UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted.

Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part.

I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences.

I commend Bel Trew and The Independent for highlighting the impact that cuts have already had in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It feels to me that there is scope for the UK and European Union countries to work together more closely to tackle the rising global anti-rights movement. Given the progress in Hungary, it feels like there is an opportunity to start to push back on the age of impunity. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should put human rights—especially sexual and reproductive rights and health—on the agenda of the upcoming European Political Community meeting, which will be held in Dublin in October?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman has set out; I will come on to that topic now. We need to see UK leadership in co-ordinating a response to such issues. Because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups will be deprived of help and support. We need to have a role in ensuring that there is co-ordination so that the support goes in, whether through country donors, philanthropists or non-governmental organisations. LGBT communities, for example, will not get that support unless we are proactive in ensuring that co-ordination. Although I welcomed the announcement that the Foreign Office still has an LGBT budget, I do not see the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned being proactively tackled at this time, and we need to be at the forefront of that.

I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute. I was going to touch more on British International Investment—perhaps my International Development Committee colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), will do so—but I will make the point that BII has to play a much greater role in alignment with UK Government policy, whatever the policy is. That does not mean that BII should not be independent in making investments, but the position of equivalent bodies in other countries is to be aligned with Government policy. I am not convinced that BII is at the moment, and given the scale of its investment, it needs to be.

I have tried to range over the issues of the moment, and I look forward to the contributions of other Members. As I said at the start, there have been one or two good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think this is a glorious part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I hope that, going forward, we can have that reset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said.

I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past.

The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. Obviously, we have seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. As a country, we often tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. As a country, we have a monarch of high standing, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a NATO partner, a founding member of the United Nations and a global financial hub, and we have world-leading universities and research institutions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that can come out of this and other debates that we have around the topic is not hand-wringing, as we have heard repeatedly in this Chamber, but an opportunity to think about how we build on our successes and celebrate the good that we have done?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment.

The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money.

Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate.

I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that.

Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out.

Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things.

First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID.

Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it.

Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate.

It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.

[Tom Hayes]

In which case, continue.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods.

Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results.

Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to.

This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes.

But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate, because we rarely talk about this subject in the Chamber.

The Government do not seem to want to talk about aid and development very much, but they must and they should, because our world is on fire, because cuts to development make it worse and because it is within the British national interest to support it. I am sure that, if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I would not want to talk about it either.

The deplorable aid cuts, from a proud 0.7% to 0.3% —the biggest cuts to aid this century, amounting to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone—are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. I must note at this point that, despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Committee, of which I am one, the Government are still yet to publish their country allocations of aid, which makes it very difficult to scrutinise the damage.

However, we do know, and the Government know, that these cuts will cost lives. Combined with those caused by the collapse of USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—the lives lost will likely be in their millions. That includes in countries where we have a legacy, such as Afghanistan, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK’s aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million; today, it is $32 million. We have also heard how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems in the DRC that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has been made significantly harder.

I know the personal commitment of many Members in this room, and of the Minister, but this is where we are: the party of DFID and Make Poverty History has become a Government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump Administration in their brutality. A Labour Government who followed Donald Trump in cutting aid have outdone him—a Labour Government whose legacy in development, just two years into their Administration, is already far worse than the Conservatives’.

Yet once there was consensus. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on almost everything he said but particularly on leadership. It comes to a pretty pass when a Conservative Member urges Labour Members to rise up and be radical. He said that he had the best job in the world as Development Minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus.

Building on the work of the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government delivered the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development, which had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise since the 1970s. In coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO’s defence spending target at the same time, proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive; in fact, as we have heard, they are complementary.

As I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK’s most senior former military chiefs that reducing development capacity today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk for tomorrow. That means more defence spend down the line, and look how we are scrabbling about for it now.

Development brings benefits to Britain. It is strategic, and mutually beneficial because investing in peacebuilding, prosperity and stability keeps us safe here too. Take guarding against another pandemic. Covid was not so long ago, and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. Given all the pandemic’s death, its destruction of economies and its long tail of social and mental health challenges, I am sure that many hon. Friends will share my dismay at the decision by the Government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund.

What about climate change? When harvests fail through drought or flooding, malnutrition sets in, communities fight for pasture and people migrate. In May, the Government broke their pledge on the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while their new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction.

[Tom Hayes]

I used to work in the international development sector for Oxfam, thinking about how to increase public support for international aid. I agree with what everybody in this room is saying, but we have a problem in our country that people in growing numbers do not support it, and I fear that we, as a Parliament, have to tackle the complacency that we are exhibiting here in the Chamber. Leadership matters, but how can we in Parliament actually grow that support to sustainably fund poverty alleviation?

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later in my speech.

We hear a lot from the Government about migration. Each 1% increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate. They are escaping war, too. The largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, in the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox. Millions are expected to fall into crisis or, worse, into hunger in this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region. Thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity, health systems are buckling under the weight of need, and still we cut.

Do the Government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire? Do we not need some honesty with the public on where ODA is actually spent? In 2025, £2.4 billion was spent on in-donor refugee costs, in comparison with £1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance. Lifesaving ODA is being spent on propping up a broken asylum system, with less and less spent on the causes that brought those people here in the first place.

We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second, given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), by surprise. Since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent. The IDC has asked for clarity on the Government’s theory of change to reach their shared objective of poverty alleviation.

Of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor to make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and to re-imagine our aid and development spend. But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be “mainstreamed”, which is a euphemism for “disappeared”.

British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated; safe births; clean water and sanitation; lives saved—all achieved by well under 1% of this country’s GNI, and it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage, a seat at the table in global fora and friends in trade and diplomacy. Why not celebrate that?

Instead, the Minister for Development suggested:

“The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”.

Does the Minister before us today really believe that, or does he hope, like us, that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, a focus on the long term will come back, with a realisation that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line? Does he not agree that framing the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong, and that, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said when she resigned as Development Minister,

“it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed”

to fully fund our defence capability

“just through tactical cuts to public spending”?

And so it is: there is another hole—a £4.7 billion hole—in the defence budget, despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. Is it not right that the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend, and the benefits that it can bring to Britain?

Great damage has been done by our retreat from aid to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence. While we retreat, others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world’s biggest markets, and the Government should place themselves in the best position to take advantage of that.

The Government have a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long-term strategic view, repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.

Strait of Hormuz

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman sets out the complexity of the challenge. It is why we need a calm and level-headed approach, which is exactly the approach that the Prime Minister is taking. We are in conversations with European partners on that point and with partners across the Gulf, and as I said, the Foreign Secretary has been speaking to Secretary Rubio while I have been answering this urgent question.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Government have learned from the missteps of Iraq, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would repeat them. The Prime Minister is de-escalating in line with the national interest, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would blindly follow President Trump into a war of choice. Will the Minister state for my constituents that he will continue to de-escalate this conflict and to bring down the cost of living, and that he will do that by keeping to the path that the Government have set, which has brought inflation down from 3.4% to 3% and put it on track to hit 2%?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, I have been baffled at times by the position of the Conservatives, let alone Reform, who yet again are not here in the Chamber. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is focused not only on the international aspects but on the domestic aspects. That is why he set out very clearly today the measures to support British people who are worried about their energy bills. Whether it is the energy price cap, addressing the heating oil issue, investment in energy security in this country or fuel duty cuts, the Prime Minister set out very clearly what we are doing to support people here at home.

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate, and for all his work to advance the rights of the Ukrainian people. I also thank all hon. Members here today to debate non-recognition of Russian occupied territory.

It has now been more than 1,400 days since Russia launched a full-scale invasion, which we in this House, in the Government and in this country utterly condemn. Ukraine is a free country and has long enjoyed freedom, democracy and the right to choose its own destiny. It continues to have the sovereign right to decide its own future. We all agree that in attacking Ukraine, President Putin attacked democracy, freedom and the rights of nations across Europe to choose their own path. Put bluntly, we cannot allow that freedom to be snuffed out. I say to the people of Ukraine, who have endured unimaginable hardship for nearly four years, that Bournemouth stands with them and the UK stands with them. We all stand with their families and with their country.

For all the bombs, tanks and missiles that Putin has thrown at Ukraine, he has failed in his central aim: he has not broken the Ukrainian spirit. Theirs is a courage that refuses to be broken. He has not crushed the national will of a people determined to live freely. As we have heard today from hon. Members, that is important, because it means that Ukrainians will never give consent for Russian occupation. Ukraine’s future must be shaped by Ukrainians, not imposed by brute force. The Donbas must not be traded away in backroom deals, nor must any other part of Ukrainian territory.

I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister, along with European leaders, has been unequivocal that territorial integrity and borders matter, and that borders should not be redrawn by force. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), Europe learned those lessons the hard way, through devastation and bloodshed, and to forget them would be a grave mistake.

Russia may occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, but occupation is not ownership, control is not consent and this temporary military reality must never become permanent legal recognition. The NATO Secretary-General and leading legal experts have been clear that there is no legal, moral or political case for recognising land seized by force, nor should there be. Recognition would not secure peace in Ukraine, nor would it secure peace around the world. It would reward aggression and invite more of it.

We in this country need to be particularly cognisant of that, because we are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation every day. Every day, our security services fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure. Those threats are, to a great extent, invisible to our public, and there is a sense that we do not want to draw too much attention to them lest we alarm people, but there comes a point when the scale, intensity and persistence of Russian attacks on our way of life need to be made public. One of the ways we can start to talk about that is by highlighting the threat of allowing Ukraine to in any way have its land ceded to Russia.

In closing, we know that we need a peace that endures, not merely a pause, because we know what Putin would do with a pause. We know what he is already doing while “talk peace” is ringing around capitals in Europe: he is instructing his Russian military to strike hospitals, he is killing civilians and he is leaving millions without power in the depths of a cold, cold winter. If Putin does that while promising peace, imagine what he would do in any pause.

We must strengthen our support for Ukraine and plan for a just peace, but we must also recognise Putin for what he is. We must intensify pressure on those bankrolling his war, including oil trades and the shadow fleet, and speed up the clean energy transition so that this country is no longer insecure and vulnerable to massive fossil fuel price hikes. We must always support Ukraine to defend herself and to exercise the right to choose her future, and because peace in Europe is secured by confronting aggression, we must never yield. We must never allow settlement to be imposed over the heads of the Ukrainian people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to serve under both your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and Sir Jeremy’s. This debate is as important now as it was on the very first day of the illegal invasion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is also chair of the APPG on Ukraine, on securing the debate and on his long-standing commitment to the cause. He set out a clear passion for not just ending the conflict, but exposing the horrific atrocities that Russia has committed in Ukraine. He also said that the peace we hopefully secure for Ukraine should be lasting and fair for its people.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former chair of the APPG, brought a wealth of experience to the debate and highlighted that we have a trio of Members in the debate who have the Ukrainian Order of Merit, showing the commitment over many years of Members across this House to supporting our allies. For many Members, it is not a new-found interest or cause; it has been of grave concern for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) gave us a history lesson, and spoke about the lessons that we should learn from history, which I will touch on later. Often, we do not learn the obvious lessons from the pages of our history books.

As pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, it is easy to think of the Ukrainian conflict as something that purely happens elsewhere and not in our own country or on our own Facebook and X feeds —that it is not about Russia actively being aggressive to us through cyber-warfare. But addressing the misinformation that exists in our society is equally as important in fighting the conflict.

The Opposition remain steadfast in our commitment to the people of Ukraine and their right to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the freedom and democracy of its citizens. This was an illegal invasion and we are clear that territorial concessions would simply be a reward for Putin. It does not take a degree in military history to know that if we appease a dictator with concessions, they will never be content with small gains—and, by the way, I have a degree in military history, and I know from my studies that if we acquiesce now, Putin will not simply stop with Ukraine or bits of Ukraine. He will come for our other allies in eastern Europe, and he will not be happy until NATO has been torn apart by Russia’s territorial ambitions and actions.

Russia’s demands have been deliberately excessive, with Russia no doubt intending to paint Ukraine as unreasonable for simply seeking peace in its own territory. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has rightly pointed out, with this statecraft, Mr Putin has his KGB playbook out. We cannot accept that.

The recent trilateral talks once again highlight Ukraine’s sincere desire for peace. What is the British Government’s assessment of those talks and whether any progress has been made? Does the Minister agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove that he is sincere about wanting an end to this war, in contradiction to some of the things that we have heard today? We all saw the disgraceful attacks on Kyiv that Putin launched against the backdrop of the talks. Any sincere attempt for peace must surely be preceded by an end to the killing of innocent people.

This war has been nothing other than barbaric. Russia has targeted civilians; women and children have been killed in indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities; children have been abducted from their parents; and strikes on energy infrastructure have led to power outages and no heating—while temperatures have hovered around minus 15°C for three weeks. The Ukrainian people are suffering, even in parts of the country where Russia’s military has not managed to penetrate.

What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of Ukrainian citizens in areas under Russian control, and what future guarantees will they seek for citizens in the event of peace being agreed? If a peace is reached with military guarantees from Europe, and British troops are sent to help facilitate that peace, what does the Minister expect the rules of engagement to be? How many troops does he envisage we would send? How would rotations work? What are his thoughts on the composition of the force, and would any British soldiers be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? Finally, what air and naval assets might be provided as part of a multinational force for Ukraine?

To keep the pressure on Putin to end the war, we must continue to increase sanctions. Throughout the conflict, we have rightly sanctioned assets in the UK and Europe that could have been used to aid the Russians in their illegal war. Thousands of oligarchs and Russian elites received sanctions, including in 2022 when the regime attempted to construct a phony referendum in four regions of Ukraine. Will the Minister assure us that any attempt by Russia to fabricate legitimacy through a false cloak of democracy will continue to be called out for what it is? Does he have any updates on dialogue with Belgium about efforts to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s war effort?

[Tom Hayes]

The point about democracy and elections is important. The Government have launched an investigation into external influences on our own democracy, particularly financial influences, in the wake of the Old Bailey sentencing Nathan Gill, the elected Reform politician, to 10 and a half years in prison for pushing out Putin’s propaganda in the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for any elected British politician to pump out Russian propaganda? Does he agree that it is a particular problem that is unique to Reform? Does he welcome the investigation that the Government have launched?

[Mr Snowden]

As I said at the start of my remarks, it is very easy to think that this is only happening over in Ukraine and is not something that is happening right here. The sentencing of Nathan Gill should prompt some real reflection by Reform UK on why that activity happened for so long, unchallenged, and why Nathan felt comfortable in that party. That is something that Reform UK should seriously reflect on—and their views.

When we were in government, we led the world in defending Ukraine. We committed to providing £3 billion of military support every year for as long as necessary, and we were one of the leading donors to Ukraine, providing over £12 billion in overall support since 2022. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. We benefited from cross-party support when we were in government, and it is in that spirit that I stand here today. The Conservatives stand ready to support the Government in doing whatever it takes to help our ally to defeat this monstrous invasion, and to determine and decide its own future.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as a Labour Member, I have had zero conversations with other Labour Members about this deal being motivated by some kind of post-colonial guilt—that is absolutely not a motivation, and I want to dispel that impression once and for all. He talks about consistency. Why was it that the Conservatives started the negotiations? Why was it that 85% of the negotiations were concluded by them? Does he not agree that, now that they are out of office, the Conservatives have suddenly discovered that they do not need to be consistent?

[Dr Murrison]

I do not have any insight into the hon. Gentleman’s conversations with Labour Members. As a former Foreign Office Minister, I would say that there are negotiations and then there are negotiations, and sometimes we can use negotiations as a tool to keep certain parties happy, while having no intention of agreeing to what they are demanding of us.

Furthermore, a lot of the pressure for all this comes from the advisory note by the ICJ. In this country, we think of judges as upstanding and impartial maintainers of our legal system and the rule of law. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to supranational judicial bodies. We know, for example, that Patrick Robinson—one of the judges involved with the 2019 ICJ decision—has been demanding that the UK pony up £19 trillion in slavery reparations. Those are not apolitical, independent judicial figures. Many of them have an agenda, and it is one that is hostile to this country—as hostile, I would say, as some of the parties, like Russia and China, that we are currently trying to prevent from getting a hold on those islands.

It is perfectly reasonable for the President of the United States, who I have to confess is not my cup of tea, to decide—belatedly, but nevertheless—that this is a disastrous measure and that he wants nothing to do with it. He has signalled that in his own inimitable fashion, and the Government should take note, pause the surrender treaty and come back with something better, if at all. This deal, surely, is as dead as the dodo.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, pathological. There is this belief that the Chinese will always act in good faith, that we can trust them, and that they would not dare invade, because we signed a piece of paper. The world is changing, and there is no shame in pausing negotiations when changes come to light. The Minister should reflect on what is said today about how the situation has changed since his Government came to power, getting on for two years ago. The situation has changed incredibly.

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

That is a really important point. When the Government act in the national interest, changes in position should be welcomed.

We do not have the defence capability that we need, and it is worrying in the extreme to hear that the money for the Diego Garcia deal will come out of the defence budget. We hear people saying, “The defence budget went down under you; it was hollowed out,” and so on. It did go down, but the bit that is often missed is that that started during the cold war, and it continued through 13 years of Labour Government and across Europe. The Americans halved their defence budget over that time. However, the world is a different place now; Ukraine was invaded, and at that point, the world changed direction.

Let us consider for a moment two countries that have made incredibly significant U-turns, if you will: Germany, which has a new defence posture and will spend hundreds of billions on defence, and Japan. Both countries have very much drawn a line under the events of the second world war, and have recognised that the world has changed into a much more dangerous place and needs a much bigger posture.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman has slightly taken forward the point that I was going to make. I take the point that we live in a more insecure time, and that this country has to respond to that. He has given the example of Germany; it is able to do what it is doing because its indebtedness has not risen as extraordinarily in recent years as ours. We are in deficit to the tune of £2.7 trillion, and we pay £105 million in debt interest repayments every year before we pay for anything else, so we are in a particularly difficult situation as a Government, and that is due to our inheritance.

However, the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful contribution is moving this debate into a more strategic conversation about the relationship of the UK to China. In my hand, I have an iPhone, designed in California and assembled in China. I assume that he has an iPhone, too—most people in this Chamber do. The point that I am making is that we have to figure out the relationship between our two countries. Economically decoupling so significantly could harm our quality of living, our trade balance and our investment opportunities, but we must also be mindful of the threat that China poses. What is the Conservative party’s posture on China?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman may have been tied up this morning trying to decide whether he backs Andy Burnham, but our leader has made our posture crystal clear today. When asked whether she would be going to Beijing now, she said that she would not, because there was no point in doing so until there was a proper plan about which strategic interests we would work on with colleagues in Beijing. I am afraid that I do not believe that there is much to celebrate in a trade deal with the Chinese worth £600 million; it barely seems worth the trip.

On debt, the hon. Gentleman has slightly forgotten something called a pandemic, which cost half a trillion pounds. He has forgotten Gordon Brown’s banking crisis, which also cost a half a trillion pounds, and he has forgotten that we have gone into a war in Europe that caused 11% inflation. We get a very interesting dichotomy from Government Members; they say, “Inflation was 11% under your Government, but it’s not our fault that inflation is going up; it’s because of the war in Ukraine.” They might want to marry those two sentences up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. There is a precedent here. The Falkland Islands could have gone the same way. Gibraltar could have gone the same way—indeed, the Government tried to make that happen. In 2002, one of the biggest campaigns I have ever fought was against the joint sovereignty plan by Tony Blair, which was against the wishes of the Gibraltarian people. I commend Mr Speaker, who at the time I worked with very closely in order to keep Gibraltar British, as happened in 1982 in order to keep the Falkland Islands British—but always on the basis of self-determination.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). With his final words on self-determination echoing in my ears, I have no doubt he will be reflecting on whether he is going to afford the people of Romford the same rights that he is demanding for the Chagossian people.

[Tom Hayes]

The Conservatives have argued against the Government’s position and have done so believing that that is what is right. They have never impugned the patriotism or the loyalty of the Labour party to this country, unlike the hon. Member for Romford. Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) agree that we should take no lessons from Reform, who take their line from either Musk or Moscow?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. If he wants to do so, I suggest that he takes it outside, as they say.

I am very time-constrained, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who have informed the debate with incredibly detailed research and knowledge. I have been delighted to see the Minister’s PPS running backwards and forwards from the officials’ Box, because I was rather hoping that the summing up would not simply be a reheating of the opening remarks made by the Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). There have been substantive points made from these Benches, which I hope will be answered in the summing up.

I am very time-constrained and a lot of points have already been covered. In search of inspiration I was wondering what I might add to the debate, so I will read out a piece of casework which, although not relevant to the Chagos islands, is an interesting comparator. It comes from a member of the public who had written to his bank manager. I suppose I owe it to him to anonymise him, so I need to come up with some sort of pseudonym. I will call him Mr Powell.

Mr Powell wrote to his bank manager: “Dear Sir, a number of years ago, I inherited a large seven-storey home in Mayfair. I am incredibly lucky and I acknowledge that fact. It is far too big for me to live in. I live solely in half of the ground floor. For as long as I can remember, I have had Americans living on the other floors. I like these Americans, so they live there rent-free. What I am proposing, sir, is that I give you, the bank, this house. I then propose to pay you, the bank, rent above the market rate not only for me, but for all the Americans who live upstairs. I would be very grateful for your advice on this issue.”

The bank manager wrote back to Mr Powell: “Dear Mr Powell, are you okay? I am concerned for your mental state, because what you are proposing would appear to be an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” [Laughter.] The bank manager went on to make the following four points: “First, you do not need to do this at all. Secondly, it will cost you a fortune. Thirdly, you do realise that at the end of all this you will have given away your house? Fourthly, on a personal note, were these arrangements ever to become public, I fear that your neighbours would laugh at you. Yours, the Bank Manager.”

I simply leave that analogue there, to let my colleagues in so that we may wrap this debate up.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I begin by offering the Opposition’s condolences to the family of Captain Philip Muldowney of the Royal Artillery, who tragically lost his life training with the British Army this week?

It is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the Chagos islands, and to hold the Government to account for the total meltdown of their attempt to surrender sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory without opposition. Well, today they are getting that opposition, and they are getting it from the Conservatives, because it is we who have exposed the total fallacy of the legal argument used to justify this crazy deal. And let us be clear: it is a truly crazy deal—one of the worst ever proposed to this Parliament. As every single one of my colleagues said in their excellent speeches, this deal involves our hard-pressed taxpayers, struggling as they are with an ever-growing tax burden since Labour came to power, handing over another £35 billion to lease back land that we already own freehold. It is our land, over which we have sovereignty, the ultimate guarantor of legal security in a dangerous world. Given that we need that money for our own armed forces; that billions of pounds is to be given to Mauritius, and will be used to cut taxes for its people; that Labour knows that the threats that we face are growing, and that we need Diego Garcia more than ever; and that the policy treats the Chagossian people with contempt, the public will be scratching their heads, and will ask a simple question: why are the Government doing this?

To be fair to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, last September, he tried to spell out the reasons, and I will quote exactly what he said to justify this crazy deal:

“Had we not signed the treaty, we could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks...Further legal rulings might have included arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annex 7 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, known as UNCLOS.”

He went on to say that such a judgment would ultimately threaten operations on the base, because it would

“impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 741.]

It is bad enough that the Government’s case rests entirely on rulings that “could” and “might” be made; worse still, the Government are failing to take into account our clearcut ability to reject any such hypothetical ruling.

We understand that the Government are afraid of legal action relating to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but article 298 of UNCLOS states very clearly:

“When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes”,

including, under (b),

“disputes concerning military activities”.

On operational threats to the base, the Government’s argument is that hypothetical action by UNCLOS might lead to further hypothetical action by the International Telecommunications Union, leading, hypothetically, to a threat to the electromagnetic spectrum on the base at Diego Garcia. Well, article 48 of the “Constitution of the International Telecommunications Union”, which is entitled “Installations for National Defence Services”, states, under section 1:

“Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.”

To clarify further, the telecoms Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is always a helpful soul, confirmed, in a written answer from last February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), that

“Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries…The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”

A slam dunk! Now we have it: we can challenge UNCLOS, where military bases are concerned, and the ITU cannot challenge our use of electromagnetic spectrum.

Is it not therefore the truth that there is no threat to this country if we maintain our sovereignty over Diego Garcia, but there is a massive threat if we surrender it? There are, for ourselves and the United States, clear and unambiguous threats to the most sensitive and critical things relating to our military operations—those that relate to our ability to use nuclear weapons and deter the most serious threats to our nation.

Yesterday, it was confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Paul Bérenger, has stated that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Diego Garcia if Labour’s deal went through. That is crystal clear. That is because Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, prohibiting the stationing of nuclear weapons across Africa, including all the territory of Mauritius. We repeatedly warned Ministers of the threat arising from the Pelindaba treaty, but they dismissed our concerns, and today they could not answer the questions at all.

Can the Minister tell us if anyone in Government has discussed the storage of nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia with the US Administration? In particular, has the Prime Minister at any point discussed this matter with President Trump? Is it not another example of the total madness of Labour’s crazy Chagos deal that we, who rely on a naval nuclear deterrent to keep us safe in a dangerous world, are surrendering sovereignty of one of the most vital naval bases in the world to a nation that has signed up to a treaty outlawing the stationing of nuclear weapons on that territory?

We have had some absolutely fantastic speeches today. I have to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), and for Rugby (John Slinger), for answering the distress flare from their Whips Office. Labour had two more contributions today than it did in the urgent question the other day, when not a single Labour MP stood up in support of the Government. We Conservative Members, however, showed real passion, because none of us supports this deal; we have consistently opposed it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, what does it say about our strategic priorities? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, this is a Government without a strategic policy on China, so what message does the deal send, especially when we have agreed the Chinese super-embassy?

I have to give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who gave an absolutely brilliant speech that totally demolished the Government’s case around the financial position—not a flesh wound in sight after that. He referred to the sketch with the Black Knight, but increasingly we think of another Monty Python sketch. The Government think that this treaty has been paused—that it is merely resting—but we increasingly suspect that this treaty is pushing up the daisies, and I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will campaign with every bit of fight we have to ensure that it is an ex-treaty.

[Tom Hayes]

On the question of cost, can the hon. Member tell the House how much the Conservative Government were offering for such a deal? Was it higher or lower than Labour’s offer? If he does not know, will he table a written parliamentary question or make a freedom of information request to the Foreign Office to find out?

[James Cartlidge]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands. We did not sign a deal; we would not sign a deal, because the terms were totally unacceptable, and they have got an awful lot worse since then—35 billion times worse. The cost is £35 billion—that comes from a freedom of information release from the Government themselves. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is why we will vote against the deal.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I am too young to have seen that scene in “Dallas”, so that went slightly over my head. Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot read too much into a social media post? After all, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said about the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick):

“Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve always thought so”,

and

“Don’t believe a word that he says”.

Is it not true that we cannot always stick with the same mindset on social media?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them.

We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that.

This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law.

Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

This Government’s handover of the Chagos islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds to pay for the privilege of giving away something we own—a strategically vital territory—to a close ally of the Chinese Communist party. And why? All because of an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the International Court of Justice.

People across the country are rightly asking why on earth any British Government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly when the Government are already putting the squeeze on people’s finances in so many ways. The Government’s arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments before us today.

[Tom Hayes]

Another question that might be asked is why the Conservatives started the negotiations in the first place.

[Katie Lam]

The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed.

The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination.

So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender.

Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.

If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

rose—

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

[Aphra Brandreth]

I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

Ukraine

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

At the outset, may I acknowledge your staunch and consistent support for the people of Ukraine, Madam Deputy Speaker? You have most recently represented Mr Speaker at the international Crimea platform to reinforce Ukraine’s sovereignty.

My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine both in Ukraine and in Bournemouth. I commend Ukraine Relief, which has a donation centre at Castlepoint shopping centre in my constituency, and the work of Karol Swiacki and other Ukrainians across Bournemouth.

Whether the peace that President Trump creates is durable will depend on whether he applies sufficient pressure to Vladimir Putin to secure it. We do not yet know the final outline of a peace deal or even a ceasefire, but we know that the Trump Administration have pressed Ukraine before to make concessions. When granted a summit with President Trump in Alaska, Putin demanded more territory than he had already seized in his war of aggression to date. The Administration responded not by pressuring Russia, but by putting more pressure on Ukraine. Arms were withheld and intelligence was withdrawn, and the assistance that remained was limited and slow. Kyiv has been left perpetually uncertain about the reliability of US support, and the offer of a 15-year US security guarantee as part of a peace plan should give us pause, too. Fifteen years will go by in the blink of an eye unless the guarantee is exceptionally robust, and unless the armed forces of Europe’s democracies—ours included—are integral to enforcing it. Otherwise, I fear that Moscow will wait, rebuild, and return when the clock runs out. As the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) was saying, we need to be mindful about what a deployment looks like, and we need to ask the serious questions. I know that the Prime Minister—a good, serious and patriotic man, having to deal with the insanity abroad and difficult conditions at home—is charting that course as best he and this Government can, and I know that he puts the safety of British troops at the heart of what he does.

Without genuine stability, Ukraine cannot rebuild in peace; boardrooms will not make investments over the long term. We know, too, that this would not be peace; it would be merely a ceasefire, a temporary pause. Given the temptation to renew aggression—a temptation that we know Putin cannot resist—brutish competition for continental dominance would define this decade and, sadly, the next. We have to keep the peace, as well as make it, and the only way that we can do that is through robust security guarantees. Unfortunately, that means that we need to come to terms with a changed world. We have not known this fear for a long time, but it is a feeling that Ukraine knows every single day in its bones.

Uniquely, although the United States has been the richest and most capable country in world history, nations have not chosen to balance against it; they have chosen to ally with it—this is a reversal of all we have known in history—because America sought collective security, self-determination, open trade, institutions, legitimacy and purposeful democracy. However, today, that strategic capital is being diminished consciously, as a matter of policy, by the Trump Administration. That is not happening everywhere in the US security apparatus, it should be said, but it is happening at the highest level, where political decisions are being taken. I have lived in America, I have travelled it widely, I have had the privilege of studying international security at one of its universities, and I have a deep affection for its dynamism and its democracy. However, we must face the fact that in its national security strategy, Ukraine and Europe are less of a priority than other parts of the world. European defence planners now have to spend their days tracking Russian troop movements; calculating whether Putin might, before the end of the decade, order an attack against a NATO member, as he did against Ukraine; and wondering whether the United States will come to our defence. We need to rearm faster, and we need to improve and significantly increase our weapons manufacture.

We also need to move closer to European democracies on defence and security—not closer to the EU per se, which may be too inflexible, but closer to our like-minded European democratic friends who care about peace and democracy, and who will themselves put forward a programme of rearmament. In facing the world as it is, and trying to rearm and increase our diplomatic influence to meet it, we need to recognise that there will be people in our country who do not like this. In France and Germany, we see the rise of the far right and the populist right, who are seeking to make an issue of rearmament. We in this House need to be united. We know that there are those on the Opposition Benches, but not in attendance today, who will protest against our rearmament and our commitment to Ukraine. We in this House need to be united behind Ukraine, democracy and peace. As far as we can, we should not play party politics; we should rebuild the consensus that has lasted for so many years. To me, that consensus seems to be under threat today.

Venezuela

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would say to the hon. Member that there is a continual searching for equivalence when it is really inappropriate to do so. I have made very clear our position on Greenland: the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and for the Danes, not for other countries be that the US or any other country around the world.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Like the Foreign Secretary, we want an end to this brutal regime. I hope now that Venezuela can move to a democracy with full control of its oil and other resources following this breach of the UN charter. The Leader of the Opposition says that we live in

“a fundamentally different world and an increasingly dangerous world.”

After all, no UK Prime Minister previously has had to stand up so fulsomely for Greenland and Denmark’s security. So when the facts change, should our stance not change too? Should we not be working more closely with the European Union and EU member states to deepen our security and our economic ties, but do we not also need the European Union to be more flexible and pragmatic about what constitutes alignment with the UK?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are strengthening our security co-operation with European allies. We have increasing security partnerships and discussions both with groups of other European countries and the EU as a whole, as well as with the NATO members in Europe. That has been crucial; it is a central part of the coalition of the willing, and those partnerships need to continue to deepen.

Budget Resolutions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s concern about child poverty is sincere; I just have a totally different view as to how to reduce child poverty in this country. I think financing people to have ever larger families will mean more children growing up in poverty, not fewer. The evidence for that is that under the previous Conservative Government, we had a million fewer children growing up in workless households, and child poverty in absolute terms fell. The hon. Gentleman needs to look at that evidence.

The price we are paying for this mushrooming welfare bill is rising taxes which are already starting to destroy growth: 180,000 fewer payroll jobs in the last year; unemployment up, inflation up and interest rates higher than they would have been. The tragedy is that absolute poverty—which, as I said, fell under the previous Conservative Government—is now likely to rise under Labour as jobs vanish and welfare rolls soar.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I grew up in poverty. One in four children in Bournemouth, the town that I represent, is growing up in poverty. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that growing up in poverty is not a good thing. It is an awful thing for the life chances of the child, an awful thing for the family who care for them and an awful thing for the community that wrap their arms around the child. Does he acknowledge that he is ignoring the future costs of child poverty? I used to run mental health and domestic abuse services, and I can certainly tell him that when children grow up in poverty and then, later in life, cannot find the education, training and support that they need because of their trauma as a child, they cause extra costs for public services that we then have to meet. Does he not agree that we should be preventing those future costs?

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I profoundly disagree on the way the Government are choosing to do that. By expanding the welfare bill and expanding the number of large families living in poverty, they are making the root causes of poverty worse and not better.

The Chancellor says that there is a growth plan, but it was very difficult to discern it at all in today’s Budget. We know, for example, that raising public sector productivity to private sector levels would add 0.4% to annual GDP growth. We know that proper planning reforms would add 0.4%, that proper welfare reform would add 0.3% and that getting energy bills down properly would add 0.3%. We know that AI could dwarf all that, according to Microsoft and Accenture, potentially adding 1% a year.

We got none of that today. Instead, we had a Government arriving in office saying that they wanted “Growth, growth, growth” without knowing how they were going to get there. Growth needs a plan, not a soundbite, and it is that lack of a plan—or even a guiding philosophy—that has resulted today in a Budget that damages growth, damages investment, damages jobs and, most tragically of all, damages opportunities for young people, of whom there will shortly be a million not in employment, education or training.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill’s enhancement of biodiversity and the protection of our oceans and natural world. How will the Bill help to unlock innovation in marine science?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill.

The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table.

Parkinson’s Disease

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett]

I am happy to agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it also applies to the loved ones of people receiving a Parkinson’s diagnosis.

We need better social care for all people when they are faced with a disability. We need there to be more respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and a system that recognises the specific needs of people with neurological conditions.

On work—here I am thinking in particular of my friend Rob, whom many of my hon. Friends will also know—we must ensure that people who have Parkinson’s and are of working age can live and work and participate in work with independence and dignity wherever possible. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are fighting for a new right to flexible working, and the right to work from home for every disabled person unless there is a significant business reason otherwise.

The Liberal Democrats also want to adopt a new accessibility standard for public spaces and embed in UK law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that support moves with the person and does not just stay with the original employer. That is why we are calling for adjustment passports—records of the modifications, equipment and adjustments that a disabled person uses—so that when they change jobs, their support goes with them. That seems to be plain common sense.

On medicines and their availability, we must speed up access to new treatments. It is simply unacceptable that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has seen its workforce cut.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I want to commend the Poole and District Branch of Parkinson’s UK but also, on that particular point, tell the story of Carla, whose husband was affected by a lack of access to time-critical medication. Does the hon. Member agree that it is critical that the Government do everything they can to speed up access?

[Alison Bennett]

I agree wholeheartedly.

The MHRA workforce has been cut by 40%, and that has slowed down the arrival of new therapies for people who desperately need them. We should be halving the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients, not lengthening it.

None of this is impossible. It requires us to listen to people living with Parkinson’s—really listen to their fears, needs, hopes and experiences. The Parky charter sets out a clear and achievable path. It demands dignity and fairness, and that the Government finally deliver the timely, specialist, compassionate care that every person with Parkinson’s—like Sophie’s mum, Janet—should be able to count on. Today, let us send a message to everyone living with Parkinson’s: we see you; we hear you; and we stand with you. I want to send an equally clear message to the Government and the Minister, whom I thank for being here today: the time for half measures and for excuses is over. The time to act—seriously, decisively and with compassion—is now.