Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by Minister Falconer. The Statement is as follows:
“Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood.
This Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA is the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the West Bank are reunified under its authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. The UK is also clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.
The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform.
As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza, with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.
We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the West Bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.
Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority is currently undertaking. The UK fully supports the implementation of the much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. These reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery and promote peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MoU, the Palestinian Authority underlined its commitment to delivering its reform agenda in full as a matter of priority.
As part of this visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.
As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. This visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the Middle East—at this critical moment.”
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the meeting of the UK Government with the Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa and his colleagues. We also welcome the memorandum of understanding, and the restatement of commitment to the two-state solution and the involvement of the Palestinian Authority in the future of Gaza, as well as the strategic partnership based on economic development and institutional reform. This is a forward-looking development. It does, however, raise some questions, particularly of commitment. What discussions have the UK Government had with the United States on the centrality of Palestinian involvement in the future of Gaza? In the light of the remarks made by President Trump, it does not look to be a very deliverable proposal.
The atrocities being committed in Gaza on civilians, many of them women and children, together with the systematic destruction of the health system, continue to shock the world. There is no fully functioning hospital in Gaza despite the indiscriminate bombing and shooting of Palestinians and the devastating injuries that result. Can the Minister say whether future progress on the memorandum of understanding may require the UK to stop arming Israel to carry out indiscriminate killing and destruction in Gaza?
What commitment did the UK Government make to Prime Minister Mustafa to do all in their power to end the blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, where, after 50 days of blockade, supplies have run out and civilians, including large numbers of children, are starving to death, even though supplies of crucial food and water are readily available over the border. [Interruption.] I hear that I am being heckled from a sedentary position. I believe that this is not in order in this House. We heard reports from the humanitarian agencies in Gaza that there is not even enough water to make formula food for babies, and that babies are dying as well. The noble Lord may shake his head; if he has evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
In the light of the deliberations of the ICJ, will the UK Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Commitment to the two-state solution will be worth little if further action of the Israeli Government should be to annex the illegally occupied West Bank. In the light of statements made by Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and increasing violence supported by the IDF, what are the UK Government doing to ensure that this does not happen? In the light of the accelerating violence, will the UK sanction further violent settlers?
The Labour manifesto contained a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state, but the Government have so far failed to do so. In 2014, the House of Commons voted to recognise the Palestinian state, and the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 148 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. The Government have said that they will recognise Palestine when this is most conducive to a peace process, but if not now, can the Minister say what factors must change for this to happen? We read that France is planning recognition at the June reconstruction conference, and international momentum is now growing. The UK risks missing a crucial moment to support a just resolution and recognise its own responsibility in the history of the current context.
The meeting and its outcome are to be welcomed, but a very significant sign of good faith would be for the UK to recognise the inalienable right of the Palestinians to have their own internationally recognised state and homeland. I hope that the Minister will restate the Government’s commitment on this fundamental principle, and that we will see action on it in the near future.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the support that we have had from both Front Benches for the two-state solution, and the support for the meeting that was held.
I have to say that we agree with the Front Bench opposite on the issue of recognition. Our position has been consistent, in that we will recognise Palestine as part of a process at a moment when we judge that it is most conducive to peace. I do not think that is now. It may be, as I was asked, the culmination of a process, or it may come at some point within a process. As noble Lords have said, it would be a significant step. It is something you can do only once, so it is important that you pick the moment to do it, at a time when you will have the greatest impact.
On the blocking of aid, the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is appalling. Access to aid is an area where our international humanitarian law assessments continue to raise concerns about possible breaches. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law. It should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise these issues with his counterparts, including most recently at a meeting with the Foreign Minister on 15 April. We continue to call publicly and privately on the Government of Israel to abide by their international obligations when it comes to humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.
I was asked about our ministerial engagement with the US. Since hostilities resumed, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, the EU high representative and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We are using every piece of influence that we can to try to get aid reinstated; we think the humanitarian situation is dire and getting more serious by the day, so we will continue to do that.
We are working on technical assistance with the Palestinian Authority. I met with the Finance Minister last week, and I know these are serious people trying to do the right thing in incredibly difficult circumstances. It is important that we continue to support people who want to see a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and I am glad that we are able to do what we can there. We have secured just over £100 million in aid to support that work but, as of today, the main concern that we all have is getting the remaining hostages released, reinstating the ceasefire and ensuring access for aid back into Gaza.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on 5 and 24 March I asked the Minister to clarify details of the oversight in place to monitor the £41 million of UK taxpayers’ money that we had donated for humanitarian aid to UNRWA. I am still none the wiser. I now note that after this meeting a further £101 million is being given to the Palestinian Authority, a corrupt organisation that supported the 7 October attacks on Israel, that has no control over Hamas or the several terrorist groups on the West Bank, and that has done nothing to call for the release of the 59 hostages—which is a war crime—or the laying down of weapons by Hamas. So when will the Minister provide the House with the information that I have twice requested? How can this Government justify donating a further £101 million to that terrorist-supporting organisation? Finally, where exactly would the proposed Palestinian state be located?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I genuinely do not think the tone of that is at all helpful to what we are all trying to achieve here, which is peace and a two-state solution. Perhaps the noble Baroness is not seeking a two-state solution, I do not know. We do not recognise her characterisation of the Palestinian Authority. I met with them myself last week, and I would encourage her to do that should she wish to educate herself about this.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am answering the question that the noble Baroness asked. The reason we are donating aid is that children are starving and people are being displaced. Around 90% of the population has been displaced and aid is needed. We encourage Israel to enable that aid to reach the people who need it, and to do that immediately.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and the action of the Government, particularly in signing the memorandum of understanding, which advances the issues that we face every night on our televisions. I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Baroness across the Chamber about the humanitarian issues that are happening as we speak. There is immense human suffering taking place. I welcome the emphasis that the Government have now placed on beginning to tackle that.
My noble friend the Minister has pre-empted a number of the questions I wanted to ask about what we are doing to work internationally to try to lift what is, in effect, a blockade on help and assistance going to the Palestinian people. Therefore, can she give us more information about the £101 million that has been shared with the Palestinian Authority? In stark contrast to the previous contribution, I think it will be welcomed broadly across the country as recognition of the suffering that we are witnessing and of the investment the Palestinian people properly deserve. Can the Minister share with the House in future the progress of that spend and communicate to the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Mustafa the support that they have in this Chamber? We recognise the plight of the Palestinian people and that the best way to solve these immense problems, as the Minister said, is shared understanding.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question, her long-standing interest in this topic and the thoughtful way she goes about raising these issues. We have announced funding recently, but this comes after the money that was announced for the OPTs in 2024-25. This included £41 million for UNRWA, providing vital services to civilians in Gaza.
In answer to the question about why we are providing this support now and to the Palestinian Authority, I invite noble Lords who are concerned about this to consider who it might be that would be leading this work in Gaza if it were not for the people who are currently doing it. They are mostly technocrats who had other roles, who have come back and want to do the right thing by their population. They are deserving of our support. The reason we have had to put additional aid in is, frankly, the absolutely desperate situation that civilians—who have had no role in any of the violence—find themselves in.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s announcement of the aid package. Would the Minister agree that most of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank have contributed significantly to the local economy, farming, small businesses and enterprise? However, if you believe in the two-state solution, as the Minister has mentioned on four occasions—my noble friend also mentioned it on four occasions, and I support it strongly—then surely the logic is that these settlers must accept that their future lies certainly as residents, and maybe as citizens, of a Palestinian sovereign state. What representations have HMG made to the Israeli Government on this point?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our position is that the settlements are illegal under international law and harm prospects of a two-state solution. Settlements do not offer security to either Israel or Palestinians. The settlement expansion and violence that we see has reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the West Bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years, and we think that is completely unacceptable.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Given that Israel’s peace agreements with the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan have all been the product of direct negotiations between the relevant parties, does the Minister agree that this model has a proven track record of delivering peace and security in the region, and that unilateral declarations will not resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am generally not in favour of diplomacy by declaration. I think that the right way to go about this is negotiation, and we encourage all parties who either involve themselves directly or may have influence over the parties who are involved to encourage the reinstatement of the ceasefire and peace and negotiations to proceed, as the noble Lord says.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Jerusalem Foundation in the UK, and, as such, that I was in Jerusalem earlier this month. To pre-empt an answer the Minister might give me: yes, I have been to Ramallah; yes, I have talked to the Palestinian Authority; and yes, I have talked most recently to east Jerusalemites. The east Jerusalemites I have talked to specifically state that they have no confidence in the Palestinian Authority, many of whom voiced support for Hamas’s actions. Was this raised with the Prime Minister at the meeting? Likewise, they have no confidence in a PA that have lost control over large parts of the West Bank—we now find that Jenin is, in effect, controlled by Iranian support. Was this raised with the Prime Minister, and what assessment have HMG made of its impact?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
These issues are raised. I do not think anybody is trying to pretend that the Palestinian Authority are functioning as a normal Government would like to—how could they? We are not naive about this. The point is, if not the Palestinian Authority, then who? If you believe in a two-state solution, there will need to be some form of governance at some point—we hope in the near future. The assessment of this Government, His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and many others in both Houses is that working to build a relationship with the Palestinian Authority—to increase their capacity and make them into the competent Government that we want them to be—is the best option that we have at this stage.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
This visit took place against a background of considerable domestic tension over events in the Middle East, sometimes, though not invariably or even mostly, between British Jews and British Muslims. Can the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with her colleagues in the Communities Department about the means of easing those tensions? If I may add a rider, what discussions has she had with the department about tensions between our Indian-origin communities and Pakistan-origin communities over the very serious situation relating to Kashmir?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really important question. I speak regularly about this issue to our Faith Minister in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government , my noble friend Lord Khan. It is a sad fact that we see international events played out on our streets, in our schools and in communities in this country. Whereas debate and free speech are completely legitimate, we are concerned about some of the more abusive behaviour and victimisation that has taken place, and the rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism. We work very closely across departments to make sure that we are doing what we need to do. It is not something that we used to see quite as much as we do today, and we see it played out in our politics, for reasons that we can all try our best to understand. It is very important that the noble Lord raised that and reminds us about it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, in which I noticed the following sentence:
“Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking”.
Can the Minister help us by identifying what essential reforms he referred to?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many reforms, as noble Lords can imagine, that the Palestinian Authority know that they need to make. The conversations that I have had have centred on their need to develop their ability to manage money responsibly and how they raise money and accesses funds to be able to deliver the services that they are going to have to deliver in the future. That may feel like high-ambition work from where we are today, and I think they would accept that, but we have to start somewhere, and it is right that we are providing the assistance that we are.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s comments regarding my questions, we on this side of the House are here to scrutinise what the Government are doing, as was the case when we were in power as a Conservative Government. The Minister may not like what I said, but it is factual. To infer that I said what I said because I have no knowledge of the region or perhaps have never visited or met the Palestinian Authority—which I have; I have been visiting Israel over the last 50 years—I find rather offensive, frankly. She may not have the facts at hand to reply to the questions I asked on oversight of the amount of money that the taxpayer is putting into UNRWA, and now this latest £101 million, but it would nevertheless be a courtesy to say that she will write to me or at least inform the House of the details that I have asked for.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, if I wanted to write to the noble Baroness, I would have said that I was going to write to her. It is up to her to challenge me—I am here for that; I enjoy it and that is what I want to do—but it is up to me to decide whether I like what she says or not.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I would like to take the question I asked a bit further. If we accept that the settlers have contributed a great deal and invested heavily, what is the ideal outcome? Is it that they are forced to move if we have a Palestinian state, or would it be better if they stayed and worked with a new Palestinian Authority at some stage in the future, maybe a long way off? It is our avowed mission and wish to see this two-state solution take place.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, it absolutely is. I am careful not to make comments that might pre-empt or get ahead of negotiations. That would not be a good idea for me as a Minister. The issues that the noble Lord raises are incredibly important and he is right to raise them, but they are probably best dealt with through a process of negotiation, which I hope we can enter into sooner rather than later.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the central problem in the progress we all want to see in the peace process and the two-state solution that the Government and the Opposition are committed to has been Palestinian terrorism, its attacks on Israel and Israel’s concerns about its security. As I understand it, section 4 of the MoU details security co-operation between the UK and the Palestinian Authority. Can the Minister tell us more about what confidence the Government have in the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to address the growing threat posed by Palestinian extremist groups and terrorists in the West Bank?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend asks about the capacity and capability of the Palestinian Authority. It is fair to say that it does not today have the capability that he describes, and I do not think it would claim to. That is why we have set about this work on long-term security in the region and the understanding that the Palestinian Authority needs reform. Our support is designed to help it address the very real challenges, which I think we all recognise, through concrete reforms. That includes democratic renewal, widening civic space, improving accountability and transparency and fighting corruption. He is right to make that point; that is why we are undertaking the work that we are.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
My Lords, within our mutual aspiration for a two-state solution at some time—and it will be a long time in the future—clearly a big key is education. One of the things that really vexes and troubles the Jewish community in the United Kingdom is evidence of Palestinian textbooks that incite violence and encourage antisemitism. There are schools in Jerusalem which are the reverse of this. For example, there is the Hand in Hand school, financed by British financiers, in which half the pupils are Arab and half are Jewish, and they work together. Was the issue of these textbooks discussed in the meeting with the Prime Minister and, if not, can it be raised, because it is so important?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am familiar with this issue. I do not know if it was specifically mentioned at the meeting, but I do know that it is raised regularly by Ministers because we recognise the concern around it.