Wendy Morton
MP for Aldridge-Brownhills · Conservative · United Kingdom
“On the specific point of hospices, I absolutely understand what the hon. Lady is saying; I have visited our local hospices, and I have sat beside my father when he was dying, but not in a hospice. The point about palliative care absolutely matters, but the Government do not recognise the funding that the sector needs.”
“T5. One of my constituents served His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 43 years, yet more than five months on from taking partial retirement she is still waiting for her pension and lump sum. My office has attended two casework surgeries with Capita and the Cabinet Office, neither of which has secured a resolution.”
“With an estimated 1.4 million approved homes unbuilt, brownfield capacity for 1.41 million homes and more than 750,000 empty homes in England, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on unlocking that housing to meet the Government’s 1.5 million target before any more green belt is released?”
“Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders.”
“Ultimately, sanctions and humanitarian assistance can address some of the consequences of the war, but they cannot substitute for the political settlement that Sudan so desperately needs. There is no military solution to the conflict. The UK has an important responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan.”
“The number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose sharply between 2024 and 2025, and Sudanese nationals accounted for 11% of small boat arrivals to the UK last year. This is therefore not just a humanitarian crisis.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Wendy Morton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Russia’s war in Ukraine is fuelled by oil export revenues sustained by third-country refineries in India, Turkey and China. They process and re-export Russian crude as refined products, often to sanctioned states. These countries are fuelling Putin’s war chest. Last month, President Trump called on Turkey to halt Russian oil imports. Did the Prime Minister follow President Trump’s approach and demand that his Turkish counterpart stops the Star refinery and Tüpraş from buying Russian oil?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even in such a short period of time, this Government are showing that it is they who cannot be trusted with the economy and the future of this country? Is it not time they woke up to the reality?”
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that if there was a plan to fund the proposal, he would back it. The shadow Chancellor has clearly set out that we do have a plan to fund it, so will the Chief Secretary back it?”
“Kebatu’s accidental release is beyond belief; it is a national embarrassment. But what I have found really disturbing has been sitting here on the Back Benches watching the Justice Secretary laugh at some of the responses. I find that wholly unpalatable and am left wondering what the victims must be thinking. When will he resign?”
“The Birmingham bin strike has now cost taxpayers £14 million. Residents have had no recycling collection since last Christmas, and the city has lost £4 million in income due to no garden waste collection. The strike is doing irrevocable damage to the reputation of the west midlands, including my constituency. Can the Leader of the House ask the new Minister for Local Government to update the House on this situation and on how the Government are going fix it?”
“Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the evolving security threat posed by North Korea, and how is the UK working with allies to respond effectively, including through a review of the effectiveness of existing UN sanctions, to ensure that they are having the maximum possible impact on Kim Jong Un’s regime? In Busan, the British memorial bears this inscription: “Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met”. Those words speak of duty, courage and the enduring belief that freedom anywhere is worth defending everywhere. Seventy-five years on, we remember them with gratitude and renewed purpose.”
“Those lessons are as vital today as they were in 1950, but this anniversary is also an opportunity to celebrate the enduring success of our friendship with the Republic of Korea and to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to upholding peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and around the world. In that spirit, may I ask the Minister three brief questions? First, what further steps are the Government taking to support the work of the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre in investigating historical cases of missing British personnel from the Korean war? Secondly, how is the UK implementing the Downing Street accord, particularly in strengthening our defence, security and cyber partnerships with the Republic of Korea?”
“Its relentless pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, its disregard for UN Security Council resolutions, and its growing ties to other authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China, all demand our vigilance and resolve. The regime’s leader continues to endanger his own people and the peace of the region. Therefore, we must remain firm in condemning these provocations, united in enforcing sanctions and clear that such behaviour will not be rewarded with legitimacy. The Korean war taught us that alliances matter and that when free nations stand together, they can resist aggression and preserve peace.”
“Under that accord, we are working together on defence, cyber-security, clean energy, semiconductors and resilient supply chains. We established a new ministerial dialogue to align foreign and defence policy, and expanded co-operation on naval training, defence exports and regional stability. This partnership matters to both nations: it strengthens our ability to deter aggression, uphold freedom of navigation, and shape the future of technology and trade on fair and open terms. We cannot commemorate this anniversary without acknowledging the continuing threats in the region. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—North Korea—remains a source of instability and danger, not only to its neighbours but to global security.”
“More than 26,000 Canadians, 18,000 Australians, 4,700 New Zealanders and thousands more from India, South Africa and elsewhere stood beside us. Their shared service is part of the living fabric of the Commonwealth family and the global defence of democracy. Commemoration is not just about looking back. It is also about understanding why the legacy of the Korean war still matters today. The Republic of Korea—South Korea—has emerged from the devastation of war as a vibrant democracy, a major economy and a valued strategic partner of the UK. Our modern partnership rests on the same values our forebears fought for: freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. That partnership was reaffirmed under the last Government, in November 2023, through the Downing Street accord, a global strategic partnership between our two nations.”
“On 25 June 1950, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, triggering three years of brutal conflict. More than 2.5 million people lost their lives, but Britain answered the call of the United Nations, sending more than 81,000 service personnel—the second largest contribution after that of the United States. As we have heard, 1,129 British servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice. Over 1,000 were taken prisoner, and around 300 remain missing. We remember them and their families, who bore the quiet burden of that service. Among those who fought were young men from my own region—the west midlands, including the Black Country—many of whom served with proud regiments such as the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Black Watch, both of which saw fierce action in Korea. Across the Commonwealth, too, the bonds of sacrifice run deep.”
“It can rightly provide an opportunity for us to come together as a House and a space to commemorate and reflect. Sitting here, I was reminded of the day when, as a Foreign Minister, I had the honour of being invited to lay a wreath at the Korean war memorial on Victoria Embankment in 2020 to mark the 67th anniversary of the Korean war armistice agreement. I thank my right hon. Friend for providing the space for us today, because it provides a moment for reflection and gratitude. The Korean war, as we have heard, is often called the forgotten war, but it must never be forgotten. It was a defining struggle of the early cold war—one that tested the unity of the free world and reaffirmed the principles of collective security that remain vital today.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to his new position. This is the first time we have—I will not say sparred, because it is not the sort of debate for that—worked together since we served as Whips a number of years ago. Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important marking the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. He brings, as ever, such knowledge and sincerity to the House, and at times—in the right way and at the right time—a little humour, as he did at the very start of the debate. Not only that, but he enables us to demonstrate that the role of this place often goes way beyond debating legislation.”
“Q2. My constituents have so many questions they would like to ask the Prime Minister, but I will settle for one today: can the Prime Minister define when grey belt is really grey?”
“We have a similar issue in the west midlands, although it is not entirely a rural area. On the edge of Birmingham in my constituency, battery energy storage systems are being imposed upon local communities. What was green belt is now being defined as grey belt. Local communities feel that they get all the pain and no gain, and they have no say at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to sit down and have a real rethink?”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point, because many of us will have examples in our constituencies of families who have been tragically affected by knife crime. Some go on to do amazing work to educate young people, but at the same time it is important that where a sentence has been given, it is carried out and that that deterrent is in place. Yet again, we are seeing the removal of deterrent by the Labour Government.”
“As things stand, the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans reflects so badly on Birmingham, the west midlands and our country, and at a time when football can often bring people and communities together. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will do all she can to ensure that any reviews under way are concluded before kick-off?”
“I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in section [The additional period and right to extend: duty to publish legal advice and risk assessments] are discharged.” This amendment together with NC2 would prevent the Treaty from coming into force until the Government has published any legal advice or risk assessments regarding the UK’s ability to extend its rights over Diego Garcia after the initial period specified in the Treaty.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“There will be one flag that is flying, and that is the white flag of surrender. Thousands of Mauritian public officials are being trained—or should that be “indoctrinated”?—by China on courses the Chinese are paying for. Both Russia and China are signing partnerships with Mauritius, but Labour’s surrender Bill fails to protect our interests.”
“My hon. Friend is 100% right, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this Bill and have done so from the very start. The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. Mauritius is in discussions with India about a security role that it can play in the archipelago, and the UK is not even in the room. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, one can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret with China and Russia. There has been a report that China is already negotiating with Mauritius for Peros Banhos. When he speaks, perhaps the Minister can tell us what he knows about that.”
“Now, they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia, our military assets and our interests in the Indo-Pacific.”
“I am grateful to the Minister, but can he actually give me the reassurance that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps he can answer that question when he responds to the debate later. The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret. If such discussions are taking place, that would undermine the assurances Ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows that this Government kowtow to the Chinese Communist party, leading it to threaten our interests here.”
“I think my right hon. Friend makes some very interesting points, and perhaps not surprisingly, one might ask the question: are the Government sleeping with the enemy here?”
“If the Minister will allow me, I will just finish this point. The key thing we are asking for is a reassurance from the Minister, and he will have more than ample opportunity later to respond to the points I am making.”
“As it leaves pensioners vulnerable and cold, destroys family farms and crushes businesses, the Minister is content to send our constituents’ hard-earned money to Mauritius with no strings attached, allowing the Government there to cut taxes—tax cuts over 6,000 miles away and tax rises at home. And Labour is inflicting this surrender tax on the British people because of its abject failure to negotiate. We all know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses, but this is a new low. At seemingly every twist and turn, this Government have rolled over and capitulated to the demands of the Government of Mauritius.”
“The House should not be deprived of a voice on these matters of huge concern. Our amendments would ensure that this House has a voice and a vote. That is totally right and proper. Turning to our new clauses, the Government could have inserted a money authorisation clause into the Bill. They chose not to and no wonder. The Government want to spare their own disgruntled MPs the ugly spectacle of having to vote in favour of spending tens of billions of their constituents’ money to Mauritius, as Britain’s economy sinks under the weight of the Chancellor’s inflation, unemployment, debt and taxes. Labour is asking the hard-pressed British taxpayer, already struggling under the weight of the Chancellor’s punitive tax rises, to stump up £35 billion to lease back a territory we already own and which we are not legally obliged to give away.”
“Once again, the Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up for our strategic interests against China. Amendment 7 would flush out the truth once and for all. Taken together, amendments 3, 6 and 5 would delete a huge and unacceptable Henry VIII power that the Government are brazenly trying to award themselves, and would give this House the oversight it is entitled to on the implementation of the treaty. It is wholly unacceptable—in fact, it is quite outrageous—for the Government to give themselves such a sweeping power that they could, through an Order in Council, “make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”. This is a totally open-ended power. The military base itself is in scope, and so are the rights of Chagossians.”
“Then the Government completely contradicted their own argument about the electromagnetic spectrum. They are planning to dissolve a strategically invaluable British overseas territory, and they cannot even tell us on what legal basis they are doing so. It looks as though this is part of a wider sinister picture—the Government’s relationship with China. We know that the Government are desperate for Chinese investment to help grow our economy, which they are trashing with their reckless economic policies. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has credited China for its support in enabling Mauritius to gain sovereignty over the Chagos islands. Why? Because China wants to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius, which it believes to have strategic advantages.”
“We have had no answers from the Government on any of these vital points, which is unacceptable, and the terms of the treaty and the Bill, as they stand, are reckless. Amendment 7 is necessary because the Government’s legal justification for surrendering the Chagos islands constantly shifts, because it has no legal basis. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) explained on Second Reading, the Government’s entire legal case is spurious. Many of us have been asking where the binding judgment we are constantly told is inevitable would actually come from. No credible answers have been forthcoming. We know it cannot be the International Court of Justice, and we know that a case at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea would see the UK able to put forward a decent legal argument.”
“The Government constantly claim they have secured the military base, but they have totally failed to do that. All they have done is pay Mauritius £35 billion to lease back a base we currently own, but only for 99 years. We have no certainty whatsoever about the fate of the base after the 99-year period. After paying Mauritius £35 billion, it would kindly give us the option to extend the treaty for another 40 years, but on what terms? If we extend it, will Mauritius make it conditional on more extortionate payments? What if we are outbid by a hostile power? In fact, what is to stop China putting in a bid? If no agreement is reached before the specified deadline and the base is offered to another country, what will happen to all the fixed assets belonging to Britain?”
“It can be very easy to back something when you do not have to pay for it, but let us move on. Now, the Government are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia and our military assets and interests in the Indo-Pacific. Labour’s surrender Bill is bad for British taxpayers, bad for our national security, bad for the marine environment and bad for the Chagossians. It also grants Ministers huge powers to make further decisions and avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 1 would in effect block Labour’s surrender treaty coming into force and the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory unless and until Ministers reveal the legal advice they have received about Britain’s ability to extend and exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia after the initial 99-year period.”
“I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past year and several months, but we have gone over this time and again in this Chamber. There was no legal basis. We stopped— [ Interruption. ] Maybe I will repeat this very slowly for his benefit: we stopped the negotiations.”
“My right hon. and gallant Friend and constituency neighbour makes some very, very important points. He adds a certain weight and clarity to these discussions, and I urge Labour Members—certainly the newer Members—to listen to his wise counsel. The House of Commons should be given a vote on the payments and that is the purpose of this amendment. In scope will also be the Chagossian trust fund, which, inexplicably, British taxpayers capitalise and Mauritius then distributes. We pay and Mauritius has total control over how it is spent. We will have no say over its governance and British Chagossians have no guarantees that they will benefit from it. How can that be right? The least this House and British Chagossians deserve is a vote on sending the money. What possible explanation could the Government provide against that?”
“But then, it was also a scandal for Labour to sign the agreement with a previous Mauritian Government just before that country went into an election, only for there to be a change of Government who then wanted to change the deal and extract more money. Extending the agreement is essential, because we simply cannot lose the base. The House deserves to see the advice that the Government are relying on when they ask us to sign this £35 billion blank cheque.”
“The point, though, is where is this money coming from? This House has not had a vote. Where is the transparency? Where is the democracy ? Turning to new clause 2 and amendment 2, as we have already discussed, the duration of the agreement is a matter of serious national security concern. There are too many unanswered questions about what could happen to the base. We need to understand the basis on which the Government have settled that, especially as the then Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October 2024 that the Government would have a right to extend the lease, which we do not, and the Mauritian Government claim the UK gave up a unilateral right of extension at their request. If that is true, it would be a scandal. No wonder we never get straight answers from Ministers.”
“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?”
“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.”
“My hon. Friend makes a really valid point by putting that into context. There is only one thing that will result from the Government insisting on pushing this through: tax rises. I reiterate my earlier point that we still do not know which budget the money is coming from: FCDO or MOD. Who is going to pay for it? New clause 3 will give Parliament a vote over the agreement on the Chagos marine protected area. The Chagos MPA is one of the jewels in the crown of the Blue Belt programme, a magnificent achievement of the last Conservative Government and a globally significant contribution to marine protection. It should not be altered without consent. At present, we apply among the strictest criteria to the Chagos MPA and it has been very well preserved, unlike much of the Indian ocean, which has suffered terribly in recent years.”
“I will make a little more progress. We are not talking about a small area. The British Indian Ocean Territory spans 640,000 square kilometres of ocean. The Government’s treaty with Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius to establish and manage a new MPA, but we are being asked to fly blind with this Bill, because no agreement has been reached on what the MPA managed by Mauritius will look like.”
“I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on many of those matters. We have raised questions about this issue time and again, and we have simply not received the answers from Ministers.”
“It also requires the Foreign Secretary to present a report to Parliament within six months of the Act becoming law, and in every subsequent year, on how Chagossian rights are being upheld under this agreement. We have a national obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian community, and the Conservatives will always stand up for their rights. To conclude, taken together, our amendments and new clauses will hold the Government to account. Let us be clear: the Conservatives oppose this surrender Bill, its colossal costs and the adverse impact on our defence and security. Accepting these amendments and new clauses will simply strengthen accountability and transparency.”
“Indeed, we have seen many Chagossians arriving in the UK from Mauritius in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will respond to that from the Dispatch Box, because it is clearly concerning that they have been moved to take this action. The Bill also stops British overseas territories citizenship being awarded on the basis of descent from a person born on the Chagos archipelago. Sadly, we cannot amend the treaty through the Bill; it just is not within the parliamentary rules. However, new clause 7 would require the Government to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of the treaty—including on the establishment of the trust fund, which we capitalise and Mauritius distributes—and on areas of dispute arising between the UK and Mauritian Governments prior to their being discussed at the joint committee created by the treaty.”
“We take issue with that assertion, not least because there is an argument that provisions under article 298 of UNCLOS allow for exemptions relevant to disputes concerning military activities. The Government have not addressed this issue when we have probed, including on Second Reading, so we have had no choice but to table this new clause to test the Government’s assertion. I turn finally to new clause 7. The British Chagossian community have been treated appallingly by this Labour Government. Twice the deal has ended up in the courts because of the way Labour has ridden roughshod over their concerns. This Bill sells them short, too. The resettlement programme for the Chagos islands under this treaty is entirely in the hands of Mauritius—a country to which, I should add, Chagossians feel little affinity.”
“It is important that the notifications are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as once again it would force the Government to log and monitor the mechanism, including any operational impacts it might have. We know that there are genuine concerns that third countries—potentially even China—might try to establish themselves in the archipelago, and the arrangements in the treaty must be monitored to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to stop that happening. New clause 6 probes the Government’s argument that a legally binding ruling under UNCLOS would have an impact on our ability to operate the electromagnetic spectrum, and impede air and sea access as well as the ability to patrol the area around the base.”
“On (d), we must ensure that only vessels that should be in the area are in the area, and that Russian and potentially even Chinese vessels are deterred from entering—I have already mentioned the closer ties and partnerships between Mauritius and those countries, which should concern all of us. With reference to paragraph (e), the treaty states that the United Kingdom agrees “to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia”. Given the huge range of security threats in the Indo-Pacific and the middle east, it is far from impossible that in future this mechanism may need to be used.”