workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be in no one’s interests. Both sides of the Atlantic should be working together on Arctic security, not moving apart. That is why the Prime Minister and this Government are working intensively in the UK national interest to prevent this from happening and to reach a resolution.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke directly with President Trump, the Danish Prime Minister and other close allies and international leaders. Today, I welcomed Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen here to London for valuable discussions, and the Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. I have also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues, and on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will visit Denmark. We will continue with this urgent diplomacy in pursuit of the principles I have set out.
We will also argue for the strengthening of our multilateral co-operation around Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway for Russia’s northern fleet to threaten Britain, western Europe and North America—threats to undersea cables and to critical national infrastructure. We have seen a greater presence of Russian ships and submarines making their way to the north Atlantic. We have seen Russian aircraft testing our air defence as shadow fleet vessels pass through our waters, trying to evade our sanctions and continuing to fund the war in Ukraine. Northern Norway, Finland and sea routes through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap have long been strategically significant when considering Russian threats. We know that the strategic significance of the Arctic is likely to grow as the melting of Arctic ice stands to open new routes through the Arctic ocean, and with new-found geo-economic competition for critical minerals and rare earths.
Arctic security is crucial not just to the UK but to the entire NATO alliance—of the eight countries north of the Arctic circle, seven are NATO allies—so across our alliance, working together, we can and should do more. That is why last week I travelled to Finland and Norway to discuss the threats they currently face, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was also in Sweden.
In Helsinki, I met the Finnish Foreign Minister and was briefed on Finnish border force activities to tackle a Russian ship that had damaged undersea cables between Finland and Estonia. In northern Norway, I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. We signed a new agreement to strengthen our co-operation to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, and we travelled together to Camp Viking to see the work of the Royal Marines and their Norwegian partners.
In the bitter cold of that unforgiving landscape, our commando forces are training and exercising, and preparing for contingencies. For more than 50 years, the Royal Marines have trained in the Norwegian Arctic, but we are increasing that commitment by doubling the number of marines there from 1,000 to 2,000 in the space of three years—I pay tribute to their phenomenal work. Alongside that, the landmark Lunna House defence agreement will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a new fleet of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to hunt Russian submarines and protect our critical undersea infrastructure.
In the autumn, the UK-led joint expeditionary force saw thousands of troops, including over 1,700 British personnel, dozens of ships, vehicles and aircraft, deployed from the Baltics to Iceland. The UK plans to contribute to a range of exercises in the north Atlantic and High North throughout 2026, because that is how we believe we will best strengthen our Arctic security for the sake of western Europe and North America—together, through alliances and partnerships, not through threats on tariffs or on sovereignty that simply undermine our collective security.
I welcome the messages of cross-party unity and the shared conviction that the future of Greenland must be determined by the Greenlanders and the Danes. Whether on Greenland, on tariffs or on wider Arctic security, we are clear in our views, firm in our principles and steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding UK interests. The UK will continue to pursue constructive ways forward, collaborating intensively with our partners and allies and pursuing our security, our prosperity and our values every step of the way. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.
I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.
There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by the Foreign Secretary about the terrible rail crash in Spain? I thank her for her statement.
President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe and our world. Without provocation or justification, the President of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods and our national security. Trump has put British businesses and jobs on the frontline in his unprovoked aggression. The only people cheering him on are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Only a few months ago, Trump hailed the special relationship at Windsor castle. Now, thanks to his actions, it is nearly in tatters.
How do we stop Trump’s damaging trade war? For a year now, the Prime Minister has tried a policy of appeasing Trump, flattering him, fawning over him and refusing to stand up to him, because—he argued—Trump would otherwise hit us with damaging tariffs. Well, the Prime Minister has tested his approach to destruction, and it has failed. It is time for the Government to change course.
We have to finally be clear-eyed about the sort of man Trump is and treat him accordingly. He is a bully. He thinks that he can grab whatever he wants, using force if necessary, and he is corrupt—the most corrupt president that the United States has ever seen. There are only two ways of getting him to back down: bribing him—with a new jet, perhaps, or a few billion in his crypto account—or standing up to him, like we would with any other bully, and standing together with our European allies to make him back down. That is the choice. Which one, Foreign Secretary?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Colleagues need to shorten their questions. Many Members want to get in, and that will depend on the length of your questions.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for setting out the UK’s position that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Danes to decide. It is not right that one of our closest and oldest allies is threatening us with economic sanctions, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, how will she explain to the US Administration our interests and our actions at this time, and stop the sanctions and resolve the situation? Secondly, building on the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), might the Foreign Secretary take an interest in the Franco-British fast jet replacement programme and a company called Aeralis, so that we do not have to rely on an American solution?
Proposed Chinese Embassy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of that point of order. As she will know, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers—if only we were—but she has most definitely put her point on the record, and the Minister might wish to respond now.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has declined to respond now. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will feed that point back to the Ministers responsible.
Ukraine
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. Indeed, there is a similar initiative—a Ukrainian language library—in my constituency. It is absolutely crucial that that support is given, not only because it is the right thing to do for those young people, enabling them to maintain a connection to their culture, heritage and language, but because it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out their language, culture, history and heritage—not least through the abduction of children and continued attacks. One of the most moving moments during my visit to Kyiv was in a bunker under a school, where I saw the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of Russia’s attempts to destroy their lives physically and psychologically. They stand firm and resilient, as Ukrainians do. That should be a lesson to us all.
Under the 100-year partnership, as well as the joint development of drone technology, trading links, digital connection and other matters, we also have important school-twinning programmes. Those things will, collectively, deliver long-term economic growth and security for the UK and Ukraine, and strengthen ties between our nations.
I will end my remarks as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The UK’s support for Ukraine is iron-clad. The Ukrainians’ security is our security. We fully support US-led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. As we have said repeatedly, only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—and, indeed, Europe and the United Kingdom’s security—in the future. In the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine and ensure that it has the military equipment to defend itself, while sustaining the economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues funding this barbaric war, and ensuring accountability for the appalling scenes of destructions and devastation, be they against children, infrastructure or the whole nation of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.
Emily Thornberry
I agree completely. We need to be as creative as possible when it comes to the shadow fleet, and there is always more that we can do. The Foreign Affairs Committee and many of its talented members are always available to give as many suggestions as the Government wish to hear. One thing that worries me is that it is all very well having creative ways of imposing sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. When I push the Government on exactly how much effort they are putting into enforcement and how much investment is going in, I am always concerned that although those sanctions may look good on paper, things may be slipping through the net. We need to ensure that we mean what we say, and that we do it.
There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly cover. First, although there is a hot war going on in Ukraine—that is one war that is going on in Europe—we are all agreed that Europe is also at war with Russia on another basis. That is the new hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to identify, whether Russia is subjecting us to sabotage, cyber-attacks, or misinformation and disinformation. We are at war with Russia, and it is trying to undermine our democracies and our countries. Nowhere is that clearer than around the Black sea, which is of huge strategic importance to Russia. The countries around the Black sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, have all been subjected to a level of hybrid warfare that we need to look at, not just because we need to be of assistance to them—we are all in this together—but because that is a portent of what could happen to us.
Yesterday, the Committee heard from Ana Revenco about the ongoing hybrid warfare that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of hybrid warfare; it faces cyber-attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns and political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin-linked actors. Some of us in the Chamber might be thinking, “We already have some of that—in fact, we probably have all of that”, but we only have it at a low level. However, we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable. We must not be complacent, but I fear that sometimes we are. We are a great democracy; we have been going for a long time, and we think, “Oh, it’ll be fine”, because of course we are an island. If, like Finland, we had Russia right on our border, we would have a very different attitude, but in modern times, whether or not we have a land border, Russia can still try to influence our democracy by undermining us. If we open our eyes, we can see that there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now, and the problem is that the public are not alive to it. The last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to and they have fallen for it. Trying to explain to them afterwards that they have done so is just impossible, so we need to ensure that we counter that disinformation right now.
For the Russians, Britain is the No. 1 enemy in Europe. Looking at their rhetoric and the sorts of things they say about us, it is Britain they loathe more than practically any other country. I am proud of that, but we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. The Russians believe that we are responsible for triggering the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. In today’s context, that is projected on to the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed as not merely a supporter of Kyiv, but the architect and main driver of the conflict. Listening to some of the things their secret service has been openly saying about us, it is as if everything that is happening in Ukraine is down to us—I wish it were, but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance a conspiratorial vision in which Britain is acting as not just Ukraine’s ally but the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian. The chairman of the state Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border. So it goes on. Russian propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russia, or Russian nationals. The allegations include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic sea—it seems that all of this is down to us—and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists at the Crocus City Hall.
Russian propaganda continues to point the finger at Britain. It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in Russian sights so much any more, and we are. In a way, we should be proud of that, but we need to be mindful of it, and we need to stick together and stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine—the Ukranians are fighting the war for us, and we continue to give them every support—and we should be proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in this country and in this House—with the exception of those who are not present in the Chamber this afternoon—we are united behind them. We remain united, and we must remain united until the end—until victory. Slava Ukraini!
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sixteen Members wish to speak. I do not want to impose a time limit, but if everyone speaks for about eight minutes and monitors their speaking time, everyone will have an equal time in which to speak. Let us try to be mindful.
David Taylor
I think we know who Putin’s friends are, and that is a matter of public record. I completely agree, and if I had had time during my question on the Iran statement yesterday, I would have spoken about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones, which all of us who have been to Ukraine have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime, so the sooner it falls the better.
I want to praise Conservative Members for the role they played, alongside my own, in the lead-up to the conflict. In particular, I praise Ben Wallace for his role, especially in putting in place the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall. Much as we may praise the actions of our Government or any other Government, we must of course praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping the tanks rolling into Kyiv.
I am very grateful for the work that Ministers and the Prime Minister are doing to support the Ukrainian people, and we have heard some of the figures about the billions going on defence spending. I am particularly grateful for the £3.5 billion that will be spent on hardware under the defence industry support treaty, and the continued support for Operation Interflex training and for the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has over 50 partners, as well as for the British built octopus drones that will be so crucial.
I absolutely welcome the talks towards a ceasefire. Who would not want a ceasefire? I also welcome the commitment with France to deploy peacekeepers at some point in the future. However, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people, because I fear that the Russians will use any pause in fighting as an opportunity to re-group and go again. We cannot be under any illusion about the threat from Russia. Many of us have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to visit our fantastic troops in the Tapa base in Estonia just before Christmas, which really brought home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be.
I have made a couple of trips to Ukraine since the conflict started. The most recent one, almost a year ago, focused on drone technology and the imperative of supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves. I had some absolutely amazing meetings while I was there, including with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, as well as with Ukrainian MPs who many hon. Members will know, such as Dmytro Natalukha and Oleksander Marikovskyi, who are members of the Economic Affairs Committee. Dmytro referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called the Kalashnikovs of the sky. A Kalashnikov is of course a very durable weapon, and if it does break in any way it is very easy to repair. As well as the most important high tech, the Ukrainians continue to need the everyday drones that can help on the frontline to do reconnaissance, so that they know the Russian positions, and help them as they try to advance. Yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the Kalashnikovs of the sky—weapons for which parts are easy to come by and that are easy to repair.
On drones, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones. If we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that may exist, that would be a worthwhile venture, because we need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies, as well as our own, to build drones. The Octopus drone scheme is a brilliant example of our trying to work with the Ukrainians. There is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have the data, and the lived experience that can help us to build drones together. That will help us, and will help them in this war. I hope that, in the wind-ups, the Minister can talk about how we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital that will go into the country.
I want to talk briefly about a second trip I made, way back in 2024, when I was but a humble candidate. There are a number of organisations up and down the UK involving ordinary people who are trying to help in a grassroots way, in any way that they can. At a time when there is so much talk about charity beginning at home, and about problems here, it is remarkable that so many ordinary people have stepped up to help people they will probably never meet. Some have gone to Ukraine, and I want to pay tribute to them. I went there with an organisation called Help99. It delivers pick-up trucks that farmers do not need any more. Soldiers use them on the frontline to get from A to B. To go back to an earlier point, long-range missiles and expensive technology are really important, but we also need the things that will help soldiers on the ground. I pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event on this subject in Parliament last year, at which over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together.
I encourage the Government to look at ways that any excess vehicles on the Government estate, be they at the Home Office or at Network Rail, can be donated cheaply. Let us get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It would not cost that much money, and it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on the frontline.
Iran
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Like Members across the House, I feel humbled by the courage shown by so many Iranians to stand up to the tyrants in Tehran. That bravery was also shown after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022 at the hands of the religious morality police—a crime showed the regime’s particular violence towards women.
It is abundantly clear that the regime in Tehran is utterly illegitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people, and it is deeply shocking to learn that thousands of protesters have now been killed by regime forces and that further executions have already been scheduled. At this critical moment, we must take all the action available to us to support these brave protesters. We must also ensure that those in the UK who campaign for freedom and democracy in Iran, and members of the British Jewish community, are safe here. I welcome the new sanctions that the Government have committed to today. In the light of the grotesque efforts to brutalise these protesters, will the Government now personally sanction Iran’s senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Khamenei? I hear the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to new legislation. When it is in place, will she commit to proscribing the IRGC—an organisation committed to suppressing dissent at home and exporting intimidation to our shores?
Iran’s decision makers must be held to account for their attacks on peaceful protesters, and the UK must take a lead to ensure that justice is delivered, so will the Secretary of State call on the UN Security Council to open an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian Government against their people? Will this Government also commit to using the UK’s satellite capabilities to record evidence of human rights abuses, which could be used to support such an ICC investigation?
The Foreign Secretary is right to avoid giving the regime any excuse falsely to claim foreign influence. Yet we know that Donald Trump has proposed direct US military intervention. Does the Government consider that that would be merited politically and legally, and would it reduce or increase the risk to the brave protesters? As evidence of the violence being perpetrated by the regime continues to reach international media, the safety of British nationals in Iran must remain a priority, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that plans are in place to support British citizens in Iran, and I thank our ambassador and his staff for all their work.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Iran is a remarkable country and its people are remarkable, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the actions of the Iranian regime are no aberration. She was absolutely right to say that. Will she consider proscription of the IRGC? As others have said, we proscribed Wagner. That was the right thing to do. Will she bring us more information about the targeting of the shadow fleet, which is crucial? Finally, will she look longer-term at support for civil society, which will be crucial in any rebuilding efforts?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Foreign Secretary responds, I remind Members that we have six hours of protected business on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, so this has to move much faster—we need shorter questions. This statement will finish in about 40 minutes.
Yvette Cooper
I set out in another response the importance of changing the legislation around proscription. We are working on further measures on the shadow fleet. The hon. Member will have seen the action that we have taken to support the US interdiction on the shadow fleet. He made a really important point about support for civil society. That is where the strength of the Iranian people lies.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the fact that—rather belatedly, two weeks later—the Government have made a statement to the House about the situation in Iran, giving particular attention and praise to the women who have, at great personal sacrifice, led the opposition to the regime, which directs its ire at women in particular. This should stand as a warning to the people who wish to promote sharia law and sharia courts in this country. The Foreign Secretary has highlighted the impact of the Iranian regime on our citizens and our interests. What discussions has she had with the Iranian opposition, to ensure that there is a transition from this repugnant regime to a friendly, democratic and peaceful regime there?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not think that Members quite understood what I said earlier. Questions must be short.
Yvette Cooper
It is clear that some of the greatest bravery and courage has been shown by women in Iran, who face additional repression in their daily lives. I pay tribute to them for their bravery.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Reform Members should note that the Iranian regime, which they have decided to be against, very much supports their Russian friends with the Shahed drone.
I welcome the news that we are working with allies to discuss using Starlink to overcome some of the communication barriers. The British-Iranian community are trying to donate to people back in Iran, but they cannot do so because of sanctions. Can you assure me and the House that you are looking at the specific issue of how the British-Iranian community can donate back to Iran?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Thomas, you used the word “you” twice. I am not here to respond to your questions.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will understand the importance of having an effective sanctions regime. I am happy to talk to him further about the point he raises, but as he will understand, the most immediate issue is how to support the re-establishment of communications and end the brutality that is taking place.
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Venezuela
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I want to begin by expressing my condolences to all those affected by the terrible tragedy in Crans-Montana, and my support for the Swiss authorities. The British embassy has been supporting the family of Charlotte Niddam, who was educated in Hertfordshire and in north-west London. I can confirm that yesterday Charlotte’s family were given the devastating news that her remains had been identified. Charlotte was just 15. The whole House will be thinking of her and her friends and family now.
Let me turn to Venezuela. Over the weekend, the United States conducted air strikes on a series of Venezuelan targets, and confirmed that it had captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have been indicted on narcoterrorism, drug smuggling and weapons charges. I can confirm to the House that the United Kingdom was not involved in these operations.
UK policy on Venezuela has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people, maintains security in the region and is in line with international law. That remains our position and our determined view about what must happen in Venezuela now. Over the weekend I discussed this with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the UK Government are in close contact with our international partners on the issue.
The first duty of government is the safety and security of our citizens, and my Department is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals. Over the weekend I also spoke to the UK chargé d’affaires in Caracas. All our embassy staff are safe and accounted for, and working to support the approximately 500 British nationals in Venezuela. Our travel guidance currently advises against all travel to Venezuela, and British nationals in Venezuela should closely follow that travel advice, which will be kept up to date.
We should be under no illusion as to the nature of the Maduro regime. A once functioning democracy has become a hub for very dangerous organised criminal gangs—corrupt links have involved Iran, with Hezbollah increasingly present in recent years, as well as malign support from Russia—and a regime that has facilitated illicit finance, sanctions evasion and organised criminal activity, including narcotics trafficking and illegal gold trading. That undermines the security of the whole region, including UK overseas territories, as well as the United States and other regional partners. The country has been driven into economic ruin, with an 80% drop in its GDP in a decade. More than 8 million people have left, which has caused instability elsewhere in the region.
We have seen Maduro’s regime systematically dismantle democratic institutions, silencing dissent and weaponising state resources to maintain power through fear and corruption. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, following reports of hundreds of extrajudicial killings, including at the hands of Venezuela’s security services and paramilitary groups under the regime’s command. UN investigators have repeatedly reported a pattern of arbitrary detentions, tortures and killings.
In the July 2024 presidential election, millions of Venezuelans voted, but the official results have never been published. The opposition leader, María Corina Machado, was banned from standing by Maduro. International observers cited basic failures of election integrity. Independent tallies covering 80% of polling stations showed a clear victory for Edmundo González, yet Maduro claimed victory.
Most recently, in October, the UN independent fact-finding mission reported on state security forces using firearms against protesters after the elections 18 months ago, where 25 people died. González has been forced to leave the country and claim political asylum in Spain. Machado was forced into hiding for her own safety and had to be spirited out of the country to receive her Nobel peace prize in Norway last month.
These are the hallmarks of a regime that clings to power through fear, coercion and violence, not through democratic consent. That is why, as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, we can shed no tears for the end of Maduro’s rule.
Let me turn to UK policy. The UK has long been an advocate for a democratic Venezuela and a vocal critic of the Maduro regime. Since 2019, successive UK Governments have refused to recognise the regime. Through the G7 and the UN, with partners and directly, we have continued to call out the Maduro regime and its appalling human rights violations.
We have also, in some areas, taken a different policy approach from some of our allies. Our other Five Eyes partners have closed their embassies, but we have maintained our diplomatic mission in Caracas at a much more senior level than many of our partners and are seeking dialogue, sustaining direct contact with the opposition, supporting Venezuelan civil society and advocating for British interests.
A year ago, around Maduro’s inauguration, the UK acted alongside partners and announced a wave of new sanctions. We targeted 15 individuals, including judges and senior-ranking officials in Maduro’s regime responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law, and for human rights violations. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, but not on sectors of the economy, and we have not supported or been involved in blockades or strikes against drug boats. We have continued to directly promote the interests of the British overseas territories, which need to see stability in the region.
Of course, throughout we have promoted and maintained support for international law. The commitment to international law, as the Prime Minister set out on Saturday, is immensely important to this Government. Those principles guide the decisions that we make and the actions that we take as part of Britain’s foreign policy. That commitment to international law is part of our values; it is also strongly in the UK’s national interest. Our manifesto talked about a foreign policy that is progressive and is also realistic, engaging with the world as we find it, in the interests of UK security, prosperity and our values. That means upholding international law and defending democracy, and it means confronting the complex, evolving and hybrid threats that we and our allies face in the world today.
Those principles and values also guide the conversations that we have with our allies across a range of issues where we agree and disagree. In my discussions with Secretary Rubio, I raised the importance of complying with international law, and we will continue to urge all partners to do so at every stage. It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions. The UN Security Council is discussing Venezuela this afternoon. These issues will continue to be matters for international discussion.
I discussed with Secretary Rubio what should happen next and our continued commitment to a transition to a peaceful and stable democracy. Our collective immediate focus must be on avoiding any deterioration in Venezuela into further instability, criminality, repression or violence. That would be deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela, our own overseas territories, our allies in the US and other regional partners.
The UK has long been clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people, so the international community must come together to help achieve a peaceful transition to a democratic Government who respect the rights and will of their people. That must mean action on the economic crisis, the release of political prisoners, the return of opposition politicians, an end to political repression, respect for human rights, and plans for the holding of free and fair elections. I urge the acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, to take these steps forward, because the people of Venezuela have a right to decide their own future.
The US Secretary of State and I discussed the particular role that the UK can play to support a peaceful democratic transition and stability. Drawing on our embassy in Caracas and on the work that we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities and regime, and of course our relationship with the US, to that end I have also spoken today with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. Her unwavering fight for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Venezuela, and against oppression, is inspirational. We will keep in touch over the days and weeks ahead.
Finally, let me turn briefly to another matter. The House will have seen recent comments from the United States and from Denmark regarding Greenland. Let me be very clear on the UK’s position: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Our close European partners, our long-standing NATO allies and all our countries work closely together on security issues and will always do so. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else. I commend this statement to the House.
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
I know how much my right hon. Friend cares about this issue, particularly as she was a development Minister last year. Tomorrow, the UK will co-host with Denmark a closed informal interactive dialogue at the United Nations Security Council. It will address the urgent need to harmonise regional international mediation efforts to bring about the much-needed humanitarian ceasefire.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Millions continue to suffer in Sudan. It is clear that red lines are constantly being crossed. The world is witnessing unspeakable horrors and barbaric atrocities. The situation in El Fasher is of grave concern. No one in this House or the country can comprehend the level of barbarity in the acts that have been taken.
We Conservatives have been calling for further sanctions on the warring parties, and we note the additional measures announced by the Government last week. That does represent progress, but it is important now that momentum builds and follows. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the closed session at the UN tomorrow. Can we expect to see more rounds of sanctions? It is vital that the sanctions directorate at the FCDO works around the clock to identify the culprits—be they individuals or organisations—and holds them to account.
What contribution is the UK making to the urgent UN inquiry into El Fasher, and what further steps will the Government take? What direct engagement has the Minister had with the Sudan Quad on finding a diplomatic solution, and to pressure those with influence over the warring parties to agree a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to flow in, and to stop committing atrocities? Is the UK involved in the international processes, like Cairo, to develop and build confidence with the Sudanese political civilian forces? That is crucial for facilitating a transition to a civilian-led Government.
As we have heard, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic, so will the Minister explain how the latest aid package will be delivered and by which organisations, and say how those who are in desperate need will receive it? How will the Government ensure that shifting frontlines and potential new challenges and blockages to aid delivery are addressed, and what is their assessment of the humanitarian assistance that we have already given? Has it been reaching those in need, and what is the timescale for the dispatch of new aid? Will the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress since the Sudan summit in London earlier this year when it comes to the support and pledges made by other countries? What discussions are the Government holding with partners who could be deploying urgent relief and assistance in light of this ongoing and growing crisis?
Chris Elmore
On arms exports, the UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. All export licences are assessed for the risk of diversion, and we regularly prevent exports that might be diverted to an undesirable end user or end use. As I have said, in recent reviews that has not been deemed the case from any other nation. On our role on the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, I agree with my hon. Friend: we do have a moral imperative, and that is exactly our approach. This is a personal mission for the Foreign Secretary. She convened the emergency meeting of the Human Rights Council, and the meeting of the Security Council was brought forward. The UK, as penholder, has been at the very forefront of trying to end these most appalling atrocities against the Sudanese people.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s sanctions on the RSF. Those are long overdue, given that the US imposed sanctions in January and the EU have gone wider. Why has the UK left out RSF leader Hemedti? Why has the UK left out the Sudanese armed forces who are bombing civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war? It is widely reported that the UAE is arming the RSF, yet the UK continues to supply arms to the UAE. The Minister will know that selling arms where there is a risk that those states are arming actors who commit atrocities is in contravention of the UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law and its own strategic export licensing criteria, whether or not UK arms are being diverted. Why is the UK still arming the UAE?
I am deeply worried about the advances by the RSF in Kordofan, and there are real fears of another El Fasher. What are the UK Government doing to prevent atrocities of that scale? Humanitarian access remains severely constrained. What are the Government doing to open up access? Finally, has the Prime Minister spoken this month to the US President about the Sudan crisis? The Sudan appeal is still just 27% funded, and although I welcome the Government’s additional £21 million of funding, will they pledge further to this crisis?
Chris Elmore
I appreciate that colleagues from across the House care deeply about this particular point, but I cannot go beyond the clear evidence in front of us: there is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons and ammunitions being used in Sudan. Where anything has been found, it is in non-lethal supplies—that is the reality about what has been found. We take the allegations in the reviews seriously and we have one of the most robust and transparent systems. It is simply not the case that those weapons have been found to have been made in Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the additional funding and the sanctions that the Minister has updated us on. There is currently a rapid escalation of violence in the Kordofan region, with a repeat of the tactics seen in El Fasher, including siege and sexual violence. What will the Minister do to protect civilians and prevent future atrocities in the Kordofan region?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is the point of order really relevant?
Seamus Logan
It is. In his response to my urgent question, the Minister referred to my presence or otherwise in the Chamber during a previous debate. I want the Minister to be aware, and the record to show, that members of my extended family are Sudanese nationals. Is it in order for the Minister to undermine the validity of my question in that way? Will he apologise?
Madam Deputy Speaker
We cannot prolong the debate, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.
Budget Resolutions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on delivering her second Budget? I hope she enjoyed it, because it really should be her last. What a total humiliation—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can colleagues who are exiting the Chamber do so swiftly and quietly, so that we can focus on the Leader of the Opposition?
Mrs Badenoch
It is a total humiliation. Last year, the Chancellor put up taxes by £40 billion—the biggest tax raid in British history. She promised that she would not be back for more. She swore that it was a one-off. She told everyone that from now on, there would be stability and she would pay for everything with growth. Today, she has broken every single one of those promises. If she had any decency, she would resign. At the last Budget, she said she was proud to be the country’s first-ever female Chancellor; after this Budget, she will go down as the country’s worst-ever Chancellor.
Today—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Chief Whip in particular knows that we do not allow clapping in the Chamber.
Mrs Badenoch
Today the Chancellor has announced a new tax raid of £26 billion, and Labour Members were all cheering. Household income is down. Spending policies in this Budget increase borrowing in every year. That smorgasbord of misery we just heard from her can be summed up in one sentence: Labour is hiking taxes to pay for welfare. This is a Budget for “Benefits Street”, paid for by working people.
This Budget increases benefits for 560,000 families by an average of £5,000. The Government are hiking taxes on workers, pensioners and savers to pay for handouts to keep their Back Benchers quiet. These are the same—[Interruption.] They can chunter all they like. These are the same Back Benchers who cheered last year when the Chancellor taxed jobs and left more than 100,000 people without an income. They cheered because they did not understand the consequences of what they were doing, and they still do not.
It has not been an easy time for the Chancellor. No one liked seeing her sitting on the Government Benches as it dawned on her that her own Back Benchers were going to do to her political career what she has done to our economy. She could have chosen today to bring down welfare spending and get more people into work. Instead, she has chosen to put up tax after tax after tax—taxes on workers, taxes on savers, taxes on pensioners, taxes on investors and taxes on homes, holidays, cars and even milkshakes. There are taxes on anyone doing the right thing. She and this Government have lost what little credibility they had left, and no one will ever trust her again.
What is amazing is that the Chancellor has the nerve to come to this House and claim that this is all someone else’s fault. She has a laundry list of excuses. Labour Members blame the Conservatives as if we have been sneaking into the Treasury under the cover of darkness to give pay rises to the unions. The Chancellor inherited an economy with inflation at 2% and record-high employment. She has tanked it in just over a year. She has endless excuses—she blames Brexit and Donald Trump, but she needs to blame herself.
I have some news for the Chancellor—she did not seem to understand what the OBR was saying. Inflation is up, not down, and that inflation was stoked by her tax and spend decisions. The economic and fiscal outlook says that the OBR expects inflation to stay higher for longer. Everybody else has read the OBR analysis, but she still has not. She blames higher than expected borrowing costs. Where does she think they came from? [Hon. Members: “You!”] Those borrowing costs are driven by the Chancellor’s lack of grip. Labour Members are saying those costs came from us, but she is paying more to borrow than Greece. She is paying more to borrow than at any point under the 14 years of Conservative government—perhaps if Labour MPs read a book sometimes, they would know something—which included an energy crisis sparked by a war in Ukraine and a global pandemic. What is the Chancellor’s excuse? She is taking the public for fools, but they are under no illusions about whose fault this is.
The fact is that the bad choices the Chancellor is making today—choices to break promises, choices to put up taxes, choices to spend more of other people’s money—are because of the bad choices she made at the last disastrous Budget. If you want growth, you need to start with knowing what kind of country you want to be and make a plan to get there. You need to create certainty for the people and businesses who will drive growth. There is no growth and no plan, because Labour focused on settling scores and scratching the itches it had while in opposition.
The Chancellor promised stability. She delivered chaos. Just look at the circus around this Budget: first, the leaks—then more leaks to try to undo the damage; calling panicky press conferences and U-turning on her U-turns; rolling the pitch one day only to plough through it the next. She had the cheek to talk about stability, but she has become the first Chancellor in history to release the whole Budget ahead of time. This is extraordinary, and it tells us everything we need to know about her grip on the Treasury. She is making the UK a shambolic laughing stock to international investors, and if she does not resign for breaking her promises, she should sure as hell go for this.
What have we got for all this chaos and disorder? There are 1 million more people claiming universal credit than there were at the time of the last Budget. Government spending? Up. Welfare spending? Up. Universal credit claimants? Up. Unemployment? Up. Debt interest? Up. Inflation? Up. And what about the things that we want to go up? Growth? Down. Investment? Down. Business confidence? Down. The credibility of the Chancellor? [Hon. Members: “Down!”] Not just down, but through the floor.
These figures are shocking. Does the Chancellor really think that anyone will be confused by the sleight of hand in her speech? Her speech today was an exercise in self-delusion. Today she had an opportunity to apologise and show some humility; instead, we have been fed puff pieces in The Times and the FT showing a woman wallowing in self-pity and whining about mansplaining and misogyny. Let me explain to the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues need most definitely to simmer down: just breathe a little and allow the Leader of the Opposition to be heard.
Mrs Badenoch
All we have had is wallowing in self-pity and whining about misogyny and mansplaining, so let me explain to the Chancellor, woman to woman, that people out there are not complaining because she is female; they are complaining because she is utterly incompetent. Real equality means being held to the same standard as everyone else. It means being judged on results. Take the Chancellor’s bright idea: the Office for Value for Money. It has been closed down because it did not save a penny. In fact, it cost the taxpayer £1.6 million. You could not make this stuff up. I have identified a way to save taxpayers huge amounts of money, by sacking just one person: the woman sitting opposite me.
The ex-chief economist of the Bank of England was not mansplaining when he said that the uncertainty around today’s Budget is
“the single biggest reason growth has flatlined”.
What did the Chancellor think would happen when she went on breakfast telly to do an emergency public service announcement: “I interrupt your Cheerios to bring you this frightening message about income tax”? Then, unbelievably, she changed her mind three days later. No wonder people are in despair. She says she wants people to respect her—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Conservative colleagues are drowning out the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, so just be mindful that nobody at home will be able to hear her.
Mrs Badenoch
The Chancellor says that she wants people to respect her, but respect is earned. She apparently told Labour MPs this week, “I’ll show the media, I’ll show the Tories—I will not let them beat me.” Show us what? Making stuff up at the Dispatch Box, incompetent chaos and the highest tax burden in history? She said to them, “I’ll be there on Wednesday, I’ll be there next year, and I’ll be back the year after that.” God help us! She is spineless, shameless and completely aimless.
Talk to any business and or anyone looking for a job—unemployment is up every single month since Labour has been in office. [Interruption.] Labour MPs do not want to hear it, but it is true. They are shouting and complaining, but they cannot create jobs. It is the worst year for graduate recruitment on record. Are they proud of that? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If you are on the Front Bench, I can obviously see you, Mr Kyle. There is no need for you to be chuntering this loudly. Everyone else can see and hear you as well.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour MPs do not want to hear the truth, but I am speaking for all those people out there who are sick of this Government. Companies like Merck and Ineos are slashing investment plans. The construction sector has shrunk. How is that house building target going, by the way? I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Government are miles behind and will not even come close to what we achieved. Business confidence is at record lows. No wonder that today future growth was revised down for every year of the scorecard. The papers are reporting that one in eight business leaders is planning to leave Britain. Even one of Labour’s biggest ever donors, Lakshmi Mittal, has fled the country.
What we have in front of us is a Budget littered with broken promises. The Chancellor stood on a manifesto that promised better returns for UK savers. Today she is putting up taxes on savings and on salary sacrifice even. She promised to give pensioners the security in retirement that they deserve. Today she slapped higher taxes on people saving for their pension. She promised to make Britain the best place in the world to invest and do business. Today she has raised the dividend tax rates. She and the Prime Minister had already broken their promise to freeze council tax, but today she has decided to go even further, introducing a new property tax clobbering family homes that will only raise small amounts. This is Labour’s Britain: people who work hard and save hard to buy their homes get taxed more, while those who do not work—those who, in some cases, refuse to work—get their accommodation paid for by taxpayers.
To top it all off—because taxing your home, your car, your savings and your pension was not enough—the Chancellor has, by her own admission, broken her manifesto promise on income tax. In the last Budget, she said:
“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”.
She also said that
“extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
But today she has done exactly that. Why should anyone believe anything she has promised in this Budget?
Where is the money going? There are small changes to rail fares and prescriptions. Those are distractions while the Chancellor steals your wallet. The real story is that Labour has lost control of welfare spending. Not only will working people have their tax thresholds frozen while benefits go up in line with inflation, and not only has Labour abandoned reforms that would have saved the taxpayer £5 billion after pressure from its own Back Benchers, but today Labour has added another £3 billion to the bill by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. We introduced that cap, because it means that people on benefits have to make the same decisions about having children as everyone else. Even Labour voters know that it strikes the right balance between supporting people who are struggling and protecting taxpayers who are struggling themselves.
Just this summer, the Chancellor admitted that lifting the two-child benefit cap was not affordable, but that was before the Prime Minister accidentally fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. Now he and the Chancellor are buying the votes of their own MPs with taxpayers’ money. If she wants to reduce child poverty, she should stop taxing their parents and stop destroying their jobs. She congratulated herself on a new tax on landlords. Let me tell her this: hiking tax on landlords will only push up rents. It will push landlords out of the market, and the people who will suffer are the tenants. Then she talks about taxes on electric vehicles. Those changes will hit rural drivers the hardest, but we know that Labour does not care about rural people.
All this Budget delivers is higher taxes and out-of-control spending. Nobody voted for this. The Chancellor must take responsibility. She chose to impose the jobs tax, driving unemployment higher month after month. She chose to abandon welfare reform, meaning that the benefits bill is spiralling. She chose to spend more and more money she did not have, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. She is out of money, out of ideas, out of her depth, and she has run out of road.
The country simply cannot afford a Chancellor who cannot keep her own promises. Her position is untenable, and she knows it. [Interruption.] She is talking to the Prime Minister. Is he mansplaining to you, by the way? Is he mansplaining? Would you like some help? The Prime Minister should grow a backbone and sack her, but he will not, because he knows that if she goes down, he goes down with her, so we are stuck with them both, Laurel and Foolhardy.
Does the Chancellor have any sympathy for the people facing Christmas without a salary because of her jobs tax, or for the retailers suffering sleepless nights because of their plummeting Christmas sales? People out there are crying. Last year, we had the horrors of the Halloween Budget. This year, it is the nightmare before Christmas. As for her, she is the unwelcome Christmas guest. Ten minutes through the door and she has eaten all the Quality Street.
Let me tell the Chancellor something she has forgotten. Behind every line in today’s Red Book is a family, a home, and a lifetime of work and sacrifice. People are frightened, and they have every reason to be—the Chancellor has spent the last year terrifying them. Every decision that she and the Prime Minister make puts more pressure on the people who keep this country going. If Labour is the party of working people, why is it that every day under this Government, thousands more people are signing off work and on to benefits? It is the Conservatives who are the party of work. The Labour party should be renamed the Welfare party.
The Government are making a mistake. The British public do not want higher welfare spending; they want people in work, providing for themselves. They want to live in a country where hard work pays—where what you put in reflects what you get out, and we agree with them. There is an alternative, and we Conservatives have set it out. This Budget could have saved £47 billion, including £23 billion from welfare. The Chancellor could have applied our golden economic rule, allocating half those savings to cutting the deficit and using the rest to cut taxes. [Interruption.] Oh, they are all pretending that they are not listening. It is the shame of the mess that they have made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince! And Mr Thompson, you are so enthusiastic that I was worried a moment ago that you would knock Mr Waugh off his seat. We need to calm down and breathe, and we need to ensure that we can hear the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Badenoch
Even the dog is laughing at the Chancellor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Chancellor could have abolished stamp duty on homes to get the housing market moving, and she could have abolished business rates on shops to breathe life into our high streets. She could have introduced our cheap power plan, which would save a lot more money than what she announced, and would bring down energy costs for homes and businesses. That is what she should have done.
The Chancellor should be on the side of people who get up and go to work, people who take a risk to start a company, and people working all hours to keep their business afloat. She should be on the side of the farmer trying to hand something over to the next generation, and the investor deciding whether to spend their money in the UK or elsewhere. She should be on the side of the young person looking for their first job, the saver doing the right thing and putting money away for a rainy day, and the pensioner trying to enjoy a decent retirement. This country works when we make the country work for those people. Only the Conservatives are on their side, and our plan for them is simple: bring down energy costs, cut spending, cut tax, back business, and get Britain working again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly and quickly before we come to our first Back-Bench contribution. Other Members who are trying to catch my eye should resume their seat; I have noticed them bobbing. I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier
It is interesting that the Opposition are doubling down on the policy, which is humiliating people.
Let us be clear: the birth rate in this country has fallen year on year for the last three years. It is well below where it needs to be. I think that only Luton is at 2.1, which is about where the rate needs to be. Actually, that is a bit lower than where it needs to be. This is a real crisis for the country in the long term, so it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is investing in the future of Britain. Young people in my constituency may be poor, but there is no poverty of ambition. Children I met when I was elected 20 years ago are now doctors, barristers and enterprising businesspeople, in spite of the challenges they faced. Just think about the ones who did not get there because they could not overcome the challenges of deep-seated poverty. We should invest in our young people, and that is what this Government are doing, including through apprenticeships, the youth guarantee and the nine youth hubs in London, one of which is in my constituency.
I really welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend listened to the Treasury Committee on the gambling taxation regime. We are a cross-party Committee, but our report was unanimous that there was a real issue with the lower tax on online gambling because of the relative harm that it caused, compared with going to the races or popping along to a local betting shop. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to change the gambling taxation regime; that will contribute to taking children out of poverty.
On the ISA changes, I caution my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Treasury is watching very closely the impact on mortgages and lending by building societies, because that was a concern in the evidence we heard. If we want to get people into their own homes through the building that will be going on, we need to make sure that mortgages are available to them, so I hope that the Treasury is in ongoing dialogue on that issue, despite the change having been made.
We need to recognise some of the challenges with green taxes. I have not had a chance to go through the Red Book in the time since the Chancellor sat down, but I very much welcome her bold and necessary decision to take on the challenge of the reduction in fuel duty as people move to electric vehicles. This has been a point of debate for at least the last decade or so. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we kept challenging the Treasury on how it would fill the gap, and my right hon. Friend has been bold and right to address the challenge. It is a difficult one to grapple with, but it is great that she has done so. We look forward to hearing more about that. On supporting people with the cost of living, the freeze on rail fares, keeping the bus fare cap and the ongoing freeze on fuel duty will help people get to work.
The increase in the minimum wage and the living wage are vital. In my constituency, some people work four jobs over seven days, just to make ends meet. Even if they are lucky enough to have a council tenancy, it is hard to make ends meet on those salaries. Going into private sector housing is completely unaffordable for those on that kind of income. Contrast that with people who work four days a week because they can afford to do so. I am not criticising them for that life choice, but that is the challenge that we face.
There has been a lot of discussion about a high-value property tax. In my constituency, around 1% of properties are worth over £2 million, and that is in central London. The Opposition might scream foul on this, but in London’s zones 1 and 2—my constituency is right on the edge of the City and 10 minutes from Liverpool Street—around 1% of people will face the surcharge. That is a small price to pay when families next door are living in the deepest poverty, as I have described. It is also great to see some movement on energy bills, which is having a really big impact.
There is a lot more detail in the Budget, which the Treasury Committee will look at over the next couple of weeks. We look forward to welcoming the Chancellor to the Committee on 10 December, when we will ask her to explain, but also challenge her on, the detail of her Budget, as is our proper constitutional responsibility.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You are a senior Member of the House, and I made it very clear earlier that no interventions should be made on party leaders.
Ed Davey
I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room afterwards.
The Government know the damage that the Conservative-Reform Brexit deal has done to every family and business across our country, yet they choose to reject the single biggest policy for ending the cost of living crisis, turbocharging economic growth and boosting tax revenues without raising tax: a new trade deal with Europe. We need to properly fix our broken relationship with Europe, with a new customs union. We can grow our economy by freeing British businesses from the costs, barriers and red tape favoured by the Conservatives and Reform. Rather than trying to tax our way out of debt, as Labour is choosing to do, the Liberal Democrats would grow our way out of debt.
To be fair to the Chancellor, she has recently spoken about the terrible damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has done to our economy—a deal that promised to save us £350 million a week, but which ended up costing the taxpayer £1.7 billion every week. But where is the Chancellor’s urgency and ambition to fix the problem that she rightly identifies? Today she did not even mention the huge hit to the Treasury from Brexit. She is like a doctor who has diagnosed the disease but refuses to administer the cure. She is refusing to take up our plan for a brand-new deal with the EU—a much better deal for Britain than anything the Government have pursued so far, with a new customs union at its heart.
Everyone but the most extreme Brexiteers now realises what a costly economic disaster the Brexit deal has been. Whether they are a young family struggling with ever higher food prices or a high street business just trying to survive the Chancellor’s latest new cost or tax, people are understandably looking for a credible economic policy to change their futures for the better, and it is crystal clear that only the Liberal Democrats are providing the leadership on our economy that people are crying out for.
There are some measures the Chancellor announced today that we do welcome. At last, she has decided to tax the big online gambling firms by raising remote gaming duty, as the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Problem gambling is related to hundreds of suicides every year, so of course online casinos and the like should pay more tax on their huge profits. Her decision to scrap the rape clause is an excellent one. I may not have heard the Leader of the Opposition, but I was not sure if she welcomed that. I hope the Conservative party will welcome it. The Chancellor’s decision to scrap the two-child limit is excellent. It was in our general election manifesto, and I am glad that she is now enacting Liberal Democrat policy. It is clearly the most effective way of lifting children out of poverty, and it will save taxpayers money in the long term.
The biggest relief today for millions of families and pensioners is the action the Chancellor is taking to reduce energy bills, and we welcome it, but even after the Chancellor’s changes, the Budget will leave the typical household paying hundreds of pounds a year more on their energy bills than five years ago. More action will be needed, but we need action on energy bills that works.
Reform and the Conservative party pretend that the answer to rising energy bills is to scrap our climate commitments and stop investing in renewables. They could not be more wrong. The Conservative-Reform energy policy would put up bills and make the UK even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, with their volatile and high prices. That would be a disaster for our economy, a disaster for our environment, a disaster for jobs and a disaster for people struggling with energy bills. A major winner from Reform’s energy policies would be Vladimir Putin, which might explain why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is so keen on them. I urge the Government not to listen to the Conservatives or Reform, but to be more ambitious in cutting people’s energy bills and to take up our plan to cut energy bills even more right now and cut them in half within a decade, finally giving families and pensioners the relief they need from this cost of living crisis.
While there are some things to welcome, as I have just done, there are quite a lot of measures in the Budget that will cause a lot of pain and unfairness, all of which could have been avoided if the Chancellor had gone for growth with Europe instead. Her plans to tax salary sacrifice will be hugely damaging to savings and pensions, and it looks like it is another NI hit on workers. Why, oh why, when the electricity vehicle market still needs a boost to get going, is she taxing electric vehicles? If she was not spending £1.8 billion on digital ID, many of these tax rises would not have been needed in the first place. Her failure to U-turn on the family farm tax is a huge error. If the Chancellor was really looking to tax those with the broadest shoulders, why not put a windfall tax on the big banks that are making billions at the taxpayer’s expense due to the side effects of quantitative easing?
The worst tax hike of this Budget by far—the biggest tax rise in this Budget—is the Chancellor’s decision to repeat the Conservative policy of freezing income tax thresholds. Freezing these thresholds reduces the amount that people can earn tax-free and hits the lowest-paid the hardest. I have to say that hearing the Conservative leader criticising it now rings incredibly hollow—and I think the “Member for Bark-shire” was objecting to her comments. The Leader of the Opposition cheered Conservative Budget after Conservative Budget that did exactly the same thing as the Chancellor has done—raising taxes on the low-paid. The Conservatives dragged an extra 4 million people on very low incomes into paying income tax, and an extra 3.5 million people into paying the 40p rate. The OBR says that this Government are now planning to drag a further three quarters of a million low-paid workers into tax and nearly 1 million people into the 40p rate. Someone on the average salary is paying an extra £582 this year because of the Conservatives’ policy, and under the Chancellor’s plans they will pay an extra £300 a year by 2031.
Contrast that with our record on income tax. We raised the personal allowance by £4,000. We cut income tax by £825 for millions of people, and took 3.4 million of the lowest-paid out of paying income tax altogether. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that believes in cutting income tax for ordinary people; Labour and the Conservatives make them pay more.
As well as adding income tax pain to families struggling with the cost of living crisis, the Budget will add to the cost of doing business crisis facing Britain’s hospitality sector, on which the Chancellor went nowhere near far enough. Our high streets are suffering. Pubs, restaurants, cafés, caravan parks, zoos and even our beloved theme parks are struggling against higher business rates and the Government’s misguided jobs tax. The Liberal Democrats called on the Chancellor to help them with an emergency 5% VAT cut for hospitality for the next 18 months. That would have been a lifeline for some of our most beloved local businesses and for people’s jobs, boosting local economies across Britain, and it is very disappointing that the Chancellor has not listened to our calls.
Finally, can I say how disappointed I am at how little there was for carers in this Budget? As a carer myself for much of my life, I am determined to speak up for the millions of carers less fortunate than I am—the millions of family carers and care workers who make enormous sacrifices looking after loved ones, the carers who keep our NHS going and the carers who keep our society going. They deserve far more support from the Government, and I will keep pressing their case.
I do welcome the carer’s allowance review, but it confirms our argument that the carer’s allowance system is out of date and in need of urgent change, and we are yet to hear commitments to such changes. I welcome the decision to reassess cases where overpayment has caused huge hardship, but with those changes not coming into force for another year, the Government must instruct the Department for Work and Pensions to immediately suspend repayments during that delay and swiftly deliver compensation. More needs to be done to help family carers juggle their jobs with their caring responsibilities, and we urgently need the social care commission to actually start fixing the system on a cross-party basis and make sure that our loved ones get the care they need. The Chancellor cannot claim to be supporting our NHS properly, however much money she puts in, while she and Treasury officials keep blocking the social care reforms that alone can transform the health service across the country and boost our economy.
A caring society, a growing economy and a plan to drive down household bills, boost high streets and go for growth with Europe—that is the vision the Chancellor should have set out today. Instead we got a low-growth, high-tax Budget from a Government who I fear are just not listening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues are now permitted to make interventions, which a Back Bencher may accept or decline them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How on earth can “you” do that? We cannot start off these four days of Budget debate with the words “you” and “your”. Come to your conclusion quickly and using the right language.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Gentleman remind us which Government led to that 11% inflation and which Government crashed the economy? Could he also speak to the estimated 1,970 children in Morecambe and Lunesdale who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and tell them why they should continue to live in poverty?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will remind colleagues that interventions must be short and to the point, and must be an actual question, not a statement.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I would be happy to tell the hon. Lady which Government were responsible for 11% inflation: the Russian Government were responsible for 11% inflation. I will happily look in the eye the 200,000 fewer children in absolute poverty after a succession of Conservative Governments because of the 4 million jobs created on our watch.
Let me say this. Those dreadful Tories also increased the number of doctors and nurses in the NHS by a third, and those posh Tories increased standards in state schools to have the highest reading standards in the western world. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because progressive instincts do not pay the bill for good public services—a strong economy does.
Ms Oppong-Asare
I remind the hon. Member that this Government are delivering more than previous Governments delivered, and he may remember that his party was in a coalition Government that caused a lot of damage to this country.
To conclude, this Budget delivers for the country and my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead. After decades of waiting, residents will finally have the transport links that they deserve and the opportunities that will come with them. A new chapter begins today. I will continue to fight for investment, services and opportunity for people in my community, because they deserve it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I like drilling into the data and getting to the facts. You can see a correlation between the rise in people claiming social security and the rise in waiting lists in the NHS—they map identically through all Parliaments, whether Tory or Labour. Will the right hon. Member look at the data before making assumptions? Getting waiting lists down has got to be our objective.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member used the term “you”. Perhaps focusing, and looking at the Chair, will stop colleagues from doing so.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am careful, actually, to look at the data and constantly refer to facts that are accepted by the OBR and the Government. These facts are not challenged. We have 300,000 people currently waiting to undergo a work capability assessment. We need emergency measures to clear the backlog. I am surprised that anybody could disagree with what I am saying.
The lack of in-person assessments has created a feedback loop where dependency grows and work expectations diminish. The longer that is allowed to continue, the harder it becomes for people to reintegrate into society. This is a system that writes people off rather than helping them back into employment. I would have thought we could all agree on that. We must not abandon these people; this is about human dignity.
Getting people off long-term benefits and into employment brings significant mental health benefits. It also helps our straitened finances. The cost of sickness and disability benefits is projected to reach £100 billion annually by the end of the decade. Some households receive more than £30,000 a year in universal credit alone, with disability benefit payments pushing support well above that. The current system financially incentivises individuals to demonstrate incapacity rather than engage with work. I agree that the Government have redeployed work coaches to re-engage long-term inactive claimants, but systematic incentives remain unchanged. Failure to tackle long-term benefit dependency impoverishes the nation by increasing fiscal burdens and reducing labour force participation.
The Office for Budget Responsibility reported that the working-age incapacity benefit caseload reached 7% in 2023-24 and is forecast to hit 7.9% by 2028-29. We must stop paying full benefits to young people who are neither working nor studying. Those young people should be working or studying.
Sir Edward Leigh
I will make some progress, if I may. The Centre for Social Justice estimates that by 2026 there will be a gap of over £2,500 between earnings and combined benefit income for under-25s. I could go on making those arguments, but I will proceed to the next part of my speech, on immigration.
I accept that the greatest failure of our last Government was immigration. I admit, and I apologise on behalf of my Government, that the 2021 to 2024 Boriswave allowed—[Interruption.] Why should I not apologise? Why should I not be honest? It allowed over 4 million non-UK migrants into the country. Many of them will soon qualify for indefinite leave to remain. ILR’s granting of access to benefits and public services on the same basis as citizens is destroying financial incentives. The scale of it is financially significant.
I agree that the Home Secretary has announced some sensible moves. I supported her when, for example, she came to the House to extend the standard qualifying period for ILR from five years to 10. As Karl Williams of the Centre for Policy Studies has noted, policymakers cannot say with confidence how many migrants currently hold ILR or what their economic circumstances are. Experimental DWP data shows that about 211,000 ILR holders receive universal credit—that is completely unsustainable. If Migration Observatory estimates are correct, between 27% and 37% of ILR holders receive universal credit. This is a worrying problem that needs resolution.
I turn next to increasing tax. I have long argued for a much simpler tax system where we close loopholes but keep taxes low, especially for married families. Corporate tax complexity creates an inherent bias towards huge multinationals who can hire departments of accountants to reduce their liabilities. A free market relies on everyone paying their fair share. We need creative ways of ensuring that companies like Amazon and Starbucks can operate freely—we all use them—while paying a fair contribution. Then we can help lighten the burden on family farms, working people and small firms. Increasing taxes on working people risks undermining growth by reducing take home-pay and incentives.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that direct taxes reduced income inequality by only 4.4 percentage points: limited redistribution for a heavy burden. Higher taxes on the wealthy simply encourage them to leave. Data from the Henley & Partners 2025 migration report suggests that the UK may lose 16,500 millionaires this year. What is the point of it? Why are we driving these wealth creators out of the country? [Interruption.] There is so much to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know that I will weary the House if I go on too long.
May I end on one point? It is quite controversial and difficult to say. I know I am going to get into trouble for saying it, but I have got to say the truth as I believe it. We all know that the triple lock is unsustainable. We cannot have a situation where people of my generation are consuming an ever greater proportion of national wealth through the state pension. Frankly, our Government never dared tackle it, having brought it in, because they knew that the Labour party would crucify them at the ballot box. Now, the Labour party is caught in the same bind. The fact is that it is completely unfair on younger people if the burden of older people, through the triple lock, increases year by year.
We laugh at the French because of their failure to achieve sensible pension reform, but we ourselves have got to have the courage, frankly, to end the triple lock—and I think this will only be done with consensus between the two parties. I am absolutely sure that the Government could come to the Leader of the Opposition and say, “This is unsustainable. Will you share this burden with us?” That may seem very unpopular, but actually many older people—people of my generation—all have children and we all have grandchildren, and we all see our children struggling to get into the housing market. If the Government and the Opposition were prepared to have the courage to deal with the triple lock, I am not sure that it would be as unpopular with older people as is sometimes maintained. After all, we could always relieve the burden on those on pension credit and find ways of helping people who really could not afford to live. But the triple lock must go. That is not a popular policy, but in our hearts, I think we know that it is the right one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just shy of 60 Members wish to contribute, so there is a speaking limit of 10 minutes to begin with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is now eight minutes.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 17 November 2025 - (17 Nov 2025)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.
The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.
However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.
The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.
Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself
We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.
New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.
Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.
This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.
Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I want to speak on this Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill both as the Member for a coastal community, and as someone who is truly fortunate to have dedicated environmental campaigners locally. I want to thank one constituent in particular, Viola. Her emails cover everything from ocean acidification to regenerative farming and the health of our chalk streams. Although I cannot always provide the answers that she needs, I thank her for her valued, informed and tireless campaigning.
Much of what Viola raises is exactly why this Bill matters. It matters for the important issues of pollution, harmful algae blooms in Langstone harbour, and the need to protect local bird species and our drinking water. We must be proactive on ocean heating, bottom trawling and the worrying tipping points we face in ocean acidification, as well as on regenerative farming, reducing pesticides, and protecting soil health, so that rivers, seas and pollinators can recover. Although this Bill focuses on biodiversity beyond the national jurisdiction, the principle is the same. What happens in our oceans—from the south coast to the high seas—affects us all. That is why the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and provide clarity and accountability.
I particularly note Government amendment 1, which updates section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it accurately reflects the extended conservation responsibilities created by this legislation. This may seem technical, but accuracy matters, especially when we are embedding in law stronger protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those far beyond our waters. Through this Bill, we will ensure that the UK plays a serious, leading role in implementing the high seas treaty, tackling the over-exploitation of shared oceans, and improving transparency and reporting. Government amendment 2, which tightens the environmental impact assessment provisions, will help to ensure that the framework that we set up is robust, enforceable, and capable of delivering real biodiversity gains beyond our borders.
While stakeholders may not always agree on how best to align planning reforms with environmental goals, we have a shared mission to restore nature, not merely preserve what is left. This Bill is one part of that mission. By strengthening the UK’s hand in protecting biodiversity on the high seas, the Bill reinforces the protection we all want to see everywhere from Langstone harbour to Antarctica. It demonstrates leadership and this Government’s commitment to restoring nature on every scale.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.
I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.
The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.
We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.
The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.
We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If there is one message that Members should take from today’s debate, it is that this Bill is essential—essential to protecting the ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the UK continues to lead ocean protection efforts on the international stage. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It will, along with the subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement to protect marine biodiversity in the two thirds of our ocean that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
The Bill means that the UK can play its full part in shaping a fair, science-based international system for areas beyond national jurisdiction, one that balances conservation, sustainable use and global collaboration. It delivers on our international commitments and ensures that British scientists, institutions and innovators remain at the forefront of ocean research and biotechnology.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions and scrutiny of the Bill at every stage. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean and of environment Committees has been crucial to keeping the Bill high on the agenda. I am grateful to those who spoke on Second Reading, have taken part in the Committee of the whole House and have engaged constructively throughout. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding for her support throughout the passage of the Bill.
I also thank officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, whose expertise, along with that of parliamentary draftspeople and other officials across Government, has underpinned the Bill. I thank, too, the devolved Governments for their engagement on the Bill and legislative consent processes. Finally, I acknowledge the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre to the National History Museum, and our universities, which have been pivotal in presenting the need for this legislation.
Let us be clear why this Bill matters. The ocean regulates our climate. It sustains global fisheries. It provides half the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not just an environmental choice; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. The previous Government began this process by signing the BBNJ agreement in 2023, but they delayed bringing forward legislation. This Government are now finishing the job, taking the necessary steps to implement their obligations in UK law and to ratify the treaty.
By passing this Bill, the House will send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to lead the world in the protection of our shared ocean, that we stand with our partners to deliver a healthy, sustainable ocean and that we will do so grounded in science and international co-operation. This is our responsibility today and for future generations. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.