Gibraltar Treaty
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. First, I welcome the presence in the Gallery of His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Sir Ben Bathurst. Given his previous commands, I also take the opportunity to wish him a very happy St David’s day in advance—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—which I share with all the House and, indeed, with the people of Gibraltar. It is also a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your own strong support for and associations with Gibraltar, not least in relation to the university.
After five years of tireless and complex work and dozens of rounds of negotiations, I am pleased to inform the House that we have published a draft version of the treaty. I am depositing a copy of the draft treaty in the Library of each House, together with an accompanying summary document. I am delighted that we have reached this moment, which heralds a new era of security, prosperity and stability for Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.
For more than 300 years, the Rock has been a hugely important part of the British family. Its people are British citizens, and our commitment to them remains absolute. This Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect Gibraltar’s unique position and to secure post-Brexit arrangements that deliver on that responsibility. This draft treaty protects jobs and livelihoods for the people of Gibraltar and offers a stable framework for their relationship with the European Union, removing the uncertainty they have faced since Brexit. In short, it shows what real diplomacy and co-operation can achieve. It is the result of sustained and effective efforts on the part of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain.
His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been at the table at every stage of the negotiations; nothing has been agreed without their full support. I place on the record my appreciation for the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their teams, who played vital roles in securing the best outcome. I also pay tribute to UK negotiators, including our teams in Brussels, Madrid, London and Gibraltar. Their diligence and diplomatic skill have ensured that this treaty protects UK sovereignty and delivers practical outcomes for citizens and businesses on both sides of the border.
Now let me reflect on some of the detail. Around 15,000 people cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day—half of Gibraltar’s workforce. The treaty removes all checks on people and goods at that border; instead, dual immigration checks will take place at Gibraltar’s airport, with Gibraltar conducting its own controls and Spain, as the neighbouring Schengen state, conducting checks on behalf of the European Union, in a model similar to the French police operating at St Pancras.
Let me be clear: Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Immigration, policing and justice remain the responsibility of its own authorities. British sovereignty over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, is fully upheld and explicitly protected. Crucially, the United Kingdom’s military facilities and operations on the Rock remain under full UK control. The treaty also establishes a bespoke customs model that removes the need for routine goods checks at the land border and strengthens co-operation between customs authorities.
Gibraltar will align its import duty rates on goods with EU rates. That will allow people to cross the border with everyday goods, such as shopping, without declarations or additional charges, bringing an end to long queues for workers, businesses and visitors. Having been in those queues myself, I know that that will make a substantial difference. To be clear, Gibraltar will not apply VAT or any other sales tax, and its vital services industry will not be affected.
The result is a pragmatic agreement and arrangement that protects Gibraltar’s way of life, supports its economy and strengthens cross-border co-operation, while safe- guarding the United Kingdom’s sovereignty position. It also gives businesses the certainty that they have sought for many years, allowing them to plan and invest with confidence. The conclusion of the negotiations also reflects the wider, transformed change in tone and trust that this Government have rebuilt with our European and EU partners, including Spain—a crucial NATO ally and economic partner. It represents a new era of co-operation and delivery for growth and security.
As with the UK-EU summit last year, the agreement shows that a constructive, problem-solving relationship with the European Union can deliver real benefits for British citizens. We are publishing the draft treaty alongside the European Union while legal teams complete final checks and translations, so that all Parliaments with an interest can have access to it on the same timeline.
The publication of the draft today marks a milestone, but it is not the formal end of the process; the final version of the treaty will be laid in the UK Parliament for scrutiny before ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain as we move towards signature and implementation, and I will update the House as that work progresses.
In conclusion, this is a significant achievement for Britain, for Gibraltar and for our wider European partnerships. It shows this Government’s commitment to fixing problems, supporting our overseas territories, and defending Britain’s interests with clarity and confidence. With this treaty, Gibraltar can look to the future with certainty. Its people can be reassured that their way of life is protected. To quote the Chief Minister today, the treaty
“provides a springboard to stability, certainty and a modern partnership with the EU. And it does so without affecting our fundamental, inalienable right to remain British in every respect. Indeed, the Agreement makes absolutely clear that nothing in the Agreement or any supplementing arrangements shall affect sovereignty.”
In the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, our commitment to Gibraltar remains, as ever, as solid as the Rock. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process.
For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully.
The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border?
On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects?
We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control?
The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest?
I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way?
On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever?
Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member suggests that we have gone around the American Government. I have set out already in my response the extensive talks that we have had on this question with both Secretaries and, indeed, the President of the United States in recent months. There is no question of us going around the US Government.
The hon. Member says, “Well, what has changed?” Clearly, the view of the US President may well have changed, but the treaty has not. We have discussed the treaty in great detail in this House. The treaty emerges from talks initiated by the previous Government and completed—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I might find the chuntering on the Conservative Benches more plausible had I not been a Foreign Office diplomat during the period when, for 11 rounds, they were negotiating this deal. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches now wish to distance themselves from the 11 rounds they conducted, but let us at least—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is sitting down, Minister, and it is not going to be me. An urgent question has been granted and other Members want to hear it. I want to hear it, I expect them to hear it, and I expect them to hear it in silence.
Mr Falconer
Returning to the substance of the hon. Member’s question, I would just like to remind him that if he turned up with a selfie stick to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which is a similarly sensitive military base, he would be turned away. I do not understand his surprise, or that of those who travelled with him, that when you sought over the weekend to film a video on a sensitive military site under the control of the UK—[Interruption.] It is part of the British Indian Overseas Territory, as you know. I encourage the hon. Member, and indeed every member of the public, to check British travel advice—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, you keep saying “you”. I am absolutely not responsible for, or was involved in, that filming. Please, I am being drawn into something that I do not wish to be drawn into at this stage.
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, I can only apologise. I would not seek to draw you into such a flagrant incident of ignoring travel advice.
The treaty is as it was signed. It is going through both Houses of Parliament. We are discussing it with our American colleagues. The fact that the hon. Member sought to take a selfie video on the islands does not change any of those facts.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?
This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?
Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?
Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.
Mr Falconer
I would not like to accept the connection being made between the British Indian Ocean Territory and Gibraltar and the Falklands. We are four-square behind the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have chosen repeatedly to remain British, and long may that continue. We are abiding by our manifesto commitments. The issues around the continued operation of the base have been discussed many times in this Chamber, and they are being scrutinised in both Chambers as the treaty goes through the full process that Parliament would expect, and that will continue.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.
However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.
What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman says “Stop the boats”, but he did take a private jet to get there, which is not quite consistent with the small boat rhetoric we usually hear from his party.
I want to be clear that there has been an attempt to land—indeed, a successful one—on part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and it was not an area fit for human habitation. British travel advice is very clear that one should not travel to that area. This House has discussed the sensitivity of this base and these islands on many occasions. I encourage everybody listening at home to attend to our travel advice, which is there for a reason.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.
Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.
The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.
On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy
“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”
Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?
The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her work on behalf of her constituent, Jimmy Lai. I can confirm that we are in discussions with our allies, including the United States, Australia, Canada and the European Union, about what we can do internationally to continue to advocate for and to secure the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?
Seema Malhotra
We take the UN working group’s opinion on Jimmy Lai incredibly seriously, which is why we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend will also know the work that we continue to do in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal.
Iran
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.
Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.
The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.
The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,
“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.
We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?
Mr Falconer
I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable.
The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?
British Indian Ocean Territory
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
No. Furthermore, I will have no truck with Reform, which has no record on supporting the security of our country, especially given what has happened in Wales.
The Opposition may not want to hear this, but they backed negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. Some 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, and were led by the former Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] They may not want to hear this, but it is important to share that, in November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that through negotiations—[Interruption.] I think a lot of people are interested in the past.
Mr Speaker
May I ask the two Front-Bench teams to make interventions rather than having this running battle?
Mr Speaker
Order. Who are you giving way to, Minister? Three Members think it is them.
Seema Malhotra
I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know that these matters have been shared before with the House. Perhaps I may remind him what US Secretary Hegseth said:
“The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Dr Evans, do you have to keep chuntering? You have asked the question, and you are getting an answer. I do not need—[Interruption.] Order. I wouldn’t bother giving me backchat. I do not need a running commentary. Let’s calm it down a little. It does not look good on TV.
Seema Malhotra
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I remind the hon. Member of what US Secretary Hegseth said:
“The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region.
We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that she would address the issue of whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, and now she says that she cannot comment. Is that—
Mr Speaker
Order. No, no, no. You are on the Panel of Chairs. You know that that is not a point of order—it’s not even the start of one. You are trying to continue the debate. I am sure that you are on the list to speak, so you will get to make your points later.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member could not have known it, but I was on the first line of a page of comments on that exact issue. I am sorry that he chose that moment to interrupt proceedings.
As I was saying, it is a matter of long-standing policy that we do not comment on operational procedures. The Conservatives know that and, of course, took the same approach in government. As the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“We are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our abilities to uphold international law, and to continue to operate the base as we do today.”
As Lord Coaker has—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is getting touchy in here. I want the debate to be tolerant and respectful. It is up to the Minister whether she wishes to give way. That word is in order. It has been used from the other side as well, so let us not forget our memories.
Seema Malhotra
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Given the security risk, this Government, like the Government before us, made the decision to negotiate with Mauritius to secure a deal to protect the base and the UK. Our agreement ensures full operational control of Diego Garcia; a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process including joint decision making to prevent any activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure that the operation of the base is never undermined.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member asks what the threats are. I have set those out on many occasions in this House. What is more, we have secured better protections in this deal than the Conservatives attempted to negotiate, including the buffer zone and the protections in relation to foreign forces on the outer islands. The priority for us has been securing our national security and the operation of this base for us and our allies.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that the Chagossians’ right to self-determination should be honoured, so even at this eleventh hour I ask the Government to reconsider their obstinate refusal to give Chagossians a voice over the homeland from which they were shamefully and violently removed. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that seeks to secure binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius? The Government have also failed to address the concerns shared across this House about the vast sums of public money due to be sent to the Government of Mauritius over the lifetime of this agreement. We should not sign 99 cheques today that Mauritius can cash over the next century, so will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place to give Parliament annual scrutiny of the payments made to Mauritius? In the light of the shifting US position, I encourage the Minister to consider soberly the approach the Government are taking, and I urge him to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place for a pause while the US position is clarified.
Stephen Doughty
Those are absolutely extraordinary comments. We have made very clear how this deal supports our national security interests and those of the US—
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The most important organisation or network for the future of Gaza is the Palestinian committee —the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, made up of Palestinians. Gaza should be run by Palestinians. That is crucial, and that is what we should be supporting to take forward. On the wider question, Putin is not a man of peace and does not belong in any organisation with the word “peace” in the name.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?
Yvette Cooper
I have actually answered every single one of the right hon. Lady’s points already, if she had listened. We have been one of the leading countries in driving forward proposals for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. We are working with other countries on that and will continue to do so because we think it is a priority. On the humanitarian work, work has been done by the CMCC, but it goes nowhere near far enough. We are seeing deteriorating conditions in many areas because of the winter conditions, and the removal of non-governmental organisations simply goes backwards. On the board of peace, it is different from what was proposed, and that is why international discussions are under way, and we will see where they end up. But let us be clear that it is the Palestinian committee and the Palestinian people who need to lead the running of Gaza going forward.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The composition of Donald Trump’s board of peace looks increasingly like a rogues’ gallery, with President Putin now having been invited to join. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been left out of that board entirely, and it is increasingly clear that this is not about peace at all. I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary, which she has not yet answered. Can she tell the House whether Government Ministers have spoken with Tony Blair about his role, and will she categorically condemn these current plans and call instead for the United Nations to lead peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Gaza, with Palestinians at the heart of this?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have proposed a stronger role for NATO on Arctic security. Just as NATO has a successful Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry, we are arguing for an Arctic sentry that co-ordinates operations and intelligence for countries right across the Arctic, and also countries like the UK, which are heavily affected by Arctic security, even though we are not part of Arctic security. That is why we are substantially increasing our presence in northern Norway and working with Norway on new, groundbreaking frigates.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
With his threats against Greenland and, now, against her partners, including the UK, Donald Trump has driven a presidential motorcade through NATO and the entire system of post-war security. I am pleased that the Prime Minister yesterday made his objections to Trump clear, but words are not enough. We must show President Trump that his actions have consequences, and that we will act in concert with our allies, as we are much stronger when we stand together. Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out the idea of preparing retaliatory tariffs for use only in the event that the President carries out his threats on 1 February. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should take no options off the table when dealing with a corrupt bully such as President Trump?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Iran is a cyber-menace that is committing digital warfare against democracies around the world and its own people. Most recently, it has cut its own citizens off from the internet to hide the scale of its atrocities. Do the Government have any plans to use their cyber-capabilities to take on Tehran in its moment of weakness, and how they will prevent Tehran from evading tariffs by using cryptocurrency?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with sincerity, I was just very clear. It was on 3 November that Mauritius announced the creation of the Chagos archipelago marine protected area, and it has confirmed that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. We are working very closely with Mauritius on patrolling and protecting the environment. These are important issues, and I assure him that we are absolutely seized of them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member should know better than to ask a question like that. As he knows, the UK has been continually strong in our support for Ukraine, for the people of Ukraine and for Ukraine’s continued military resistance. For too long, Russia has underestimated not only the people of Ukraine but Ukraine’s friends. That is why the UK, through the coalition of the willing, has been leading support for Ukraine.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will have heard President Zelensky’s warnings last week about the supply of air defence missiles—we must heed them. Will the Government make more weapons available, scale up production immediately or broker new military aid packages with our allies to ensure a constant supply of missiles?
Dan Carden
I am grateful for that update. The brutal Iranian regime is dying and a new Iran is being born. We can assist that process, in the Iranian people’s interests and ours, by banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If the Foreign Secretary requires a new legislative instrument for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, will she bring that to the House? Will the Foreign Office prepare for the day after, convening Opposition parties to cohere them and mobilise expertise to decide on a future democratic—
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary I commissioned a review of the legislation which recommended changes, because existing legislation is drawn up around terrorism, and we need to be able to deal with state-backed threats. I assure him that both I and the Home Secretary take the threats from Iran extremely seriously.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government have just given planning permission to the new Chinese super-hub embassy—the document is 240 pages; there it is for us to read—while Jimmy Lai, a British national, continues to be imprisoned in appalling conditions on bogus political charges under the disgraceful Hong Kong national security law. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for China to be rewarded with this spy hub in the heart of London while Jimmy languishes in prison?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member likes to call himself a patriot. He has just joined the party that is the weakest on Russia—a country that threatens our country—and led by a leader who has continued to question the role of Russia in beginning the Ukraine war, the role of NATO and even in the Salisbury killings. He should look a little bit inwards before he tries to make points in here.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Given the scale of the planned FCDO budget reductions and significant staffing cuts, what assessment has been made of which policy areas will be deprioritised as a result of those measures? What redundancy mitigation steps are being taken in line with the 2016 civil service protocols and how those changes are expected to impact both UK personnel serving overseas and country-based staff?
Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have been clear from the start: nothing should be happening to the Chagossian people without the full democratic input of Chagossians themselves, who, in the custom of other overseas territories citizens, we should recognise as a self-governing and self-determining people, even if the UK has deprived Chagossians access to their homeland for more than 50 years.
Those principles, if they are to mean anything to our overseas territories family, must be both immutable and universal. In recognising that, I note that I am now joined by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which last week reported that the proposed agreement on the future of the Chagos islands should not be ratified on the grounds that it risks
“perpetuating longstanding violations of the Chagossian people’s rights.”
I am also concerned about the requirement—made, I think, explicit in the Minister’s statement yesterday—that Chagossian people will only be able to partake in the resettlement programme if, and only if, they accept Mauritian citizenship, even in circumstances where individuals and families have no historical connection, cultural or civic, to that state. Will the Minister therefore set out whether any negotiations have taken place that would have enabled Chagossians to exercise their right of return without being required to subscribe to Mauritian citizenship? Were there any discussions about a Hong Kong-style arrangement, whereby permanent residency and freedom of movement may have been granted outside of citizenship? Finally, how does the Minister reconcile last week’s UN report with his stated desire to conform with our international obligations?
Mr Falconer
In relation to the UN report, I am sure that it will be discussed on Third Reading, when the House of Lords further considers the treaty, and again in this House if that is where it returns. On the trust fund, the written ministerial statement yesterday set out the position of the Mauritian Government. There will be further discussions between the UK and Mauritius in the new year.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Chagossians have been treated appallingly by successive Governments—we all accept that. To me, it is unconscionable that, for the first time since the first world war, a colonial people is being transferred from one colonial power to another 1,000 miles away with no control. I think there should be a referendum, but we are where we are. Does the Minister recognise that it would lighten the whole atmosphere if there was an absolute right of return for all Chagossians, with them not having to take Mauritian citizenship and being fully in control of their own trust fund? In other words, they have a right to self-determination like any other people on earth.
Africa: New Approach
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Africa matters to the United Kingdom and it matters to this Government, our missions and our plan for change. Africa has the greatest growth potential of any continent, providing expanding opportunities for UK businesses to kick-start economic growth. Strengthening the foundations of UK growth requires engagement with Africa to secure our borders and address the drivers of illegal migration. Africa is home to 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including significant deposits of the growth minerals identified in the new UK critical minerals strategy, which are essential to securing our supply chains and enabling the UK’s mission to become a clean energy superpower.
However, we inherited an approach that reflected the past and not the opportunities of Africa’s future. That is why we committed in our manifesto to deliver a new approach for mutual long-term benefit. We were also clear that reframing our relationship was not something to cook up here in London and then package as a shared approach, so we launched a five-month listening exercise, hearing from Governments and more than 600 organisations—from civil society and diaspora communities to businesses and universities—about what they valued and wanted to see from Britain. There was a clear common message: African nations want respectful, long-term partnerships that deliver real change for people’s lives.
Responding to the consultation, the UK’s new approach provides a high-level framing to guide the Government’s long-term engagement with African partners, reaffirming the shift from paternalism to a partnership of respect and equality over seven areas of shared interest. First, we are moving from donor to investor. We will go further to unlock investment and trade, helping African and British businesses to create quality jobs, economic opportunities and prosperity. Secondly, we are working together on the challenges of illegal migration. Migration should be fair, managed and controlled. We will be unapologetic in pressing for high ambition and clear progress against our priorities in this area. Thirdly, we are advancing shared interests on climate, nature and clean energy, recognising their significance for growth and security. Fourthly, we are continuing to collaborate for peace and security, working to silence the guns and tackle violence against women and girls. Fifthly, we are strengthening the systems that support people and growth, including strengthening financial self-resilience. Sixthly, we are championing African voices in global decision making, including in the global financial system. Finally, we are supporting innovation and cultural partnerships. This adds up to a new kind of partnership—one that works with African leadership and is inclusive, respectful and strong enough to work through difficulties and disagreements.
Our high commissions and embassies will be at the forefront of embedding this approach in spirit and content, and we will take it forward into the UK’s G20 presidency in 2027. British Ministers will be out there on the continent championing these principles, strengthening coherence across our partnerships and backing diverse African voices to shape our work.
Mr Speaker
I will just say gently, Minister, that this is a very important statement, and what you have said is so important to the House. We do not need written ministerial statements; it would be easier if it was brought to the House, rather than hidden away in the Library.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for foreign affairs and co-chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth.
The geopolitical challenges we face as a nation are acute and mounting and have real impacts on people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom. For too long, our relationship with countries on the African continent has been viewed through the prism of colonial guilt, which has harmed our ability to engage, left relationships to suffer and let generations down. We must think about what we can do with, not to, nations on the African continent.
The African continent is a big and diverse place and cannot be put in one basket. Each region will have different characteristics, and our approach needs to reflect that with respect, understanding and action. The United Kingdom has been found seriously wanting in relation to its former colonies over the past 30 years under successive Governments, and this must be a turning point based on respect, friendship, equality and our shared histories, bonds, systems and experiences.
I have the following questions for the Minister. How will the Government’s approach protect the United Kingdom against the geopolitical threats we face from Russia, China and other hostile states and their corrosive impact on nations across the African continent? Many African nations are members of the Commonwealth—a hugely important but totally underutilised post-war creation. How will the approach ensure that the Commonwealth gets meaningful support and is properly fit for purpose? I am concerned that one word that was not mentioned in the statement was “Commonwealth”.
How much money will be put behind this new approach? What steps will be taken to ensure that new, meaningful trade deals are established between African nations and the United Kingdom? Fair, balanced and decent trade has a hugely important role to play in this relationship, and it must be taken seriously. What will be expected of our heads of missions at high commissions and embassies across Africa to advance this approach? Finally, what will our new approach mean for British engagement with the African Union?
The bonds of history and people bind together our United Kingdom and many independent nations on the African continent; we have common languages, common legal systems, common but difficult histories and a common purpose. This new approach has the potential to help to grow our economy here at home, neutralise the influence of hostile states and move forward together. If it does that, it will have my full support.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend both for the question and for his dedication to and diligence on these issues. I reassure him of the importance that this Government place on the Commonwealth, which is a vital partnership both in Africa and across the world. It is the C in FCDO, and it is very close to our minds and central to our strategy both in Africa and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend asks important points about the role of Russia and China in Africa. As he knows well, China particularly has been a long-standing presence in many African countries as an important source of trade and finance. In my experience, though, African countries are not naive about Chinese motivations or the potential risks associated with elements of its offer. The Africa strategy that we announced yesterday is in part a response to the desire from so many African countries for a longer, enduring and sustainable partnership with the UK, both to respond to the interests of others, whether that is China or Russia, and to build on the historic ties to which he so eloquently referred.
I pause briefly to talk about Russia’s role in Africa. Russia is exploiting conflicts, instability and natural resources right across Africa, in the Sahel and indeed in north Africa. We are already supporting African partners through strategic security and defence relationships with countries such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, co-ordinating closely with like-minded states and international organisations. The role of the Africa Corps in Africa is malign.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important urgent question. May I say that I do not think it is acceptable for the Minister to just regurgitate the written ministerial statement from yesterday?
There are some fundamental issues about what should be the Government’s strategy. First and foremost, it was wrong to simply say that the approach that the Government inherited was wrong. I should know that, having recapitalised the Commonwealth Development Corporation, with British International Investment now having a huge amount of annual investment and reinvestment every single year on economic development in Africa. Fundamentally, whether it is from Gavi, the Global Fund or the sustainable development goals, these are founding principles that are now being advanced across Africa, and the Government really should do much more to stand up and defend them.
In the written ministerial statement yesterday there was no reference to China’s belt and road debt traps, Russia’s nefarious activities or the Wagner Group in Africa. Yet before our eyes, we see the axis of authoritarian states pillaging African countries for its natural resources. Where is the substance for a plan of action to counter the growing influence of that axis?
As we have already heard, there is also scant regard in the Government’s plan for the Commonwealth and its role in upholding democracy, capacity building and freedoms. Why is that the case? Are the Government working with the new secretary-general on her economic vision, which would clearly benefit the UK and Africa?
We do not know how the Government intend to support the African Union or rise to the challenges in the continent, and sadly, we are seeing so much conflict right now. Can the Minister explain what the UK will do to leverage our conflict resolution expertise to good effect?
Finally, on illegal migration, can I remind the Minister and the Government that they intentionally tore up engagement with a key Commonwealth partner? Rwanda sought to provide leadership on illegal migration and stop young men leaving the continent at great risk because it wanted to create an economic development partnership with the UK. That surely speaks to some of the serious challenges that this Government now need to pick up and confront.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate in this area. I know that the Minister responsible for Africa has been considering those issues, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting to discuss them further.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Government are absolutely right to say that the United Kingdom needs a new relationship with Africa. Many Members in this House had hoped that that partnership would be sustainable, strategic and built on mutual trust. Africa, after all, has one of the youngest populations in the world and incredible economic potential, yet the Government are cutting aid to Africa by 12% this year alone, with further reductions likely in years to come.
Over the last decade the Liberal Democrats criticised the constant churn in Ministers under the previous Conservative Government, and we are very disappointed that the Africa Minister has recently again been changed. That has come as hard news in continental Africa, where the Minister was appreciated and the hard work that had been undertaken was bearing fruit.
Warm words are not enough when the overall trajectory that we see from the UK is arguably one of a diminishing partnership and diminishing influence. The Government are cutting overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.3%—the lowest this country has ever seen—at a time when debt costs are rising in continental Africa. It is important to invest in the work of the FCDO, because trade commissioners, for example, provide the in-country expertise that is needed to develop the new economic relations that the Minister talks about. On migration, upstream investment in poverty reduction and conflict prevention is more important than ever, as is support for organisations such as the British Council.
Africa is an essential strategic partner in an increasingly contested world, so may I ask the Minister directly, how can the Government seriously claim that they are strengthening partnerships and seeking to influence Africa while cutting aid and hollowing out the very tools that make engagement sustainable?
US National Security Strategy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seema Malhotra
As my hon. Friend and the House will know, national security is our first priority. It is important that we continue to discuss all national security issues on an ongoing basis with all our allies, and particularly with the United States. Ultimately, it is for the United States to set its strategy. When it comes to Europe, there are some things in the strategy that we agree with, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and there are elements that it will not surprise the House to hear that we disagree with.
It is important that we maintain our close relationship with the United States, with which we work on a whole range of issues, including our economic security and our security in terms of migration. It is also important that we recognise some of the issues raised, including on migration. It is essential that we have a migration system that is controlled, fair and managed. That is what the public rightly expect.
My hon. Friend mentioned the comments about the Mayor of London. The Mayor of London is doing a great job delivering for London, and it will not surprise the House to hear that I disagree with the comments made about him.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?
The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies. We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application?
On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am incredibly proud of my country, and migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We respect the US as a democracy, and friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. We must work together in a spirit of respect, recognising our mutual interests and long-standing relationship. Robust political debate can always take place in an environment of respect.
The shadow Minister mentioned the proposed Chinese embassy. The US is our closest ally, and we liaise with it closely on a wide range of issues, including China. A final decision on this case will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the timing of the decision is a matter for them.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
With this statement, Trump’s White House has driven a coach and horses through the UK’s national security strategy and strategic defence review. Trump has stated that the US has no enduring commitment to NATO, no support for fair and open international trade, and no willingness to co-operate in international organisations or abide by international law. The document shows derision for Europe, including the UK, for failing to share Trump’s divisive nationalist ideology, whereas Russia is seen as a great power with which the US intends to carve up Ukraine. No wonder the Kremlin said it was “consistent with our vision”.
Will the Government commit to an urgent review of the UK’s approach, and to making a statement to the House in January on the Government’s strategic response to this new Trump doctrine? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state clearly that her Government will not tolerate interference by America in the domestic politics of the UK, and will she commit that the forthcoming elections Bill will restrict funding to UK political parties from sources outside the UK?