Israel and Palestine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

In advance of the statement, when the Foreign Secretary came into office and I took on this ministerial role, we were of course in contact with the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar, I spoke with the Israeli chargé here, and we have had continual contact with the Government of Israel about our concerns and what we believe needs to change. My hon. Friend will have seen the reaction and the commentary in recent days, which was deeply regrettable and deeply unfortunate, but of course we maintain close and important links with Israel on a range of other measures. This is very much focused on the actions that we see on the ground—the actions of, for example, settler terrorists and those who are backing them in expanding those settlements, and the withholding of aid to Gaza. This is not a quarrel with Israel, or the Israeli people.

We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. It is also important to recognise our engagement on furthering the agenda of reform and inclusion in the state of Palestine; we work very closely with the Palestinian authorities, hampered as they are by the continued withholding of tax revenues and a range of other measures taken by the Israeli Government. As I said, we have been resolute that Hamas cannot be part of government going forward and must disarm. As many people have said, we have worked with the Palestinian authorities closely on the reform of prisoner payments, and welfare payments must be needs-based.

We are very clear that there needs to be reform and an inclusive process in Palestine. We want a viable, secure, prosperous and well governed Palestine going forward, and we have always been there as a partner to enable that. As for that state being threatened geographically, or in the functioning of its institutions, if we say that we believe in a two-state solution, we must believe in two states, geographically and in terms of ability to function. We have seen that goal come under even greater pressure in recent times.

We have been very clear in our engagement with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Government. I spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister recently, and have also engaged with those involved in the transitional processes that will hopefully lead to a settlement and a new Administration in Gaza. I met with the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza when I was in Egypt recently, and have discussed, even in these difficult times, the ways we can look to a positive and productive future.

I must be clear, as the Foreign Secretary was, that the official view of this Government is now that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine is unlawful. That concurs with the central finding of the June 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. We have come to that conclusion for a range of reasons. The Foreign Secretary and others have mentioned that Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist agenda and support for and facilitation of illegal settlements are key in this. That is our clear position. It is very important that I set out our values, what we aim at and the legal position, and that leads us on to the actions that we must take.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know of constituents who have moved from Israel to Leeds because of the actions of the Israeli Government, and who applaud what we have done in banning Israeli settlement goods and services. Many of us stand squarely behind international law and human rights, and commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their actions.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I know that he has extensive experience on these issues, and he is right that many, diverse voices across this country have welcomed our actions.

Israel and Palestine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have known him a long time, so I say this to him: how dare he try to speak for the Palestinian people instead of the Palestinian Prime Minister or the Palestinian ambassador in the UK? Why does he not meet the Palestinian ambassador in the UK and hear from him?

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary started by talking about our shared history of visiting our grandmothers in Israel. It gives him a clarity and authority on these matters that few else in the Chamber have. We would not accept goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine or Chinese-occupied Tibet, so why would we accept goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory? I still have many Gazan students wishing to come to Leeds University, as do other colleagues to other universities, and not being able to get their visas. Can we look at a visa-lite or visa-free regime for those Gazan students?

[Ed Miliband]

We will keep looking at what we can do for students and others from Gaza. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. He makes a fundamental point: the ICJ has made its statement on legality, and we have taken a view on legality. People can accept that or not, but if we accept it, how can we possibly defend a continued and unchanged economic relationships with the occupied territories?

Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was also delighted to see today that that announcement has been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that the five-year delay in passing the regulations has meant that imports totalling 54,000 hectares of tropical forests have happened? That is an area the size of Leeds.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was going to wind my hon. Friend up by saying that I have no idea how big Leeds is—slightly bigger than Bristol, I think—but he is right that delay has consequences. I gather that the Government have announced a consultation now, but we do not want that to drag on. We must ensure that it is a genuine consultation, but that it is time-limited and that action follows as swiftly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As you have made clear, Sir Jeremy, I have a little time, so I start, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on West Papua, by dedicating my speech to our former vice-chair, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who passed away recently. He was a fervent supporter of West Papua and, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) will agree, of environmental issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, I will use this debate to highlight the world’s largest deforestation project in Merauke, West Papua, which is home to hundreds of indigenous communities, unique biodiversity and extremely rare species, and to briefly—although maybe not so briefly now, Sir Jeremy—address specific threats to the Tapanuli orangutan in Sumatra.

One of the greatest threats to Indonesia’s progress on climate and environment is a three million-hectare, Government-backed food and energy estate project in West Papua. The Financial Times has described it as the world’s largest deforestation project. It threatens a total area that is five times the size of London—we are getting in all the major UK cities in this debate—and the livelihood of 50,000 indigenous people who call the forest home. West Papua’s unique biodiversity and the irreplaceable habitat of endangered tree kangaroos, birds of paradise and many other species are at stake.

Deforestation on that scale would release a staggering 783 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, doubling Indonesia’s emissions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who I have met to discuss this matter multiple times, is currently investigating indigenous rights violations in West Papua. In particular, he is investigating the Merauke Food Estate to document the evidence of displacements of Indonesian groups, land tenure violations and the use of military force. The project operates on the lands of more than 250 indigenous communities in West Papua. Customary land rights of indigenous communities are being ignored in the project areas and indigenous people are resisting.

Just this month, a 64-year-old woman from the community known as Mama Yasinta went missing. She features prominently in the film “Pesta Babi”, which is all about the Merauke project and the violations there. Mama Yasinta has since reappeared in Jakarta and issued a public statement distancing herself from the film. Her family believe that her travel to Jakarta and subsequent statements were done under duress. I hope the Minister can make representations that she should be returned to her family in West Papua in the immediate future.

The BBC has done an in-depth investigation showing involvement of both military and intelligence forces in Merauke, so there is ample evidence. Several television and film documentaries, which we can all view, rebut the claims of the Indonesian embassy and Indonesian Government that this is not a deforestation project removing absolutely unique and vital habitats.

The UK Government need to raise serious concerns bilaterally with the Government of Indonesia and discuss sustainable and climate friendly alternatives to support the country’s food and energy security plans, which I absolutely accept given the size of the population there.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is making another important speech after that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Does he agree that it is concerning to hear from reports of eyewitnesses that around 40 indigenous people have been killed over the last couple of months, and that drones and booby traps are increasingly being used against indigenous people?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely. Unfortunately, that follows a history of 60 years of extrajudicial killings and internal displacement in what are, and have traditionally been, very thickly forested areas. The island of New Guinea, which includes Papua New Guinea, is the world’s third largest rainforest. Modern technologies, which we have seen put to very positive use in Ukraine by the Ukrainian forces and very destructive use by the Russian forces, are now being used by the Indonesian military against civilians who have no way of defending themselves. Again, that has been documented. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East has raised that.

I am asking the Minister whether the UK can assist Indonesia in meeting its commitment to climate and nature protection through Indonesia’s plan to restore 12.7 million hectares of forests, but not in Merauke and not in virgin rainforest, which has a unique ecosystem and biodiversity.

I will briefly talk about ecocide. That is a real threat to Indonesia and its international reputation and claim to be a democracy. Ecocide is where acts create a

“substantial likelihood of severe and…widespread or long-term”

environmental damage. Although it is not a separate crime in the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, the 2025 advisory opinion on the climate brought by Vanuatu very much brings ecocide into scope. The last thing that we want is a major international country like Indonesia being hauled before the International Criminal Court for a project like Merauke or some of the other mining and deforestation projects that are occurring, particularly in West Papua, but in other parts of Indonesia as well.

That leads me nicely to the threats to the Tapanuli orangutan in Batang Toru, Sumatra. The Batang Toru ecosystem in north Sumatra is the only home of the Tapanuli orangutan. Identified as a separate species in 2017, at the time their estimated number was fewer than 800. More recent surveys have shown that they are the most endangered great ape in the world, so the Indonesian Government have a special responsibility for the Tapanuli orangutan. Research suggests that losing even eight adult orangutans a year could lead to the extinction of the species.

The Tapanuli orangutan faces several threats. The Batang Toru dam, owned by the PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy company, sliced through its habitat precisely at the intersection of three subpopulations. There is also PT Agincourt’s Martabe gold mine expanding north into their habitat, as well as logging concessions, community incursions of subsistence farming and small-scale agriculture, and hunting and human-wildlife conflict. Those five threats could mean the end of the Tapanuli orangutan.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend speaks knowledgeably about the threats to biodiversity in Sumatra in particular. It is not just the sixth largest island in the world; it also has 1,300 different tree species. Sumatra’s forest cover has been staggeringly depleted, with about 20% of its lowland forest remaining. My hon. Friend is right to speak of the orangutan; the delegation that went to Indonesia looked at its conservation programmes. He will know that the Sumatran tiger and the Sumatran elephant are also desperately endangered, and that 132 bird species, including helmeted hornbills and crested firebacks, are threatened there. It is a biodiversity hotspot, and the threats that he has identified are very real and must be avoided.

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely. If one looks at the geography of Indonesia and its different sized islands, such as Sumatra, New Guinea or Borneo, and the evolution of species on those islands over millions of years, that is what created these unique animal and plant species, which are found nowhere else in the world. The Indonesian Government have a unique responsibility among nations to preserve those species—once they are gone from the individual islands, they cannot be brought back, because they do not exist anywhere else. I have been to see the West Papua tree kangaroos in Chester zoo, but they cannot survive in Chester zoo—they have to survive in the wild. There is the difficulty of seeing such things in the wild, but it is important that we preserve their ecosystems.

To give time for the Front Benchers, I will finish by saying that the UK also needs to think about its own role, particularly in the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which has called for a moratorium on projects that impact on the habitat of Tapanuli orangutans until a conservation management plan for the species can be adopted. There are some excellent organisations based here in the UK—I will not list them, but each time colleagues and I visit the biodiversity COP, we are amazed by the great British organisations and charities that are world-leading and helping to preserve animal and plant species globally. I know that they and the UK Government can help work on a conservation management plan to save the Tapanuli orangutans. We are uniquely placed to help Indonesia, but it needs to want that help. We should offer everything that we can; hopefully we can secure not just the Tapanuli orangutan but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, the Sumatran tiger, as well as pangolins, tapirs, sun bears and cassowaries—a whole range of species that live in the same ecosystem in Batang Toru.

We must use this opportunity to enshrine sustainable and ethical human rights practices into our working relationship with Indonesia for the sake of West Papuans and other indigenous peoples, biodiversity and nature. If we do not do it now, when will we do it? Soon, we will start to lose some of this unique biodiversity.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his remarkable display of self-control. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady has great experience in this House, and she will know about the processes of engagement. She will also know about the consultation and the engagement that the EHRC has had in the development of the guidance and the fact that there were two periods of consultation last year. She may well wish to raise some matters with the EHRC directly, but it is important to recognise that we must respond to the ruling from the Supreme Court. It is also important to recognise that in upholding the law as it is in the Equality Act, we have a responsibility both to protect single-sex spaces and to ensure that the rights of trans people are respected and their services and needs are supported. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise those concerns.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have concerns that human rights that have long applied to trans people since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will no longer apply. I am afraid that that will be the case more broadly than in the areas that the Minister mentioned in her statement. When read together, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.92 of the code imply that a transgender person and a cisgender person who are in a relationship can no longer enjoy the rights that they have enjoyed since the introduction of the Act—for instance, in terms of their relationship being respected, registered and recognised by the law. Has there been a human rights analysis of the EHRC guidance? The right to family life appears to be under threat from it.

[Seema Malhotra]

I suggest that my hon. Friend raises that matter with the EHRC. I am not sure that I completely agree with his conclusions, but I am very happy to meet with him and discuss the matter further.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member will perhaps disagree, but the key point is that we cannot move forward unless we are in dialogue. That is why what the Prime Minister did in going to China and raising this matter directly has opened the doors to further conversation. It is important to say that we continue to advocate in public and in private for Mr Lai’s release, and that we remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family on the steps we are taking.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have been pretty generous to the Chinese Government—first the embassy, then the Prime Minister’s visit to China and trade concessions. In return, the Chinese Government have conferred a death sentence on Jimmy Lai. Will those in Hong Kong’s Administration and judiciary who undertook this politically motivated sham trial be welcome in the United Kingdom, or will they be sanctioned?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know how important it is that the Sino-British declaration is upheld. We expect the standards established by the declaration to be upheld, and not just in relation to historic commitments by Britain—we expect China to do the same.

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Today is 1,435 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has been nearly 12 years since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which many would say is when the war really began. The same fact stands as it did back in 2022 and back in 2014: we do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as Russian. That is why the policy of non-recognition is as paramount today as it has ever been.

Ukraine is a sovereign state with established borders, including Crimea and the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Those borders are recognised by the United Nations and the majority of states worldwide. All the partially occupied regions voted in a nationwide 1991 referendum for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. We must preserve the principle of territorial integrity. Ukraine’s borders are internationally recognised and any changes achieved by force have no legal validity. That protects a core principle of international law: the prohibition on acquiring territory through military force. The policy of non-recognition prevents the creation of a dangerous precedent that would allow other states to change borders through military aggression, undermining the UN charter and international treaties. Non-recognition matters because resolutions and official statements on non-recognition provide the legal and political foundations for imposing sanctions, internationally isolating the aggressor and holding it accountable for violations of international norms.

Furthermore, maintaining the status of those territories as part of Ukraine protects rights related to citizenship and legal protection, as well as the future processes of de-occupation and restoration of control. Non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories would send a clear signal to Russia, and other states willing to change borders by force, that there is a price to pay for aggression. It is crucial to remember that the weak international reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 enabled the current wave of Russian aggression, which is much more extensive and violent.

I will address the immensely human side of why non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is vital, as well as the horrors of occupation for children, civilians and detainees, and the eradication of Ukrainian identity through Russification. I will also address how there are shocking beliefs and disinformation about these atrocities not being true. Finally, I will detail the asks needed to uphold the prospect of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Non-recognition sends a single to the Ukrainian state and army that the international community supports its legitimate self-defence, including attempts to de-occupy all of its territory. Historically, non-recognition of illegal occupation made the reverse of such occupation easier, for instance in the case of the Baltic states’ occupation by the Soviet Union. It also sends a signal to our allies that international law matters, a signal to Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories that the international community cares about their fate, and a signal to Ukranians who had to flee the occupied territories that they might be able to return.

There are some significantly grave atrocities being committed against Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories. According to Freedom House, the index of civil and political rights in the Russian-occupied territories is minus 1. For comparison, North Korea’s index is 3. The Russian-occupied territories are the least free place in the world. More than 100,000 people in the occupied territories have been killed as of January 2026. If not killed, there are heavy efforts to engineer ideological control. In 2022, the Russian Ministry of Education dictionary instructed teachers on how to “re-educate” Ukrainian children based on Russian “spiritual and moral values”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.

[Alex Sobel]

The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. There is no part of the occupied territories of Ukraine where the standard of living is anywhere near what it was prior to the occupation. People in those territories are being systematically deprived of their livelihoods and there has been a material decline in their standard of living. Obviously, those who object to the occupation have been tortured, mutilated or killed, as Freedom House has evidenced.

I would like to be the first to congratulate and celebrate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for this week being awarded the Ukrainian Order of Merit by President Zelensky. Since coming to this place, she has dedicated much of her time to working towards the return of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very kind words. I am pleased that he has touched upon the issue of the stolen children, because there are still many thousands of Ukrainian children who have been abducted from their homes, and of course 1.6 million Ukrainian children are subject to militarisation and indoctrination in the temporarily occupied territories.

This week, Mykola Kuleba, the founder of Save Ukraine, warned that Russia has created a “legal cage” to permanently entrap Ukrainian children in these occupied territories, imposing exit bans on children under the age of 14, putting a limitation on escape routes for those who have been abducted, removing orphans overnight from where they are staying, and imposing processes to systematically erase Ukrainian children’s names and identities from their documentation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to rejecting Russian recognition of Ukraine’s temporarily occupied territories, this House must also reject any recognition of the Russification of Ukrainian children and unequivocally condemn Russia’s attempt to erase Ukraine’s future, one child at a time?

[Alex Sobel]

I deeply thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is absolutely right that the most vulnerable children on this planet are Ukrainian children in the Russian-occupied territories, and Ukrainian children who used to be in the Russian occupied territories but who are now falsely imprisoned in Russia, either in camps or through false adoption by Russian parents, including members of the Russian Government. There is no greater symbol of how monstrous Russia is than its treatment of Ukrainian children.

Ukrainian civilians in the temporarily occupied territories are being abducted or unjustly imprisoned by Russia on a massive scale. At a minimum, several thousand Ukrainian civilians have suffered this mistreatment. Let me guide hon. Members through Russia’s systemic abuse of the Ukrainian civilian population in the temporarily occupied areas.

First, there is persecution, including the creation of blacklists and the monitoring of the activities of individuals who are associated with civic activism. Secondly, there are arrests in the temporarily occupied territories, which means detaining individuals expressing views that are deemed inconsistent with Russia’s position. Thirdly, there is deportation and forcible transfer, with the use of official and unofficial detention sites in over 30 regions across Russia and Belarus to forcibly transfer detained Ukrainian civilians. Next, there are enforced disappearances. Following deportation, many civilians disappear, and their location and condition remain unknown to their relatives. Finally, there are unfair trials and illegal imprisonment. After some time, often years, civilians are brought to court, where they receive a sentence on fabricated charges, mostly relating to terrorism or espionage, which is straight out of the playbook of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

The United Nations has identified more than 100 sites that have been used for these activities since February 2022, located in every occupied Ukrainian province and across Russia and Belarus. Frequently, ad hoc prisons were set up in seized towns, where police stations, Government buildings, basements, schools and industrial sites were used to detain perceived dissidents. Some of these facilities have become notorious. In Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been occupied since 2014, prisons such as Izolyatsia gained a reputation for the use of electroshock torture and beatings. Since 2022, similar filtration camps and makeshift prisons have proliferated across the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions.

Today, the Holocaust Memorial Day debate is happening in the main Chamber as we speak. I do not draw parallels with the Holocaust lightly, but the secrecy surrounding these torture camps, in which Ukrainian civilians are persecuted, cannot be overlooked. Ukrainians have been through the Holodomor, the Holocaust and now, Russian occupation. Ukrainian identity is being continuously eradicated, both physically and mentally.

During Russia’s invasion, 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed. Moscow has made it clear that nowhere is immune from missile strikes, even close to NATO territory. Looking outside the occupied territories, at the live targeting of the Lviv region, we have immense fears for the civilian population. Journalist Jen Stout highlights that one of the reasons why Lviv’s historic city centre is so unique and was designated a UNESCO world heritage site in 1998 is that it survived both the first and second world wars intact, unlike so many other central European cities.

Haemorrhaging Ukrainian culture through the killing, forcible kidnapping and removals of civilians and children, and the obliteration of their historic landscape is not the only way in which the Russification of temporarily occupied territories is being carried out. Ukrainian teachers from the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions report that after the occupation they were banned from teaching Ukrainian and using the Ukrainian curriculum, and are required to accept the new system. Those who refused faced persecution, threats of violence and detention in the centres that I described. Many people have been forced to go underground or leave their homes to preserve their identity and safety.

Returning to the atrocities being committed against children, it is alarming that there are points of view about how these atrocities are not ongoing. Overcoming that disinformation with the credibility of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is essential. We cannot allow Russian misinformation to win.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Ukrainian language education has been banned, cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and children have been transferred to Russia under the guise of evacuation, as has been mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that those acts demonstrate that occupation is not merely territorial, but an attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and that that makes the policy of non-recognition all the more vital?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely; Russification is the central policy of the Kremlin. It is happening today in the occupied territories, and we need to ensure that it ends and does not spread through the rest of Ukraine. That is why the self defence of Ukraine is so important.

Many of the abducted children have lost their parents, who have either been jailed in the detention centres I discussed earlier, or killed by Russian forces. Russian families come to the occupied territories of Ukraine, abduct the children of detained or murdered parents and take them to Russia. Some Members may have heard the interview on the BBC’s “Ukrainecast” in December about the so-called Russian “children’s rights commissioner”, who is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the allegedly unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. She gave an interview in October on Russian talk show in which she openly discussed a child she claimed to have “adopted” from Mariupol. She described how Philip, a young Ukrainian boy, was reluctant to accept a Russian identity. She described how he spends his time—in Moscow, in her home—on Ukrainian websites and singing songs in Ukrainian, but also how she managed to “gradually” change his mindset to the “way things were”. Those abducted Ukrainian children will consequently be militarised and indoctrinated, and used as troops against their own people.

Those atrocities, along with the disinformation fed to Russian troops about how they are “liberating” Ukrainians by occupying their territories, needs to be called out consistently by the international community. The policy of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine can help with that process. Temporary occupation, regardless of duration, is illegal and does not confer any territorial rights upon the occupying power. Journalists who have tried to document events have also become victims of torture and repression. Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna was abducted and died in Russian captivity after a prolonged secret detention with signs of violence.

An expert mission report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe found that the arbitrary deprivation of the liberties of Ukrainian civilians has been a “defining feature” of Russian-occupied territories since 2014. These reports underscore that the perpetration of seven particular crimes against Ukrainian civilians by Russian authorities violate international law and likely amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These seven interlocking crimes against humanity, which illustrate what I have spoken about today, are: persecution, illegal detention, deportation or forceable transfer, enforced disappearance, torture and other inhumane acts, sexual violence, and illegal imprisonment. They mutually reinforce one another to disable dissent and consolidate control over areas that Russia has illegally occupied during its war of aggression against Ukraine.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this important debate and laying before us the scope and scale of the atrocities going on specifically in the occupied areas, as well as in the whole of Ukraine. We have to remember that when—on the blessed day—peace arrives, it will take some time before Ukraine becomes safe. Given the amount of unexploded ordnance, the number of atrocities and the recovery that is required, does he agree that we need to consider options and futures for those Ukrainians to whom we have given shelter in the UK under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to give them an option for when they return, rather than assuming that peace is the point at which they must return?

[Alex Sobel]

If we look back to the 1990s, and the UK’s role in Bosnia and Kosovo in particular, that gives us a model. Many of the people who sought refuge here during those wars were able to stay, but now many have gone back—after we de-mined, supported the process of reconciliation and provided mental health support and other things—and are prominent in society in Kosovo and Bosnia. I hope that in this case we can do the same, helping to support and strengthen Ukraine in the future.

I would like to highlight three main asks in addition to the overall policy, which we should retain, of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. First, we need to work with major British news outlets such as the BBC—including the World Service—Sky News and The Guardian to profile civil detainee cases, focusing on personal stories such as those of Serhiy Tsyhipa and Kostiantyn Zinovkin. We must reinforce the global legal consensus. Secondly, we need to support evidence-sharing initiatives with the ICC and European prosecutors working on war crime cases. Thirdly, we need to deter any attempts to normalise or legitimise aggression. That must be underwritten, of course, by legitimate and firm security guarantees for Ukraine.

I want to finish with the words of Artur, whom Jen Stout interviewed in 2022:

“To defend Ukraine, we’re defending all of Europe. The West would be next, they’ll capture your cities. Putin fancies himself an Emperor. If you don’t help us, there’ll be no more peace in your homes. I sacrificed my health at 22 years old, to protect the whole of Europe from Russian madness”.

I thank Dr Kseniya Oksamytna of the University of London; Tanya Mulesa of Justice and Accountability for Ukraine; Dr Jade McGlynn of the Centre for Statecraft and National Security; the Foreign Policy Centre; and the Ukrainian embassy in London for their help with this speech. Moreover, I thank the people of Ukraine, whose resilience ensures that Ukraine stays strong through the biting winters and beaming summers. Slava Ukraini!

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

We had almost absolute unanimity; I think this is the most unanimous debate that I have taken part in during my time as a Member. Nearly every Member who contributed to it has been to Ukraine, sometimes many times—sometimes, unfortunately, they have had to travel with me. There may be one or two who have not been—I am not sure if the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), has been. I travelled with the Minister when he was the shadow Minister, and I can tell the shadow Minister that he would be treated akin to a Minister if he went to Kyiv. I am sure that it is in his plans to go.

I thank everybody who contributed. I will rattle through them in the time that I have left. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for his service in the military. We definitely need to consider the historical similarities, and particularly the fortress belt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said, we need to remember the temporarily displaced people. I was with her in Vinnytsia, where we met with the university and with businesses.

My two vice-chairs on the APPG on Ukraine, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), made excellent speeches. The right hon. Member talked about his historical experience of being on the Black sea, the first wave of Russian aggression, the nuclear crisis and the concerns around Zaporizhzhia. My hon. Friend talked about Mariupol, which was the bravest defence in the Ukrainian war.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who often speaks alongside me in these debates, talked about the historical parallels of non-recognition. As I am sure he knows, my mother was from Lithuania and born during that era. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about military aid. We need to ensure that the Ukrainians get sufficient military aid. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) contributes tirelessly to these debates. His work on religious freedom is hugely important. We should remember that non-Orthodox religious sites were attacked and clerics abducted. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made an important point about NATO. NATO’s clear position is non-recognition, and we need to hold the coalition of the willing together in its entirety to ensure that there is no recognition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, Uganda held elections. There were wide-ranging accounts of people being prevented from going to polling stations and of ballot stuffing. In one polling station, more votes were cast than there were electors. There is now widespread violence, and the son of the so-called President of Uganda has threatened to murder the leader of the opposition, Bobi Wine, who lost the election. What can the Foreign Secretary tell me about the veracity of the elections? What is she doing to protect British citizens in Uganda and to ensure the safety of members of the National Unity Platform?

[Chris Elmore]

We have consistently advocated for peaceful and credible elections, and we encourage any disputes to be addressed through peaceful and legal means. In relation to the opposition leader, we have engaged across the political spectrum to advocate for peaceful elections, including for the opposition candidates to be able to campaign freely and safely, and we continue to do so, including through our high commission.

Iran: Protests

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points are well noted. For the clarity of the House, let me say that the legislation will be Home Office legislation, rather than Foreign Office legislation, but I will certainly pass on the strength of his feeling to the Security Minister.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is undertaking and leading the brutal repression and murder of so many Iranians fighting for their freedom. We know that the IRGC has used two registered cryptocurrency exchanges to move approximately $1 billion since 2023, evading international sanctions. Zedcex and Zedxion routed funds through IRGC-controlled wallets, offshore intermediaries and Iranian crypto companies. What are the Government doing to ensure that the IRGC cannot fund this brutal crackdown through British-based companies?

[Mr Falconer]

If my hon. Friend writes to me, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer in writing. Clearly, our sanctions regime is wide-ranging, and any British companies need to give very careful attention to it. On the face of it, it sounds like what my hon. Friend has outlined would not be consistent with our arrangements, but if he writes to me, I will respond.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I recognise and acknowledge the right hon. Member’s deep experience in the House and from chairing the ISC. Matters of security and intelligence continue to be the first priority of this Government. In relation to national security and in respect of the National Security Adviser, our partners abroad and Five Eyes—which was included in the urgent question—it is important to recognise that we continue to have conversations about security and intelligence in respect of all areas of concern to the United Kingdom and, indeed, in relation to China.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Speaker of the US Congress, Mike Johnson, was here today in Parliament. Last night, when asked about the Chinese embassy application, he said:

“I’m concerned about it…But if it were me, I would be very cautious about that.”

The Minister has heard the caution in this House and from the US Speaker, the White House and many others about the proposed Chinese embassy, which would give China a much greater ability to undertake transnational repression and espionage and to attack our critical national infrastructure. I ask the Minister again: are she and the Government listening to all the voices before making this decision? Once Pandora’s box is open, it cannot be put back.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know from his own discussions that we continue to routinely engage with and discuss a wide range of national security issues with the US. Indeed, the US has also had its own relatively recent experience of China building a new embassy in its capital. I recognise the importance of ensuring that views across the House are heard, and we have had a number of debates on this issue, but it is also important to recognise that we have made it clear throughout the process that this is a planning decision that is for MHCLG Ministers to make in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity.

Arctic Security

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take all issues involving critical national infrastructure immensely seriously. There are areas—for example, our security and intelligence Five Eyes partnership—where our technology partnerships go back many generations. I remember my first Five Eyes meetings in the United States to discuss these matters, more than 25 years ago, and those technology partnerships have strengthened since then. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should also consider key areas in which critical national infrastructure needs to be strengthened.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We all know that the geo-security issues in the High North are due to Russia’s threat to NATO. I am very pleased that the Foreign Secretary went to Norway last week, because we have two Russian bases on NATO territory in Svalbard. What discussions did she have with her Norwegian counterparts about the possibility of ending the Russian presence on that NATO territory?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issues in the High North are about the Russian threats. That has long been the case, but we have seen those threats grow. There was a time at the ending of the cold war when, I think, everyone was optimistic that this might fundamentally change. Sadly, many years on, that has proved not to be the case, which is why the partnership between the UK and Norway is crucial for our security, the security of the whole of NATO, and the security of many of our allies as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep a range of issues under discussion.