Conflicts: Impact on Older People

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate.

An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time.

I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.

[John Milne]

There is no easy fix, that is for sure, but the loans are not coming from the bond markets; they are coming from British people. We are not imposing on or demanding on the bond market. That is the difference. Such bonds have been used successfully in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Snowden]

I hold Government bonds myself—as I am sure many people do—so I should probably declare an interest. As we know, the interest rate that all bonds are generally driven by is the headline interest rate and the bond markets overall. Otherwise, the Government would just borrow from the public every single time. It is not that simple, and there are knock-on effects of doing that. There is a reason why premium bonds are capped —because they are moving people’s money out of taxable savings into non-taxable savings, which hits the Treasury somewhere else. The issue is not as straightforward as it is presented.

To get to the actual subject, it is evident that we are currently living in a more dangerous world than at any time in our recent past. Humanitarian crises in Africa are exacerbated by the actions of Governments; there is war in the middle east, with the terrorist regime in Tehran hellbent on causing chaos and instability; and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine signalled the end of the post-war peace dividend and brought the realities of war to Europe once again.

Evidence shows that conflict disproportionately affects older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted. Almost half the civilian deaths in the conflict in Ukraine are persons older than 60, despite that demographic constituting about one quarter of the population. Older people are more likely to remain in conflict zones because they have strong ties to their homes, lands and territories, or because they are physically more limited. With that in mind, we must seek to ensure that our overseas aid is targeted at those who need it most, with budgets properly scrutinised and value for money sought in every penny spent.

Although many will want to discuss the size of the budget, it is equally important that we consider reforming the existing budget and improving the way it is spent. How can we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—for our national security, prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients abroad? With approximately 1.9 million pensioners living in the UK in relative poverty, we owe it to them to ensure that the money we send abroad is money well spent. That is why, throughout this debate, we must ask ourselves the best way to deliver for the needs of older people. We also must deliver a message to older people, both at home and in conflict areas overseas, that we see them, we hear them and we are here for them when needed.

We have numerous reminders of older people’s vulnerabilities to conflict over recent years. In 2020, elderly Armenians who stayed in Nagorno-Karabakh were subject to summary executions. Indeed, older people made up more than half of all Armenian civilian deaths. We saw that trend again in Myanmar: older Rohingya who stayed in the face of advances were killed and tortured, and some people indicate that the highest rates of Rohingya deaths are among people aged 50 and over.

It is no surprise, though it is never any less shocking, to see the suffering that Putin’s illegal invasion has caused to older Ukrainians. As I said, Ukrainians over 60 make up only 25% of their country’s population, yet they account for nearly half of civilian deaths and more than a third of injuries in frontline communities. The UN refugee agency polled older Ukrainians who remained in or near Russian-occupied areas last year and found that many stayed because they lacked an alternative. Indeed, 20% of respondents said that they would not evacuate because they felt helpless and did not know where to get the help they needed. Many felt that they would have nothing left if they evacuated.

There is an opportunity to think outside the box on how we assist older people in conflict areas. For example, we know that many older people’s finances prevent them from evacuating. Ukraine and Poland have innovated and agreed a mechanism to allow refugees access to their pensions. Is the Minister discussing similar proposals with counterparts in war-torn countries elsewhere in the world where that could possibly be replicated?

Many older people cited poor health as reasons for not evacuating their homes. After all, older displaced Ukrainians are more likely to report difficulties in accessing healthcare. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is working with our humanitarian partners to make it clear to older people who want to evacuate how they can access that help. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that internally displaced peoples are able to return home when appropriate, rather than being forced to seek refuge in another country?

Displaced older people in Sudan report difficulties in accessing information on essential services. Many older Syrians remained in war-torn areas in order to continue accessing healthcare. Some older Syrians are now returning to those same war-torn areas in search of more affordable and accessible healthcare. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that best practice on healthcare is shared?

Of course, evacuating older people from conflict zones is only the first step. Those people can be vulnerable at every stage. Many older people are not mobile enough to reach official displacement camps. Some stop at unofficial locations, which are often overcrowded and have inadequate access to essentials. Some older people become separated from their families while evacuating, and they are vulnerable, particularly those with dementia, to becoming lost in institutional systems. Some evacuated older people struggle to register their presence at displacement camps. They often lack official documents, and registration points can be inaccessible. As a result, they may miss out on aid distribution and medical care.

The international landscape is, sadly, defined by conflict and instability. Older people in conflict-threatened zones continue to be vulnerable. Problems accessing help, healthcare and finances persist. The Government have an opportunity to support older people affected by conflict. That will involve working with our partners to find new solutions and address the specific needs that older people have, as part of a wider programme of meaningful reform.

I hope the Minister will explain how his Department is meeting the realities of our most dangerous world. I look forward to his response to my questions and the very detailed requests—as we would expect—from the hon. Member for Strangford.

Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for securing this important debate and talking with what is clearly lifelong passion and lifelong experience. I thank her for the campaigning and work that she has done over a number of years. I also thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his knowledge and passion around the largest deforestation project that is under way.

I have listened to everyone talk about the visit to the orangutan school. I am beginning to feel like the only kid in school who was not on the trip, but it sounds like it touched a lot of people. I noted the description of the forest school teaching young orangutans how to behave in the wild, and the skills that they need—it feels a bit like what CCHQ does to Conservative candidates before we are released into the wild at a later date.

[Barry Gardiner]

If the hon. Member wants to know the specifics of how to do that, they get a jar of liquid honey and squeeze it up the tree. You then have to follow it up with your tongue. I do not recommend that for anywhere near the Whips Office.

[Mr Snowden]

As a member of the Whips Office, I can assure the hon. Member that that is not something we will take up, although my team, if they are watching this debate, will probably now be panicking that I may be coming up with a YouTube video idea to try to go viral.

Anyway, as Conservatives we recognise the need to protect the natural world. To that end, we welcome this debate on UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability. We see the profound importance of the bilateral relationship between our countries in both our mutual economic growth and our shared commitment to protecting the natural world.

The Opposition support robust engagement with Indonesia. We want the partnerships that our Government have announced to deliver real, measurable outcomes. Indonesia is the biggest economy in south-east Asia and is rich in biodiversity and natural beauty. However, it is precisely because the stakes are so high and the scale of investment is so considerable that this House is entitled to ask searching questions about whether the Government’s approach is truly adequate to the challenge. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of points with the Minister.

Indonesia is home to the world’s third largest tropical forest and holds 36% of the world’s tropical peatland. As we heard from other Members, both have globally significant importance as carbon stores. Indonesia also hosts 3.5 million hectares of mangroves—about 23% of the world’s total—storing approximately 3.1 gigatonnes of carbon. These are not abstract statistics; they represent irreplaceable natural systems on which the global climate depends. Despite significant progress having been made in recent years, deforestation in Indonesia surged by 66% during 2025, with 1.1 million acres of forest removed. What is our Government’s position on that? Have they discussed it with their counterparts in Indonesia, and if so, what were the outcomes of those discussions?

Indonesia has the world’s largest nickel reserves—estimated at 55 million tonnes—and accounted for 54% of global nickel production in 2023. The country’s critical mineral wealth makes it central to the global energy transition, but the risks associated with nickel extraction are well documented. In November 2024, the UK and Indonesia agreed a strategic partnership on critical minerals. That was with the aim of sharing technical knowledge and mitigating risks linked to this kind of mining. Can the Minister tell us what mechanisms are in place to encourage those standards, and what assessment has she made of the application of the standards?

In January 2025, the two Governments agreed a new sustainable infrastructure partnership, which our Government say will open up new opportunities for British companies to design and construct projects in Indonesia. We support British commercial engagement; British companies obtaining projects abroad is something we should support, but what safeguards have the Government put in place to support commercial projects pursued under that partnership?

On the UK-Indonesia carbon market partnership to support Indonesia in implementing a carbon pricing framework and developing a voluntary carbon market, the Minister will be aware that voluntary carbon markets have attracted significant criticism internationally for the quality and permanence of the carbon credits they generate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any carbon market developed under that partnership meets rigorous standards and will not simply allow carbon offsetting that fails to deliver genuine emissions reductions?

Although Indonesia has the largest economy in south-east Asia, it ranks only 17th in the world by GDP according to the International Monetary Fund. Despite that, Indonesia is consistently among the top 10 carbon dioxide-emitting nations; indeed, the FCDO has estimated that it is the fifth-highest carbon-emitting country. The Indonesian Government aspire to reach net zero by 2060. By 2030, they aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% through national efforts and by 43.2% with international support. Those are significant ambitions, but the gap between aspiration and delivery is wide. Can the Minister set out what independent assessment the Government have made of whether Indonesia is currently on track to meet its 2030 targets, and what conditionality—if any—is attached to UK commitments?

Finally, the scale of the investment being discussed today is substantial. British International Investment has committed £308 million in climate finance across south-east Asia until 2031, including a rooftop solar programme that aims to produce 600 MW of energy by 2028. The World Bank, which the UK contributes to, is providing $500 million to Indonesia’s electricity network transformation programme. What assessment have the UK Government made of value for money across the totality of UK investments in this relationship, and how are outcomes being measured and reported back to Parliament?

We all share the objectives of supporting Indonesia’s journey towards greater environmental sustainability while protecting its extraordinary natural heritage, and of building a partnership that delivers for our country and for the planet. The foundations that have been laid, including by the previous Government, are real, but good intentions and headline announcements are not enough. The House deserves clarity on conditionality, environmental standards and genuine value for money. Can the Minister please provide us with that assurance by answering the questions that have been asked today?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

We pay tribute to our armed forces for their courage and bravery in boarding and seizing the Russian shadow fleet vessel at the weekend. We also welcome the further sanctions announced today, including those targeting the shadow fleet. We urge the Government to put pressure on those who buy and refine Russian oil, as the freedom of Ukraine depends on cutting off the funds that finance Putin’s illegal war. Given the urgency on the battlefields of Ukraine and the inflated revenue Putin has recently had from Russian oil, does the Minister think that the situation can wait until 2027 for the introduction of the ban on Russian-originated diesel and jet fuel imports?

[Stephen Doughty]

The shadow Minister asks an important question. I made it clear in yesterday’s Delegated Legislation Committee that that is the end date, but we are keeping it under review every two weeks and the licence could end before then, with the appropriate notice in place for industry. I am clear that our sanctions are having a categorical impact on the Russian economy. Russia has slashed its economic growth forecasts, and collectively our sanctions have denied Russia access to $450 billion, which could have fuelled the war for many more years. Our sanctions are having an impact, but we will continue to toughen them.

[Mr Snowden]

We both agree that this is important. While Putin uses globally inflated oil prices to fund his war machine, our own defence investment plan is in tatters. The former Defence Secretary’s shocking resignation letter said that the Prime Minister was “unable”, and the Chancellor “unwilling”, to provide the funding for the defence investment plan. That is absolutely damning. Astonishingly, the very next day the Government announced £4.5 billion to paint 10,000 new zebra crossings. Given that the FCDO made a big cut to its own budget to fund defence last year, does the Minister share my anger that other Departments are refusing to contribute to keep our country safe?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Last week, this feeble Government limped to this House to announce that their shameful Chagos surrender Bill was being ditched—a diplomatic failure entirely owned by this Labour Government. Our friends and allies alike around the world were left bemused by the deal that this Government came up with. This week, the Government have sent a team of officials to Mauritius. Can the Minister make it clear that that team have been told unequivocally to tell the Mauritius Government that the deal is dead, the UK will be sending no money to the Mauritius Government and the Chagos islands will be remaining British?

[Stephen Doughty]

With the exception of when I broke my ankle before Christmas, I have never limped to this House on any occasion. I came here with confidence to set out the reasons why this treaty was needed for our national security. Our officials engage regularly not only with Mauritius, but with the United States and other partners. This deal was of course welcomed by our allies, including our Five Eyes partners, so I simply do not accept what the shadow Minister has said.

UK-German Relations

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), on securing this important debate.

As we are going down the line of declaring interests or key products that we own, I too am a loyal customer of BMW and own one now. I realise that we will probably get some nasty emails from all the “buy British” campaigners, since we have declared our love for German cars. To pick up on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on town twinning, I reassure her that it is okay to have Tory friends occasionally; if Labour party T-shirts are to be believed, you are just not allowed to kiss us. In the debate generally, that clear love for Germany, the relationships that people built up and the places that they enjoyed visiting really came across. I note that, as a proud Brexiteer, I am heavily outnumbered in this Chamber, although I was grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he has now legged it—who is usually my Brexiteer bodyguard in Westminster Hall debates. Perhaps we will save that one for discussion over a litre or two of Weissbier.

Few bilateral relationships matter more to Britain’s security, prosperity and global standing than our partnership with Germany. This is a year of particular significance, as has been noted, but also marks 80 years since Britain founded North Rhine-Westphalia after the second world war, today Germany’s most populous state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was pleased to meet the North Rhine-Westphalia International Affairs Minister in Munich earlier this month, along with the German Foreign Minister.

We Conservatives recognise that a confident Britain needs a confident, outward-looking Germany as a partner, and that a strong Germany and a strong Britain can be an anchor of stability at a time of global volatility. From a party political perspective, we are naturally pleased to see our sister party, the CDU/CSU, return to Government. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary attended the Munich security conference, where she met German counterparts from our sister party to reaffirm the depth of the UK-German relationship and our shared determination to strengthen European and transatlantic security.

Germany is now markedly stepping up its role in European and global security. The new federal Government have put significant resource behind defence and support for Ukraine. Germany’s 2026 budget includes a commitment to provide in excess of €11 billion in support to Ukraine, which is extremely welcome and will make a material difference on the ground. Politically, Berlin has taken steps to alter long-standing fiscal constraints so that it can fund the rearmament. The medium-term fiscal plan and recent constitutional adjustments reflect a willingness to unlock resources for defence in a way not seen for decades.

The way in which Germany is funding its defence rise is, of course, specific to its fiscal situation and the way it manages its economy and spending, which is different from the UK. That, however, raises some simple but urgent questions for our own Government as part of that relationship. If one of our closest allies can set a date and a credible trajectory for higher defence spending, why has the UK not done the same? Germany has been explicit about its political timetable for increasing defence spending. By contrast, here at home we are still waiting for the defence investment plan, which the Government told us was due last autumn and has now been repeatedly delayed.

In my constituency, I have a great defence manufacturing capability in BAE Systems, and I would like to see much more defence industrial collaboration across the board with Germany, made possible by the defence investment plan. With NATO allies, industry leaders and even senior military figures noting the strategic importance of clear spending pathways, can the Minister finally say when the defence investment plan will be published, and how it will ensure we meet our NATO ambitions?

The Conservatives in Government laid the foundations for the deepening of UK-German co-operation, in particular on defence: the 2024 defence declaration, the Trinity House arrangements on defence and industrial co-operation, and the long-range precision missiles are of significance. Will the Government publish a clear timetable for delivering against those commitments and the commitments set out in the 2025 Kensington treaty? What progress has been made to date, and what should we expect to see in the coming weeks and months?

Britain and Germany can together anchor European security in an unpredictable world. The Opposition want that partnership to flourish and will support steps that deepen it, but we will also insist that the British Government match their own rhetoric with credible resource plans. Only then will a strong Germany and a strong UK translate ambition into the hard capabilities required.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to allow a minute or so at the end for Sir Mark to wind up.

Gaza Healthcare System

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate to allow us to consider this important matter, and Members who have contributed to it.

To pick up on some of the things that have been said so far, it is pretty obvious that everybody in this Chamber who has taken part in the debate and in other debates, whether here or in the main Chamber, wants peace for Gaza and for Israel. As always, there will be differences about the route to that peace, what people feel is getting in the way, and what more needs to be done. On some of the things that were said about the volume of aid, I note that since the conflict began, about 2 million tonnes of aid have entered Gaza. As for the management of that aid, given the industrial scale of the misappropriation of aid and the dual-use items that have enabled Hamas, over two decades, to build their terror network and to sustain their war effort, something is required to ensure that security concerns are addressed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Snowden]

I will make a little progress first, given the time, but I will take interventions. The new NGO restrictions that are about to come into place affect some 15% of the aid agencies operating within Gaza, and those agencies have contributed about 1% of the aid delivery throughout the conflict. Some of those that have been notified of the new restrictions have applied and been approved to operate again in the area.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister referenced the aid that—

[Sarah Champion]

The shadow Minister—thanks. Is the shadow Minister aware that the aid that is getting in includes things such as chocolate bars, and not items that are so desperately required to address the medical needs? He speaks about volume, but we are talking about the substance of what is getting in—the lifesaving aid, not the peripheries that people are making money from.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the hon. Lady for my temporary elevation; I enjoyed my 30 seconds as a Minister, but that is all I will get for now. I will come on to future aid, the volume of aid that needs to get in, dual-use items, to which I have referred, and other issues. I just wanted to pick up on and address some of the alternative facts.

The situation in Gaza is serious and severe. Hamas and their Iranian sponsors bear responsibility for the continued suffering. Hamas launched their attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. They have refused to disarm and have infiltrated and used civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as shields and military defensive positions. The whole House should be united in calling Hamas out, and it is important that the Minister gives us an update on the steps that the Government are taking to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, including the removal of Hamas.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I am sure that everybody in this Chamber is absolutely opposed to the horrific Hamas attacks that took place on 7 October 2023. What confuses me is why the shadow Minister and his party continue to repeat Israeli propaganda points. I was an aid worker before I was elected to this place. I was in Gaza during the war. Can he give us some examples of all the things that he is repeating about the misappropriation and the stealing of aid? Can he give us one concrete example?

[Mr Snowden]

I will come on to the UN’s stats on the amount of aid that has been misappropriated shortly. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think it is a tad rich to talk about one-sidedness when the word “Hamas” was hardly mentioned in many of the contributions that we heard earlier.

The Government say that they have been calling for broader aid access, but calling for something is not the same as achieving it. We need to know whether Ministers have put forward specific, concrete proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points into Gaza, whether those proposals have been presented directly to the Government of Israel, and their response.

Will the Minister tell us what quantity and type of medical aid has been funded and prepared for this moment? Where is it currently stationed? How much of it has entered Gaza? Which organisations are distributing it? Critically, what new safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid reaches innocent civilians, not terrorist groups? Aid diversion is not a peripheral concern; it is central.

Since the ceasefire announcement on 10 October 2025 and 11 February 2026, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that 1,532 aid pallets have been verified as being intercepted during transit within Gaza. Although the destination of the pallets cannot be confirmed, it does not require too much imagination to work out where they have ended up. That is why we cannot discuss Gaza’s healthcare collapse in isolation from the wider political and security situation—the two are inseparable. The ceasefire provides an opening, but a ceasefire is not peace, and the Government seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge what is needed to convert one into the other.

If the ceasefire is to translate into something sustainable, Hamas must be removed from power once and for all, and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Events of recent days—the violence between Hamas and armed groups and clans within Gaza—underline precisely why Hamas cannot be permitted any future role in the governance of the territory. Hamas have no regard for human life or human dignity; they never have.

That brings me to governance. Rebuilding Gaza’s health system without addressing who actually governs Gaza is an exercise in futility. Have the Government had any meaningful say in the composition of the transitional Administration? Has anything of substance on governance reform emerged from the so-called memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority—a document that did not even address corruption or antisemitism in school curricula? If the Palestinian Authority is to play an extended role, it must implement the most significant reforms in its history. That includes on healthcare, welfare, education, and frankly, basic democratic accountability.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr Snowden]

I am running out of time, and I have taken several interventions. Our support should be conditional on those reforms being delivered. Have the Government made that case clearly to the Palestinian Authority?

I also ask the Minister whether the UK will be scaling up its involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. Is Britain contributing to the demilitarisation of Gaza and the disarming of Hamas? Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2—

[Sarah Champion]

On a point of order, Sir Jeremy. The subject of the debate is medical healthcare in Gaza, but the shadow Minister is not referring to that at all, apart from a tenuous “relating to healthcare” statement. Can you give some clarity, Sir Jeremy, on whether his speech is on point?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she knows, because she heard me intervene in the debate earlier, I have been listening carefully to ensure that speakers keep to the subject of healthcare. As she also heard me say to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is perfectly in order for speakers to talk about the context to a degree. I have been listening carefully to the shadow Minister; if what he had said had been out of order, I would have told him so.

I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the hon. Lady and all Members know that this has been a serious and passionate debate throughout. I hope that Members will respect the fact that passionate contributions from both sides of the argument are perfectly rational and in order, and should be heard with the same respect that all other contributions have been heard with.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank you, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Lady for the point of order and continued interventions.

Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2 of the ceasefire process?

We also want the UK to be engaged in expanding the Abraham accords. Saudi normalisation with Israel remains, in our view, the single most consequential diplomatic prize in the region, and potentially the most realistic path to a durable peace. We are enthusiastic supporters of that route, but we are considerably less convinced that the Labour Government share that enthusiasm or are working with the urgency the moment demands.

The people of Gaza are suffering. That suffering is real and severe, and demands a response commensurate with its scale. The fighting war may have ceased temporarily, but the people of Gaza are still living with the jackboot of Hamas holding back any hope of prosperity or rebuilding the healthcare system. The Opposition have consistently called for more aid, including healthcare aid, to flow into Gaza, for it to be delivered safely and exclusively to innocent civilians, and for a sustainable end to the terrible conflict that guarantees security for both Israel and the Palestinian people.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.

We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?

On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?

The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?

The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?

It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?

We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will make a couple of comments about the timing of amendments in the other place. There have been ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments. It is important to recognise this Government’s respect for the devolution settlements and our adherence to the principles underpinning the Sewel convention; we aim for them to be our core considerations and to inform how we work. We have been working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get agreement on moving forward with this legislation together, and that was part of the reason for the delays.

[Mr Snowden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some progress.

I acknowledge the importance of moving ahead quickly with the Bill to ensure that we have a seat at the table for discussions with other parties to the agreement, including on MPAs. We wanted to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in devolved areas were watertight, which is why we had constructive conversations with the devolved Governments.

Part 2 obligations do not apply to fishing. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has left his place, but he can be reassured that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have concurrent powers to implement provisions in areas of devolved competence. Under part 3 of the Bill, the UK will be involved in MPA decisions and will carefully consider the impacts on fishing.

In relation to the comments raised regarding multilateral co-operation, I want to mention some ways in which we continue to work with other states to support ratification. We continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and we are committed to partnering with others, including the global south, to ratify and implement it. Indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published research that developed a shortlist of potential area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, that could be proposed once the agreement is in force.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked about the process of the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill, we will be laying two statutory instruments, one of which will define digital sequence information for the purposes of the BBNJ legislation. The other, along with an associated Scottish Government SI, will amend the marine licensing regime, where needed, to implement part 4 of the BBNJ agreement on environmental impact assessments. Those will be progressed as soon as the BBNJ Bill has received Royal Assent. Once the SIs have been passed, we will be able to ratify the agreement by laying the instrument of ratification formally at the United Nations in New York. We are keen to see that happen as quickly as possible, as I know my hon. Friend is.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), asked about legislative consent motions. While foreign affairs and treaty making are reserved matters, implementing international obligations in domestic law is not reserved where those obligations concern devolved areas. Several provisions in the Bill, particularly in parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to matters such as environmental protection and scientific research, which fall within devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the legislative consent motion process is engaged to varying degrees. The assessment of whether legislative consent motions are required for this Bill has been agreed across the relevant UK Government Departments, including the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales Offices, and in consultation with the devolved Governments.

The shadow Minister also asked whether there is a risk that requirements in Scotland for an environmental impact assessment for marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction might be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland could choose to implement the requirements slightly differently. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that differences are kept to a minimum and that the United Kingdom as a whole takes a consistent approach. That is very much in the spirit in which we have been working, collaboratively, to respect devolution settlements while recognising the importance of this agreement to both the Scottish and UK Governments. That has been an important part of how we have progressed.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the Minister for answering my question on the potential for the Scottish Government to take a different approach to implementing the Bill. If ongoing conversations are under way, will the Minister tell us whether an indication has been given by the Scottish Government that they want to implement the Bill in a different way?

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to serve under both your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and Sir Jeremy’s. This debate is as important now as it was on the very first day of the illegal invasion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is also chair of the APPG on Ukraine, on securing the debate and on his long-standing commitment to the cause. He set out a clear passion for not just ending the conflict, but exposing the horrific atrocities that Russia has committed in Ukraine. He also said that the peace we hopefully secure for Ukraine should be lasting and fair for its people.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former chair of the APPG, brought a wealth of experience to the debate and highlighted that we have a trio of Members in the debate who have the Ukrainian Order of Merit, showing the commitment over many years of Members across this House to supporting our allies. For many Members, it is not a new-found interest or cause; it has been of grave concern for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) gave us a history lesson, and spoke about the lessons that we should learn from history, which I will touch on later. Often, we do not learn the obvious lessons from the pages of our history books.

As pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, it is easy to think of the Ukrainian conflict as something that purely happens elsewhere and not in our own country or on our own Facebook and X feeds —that it is not about Russia actively being aggressive to us through cyber-warfare. But addressing the misinformation that exists in our society is equally as important in fighting the conflict.

The Opposition remain steadfast in our commitment to the people of Ukraine and their right to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the freedom and democracy of its citizens. This was an illegal invasion and we are clear that territorial concessions would simply be a reward for Putin. It does not take a degree in military history to know that if we appease a dictator with concessions, they will never be content with small gains—and, by the way, I have a degree in military history, and I know from my studies that if we acquiesce now, Putin will not simply stop with Ukraine or bits of Ukraine. He will come for our other allies in eastern Europe, and he will not be happy until NATO has been torn apart by Russia’s territorial ambitions and actions.

Russia’s demands have been deliberately excessive, with Russia no doubt intending to paint Ukraine as unreasonable for simply seeking peace in its own territory. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has rightly pointed out, with this statecraft, Mr Putin has his KGB playbook out. We cannot accept that.

The recent trilateral talks once again highlight Ukraine’s sincere desire for peace. What is the British Government’s assessment of those talks and whether any progress has been made? Does the Minister agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove that he is sincere about wanting an end to this war, in contradiction to some of the things that we have heard today? We all saw the disgraceful attacks on Kyiv that Putin launched against the backdrop of the talks. Any sincere attempt for peace must surely be preceded by an end to the killing of innocent people.

This war has been nothing other than barbaric. Russia has targeted civilians; women and children have been killed in indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities; children have been abducted from their parents; and strikes on energy infrastructure have led to power outages and no heating—while temperatures have hovered around minus 15°C for three weeks. The Ukrainian people are suffering, even in parts of the country where Russia’s military has not managed to penetrate.

What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of Ukrainian citizens in areas under Russian control, and what future guarantees will they seek for citizens in the event of peace being agreed? If a peace is reached with military guarantees from Europe, and British troops are sent to help facilitate that peace, what does the Minister expect the rules of engagement to be? How many troops does he envisage we would send? How would rotations work? What are his thoughts on the composition of the force, and would any British soldiers be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? Finally, what air and naval assets might be provided as part of a multinational force for Ukraine?

To keep the pressure on Putin to end the war, we must continue to increase sanctions. Throughout the conflict, we have rightly sanctioned assets in the UK and Europe that could have been used to aid the Russians in their illegal war. Thousands of oligarchs and Russian elites received sanctions, including in 2022 when the regime attempted to construct a phony referendum in four regions of Ukraine. Will the Minister assure us that any attempt by Russia to fabricate legitimacy through a false cloak of democracy will continue to be called out for what it is? Does he have any updates on dialogue with Belgium about efforts to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s war effort?

[Tom Hayes]

The point about democracy and elections is important. The Government have launched an investigation into external influences on our own democracy, particularly financial influences, in the wake of the Old Bailey sentencing Nathan Gill, the elected Reform politician, to 10 and a half years in prison for pushing out Putin’s propaganda in the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for any elected British politician to pump out Russian propaganda? Does he agree that it is a particular problem that is unique to Reform? Does he welcome the investigation that the Government have launched?

[Mr Snowden]

As I said at the start of my remarks, it is very easy to think that this is only happening over in Ukraine and is not something that is happening right here. The sentencing of Nathan Gill should prompt some real reflection by Reform UK on why that activity happened for so long, unchallenged, and why Nathan felt comfortable in that party. That is something that Reform UK should seriously reflect on—and their views.

When we were in government, we led the world in defending Ukraine. We committed to providing £3 billion of military support every year for as long as necessary, and we were one of the leading donors to Ukraine, providing over £12 billion in overall support since 2022. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. We benefited from cross-party support when we were in government, and it is in that spirit that I stand here today. The Conservatives stand ready to support the Government in doing whatever it takes to help our ally to defeat this monstrous invasion, and to determine and decide its own future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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]

It was perhaps an unexpected elevation, but I welcome the shadow Minister to his new role, and thank him for his important question on a very serious matter: the threat from our adversaries. He is right to point out Iran, but there are many others who are attempting to damage our national security and hit consumers and individuals in the UK. He will understand that I will not go into operational details on any matter relating to our cyber-defences, but he can be assured that we keep the activities of our adversaries closely in mind, and we are doing all we can to defend this country against all threats, wherever they come from.

Kashmir: Self-determination

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I know this is a matter in which the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has long taken an interest, as have many hon. Members here today. I thank him for securing this debate. Although we might not agree on the way forward to finding a resolution, it is undeniable that he spoke with passion and clear personal conviction. I thank him for his contribution, even though he might not thank me for mine. However, I have some questions for the Minister that he will be happy with, even if we might be looking for different answers.

I also thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his contribution, which provided a clear and concise history and a reminder of the complex and confrontational timeline of events. It was helpful context and brought some balance to the debate.

I note the work of my colleagues, the hon. Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I know that being an officer of a country-related APPG is no small task. The hon. Members’ commitment to this area deserves recognition.

The position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on Kashmir remains as it did when we were in government. It has been the long-standing position of the United Kingdom that it must be for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir. It is not appropriate for the UK to prescribe solutions. We are respectful of the governance of those two Commonwealth countries and are very conscious of history.

Of course, we have a strong interest in regional stability and peace, so it is right that all British Governments engage to encourage both India and Pakistan into dialogue to find a lasting diplomatic solution. Clearly, we never want to see inflamed tensions continue between the two. Can the Minister confirm that this remains the UK Government’s position? What recent diplomatic efforts have the Government made on that front?

This has been a very difficult year in the region with the murderous, violent terrorism that took place in April, which is sadly part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians and visitors to the region and minority communities. The House will be well aware of the consequences that this act of terrorism subsequently triggered across the border region. I know this period has also been hard for the diaspora communities, particularly those in the UK. That all underscores the importance of tackling terrorism and fostering peace and stability.

Can the Minister update the House on what practical steps the Government have taken on the security front since the spring? How will they continue to try to ease tensions between India and Pakistan? It would be helpful to know what recent discussions the Minister has had to this end with counterparts from our key allies. What measures are the Government taking to prevent scenarios that could cause tensions to escalate among communities in the UK?

The House will be well aware of the economic challenges in the region, including those particular to Pakistan. What steps are the Government taking to encourage steps to address the economic pressures in Kashmir, including reforms to ensure sustainable growth? Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on official development assistance in Kashmir? Can he also tell us what assessment he has made of the level of investment by China in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, what the investment pipeline looks like, and China’s long-term perspective and goals when it comes to the region?

This issue is for India and Pakistan. It is not for the House or this Government to prescribe actions to either of those Governments. What should motivate us all is a peaceful vision where Kashmiris enjoy stability and prosperity.