Phil Brickell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on which of the amendments he is speaking to. New clause 4, which his party tabled, mentions coral, fish stocks, molluscs and ocean acidification in the marine protected area. Even the cynic in me is somewhat flabbergasted by the official Opposition’s apparent interest in environmental and climate change all of a sudden, given their desire to ride roughshod over the Climate Change Act and frack our countryside.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the number of asylum seeker hotels being reduced from 400 to roughly 200 in the last two years, and an important point about profit making. Does he agree that firms such as Serco have an obligation to be accountable, transparent and responsive to elected Members who are seeking not only to obtain information on behalf of their constituents but to ensure that people placed in dispersal accommodation are kept safe? In my experience, such firms are not responsive or transparent in the way that they should be.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Members of the all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which I chair, had the opportunity to meet National Economic Crime Centre officers last week and discuss the work that NECC is doing to disrupt money laundering and tax evasion, including through its landmark Operation Machinize. High-street money laundering is of huge concern to me, given the explosion of cash-intensive businesses over recent years seeking to hide beneath a veneer of respectability in order to conceal their dirty money. What measures is the Minister taking to empower trading standards, local councils, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and law enforcement to tackle this issue head-on?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, if I may. I wanted to intervene on Opposition Members earlier, but was not allowed to. It was the Conservatives who rightly described the situation in 2022 as unsustainable, and it was they who held 11 rounds of talks on sovereignty. In 2023, when he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) said that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. At the time, when they were in government, Conservative Members recognised that the base’s legal status was under serious threat, and that an interminable sovereignty dispute risked paralysing operations. Let me make a quick point about international law. In reflecting on the ICJ advisory opinion, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that it is an international court that few have heard of. Those kinds of reckless throwaway remarks undermine the United Nations’ highest judicial organ. She mentioned that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There are judges sitting in the ICJ who are elected by members of the General Assembly, and through the Security Council. Although we have had judges sitting in that international court since its inception, we have not since 2018, which is a source of much shame for the country at large. I hope that she will take back those remarks denigrating the international system of law that underpins our international work. Let us not forget, after all, that in the 1940s, the United Kingdom was the first country to submit a case for arbitration by the ICJ. [ Interruption. ] I ask those Opposition Members who are chuntering: where were you when those 11 rounds of negotiations took place? I know that two years is a long time in politics, but have you already forgotten—

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour has finished what the previous Government started—what was left to us after former Prime Minister Liz Truss let the genie out of the bottle in starting negotiations with Mauritius in 2022. That was reported, and much maligned, by Matthew Parris in The Spectator at the time—let us not forget that. This Government have sought to strike a deal in Britain’s best interests, given the legal mess that they inherited. Let us be clear: this agreement secures the future of the Diego Garcia base. Britain retains control of the base, as the Minister confirmed in response to my intervention near the start of the debate. There is a protective buffer zone, and no foreign security forces will be on the outer islands. There will be a robust mechanism to prevent interference, and for the first time, Mauritius has agreed back the base’s operations. That is a huge strategic win. What about cost? Let us get this clear, because some of the disinformation coming from the Conservative party is concerning; it is unnecessarily setting hares running about the future of other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The overall cost has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister, and suggestions to the contrary are simply false. When set against the cost of inaction, the financial component is modest. It is far cheaper than the spiralling costs of legal uncertainty, and far cheaper than the price we would pay if Chinese expansionism went unchecked in the Indian ocean. For a fraction of our defence budget, we will secure a cornerstone of global stability. Let us not forget that the agreement will have an average annual cost that represents 0.008% of total Government spend, according to the Government Actuary’s Department.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To go back to the point that the Minister was making earlier about control, can he confirm to the House that, contrary to the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we are not ceding control of the Diego Garcia military base, consistent with clause 3?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which safeguards our national security and protects our constituents. Diego Garcia is one of the most important military bases in the world. From that facility, Britain and the United States project stability across the Indian ocean, the Gulf and the wider Indo-Pacific. The base has been vital in the fight against terrorism and piracy for many years. Today, it is indispensable in containing the growing reach of the Chinese Communist party, as others have said. Beijing is building ports, airports and naval outposts right across the region; its so-called “string of pearls” is designed to encircle and dominate. If we are serious about standing up for the values that we hold dear—human rights, democracy and, at its heart, freedom—Diego Garcia must remain secure and undisputed, which can be achieved only through the treaty that the Government have concluded. Conservative colleagues may huff and puff, as they have been doing ad nauseam over the past few hours, but let us not rewrite history. As has been pointed out, it was not Labour that opened negotiations with Mauritius.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister will come to that in his closing remarks. I have to concur with other Members that the way the Chagossians were treated in the ’60s and ’70s was utterly shameful. I am proud that there will be rights of return, and the ability to visit. Conservative Members claim to be the champions of defence, but that is not borne out by the facts, which include an 18% cut in defence spending in their first five years in government, and their shrinking the Army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. In how many years out of 14 was the target of 2.5% of GDP spent on defence hit? Zero. They should not lecture Labour Members on national security. The Government’s plan is straightforward, transparent and serious. We have the largest increase in the defence budget since the cold war; we are rebuilding alliances that previous Governments wantonly vandalised; we are acting where there was dither; we are governing in the national interest; and, importantly, we are securing the long-term future of the Diego Garcia base. It is clear that a binding adverse judgment against the UK was inevitable. Since 2015, 28 international judges have expressed views on Chagos sovereignty. That was under the previous Government, and not one of those 28 judges backed Britain’s claim. Without an agreement, our ability to operate the base would have been compromised. Overflight clearances would have been at risk, contractor access would have been uncertain, communications would have degraded, costs would have soared, and investment would have fallen. Who would that benefit? I put that to Conservative Members, but I will give them a clue: it is not Britain, and not Britain’s allies. This deal secures Diego Garcia, cements our role in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens our ability to push back against Chinese influence, and shows that Britain is a dependable ally that takes national security seriously. I wish to make a closing remark on the reasoned amendment by the Reform party, in the names of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage), for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who seem not to be present. I will read out a part of it that I am gobsmacked nobody has picked up on in this debate: “because the reason for the UK-Mauritius Treaty and for bringing forward this Bill follows a judgment from the International Criminal Court, from which the UK does not recognise judgments as binding, only advisory”, they will oppose this Bill. I want Reform to answer: which case before the International Criminal Court is it referring to? Is Reform suggesting that, were it to come to power, it would not recognise the binding judgments of the International Criminal Court? Will it take us out of the ICC? Unfortunately, Reform Members are not here to respond. The Conservatives opened the door to this treaty. Labour inherited a legal mess, but it has delivered a deal in the long-term national interest. For a small cost, we have achieved a huge strategic win. That is why I am proud to support this Bill, and I will vote with the Government tonight.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I will focus on the issue of BNO visas; I declare an interest as a member of Labour Friends of Hong Kong. I have 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition to keep five-year ILR terms for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders. Those 403 people are asking us to keep faith with Hongkongers who came here under certain promises, and they are right to make that demand. To be clear, I back the Government’s immigration plan. We must reduce irregular migration, stop the dangerous small boats crossings and build a fair system that works for the law-abiding majority. Bolton West backs secure borders, but my constituents also know that the BNO visa issue is different. This is a safe and legal route, rooted in our history and our reputation as a global leader in human rights and democracy. When Beijing ripped up its promises to Hong Kong, this country stepped up. We told Hong Kong families, “If you come here legally, play your part, integrate into your community and contribute for five years, you can make Britain your permanent home.” That seems like a fair deal to me. I would like to take a moment to share a personal story from a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous. My constituent was a teacher in Hong Kong for more than 20 years, but new laws designed to crack down on criticism of the regime meant that the genuine critical thinking that my constituent was trying to impart to their students was no longer possible. They took up the BNO visa in 2021 to start a new life. It restored their freedom of speech, which is no longer possible in Hong Kong without fear of repercussion. I am proud that my constituent, like many other Hongkongers, chose Bolton West as their home. Many of my Hongkonger constituents have bought homes, sent their children to our schools, set up businesses and taken up jobs in the constituency. They are not here to take; they are here to give, to build and to belong. But when I speak to many of these families, it is clear to me that they live under a shadow. We have all read about activists in Britain, such as Carmen Lau, who now has a $1 million bounty on her head from the Hong Kong authorities. Imagine trying to rebuild a life in Horwich, Lostock or Westhoughton while being hunted by an authoritarian regime on the other side of the world. That is the reality of transnational repression. Transnational repression takes other forms with which we have to get to grips. The journalist Calum Muirhead has reported in This is Money on how Hong Kong exiles here are being denied access to more than £1 billion of their own pensions, as other hon. Members have mentioned. In total, up to £3 billion of retirement savings cannot be accessed until families secure indefinite leave to remain. That is money that could be spent in local shops, backing Bolton businesses, or be put towards children’s futures. The banks responsible for holding these pensions need to step up, do the right thing and release hard-earned pensions back to those who have earned them. For people to have to deal with all that while their very right to stay in their home, at school or in work is thrown into jeopardy is not fair in any way whatever. I am particularly concerned about the impact that these proposals would have on the lives of young Hongkongers. Currently, under the five-year pathway, students can qualify for home fee status at university after settlement. Stretching that to 10 years would mean a whole generation facing prohibitively high international fees that they simply have not planned for. Families who have already sacrificed so much would see their dreams simply vanish. Several Members today have used the analogy of moving the goalposts. If you will indulge me, Mr Pritchard, I will mention it as well. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a number of my constituents from Hong Kong at a Bolton Wanderers match. For the record, the mighty Wanderers crushed Bristol Rovers 1-0. Even colleagues with limited knowledge of football will know that if someone had moved the goalposts at half time, it would have caused chaos. The same principle applies here. Hongkongers quite rightly expect us to keep our word. When we made this promise, we said to Hongkongers, “This is your lifeline. This is your chance.” To change the rules at half time would betray not just them, but the trust that underpins all immigration policy. In conclusion, let us get immigration under control, let us smash the gangs, let us back the Government’s plan to reduce irregular migration, but let us also keep faith with those who came here this way. On behalf of my 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition, I join colleagues in urging the Government to exempt BNO Hongkongers from any extension of the settlement period in their forthcoming immigration plan, to keep our promise and to keep Britain’s word.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Horwich are gravely concerned about unsuitable family homes being repurposed into houses in multiple occupation with little transparency about who is being housed there and when. To my immense frustration as the local Member of Parliament, I often hear about such proposals on social media, which all too often runs rife with false information. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a debate on why companies such as Serco do not proactively tell Members of this House where individuals, including asylum seekers, are being placed, so that instead of conjecture, the truth can prevail.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025. Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year. That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book. Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle. Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021: “Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.” That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with. In summary—

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly. Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective. UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly. My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way on that final point.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue. In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he “races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”. The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny. Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for confirming the recess dates for the next 12 months, which my wife has already messaged me about to say thanks. The Leader of the House will be aware that, despite important draft Government legislation banning single-use vapes, vape shops masquerading as candy stores continue to spring up everywhere across my Bolton West constituency. A new shop has just popped up in Horwich near Saint Joseph’s Roman Catholic high school. The school has done excellent work in tackling vape use among children but it is fighting a rising tide. Will the Leader of the House set aside Government time to debate how the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and other measures are implemented to improve public health and prevent stores from being used as front businesses by organised crime gangs?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Having spent more than a decade tackling financial crime before I came to this place, I welcome the Minister’s remarks and the strategy on elections, which will protect our hard-won democracy from foreign interference and which also incorporates demands from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, along with asks from the Electoral Commission on political finance rules. Does the Minister expect the forthcoming elections Bill to be in force before the local elections next May? Will company donations be permitted only from firms with UK ultimate beneficial owners? What guidance does she envisage being made available to political parties to fulfil their “know your donor” obligations? On enforcement, does she foresee that the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service will require additional resources to fulfil potential obligations under the forthcoming elections Bill?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  In response to an urgent question in April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) confirmed that the London Sudan conference included a commitment from the UK Government to provide a further £120 million of aid for 2025-26 to support 650,000 people, which the Minister referenced earlier. With that in mind, can the Minister today confirm to the House what progress has been made in the intervening few months to ensure that the additional aid reaches the most vulnerable people in Sudan fleeing conflict, sexual violence and famine?