China: Human Rights and Sanctions
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and David Lammy(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 Lammy
It was important, when we came into government, given the bouncing around that we saw in the last Government’s policy towards China, that we did a complete audit, right across Whitehall, of our interests and the opportunities, as well as of the challenges and security concerns, so that we could maintain a consistent position. Before that audit is complete, we are being guided, as I have said, by the three Cs: there are areas in which we co-operate, areas in which we compete, and there must be areas, as has come up this afternoon, in which we challenge.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
In the Foreign Secretary’s self-declaredly “robust” conversations with the Chinese Government, did he give a time limit for lifting sanctions on British politicians, including Members of this House, and did he outline the consequences if that were not met? Or were his talks just chat, and not robust?
Mr Lammy
I did not give a timeline. I simply said that the sanctions should be lifted, and explained why it was just wrong and counterproductive to sanction Members of a democratic Chamber like this. That was my position, and I defend it; I think that was the right thing to say. I raised the issue with Mr Speaker before leaving, just to be absolutely clear on the current status. Although one cannot be entirely sure that what one is conveying is going in and is properly understood, I did detect that Wang Yi recognised that this was a big issue between our two countries.
Middle East
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and David Lammy(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that I have condemned in no uncertain terms, both as shadow Foreign Secretary and as Foreign Secretary, some of the vile language that has been used by extremist elements within the Israeli Government. I heard the former Foreign Secretary on the radio talking about sanctions which could have been implemented that he chose not to implement. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am keeping those sanctions under review.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It has been a held belief across all Governments that a two-state solution is the only way to break the cycle of violence, but of course after Israel withdrew from Gaza, that pretty much led to what happened on 7 October. Can the Foreign Secretary use his office and the UK Government to lead discussions proactively, as a friend to Israel and a key member of the United Nations, on what security can be put in place in a two-state solution, using allies around, to ensure that Israel can have the confidence such a development will not be used as an attack platform to murder so many people once more?
Mr Lammy
We continue to hold out for that two-state solution, and it is definitely the case that Arab partners want to see that two-state solution. Among them, at this stage, Saudi Arabia is very important. I know that Israel would like to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is unlikely unless there is a road map to two states. We continue to work with all partners to keep two states alive, and of course, on the security concerns that Israel would need to be satisfied to bring that about.