Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
Phil Brickell Excerpts(4 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of financial secrecy in the Overseas Territories on UK communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Before being elected to this place, I dedicated almost 15 years of my working life to tackling financial crime at two major UK banks. That work took me across the globe to the USA, the United Arab Emirates and often to India, so I like to think I can speak with some authority about financial secrecy overseas and how it impacts us at home.
For a number of people watching this debate, the contents of my speech will make for uncomfortable viewing, so let me be clear from the outset that my objective is not to criticise the overseas territories writ large—far from it. Some have shown a real commitment to transparency, which I commend them for, and others have a zealous determination to work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to drive through much-needed reforms, but are hampered by a lack of local expertise. But other overseas territories seem insistent on blocking change at every opportunity, and it is those that I wish to focus on.
Hon. Members might ask, “What connects the sun-kissed beaches of the British Virgin Islands with the rain-soaked streets of Bolton?” What do my constituents care about shell companies, trusts and the veil of financial secrecy that a number of our overseas territories seem quietly content to provide? The purpose of today’s debate is to challenge the notion that what goes on over there has few ramifications for our daily lives over here. Financial secrecy in our overseas territories has real-world consequences for my constituents, businesses and Britain’s standing in the world. Journalists including Nicholas Shaxson and Oliver Bullough have outlined how the UK’s overseas territories have systematically undermined the global economy by creating a shadow banking system—“Moneyland”, to use Oliver Bullough’s parlance.
In a number of our overseas territories, low levels of taxation and substandard levels of transparency have attracted the world’s crooks and kleptocrats like moths to a flame. Money laundering, fraud, bribery, tax evasion: regrettably, many of the scandals we read about are likely to involve a financial structure in the British overseas territories. It is an enduring embarrassment going back many, many years, and it undermines our global reputation.
In 2016, 11.5 million documents detailing financial and attorney-client information relating to 214,488 offshore entities were leaked—the now-infamous Panama papers. More than half the shell companies exposed in that leak from Panamanian offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca were set up in the British Virgin Islands. That leak revealed the sheer scale of the dark economy, which allows the rich and powerful to store their assets offshore, out of sight of the taxman, law enforcement or the press. From the likes of the former Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili to the more than 30 Mossack Fonseca clients blacklisted by the US Treasury, roughly $2 trillion passed through that firm. In 2017 came the Paradise papers, with another 13.4 million documents from firms, including from Bermuda, the BVI and the Cayman Islands, then the 2020 FinCEN files, followed by the 2021 Pandora papers. Each leak tells a story about unfairness, about how those who can afford to find ways to avoid paying their fair share can do so, and about how the world’s crooks and kleptocrats cleaned and stashed their dirty cash. Each leak exposed the role played by the UK’s own overseas territories in enabling assets to be hidden.
So what is the impact on UK communities? I will focus on three areas where there is a direct, tangible impact on the UK: first, inhibiting growth; secondly, threatening national security; and thirdly, damaging our standing in the world. Sustainable economic growth and good-quality public services require the tax that is owed to be collected, whether it is from a small business in Westhoughton in my constituency or from oligarchs who have decided to make London their home—nobody should be above the law. The Chancellor has already made good progress on closing the £44 billion tax gap by hiring 5,500 new compliance staff, incentivising whistleblowers and committing to a 20% increase in the number of tax fraudsters charged each year.
Those are all noble endeavours, and I applaud them, but financial secrecy continues to erode our tax base, because when money that should be taxed is hidden offshore, it is the honest British taxpayer who ends up footing the bill. It harms His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ ability to collect what is owed, it fuels unfairness in our system and it leaves less for our stretched public services. There are too many cases to list, but I will endeavour to go over some, such as brothers Michael and Stephen Hirst, who evaded over £3.2 million in tax by routeing profits through companies they secretly controlled into Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands.
But it goes deeper than that. Illicit money flowing through opaque companies registered in our overseas territories does not stay offshore; it finds its way into our UK property market. That distorts it, according to the National Crime Agency, and hinders people’s attempts to get on to the housing ladder. Transparency International UK has identified over £11 billion in suspicious wealth invested in British property, more than half of which was routed through shell companies in our overseas territories. Behind those faceless firms are the likes of Bangladeshi businessman Shafiat Sobhan, Pakistani tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain and Azerbaijani banker Jahangir Hajiyev—individuals accused or convicted of grand corruption who saw London as the safest place to stash their gains.
That money even floods our high streets. If we walk down any high street in the UK, we will see a proliferation of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barber shops. Not all of them have unscrupulous owners, but some are used as fronts for money laundering and tax abuse. As London Centric recently reported, these practices are often enabled by opaque corporate structures in offshore jurisdictions.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with the National Crime Agency that if it had open and accurate data on who owned and controlled those businesses, its operations would be much more effective? Those businesses are often linked to overseas territories, so the National Crime Agency cannot find their real owners and crack down on them.
Phil Brickell
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate campaigning on this issue. He is absolutely right that we need more transparency to support our law enforcement agencies to tackle this issue, and I will come on to that now.
I pay tribute to the brilliant enforcement work undertaken by the National Crime Agency through its Operation Machinize. Just last week, police visited a number of addresses in my constituency, seizing £17,000-worth of goods in the process. I applaud the work of our enforcement agencies, but as I will explain, these tireless professionals need more support in their work.
Elsewhere, financial murkiness causes friction for British businesses. When I worked in finance, we would often conduct “know your customer” checks and hit a wall, because a trust or a corporate service provider was incorporated in a secrecy jurisdiction. The beneficial owner was always elsewhere. Every time we spoke to law enforcement, journalists or civil society about dirty money, the same names came up: the BVI, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It is farcical.
Banks, lawyers and accountants are on the frontline of anti-money laundering checks. Collectively, they spend over £38 billion a year on financial crime prevention—the equivalent of £21,000 every hour. A good-quality public register of beneficial ownership would make their work cheaper, faster and, frankly, more effective, unlocking the growth potential of our world-leading financial services sector.
On national security, since Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, the UK has quite rightly been at the forefront of the global sanctions regime against Putin. I commend the Minister for his personal leadership in ensuring that it is Putin and his cronies who pay for their unlawful war. The overseas territories have played an important role in enforcing those sanctions, freezing over £7 billion in Russia-linked assets. Indeed, initiatives like the Cayman Islands’ Operation Hektor, which has frozen £6 million of assets, deserve recognition.
Enforcement is only as strong as the weakest link. If opaque corporate structures allow sanctioned individuals to move assets through nominee companies, the whole system is undermined. That is why full beneficial ownership transparency is not a bureaucratic nicety; it is a national security measure. Opponents will say that UK law enforcement agencies have access to this information, but many agencies are critically underfunded and simply do not have the capacity to keep up the bewildering game of whack-a-mole that they play with bad faith actors.
Transparency International UK has identified around £700 million-worth of UK property linked to sanctioned Russian oligarchs that went unflagged in the UK’s register of overseas entities in 2022. Among them is a vast Hampstead estate valued at up to £300 million, reportedly owned by Russian chemicals magnate Andrey Guryev. Reports suggest the property was originally acquired using a company based in—you guessed it—the British Virgin Islands. I asked my friend Yaroslaw Tymchyshyn, chair of the Bolton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain how he felt about this. He said:
“The government needs to seize all Russian assets which should be used to fund the Ukrainian war effort. It irks us that the oligarchs are living the high life in the west, whilst the Russians continue to bomb and use drones to kill civilians, including children.”
What should I say to him?
Elsewhere, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has reported that since February 2022 more than a quarter of suspected sanctions breaches have involved intermediary jurisdictions, including the BVI and Guernsey. This level of financial secrecy allows sanctioned elites and hostile actors to hide their wealth, undermining Britain’s sanctions regime and weakening our ability to deter aggression. When dirty money flows unchecked through our financial system, it erodes the credibility of our foreign policy, drives up the cost of energy and food, and ultimately fuels Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine.
In addition, criminal gangs involved in drug smuggling, people trafficking or protection rackets need to launder their ill-gotten gains into the regular economy. The financial secrecy afforded by the overseas territories gives the perfect cover to dodgy accountants, lawyers and corporate service providers. Edin “Tito” Gačanin, a Dutch passport holder but a Bosnia and Herzegovina native, was convicted last year of trafficking drugs from South America into Europe. It has been alleged that Gačanin is connected to the infamous Kinahan cartel, one of Europe’s most notorious organised crime gangs. As reported by the BBC, that cartel has flooded UK streets with drugs and guns over two decades. According to an investigation by The Times, in order to avoid US sanctions, the Kinahans recently sought anonymity using jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, the BVI and the Isle of Man.
Even organised fraud finds shelter in the overseas territories. Just last month, the Foreign Secretary rightly announced sanctions on a global scam network led by Cambodian citizen Chen Zhi, who allegedly used BVI companies to launder profits. Those profits were reportedly routed into a £12 million mansion in north London, a £100 million City office block and a string of luxury flats, while victims across the world were left penniless. Even when the authorities do catch fraudsters, financial secrecy in our offshore territories inhibits our ability to hold criminals to account.
Covid fraudster Gerald Smith was prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office, but tried to use a BVI company to obstruct the seizure of a flat he owned to avoid paying compensation, resulting in a direct loss to the taxpayer. He still owes £82 million—and he is not alone. Just this summer the SFO told the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which I chair, that 25% of all cases that it is currently investigating have links to the overseas territories.
A final point on national security: I am gravely concerned that secrecy jurisdictions open a back door into our politics. The FinCEN files reveal that in 2016 the husband of Lubov Chernukhin received more than £6 million from Suleiman Kerimov, who was sanctioned in 2022 by the UK for his connections to Putin. Kerimov used a BVI company to conceal that payment. Lubov Chernukhin has donated more than £2 million to the Conservative party since 2012.
I have additional concerns about the Electoral Commission’s capacity to keep up with cryptocurrency donations, which Reform has reportedly already begun accepting. Indeed, the crypto platform Zebec sponsored a panel at Reform’s party conference on “Strengthening the Rule of Law: legislative reform?”. Zebec is, unsurprisingly, ultimately controlled by an entity registered in the British Virgin Islands, as reported by The Observer. Protecting our democracy from foreign interference is made all the more difficult by crypto firms involving themselves in our politics while hiding behind the veil of corporate secrecy, enabled by our overseas territories.
We come on to international leadership. Financial secrecy in jurisdictions under the Union flag does not just damage our economy; it damages our credibility. The UK rightly prides itself on being a global leader in the fight against economic crime. We have made real progress with the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the register of overseas entities, by boosting the powers of Companies House, and with the Treasury’s recent welcome announcement on reforming our anti-money laundering framework.
Next year, when the UK hosts the countering illicit finance summit, the Government will have a chance to show further leadership, but the UK cannot credibly call on others to improve transparency if the jurisdictions flying our flag lag behind on beneficial ownership. Our diplomats work tirelessly to promote British values overseas—the rule of law, fair competition and integrity in public life—yet, when investigative journalists, non-governmental organisations or foreign Governments look into global corruption cases, the trail often runs through a British overseas territory. That damages us and weakens our hand in international negotiations, giving cover to regimes that would keep their elites’ wealth hidden.
What needs to happen? In 2018, MPs led by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) and the Government’s anti-corruption champion, Baroness Hodge, successfully secured an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I pay tribute to them for their tenacious campaigning over many years. Their amendment required all overseas territories to introduce registers of beneficial ownership by 2020. That deadline slipped to 2023, and then to 2025—another deadline that was largely missed.
The UK’s overseas territories are a valued and integral part of our British family. Their ties to us are deep, and their prosperity is something we rightly cherish. They are our partners in defence, trade and increasingly in tackling the great global challenges of our age: climate change, migration and the rule of law. But being family means being honest, and I am afraid to say that certain jurisdictions have not covered themselves in glory by obfuscating, delaying, ignoring and frustrating the will of this Parliament. It is not acceptable. Missing deadlines sends a “terrible message” to the world, according to the current Deputy Prime Minister, in response to a question I asked him earlier this year when he was before the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This speech is not lazily tarring all overseas territories with the same brush. Far from it: Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena have delivered and deserve praise. The Falkland Islands are on track to implement by mid-2026 and are engaging constructively with the UK Government. Bermuda has made positive noises, although there is still room for improvement in its recent statement on next steps under its Beneficial Ownership Act 2025.
Elsewhere progress has been slow and patchy. The British Virgin Islands, in particular, remain a serious concern. Transparency International UK has warned that the British Virgin Islands’ proposed company register framework is not compatible with global transparency standards, with journalists being granted information on only a subset of data, rather than the beneficial ownership that they record, even baking in a tip-off for people being investigated, giving them a chance to object to their information being shared with a journalist. The Cayman Islands have also been slow to move from consultation to implementation. Although some good work has been done, substantial areas remain, including exorbitant costs and an unreasonably high threshold for granting applications from civil society and journalists.
The fact remains that some of the largest financial centres under the British flag are still operating secretive structures that enable tax evasion, sanctions evasion and kleptocracy. Occasionally, capacity restraints are cited. The UK Government rightly have an obligation to step in and provide technical support. There is also a suggestion that some jurisdictions do not want to fulfil their promises, lest they lose their competitive advantage.
To those naysayers, I say that the UK has an obligation to help its overseas territories to diversify their economies. It can be done, as in the case of the Isle of Man, where considerable work is under way to invest in offshore wind. Let me be clear: transparency has not hindered economies elsewhere. The UK has had a fully public register for years, and the sky has not fallen in. Research commissioned by the UK Government estimated that corporate transparency reforms produce data worth up to £3 billion to the public and private sectors. Look at Gibraltar, which has continued to grow, driven by insurance, gaming and fintech, even after introducing full beneficial ownership transparency.
I have a number of asks of the Minister. Last month, the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge, visited the BVI to understand what progress it is making towards fully open registers of beneficial ownership. What update can the Minister give us on that visit? With November’s Joint Ministerial Council rapidly approaching, will he remind those overseas territories that continue to delay the implementation of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, with the maximum possible degree of access and transparency as per last year’s joint communiqué, of their commitment?
Concerningly, the 2024 JMC communiqué contained the following line:
“We note the UK Government’s ambition that Publicly Accessible Registers of Beneficial Ownership (PARBOs) become a global norm and its expectation that Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies implement full PARBOs.”
Will the Minister confirm that the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies are still expected by His Majesty’s Government to implement fully public corporate registers? If legitimate-interest access filters are an interim step, what assurances can he give me that journalists, civil society organisations and others with a genuine interest will have open and repeated access to company data in the overseas territories? Finally, will the Minister meet me and Yaroslaw from the Bolton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain to reassure him that the Government are doing all they can to bring an end to Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, including by enforcing economic sanctions in the OTs?
My speech does not seek to undermine the important constitutional relationship between the overseas territories and the UK. I welcome, for example, the £7.5 million recently provided by the UK to Commonwealth member Jamaica after Hurricane Melissa, alongside $1.2 million from the Cayman Islands. But partnership brings mutual obligations, which must include the shared commitment we have all made to openness, integrity and accountability, because every pound laundered through a BVI shell company and every mansion bought with stolen public funds is a stain on our national integrity.
Cleaning up this system is not just an act of international justice; it is a patriotic duty. We cannot build clean foundations for growth while our financial system remains a refuge for dirty money. Public, accessible and verifiable registers of beneficial ownership are not a burden; they are our competitive advantage. They enable cheaper due diligence for firms and cleaner supply chains for investors, they protect small businesses by making procurement fairer and fraud harder, they strengthen our economy by rooting out corruption before it takes hold, and they give the British people confidence that when they pay their taxes, buy a home or open a small shop on the high street, the system is fair and honest.
The autumn Budget is scheduled for 26 November. After her Budget speech, tradition dictates that the Chancellor will go to the Two Chairmen for a well-earned gin and tonic. That pub, which I hasten to add is not accused of any wrongdoing, is owned via the Isle of Man and leased to Greene King, which is itself owned via the Cayman Islands. I think that encapsulates just how out of hand the shadow financial system has become.
Phil Brickell
I thank all Members who contributed to this well spirited, genuinely cross-party debate, including my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax: the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and my predecessor as the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and, for their thoughtful and impactful cross-party contributions, the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Fylde (Mr Snowden).
I especially thank the Minister for responding to the points that were raised. I know that he will continue to be a resolute champion for greater transparency in the overseas territories. I will do everything that I can to support him in that endeavour. I welcome his points that this issue is a personal priority for him; that the anti-corruption strategy on which he is working is genuinely cross-departmental with the Home Office and the Treasury; that elected leaders in the OTs will have heard and seen the cross-party strength of feeling here in Westminster today; that he has met Baroness Hodge on the subject of the British Virgin Islands—I will continue to support him in work in that jurisdiction—that the expectation around fully public registers of beneficial ownership has not changed; and that they have to function effectively. It is not just a case of having them in place; they must be properly implemented.
I acknowledge that the Minister recognised the scale of secrecy, particularly in the BVI, and the impact that has here at home. That is an important issue. As I outlined, financial secrecy in the UK’s overseas territories has real consequences on the streets here in Britain. Ultimately, this debate has been about fairness: fairness for the honest taxpayer, fairness for law-abiding businesses and fairness for every community that wants a level playing field. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House, with Ministers across Government and with the anti-corruption champion to ensure that we are able to deliver fairness for everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of financial secrecy in the Overseas Territories on UK communities.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Phil Brickell ExcerptsMonday 20th October 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days 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: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2025 - (20 Oct 2025)
Wendy Morton
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Chairman, and to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, as we open this Committee of the whole House to debate Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill.
It has been more than a year since the surrender of the Chagos islands was announced, with the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary—now the Deputy Prime Minister—and the Attorney General waving the white flag of surrender and putting the demands of their left-wing lawyer friends above the British national interest. Since then, Labour has denied this House a vote on the whole treaty under the 21-day process in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and has kept details secret from us.
Over in Mauritius, the Prime Minister of that country has been bragging about how he squeezed concession after concession after concession out of Labour. It is shameful that we have found out more about the treaty from debates in the Mauritius Parliament and statements by its politicians than from Ministers accountable to this House. It has been five months since the Prime Minister of this country signed away £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money, stumbling through a press conference rather than coming to this House to face scrutiny and challenge.
At a time of serious fiscal challenge for the public finances, Labour has imposed a £35 billion surrender tax on our country—money that could fund public services here in Britain or support an easing of the tax burden. Instead, it will be handed over to a foreign Government who are using this resource to cut taxes for their citizens. Not only is it shameful, but Ministers have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by using accountancy methodologies and valuations to try to show a far lower cost. Even then, it is an extraordinary figure of £3.4 billion. The Chancellor may struggle with numbers, but the British people do not. They can add up, and they see what the real cost of this is. On top of that, Ministers still cannot tell us from which budgets in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence the money will come.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Is the simple truth not that this deal is cheaper than what was proposed by the Conservative party in government, and actually has more protections baked into it?
Wendy Morton
I think the hon. Gentleman needs a little memory check, because we did not propose a deal.
The British Chagossians, some of whom are watching from the Gallery—I pay tribute to them for their dignified and strong campaigning over many, many years—have been betrayed by Labour. Their rights have been ignored, as have their fears, leading to hundreds fleeing Mauritius and coming here. Labour’s surrender Bill, as presented, does nothing for them. It does nothing for the marine protected area—one of the most important and largest marine environments in the world—which has been protected while under British sovereignty and has become a centre for scientific research and development. That is at risk, and promises and aspirations announced by Ministers to ensure that it continues are not reflected in the Bill.
Shockingly, Labour’s surrender Bill as drafted does nothing to safeguard, defend and protect our national security. Labour is surrendering British sovereignty and territory to a country that is increasingly aligned with China.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is 100% right. This goes to the heart of the Bill. There are so many unanswered questions, which Conservative Members have been raising time and again. For example, how likely are we to be able to extend the base? What will the structure of the negotiations be? What conditions could Mauritius impose, given that it will have our negotiators over a proverbial barrel? How watertight is the first right of refusal?
Wendy Morton
I will make a little more progress.
What happens if the base is not secured? Will it need to be decommissioned? How could we prevent an adversary inheriting our fixed assets? What is the role of the United States in all this? These are serious matters, and the House needs serious answers. The purpose of the amendment is to secure those answers.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is at the heart of it. There are so many questions but one question is: why? Why would a deal like this be done by the Government? He puts forward a credible case as to why it might be.
Graham Stuart
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is not brave enough to speak fully but is prepared to intervene, can tell us why he would like to vote, if only he was given the chance, to give £35 billion to Mauritius and hand over a sovereign British base to someone in strategic partnership with China.
Phil Brickell
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on which of the amendments he is speaking to. New clause 4, which his party tabled, mentions coral, fish stocks, molluscs and ocean acidification in the marine protected area. Even the cynic in me is somewhat flabbergasted by the official Opposition’s apparent interest in environmental and climate change all of a sudden, given their desire to ride roughshod over the Climate Change Act and frack our countryside.
Sammy Wilson
I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case.
This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security.
I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.
International Day of Democracy
Phil Brickell Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.
Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.
Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.
Sudan
Phil Brickell Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Catherine West
The hon. Lady quite rightly pushes us to say more in this House. There have been lots of questions from Members when the Foreign Secretary has been answering broader questions, such as on G7 or NATO meetings, so Members across the House have asked questions under the umbrella of international affairs and the Foreign Secretary has replied to them, but we can always do more.
As the hon. Lady is aware, we need to keep up the momentum from the London Sudan conference. She asks who we are working with. We are of course working with the African Union. This is, first and foremost, a question of promoting leadership of African countries to deal with issues in Africa. The Foreign Secretary has redoubled his efforts as a well-respected Foreign Secretary within the African Union dialogues, and recently joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate and think is a worthwhile forum for us to be in. As mentioned, the friends of Sudan group in Geneva will also advance the work to protect civilians.
The hon. Lady mentions the UAE. Our message to any partners who may have an element of involvement in the conflict is clear: we need to press for a peaceful solution. All those supporting behind the scenes need to come together in the spirit of the London Sudan conference and talk about a peaceful solution for all.
On the hon. Lady’s last question, which was about gold in Sudan, I shall have to write to her.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
In response to an urgent question in April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) confirmed that the London Sudan conference included a commitment from the UK Government to provide a further £120 million of aid for 2025-26 to support 650,000 people, which the Minister referenced earlier. With that in mind, can the Minister today confirm to the House what progress has been made in the intervening few months to ensure that the additional aid reaches the most vulnerable people in Sudan fleeing conflict, sexual violence and famine?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend raises the most important point. It is not just about money; it is about access, our diplomatic heft and knocking heads together so we can get that aid through to the people most in need. He mentions the £120 million for this financial year. A portion of that uplift provides support to local responders, both through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which supports the emergency response rooms, and the Mercy Corps-led Cash Consortium of Sudan, which provides direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground. The reason for that is that there is often a de-banking situation in conflict zones—formal banking collapses. That is why it is so important that the UK is able to assist the smaller groups on the ground to get that vital aid in.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
Phil Brickell Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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
Stephen Doughty
I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.
I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that.
Gibraltar
Phil Brickell Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is right that the people of Gibraltar have been in limbo since the Brexit decision, which is why it was important that, in coming into office and inheriting this from the last Government, we put every effort into it. Let me again pay tribute to the Minister for Europe who rolled up his sleeves and was a sherpa at a lot of those meetings, particularly over the last year.
The hon. Lady asked about business. I assure her that I was with representatives from the business sector in Gibraltar yesterday morning discussing what a deal would mean for them if it were reached later in the afternoon. There was one word that they kept coming back to: certainty. They wanted certainty, and they wanted the opportunity of a more frictionless border arrangement with Spain and the opportunity to sell into the Spanish market unhindered. That is what they said and that is what we particularly took on board.
The hon. Lady rightly asked about any ability to thwart the deal that might exist in parts of the Spanish parliamentary system. May I remind her that the deal, appropriately, is between the United Kingdom and the European Union, that we have always been a country that meets our treaty obligations seriously and that whatever one’s views about the European Union, it is also an organisation that meets its obligations seriously? When we sign up to a treaty, that is what we are doing. As with the trade and co-operation agreement, there is a review mechanism that would allow the appropriate review; indeed, the UK-EU summit that we had a few weeks ago was an appropriate review. However, we met our obligations under the TCA in opposition, standing up for the agreement that had been struck by the last Government, and we would expect the same in this instance.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and Chief Minister Fabian Picardo on getting this landmark agreement over the line? The agreement further cements Gibraltar’s place as an integral part of the British family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House what further measures he is taking to strengthen relationships with the overseas territories?
Mr Lammy
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the overseas territories more generally. We had a good meeting of the heads of the overseas territories at the end of last year, at which I and the Prime Minister were in attendance. We have undertaken to conduct a review of our relationships to strengthen those further, and the Minister for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories is taking that forward as we speak.
Kashmir: Increasing Tension
Phil Brickell Excerpts(6 months, 1 week 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
Mr Falconer
I think I have set out our views on the importance of stability in the region already this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member that it is critical for all actors and international partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister today. In light of the awful terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, what work are the Government undertaking to consult the Kashmiri diaspora here in the UK and identify their concerns?
Mr Falconer
Both the Foreign Office and other UK Government Departments engage regularly with the British Kashmiri community—who are an important part of so many communities across the United Kingdom—and will continue to do so.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Phil Brickell Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
A central element of our discussions with the Palestinian Prime Minister is that reform agenda. The Palestinian Prime Minister is relatively new in his position and, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), he has made some important commitments and important practical changes, and we must support the Palestinian Authority to reform in order to best serve the Palestinian people.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his statement today and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for securing this landmark memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Government? Following my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Mustafa, can the Minister tell this House how the MOU and the £101 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will allow the Palestinian Authority to reform and provide crucial public services to the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
It was a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to some of these practical questions of service delivery that their Health Minister travelled with the Prime Minister for discussions. The MOU provides a framework through which we can have that reform discussion, including strategic dialogues on a whole range of questions such as the important education questions that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised earlier.
Ukraine War: London Talks
Phil Brickell Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks 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
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her continued support and unity on these issues. It is crucial that we send a signal not only to our friends in Ukraine but to Putin—that this House will not be divided on these issues. We are united in our support for Ukraine, and I can reassure her of our absolute commitment to Ukraine. Indeed, there has been extensive ministerial contact over recent weeks. I met Minister Sybiha in Turkey a week or so ago, and the Foreign Secretary was with him yesterday. Contact remains at every level.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. I am afraid that I cannot go into the detail of yesterday’s discussions, for reasons that she will understand. I know she has a job to do in holding us to account on that, but it is really important that we allow those technical talks to go on at that level between the principals, and she will understand why that is necessary.
I agree completely with the right hon. Lady’s point about the sanctions against Members of this House, which I utterly condemn. This is par for the course when it comes to Putin and his regime. She asked what we are doing on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions remains undiminished. We will maintain the pressure at every level. In fact, we are ramping up the pressure, and today we have announced new sanctions, including on the shocking repurposing of games console controllers to kill Ukrainians by Russia. We are taking robust action at every step we can, not only directly, to choke off the Russian war machine, but in relation to second and third-country circumvention of those sanctions. She can be assured that I have spent a lot of time on this issue in recent weeks.
The right hon. Lady asks about the situation with Chelsea FC, and I refer her to my previous comments on that. We are working at pace to meet the agreements that were made on that. She points out the importance of the extraordinary revenue accelerator loan. The first tranche of that has been disbursed. In fact, I discussed this with the deputy Finance Minister of Ukraine just a few weeks ago, to ensure that they had access to those resources. They do have access, and I am happy to write to her separately about the details of the further tranches that will be paid.
There is absolutely no softening of our commitment to the coalition of the willing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary met French, US, German and Ukrainian counterparts last week, underlining our shared commitments, and we are leading a coalition of willing nations to defend Ukraine’s security. We will not get into the operational details, for obvious reasons, as the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week.
The right hon. Lady asks about Crimea. The UK’s position regarding Ukrainian sovereignty is well known and has not changed: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As one of the individuals who was sanctioned yesterday by the Kremlin, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that if Putin is serious about securing any sort of lasting peace in Ukraine, he should stop the performative sanctioning of democratically elected Members of this House and focus on stopping the murderous, barbaric killing of civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that nation, which we stand with in full support.
Stephen Doughty
Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Phil Brickell Excerpts(7 months, 1 week 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
Stephen Doughty
As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is vital the UK Government fulfil their obligations under international law? Does he recognise that the January 2021 binding judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—[Interruption]—which was handed down under the Conservative Government, found that the UK’s current administration of the archipelago
“constitutes a wrongful act…and…must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible”?
Stephen Doughty
There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies.