(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the current situation in Syria.
Ten days have passed since Assad’s departure. The Government welcomed the fall of his cruel and barbaric regime, and the opportunity it offers for Syrians. However, while there is some cause for celebration, fighting and violence continue across the country.
The situation in Syria has developed rapidly over the last week. In the north-east, the US-brokered ceasefire between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Türkiye-Syrian National Army has been temporarily extended, but the situation remains highly fragile. In Damascus, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham—or HTS, as I will call them for the rest of the speech—have appointed a Prime Minister to lead an interim Government until March 2025, but they have given very little detail on the shape and focus of that Government.
The UK Government remain committed to the people of Syria. We support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition process based on the principles of UN Security Council resolution 2254 and leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are hopeful that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria will demonstrate a commitment to: the protection of human rights, including for women and girls; unfettered access for humanitarian aid; the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; and combating terrorism and extremism. The UK urges the transitional Government to adhere to those principles to build a more hopeful, secure and peaceful Syria.
On Saturday, Jordan convened an Arab Foreign Ministers’ discussion, followed by a meeting with EU, French, UN, US and UK representatives. All involved, including the UK, reiterated their support for an inclusive political transition process. It is critical that the international community works together in a co-ordinated and complementary manner to ensure the best outcomes for the Syrian people. Along with our partners, we want to see a new political process that is comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, most importantly, determined by the Syrian people themselves. We must also ensure that chemical weapons stockpiles are secured, not used, and that the transition to new governance is peaceful.
For all those reasons, it is right that the UK seeks to use all the channels available to us to deal with HTS where we have to. To that end, senior officials from the FCDO have travelled to Damascus. They have underlined the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discussed the pathway to a more hopeful, representative and peaceful future for Syria with the new interim Syrian authorities and civil society. During their visit, senior officials also discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process that protects the rights of all Syrians and prevents further instability.
Those words are important, of course, but they must be supported by actions, too. The humanitarian situation on the ground remains dire, with over 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance—and that is purely within the borders of Syria itself. That is why, on Saturday, the Government announced a new package of international aid to help the most vulnerable Syrians, including in Jordan and Lebanon, on top of that announced by the Prime Minister on 9 December. The UK’s £61 million in aid will help provide emergency healthcare and nutrition, and support displaced Syrian children. We call on more of our partners to join us in committing greater humanitarian support. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
The House has many serious questions about the decision, announced by the Foreign Secretary to the media rather than to this House, to establish a diplomatic channel with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation, but the Foreign Secretary says that the UK is none the less able to have diplomatic contact. Can the Minister clarify the specific legal basis on which she has established contact? Is HTS the only such organisation operating in Syria that now has a diplomatic channel?
We are now aware that Ann Snow, the UK special representative for Syria, and another senior FCDO diplomat, have met the leader of HTS. Can the Minister tell us who else has made contact? Has contact with HTS leaders only been made via official channels, rather than at ministerial level? I know the Minister will be aware that there is a big difference between the two.
The Foreign Secretary also said that the FCDO is engaging with HTS because it wants a representative and inclusive Government, and an end to violence in Syria. Has the UK conveyed to HTS a clear expectation of what should happen to bring that about? If so, will the Minister now take this opportunity to share that road map with the House? Does she believe, based on those conversations, that HTS will lead a peaceful transfer of power to a genuine civilian Government which protects minority groups?
The Government need to be extremely careful, because by dealing with HTS and publicly doing so, there is a risk of legitimisation of the organisation and its position in Syria. At this stage, does the Minister not agree that that would be premature? These are very early days in the new post-Assad reality, and we need to judge HTS by its actions, not its words.
Now that the Government have embarked on this path, can we expect an unequivocal statement that there is no read-across to other proscribed groups? The integrity of the proscription system is absolutely paramount, and the Government must exercise extreme care not to undermine it in any way. Is it still the case that those who left Britain to support the murderous Daesh regime have no place in the UK, and will the Minister commit herself to ruling out any return of Shamima Begum and others to the UK? We note her comments about chemical weapons; can she provide any further detail on how the UK will push for their destruction?
Let me now turn to the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. We are aware of the Government’s latest aid package to Syria. Two weeks ago, when pressed on aid delivery in Syria, the Minister for the Middle East said he was concerned that practical access for aid agencies would be difficult to maintain, and work was needed to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors. It would be helpful to hear the Government's latest assessment of the situation. The UK has funded more than £4 billion of aid over the past decade and more, but with a terrorist group in control of significant territory, can the Minister assure the House that the only beneficiaries of British aid, including food, water and sanitation, are innocent civilians? British aid must not end up in the wrong hands, so what assurances can she give that the way in which aid is being delivered has taken account of the new operating environment?
There is real concern about what Iran’s next step in Syria might be. There are reports that the regime in Tehran has been in contact with rebel groups, and we need to be very alive to the risk that it may try to re-establish a foothold for its hostile and malign operations in the region. We should be very clear about the fact that would be an awful outcome. We and our allies need to be pulling every diplomatic lever to blunt Iran’s ability to launch a resurgence in Syria, and the House would welcome an update from the Minister on her work on that front.
We all want a stable, peaceful Government in Syria who will protect all groups and minorities, free from the influence of Iran and Russia. That is easy to say, but bringing it about is far more difficult—as will be avoiding an incredibly dangerous power vacuum that could fuel extremism, cause a further breakdown of law and order and bring about a proliferation of criminal activities, including the weapons smuggling and drug production. We need to see a clear plan from the Government that protects British interests at home and abroad, and supports those who sincerely want to protect the innocent Syrian civilians who have suffered so much.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. She has raised a number of issues, with which I will deal in turn. First, she asked about the UK’s engagement with HTS. I did talk about that in my statement, but I can provide additional information. It is clear that the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK from engaging with it in our efforts to help secure a political settlement, or from engaging with any future transitional Government in Syria that includes HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria, and the UK will be guided by a set of core principles for any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syria authorities, with inclusion and the protection of human rights as key considerations. That has been the case until now, and it most definitely will be the case into the future. The right hon. Lady asked about engagement with other bodies at official level. There has been engagement with Türkiye and with the SDF, and that will continue. We are seeking to do all that we can, above all, to ensure that the interests of Syrians themselves are put at the forefront in this very difficult situation.
The right hon. Lady asked about the representations being made by the UK to the HTS. I covered that in my statement, but let me repeat that we have been crystal clear about the fact that any subsequent arrangements must be comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, above all, determined by Syrians. She asked whether this would have any impact on the integrity of the proscription regime; no, and it must not, because that is an incredibly important regime and there will be no linkage. She asked what would happen with those who chose to leave our country to promote and support terrorism by seeking to fight for Daesh; of course those people will not be able to come to the UK. She talked about the use of chemical weapons; I covered that in my statement as well, but, again, the UK will seek to play as much of a part as it possibly can in ensuring that those stockpiles are destroyed after they were used so appallingly against the Syrian people.
The right hon. Lady asked about the use of aid. I have discussed this matter myself, as have many of my officials, with a number of multilateral bodies and with a number of our bilateral partners as well. We are determined to work together to ensure that aid does not fall into the wrong hands and is not diverted. Of course that must not happen, because it is desperately needed by many Syrians. A great many people have already been displaced from Syria to neighbouring countries, but large population movements now seem to be taking place, and it really is important that the aid goes where it is needed. We are, of course, monitoring that in detail.
The right hon. Lady asked about the situation with Iran. The UK has condemned Iran’s reckless and destabilising activity, including its support for militant groups. We have been very clear about that, as the new Government. Finally, the right hon. Lady talked about the need to ensure that we do not see an increase in the developments that have been so concerning, involving the smuggling of weapons and drugs. The UK will focus on that later with the new Government, because we see the damage that has already been caused in that regard.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Earlier this week I met Alevi, Kurdish and other communities who are deeply concerned about what will happen to minorities in Syria now that HTS has seized power there. The UK has rightly proscribed HTS as a result of its links with al-Qaeda. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will use all their powers to prevent HTS and other hostile actors from attacking minorities in Syria?
Of course we will seek to use every lever in that respect, because it is the position of this Government that all civilians must be protected, and that includes civilians who form part of religious and ethnic minorities. We have also made it very clear that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the political process must be inclusive, and that covers all religious and ethnic minorities. When it comes to the situation for Kurds, I think it relevant to underline the fact that the UK has been in touch with both Türkiye and the SDF since the start of this escalation. We are urging all sides to refrain from activity that could lead to a further loss of civilian life, and of course we want to see the ceasefire being held to.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The fall of Assad marks a turning point in Syria’s history, one that brings renewed hope for millions who have suffered under his brutal rule. It also represents a serious setback for the global ambitions of the regimes in Moscow and Tehran. As we reflect on this momentous day, however, we must remain vigilant. It is not enough to see the end of a cruel despot who unleashed chemical weapons on his own people; true justice requires that he be held to account for his crimes, ensuring that such atrocities never reoccur.
In these early days of transition, every effort must be channelled into securing an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. We welcome the signs of engagement with groups on the ground, including those who have had contact with HTS, and we urge all parties to commit themselves to a stable path forward; but this cannot be a mere change of flags or faces. The new leadership must work tirelessly to safeguard the dignity and rights of every community, ensuring that religious and ethnic minorities are not just tolerated but actively protected. Equally vital is the reconstruction of Syria’s infrastructure: investment in roads, schools, hospitals and electricity grids is essential. Restoring those lifelines of society will help to rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for a thriving, inclusive economy that reaches every corner of the country. The international community stands ready to support these initiatives, but we must see clear evidence of genuine commitment to positive, meaningful change.
The Minister mentioned the £61 million of UK aid, which is very welcome. Can she give us the details of how it will specifically support Syrians who are returning to their home country? May I also ask what the Government are doing to work alongside key regional players to ensure that whatever comes next upholds the values of democracy and freedom?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks, and I agree with the way in which he described the current situation. There is no question but that many Syrians felt an enormous sense of relief at the end of such a murderous and brutal regime, but there is deep concern about what will come now. The UK is determined to play our part in ensuring that the future is determined by the Syrians themselves.
The hon. Gentleman asks about accountability. That is an incredibly important point to reflect on, because in recent years we have seen the appalling targeting of so many Syrians by the Assad regime. The UK has played its part, as have many experts from the UK, in seeking to gather information about that. I praise the previous Government for their work in that regard, particularly their work with the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, which has been seeking to make sure that there is coherent collation and use of evidence so that we can address the widespread impunity, and the suffering of the Syrian people, under the Assad regime. Given the change that has taken place, it is really important that we do not lose that information, and that, ultimately, there is the accountability that the Syrian people deserve.
The hon. Gentleman asks for details of the aid that the UK has provided, and about how that will be relevant for those seeking to return to Syria. Of course, many areas of Syria have been appallingly degraded through the actions of Assad, and basic services—water, electricity and other services that are essential for anything approaching normal life—have been destroyed. It will be a long-term process, but the UK is now focused on providing emergency healthcare, support for nutrition and food provision more generally, as well as support for the many displaced children, who have had to deal with such a traumatic period. We will continue to focus on those important issues with our partners into the future.
I commend the Minister for her statement, and for the additional £50 million in aid. I am particularly grateful for the extra £120,000 that has been given to the OPCW to help rid Syria of chemical weapons, which, despite the denials and downplaying by some people, including Members of this House, were being used by Assad.
My question follows up on the one I asked last week about political prisoners. I am grateful that Sednaya prison looks like it has been cleared, but I hear from my Syrian friends that there are other prisons and secret detention centres across the country. What steps can the UK Government take to help support the Syrians to find any missing people and ensure that they are freed as soon as possible?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. He mentions the terrible use of chemical weapons within Syria. The new Government are deeply concerned about their previous use, but we also want to ensure that they can never be used again on a civilian population. We note HTS’s statement that it will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use such weapons under any circumstances. We urge all parties to comply with international law, including the chemical weapons convention, and to engage with the OPCW so that we can finally make sure that all banned weapons are destroyed.
My hon. Friend raises the issue of those who have been appallingly detained—in some cases, for an extremely long period of time—in horrific circumstances. Accountability around those issues relates to the matters that I talked about a few moments ago. The IIIM is so crucial to making sure that data about Assad’s murderous regime is not just collected, but held and then used to drive accountability.
The Minister will be aware of reports that up to £160 million is held in assets in the UK under the Syrian sanctions regime. Will she look at ways in which that money can be used in due course for the benefit of the people of Syria?
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his question. I am sure that he will understand —indeed, he has followed these issues for many years—that the UK’s sanctions regime is continuously kept under review. The UK has been determined to ensure that where we can use sanctions in order to ensure that there is accountability, we will do so. Of course, we will keep these matters under review and work with partners to make sure that there is accountability.
We welcome the Minister’s statement, and what she has detailed about the efforts of the Department and our Government to create a broad coalition to bring about peace in Syria. Earlier we had a statement on Ukraine from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that we were challenging malign Russian activity, and there was broad consensus across the House. Given the Russians’ malign activity in Syria, does the Minister agree that although we need an inclusive political process that includes the country’s minority groups, it is essential that we have a broad international process?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the critical need for an international process, and the need for continuation of the engagement that we have seen in recent days—first, with Arab countries coming together, and then engagement by the EU, US, UK and others. I want to underline my hon. Friend’s point about Russia. It is clear that with Russia’s military support, the Assad regime was able to continue its brutal campaign against the Syrian people for over 13 years. The sudden fall of that regime has exposed Russia’s weakened state, and the unreliable and self-serving nature of its so-called alliances.
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement and the removal of the Assad Government. What assessment have the UK Government made of the Syrian justice system’s capacity to prosecute war crimes, and all the horrendous crimes that were perpetrated against the poor people of Syria during Assad’s regime?
Sadly, it is very clear that under Assad, we did not see a justice system that was focused on criminal justice and on providing proper accountability. Instead, there was a vast number of political prisoners, and extensive and extremely deep persecution focused on the needs of the regime. Of course, there must be change. As I described in my statement, the UK has engaged with Syria, particularly on the need to prevent further conflict, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to ensure an inclusive and representative political process. That will require the kind of institutions that can uphold an inclusive, representative and comprehensive governance structure. Surely that is the least that the Syrians deserve.
Does the Minister share my concern that the situation in both Syria and Gaza threatens stability in the wider region, and can she reassure me that the Government are acting urgently to support humanitarian needs in both Syria and Gaza?
Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. It is important for us to understand the situation in many countries in the region. Jordan has a very large proportion of Palestinian refugees, and also has many Syrian refugees. I had the absolute privilege of meeting some of them when I visited the Zaatari camp in Jordan. The UK has been working with Jordan on the Jahez programme, which we announced recently, but we have also been working with the country to ensure that, where possible, we can push forward access for aid into Gaza. I pay tribute to the Jordanian Government for that.
I have several short questions. The Minister has already touched on sanctions; the new Syrian leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said that sanctions must be lifted, and that that is not up for negotiation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on how we can move forward.
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the £61 million of support, particularly for healthcare and nutrition, but who will deliver it, and how can we ensure that it is delivered to the people who need it most?
Over the last week or two, we have all seen the unfolding news about the horror of what happened, and not just in the prisons. This week, Channel 4 News has reported that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been buried in mass graves. What are the UK Government’s thoughts on the technical and forensic assistance provided following previous genocides, not least in Rwanda and the Balkans? What support could we provide? The University of Dundee is a world leader in forensics, and I would like it to have the opportunity to hear the Minister’s response.
I will try to answer the hon. Member’s four questions as quickly as possible, so that others can speak. First, there were already tough sanctions in place against the Assad regime—against 310 individuals and 74 linked entities. As I mentioned, this Government will keep all evidence and potential designations under close review, and we will not hesitate to take further action as needed.
We are working with partners, particularly the UN agencies, on delivering aid. Yesterday or the day before, I discussed in detail with the UN emergency co-ordinator how we will ensure that access is provided, working together in concert. We also need to make sure that there is no duplication, given that there is such need. That is something on which the UK is very much focused.
The UK has been engaged in ensuring that forensic evidence is collected. As I said, much of that work is conducted through the IIIM. It is important that UK experts are engaged, and I pay tribute to the Dundonians who have been engaged in this important work. Clearly, we are hearing very disturbing reports, and it is critical that we have clear, substantiated evidence that can be used to drive accountability. I hope that many UK experts will be involved in that effort.
The end of a vicious dictatorship and the limited progress that has been made under the interim authorities are leading to ever more Syrian refugees, perhaps even millions, returning home. Of course, in principle, this is good, but Syria’s education system, its infrastructure and its healthcare system are devastated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this presents a significant opportunity for the UK to play a huge role in helping Syrians to rebuild their country? British aid agencies, companies and experts in international law can all help to embed stability, and to ensure a democratic transition and an inclusive and more prosperous country for the Syrians.
I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, millions of Syrian refugees remain in Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan, and the House has to recognise that a further surge of refugees out of Syria would increase the strain on many other countries and potentially increase the number of people seeking to use dangerous routes into continental Europe and the UK. We need to work on this with multilateral organisations, and with countries in the region, while making sure that we focus on future reconstruction.
We have talked about the destruction of many basic services, and it really will be important to make sure that Syria, as a whole nation and a whole territory, is made inhabitable again; that is the right of all Syrians.
I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House welcome the fall of the brutal Assad regime, and perhaps very cautiously welcome the early inclusive statements—in part, at least—of Ahmed al-Sharaa, the HTS’s leader, but I have to confess that I am somewhat nervous. Are these statements too good to be true? Does not the international community, particularly the UK Government, need to be careful that it is not being played? In particular, the transitional Government should be judged on their deeds, not just their words and BBC TV interviews.
Briefly, when will the UK embassy in Syria reopen? What will the Government do to ensure the protection of minorities, particularly, at Christmas, Christian minorities, and to make sure that they are represented in the transitional Government and, indeed, the future Government of Syria?
Although some of the biological and chemical stockpiles held in Syria have been bombed by Israel—that is welcome, in my view—we have to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of any rebel group or transitional Government, but are completely destroyed or given over to another authority that can destroy them.
I covered the nature of the UK’s engagement with HTS both in my statement and in my answers. Of course, it is critical that the UK is clear about the need for a future political settlement to be comprehensive and inclusive, and it must include both ethnic and religious minorities.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Christian minorities in Syria, many of which were appallingly persecuted over many years. As with other minorities, we need to ensure that they are protected into the future. The UK has been resolute on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions chemical stockpiles, and the UK Government have been absolutely clear that those stockpiles must not be used. HTS has made a statement on this subject, and we are determined to ensure that it is held to that, and that all parties ensure that the stockpiles are destroyed, so that they can never be used.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her diligent work on the very challenging situation in Syria. I am sure that she has seen the reports from places like Idlib, Aleppo, Homs and Damascus of women being forced to wear the hijab, young women being escorted, and other restrictions on women’s rights. That is in stark contrast to the position under the autonomous administration in north and east Syria, Rojava; gender equality is baked into its constitutional arrangements. What assessment has she made of HTS’s attitude towards gender equality and women’s rights? Does she think that there should be a ministry for women and gender equality in the constitutional arrangements of a future Syrian republic?
My hon. Friend raises an issue that could not be more important. When we talk about arrangements being inclusive, comprehensive and representative, that must include arrangements for the 51% of the population who are women. We must also see that girls, as well as women, are protected. When we looked at the previous humanitarian situation in Syria, we saw that there were huge issues for many women in accessing family planning and basic health services—those kinds of issues hit women particularly hard. The UK has been supporting the work of the United Nations on family planning, and we will continue to make sure that the UK is a strong advocate, both on a political level and on services for women and girls in Syria.
The Minister might like to welcome the fact that the Israeli air force is systematically destroying chemical weapons, rather than relying on the word of terrorists. Will she comment on the largest occupation anywhere in the middle east, namely that of Turkey in Syria, and on the pro-western Kurdish fighters who are being singly dealt with by the Turks? It appears that the Turkish Parliament now sees an opportunity to annex more and more of Syria, creating a greater Turkish empire. Has the Minister or the Government had any discussions with Turkey about its intentions?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues. I briefly mentioned that the UK has been in contact with Türkiye and the Syrian Democratic Forces since the start of this escalation. As he will be aware, there is a US-brokered ceasefire, and it has to be held to. We have been very clear with all sides that they must refrain from activity that could lead to further loss of life or damage to civilian infrastructure in order to avoid further destabilisation and civilian suffering in the region, which has already been intense and which must not be worsened.
I welcome the Minister’s involvement and preparedness to work with the new Syrian Government, and we hope that that will deliver a future free from war and free from human rights abuse. However, the new Government are faced with a country awash with weapons and armed forces from Russia, Turkey, the USA, Israel and ISIS active in the country. What actions has she taken to ensure Israel withdraws from Syria and Turkish forces withdraw from the north of Syria, allowing the Kurdish people to live in peace and with rights of self-determination?
We are aware that the situation is incredibly complex, and a large number of armed groups, with a variety of different affiliations, are involved. In that context, the most critical issue for the UK Government is that civilians are protected. My goodness, they suffered enough under Assad, and now, with the fall of Assad, we must ensure they are protected. On other nations engaged within Syria, we are clear that it is critical that civilians, including those from minorities, are protected, and that all must work quickly towards an inclusive political transition. As the UN Secretary-General has said, the future of Syria is a matter for Syrians to determine, and that is the position of the UK Government.
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
When I speak in the Chamber, I always see myself as a rear gunner. I thank the Minister for her statement and her clear commitment to human rights, prevention of religious persecution and righting wrongs. While I welcome the fall of Assad, I fear for what will replace that regime. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, if we do not —I say “we” collectively—secure democracy, a dictatorship under a different guise will arise. How will the UK and our UN allies ensure that those women and children who have lived through horrific oppression will not simply taste freedom for a short time before entering a new despotic regime? What specific support can our Government give to women and children at this time?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all his work over many years on these and associated issues. He talked about the complex situation that faces us now. As many have reflected, there is relief at seeing the fall of such a dreadful dictator but concern about what may come next. As I have mentioned, the UK Government will do all we can to seek to ensure that the subsequent governance regime is comprehensive, inclusive and representative, and will ensure the safety of civilians, including children. The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK’s approach on support towards children. Within the support we announced a couple of days ago, there is provision for education for displaced Syrian children and also for psychosocial support, which will be important to those young people.
In ending, as we approach Christmas, and particularly off the back of this discussion, now really is a time when we must wish for peace on earth and goodwill to all. I wish everyone in the Chamber, all the staff and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas.
(1 week ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2024.
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. The draft orders, which were laid before the House on 4 November, will permit the UK Government to make separate financial contributions to the Asian Development Fund and the Inter-American Investment Corporation, up to the stated values. If I may, I will briefly take the Committee through the background to and purpose of the draft orders.
The Asian Development Fund, which is the grant arm of the Asian Development Bank, supports the most vulnerable countries in the Asia-Pacific and is replenished by donors every four years. ADB is one of the largest sources of development finance in the region; it provided more than $23 billion in 2023.
ADB is an important partner for the UK that plays a key role in the achievement of regional development objectives on sustainable development and climate change. In line with multilateral development bank reform priorities to support the most vulnerable, the UK has committed £120 million to ADF to maintain our position as the fourth largest donor. The draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order will allow for the provision of this core funding by the UK. During this replenishment, a record high of 38%—almost $2 billion—will be funded from ADB’s own net income, reducing the cost to donors of achieving the same development impact. The total value of the replenishment is $5 billion.
The replenishment will prioritise dedicated assistance to small-island developing states, which are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations, including Afghanistan and Myanmar. It will support much-needed climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, will promote gender equality, will support regional integration nd the provision of regional public goods and will increase the living standards of poor and vulnerable people in the region. Specifically, ADF will dedicate at least 45% of its financing to climate mitigation and adaptation; will commit $900 million for Afghanistan and $200 million for Myanmar, providing vital support for basic human needs and livelihood development; will increase commitments to Pacific island states to $1.3 billion, some 35% of the total replenishment financing; and will allocate 20% of thematic funding to gender-transformative action, which will tackle violence against women and girls, ensure access to sexual and reproductive services and promote access to economic resources such as land and asset ownership.
ADF is an essential lifeline to the region’s most vulnerable people, who have faced multiple crises over the past few years, including climate change, coronavirus and the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. ADF provides excellent value for money for the taxpayer, leveraging approximately $11 from the bank’s resources for every $1 contributed by donors. This is one step closer to building a bigger, better and fairer international financial system—one that delivers for everyone.
The draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order will permit the UK Government to make further payments to the Inter-American Investment Corporation, also known as IDB Invest, which is the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank group. The IDB is Latin America and the Caribbean’s largest source of development finance; it provided approximately $24 billion in 2023 alone.
The IDB is also a trusted UK partner and is instrumental in the achievement of regional development objectives on sustainable development, action on climate change, biodiversity protection and pandemic and disaster preparedness. Furthermore, the G20 has called on multilateral development banks to adopt new business models to stretch their balance sheets, increase lending and make riskier investments. With the new Government, the UK has been at the forefront of these calls. This is exactly what IDB Invest has committed to doing.
Together with other shareholders, the UK has therefore agreed to a $3.5 billion capitalisation package to allow IDB Invest to more than double the support that it provides to the region, from about $8 billion to $19 billion per year. It will do so through the implementation of a new business model: IDB Invest will shift to an originate-to-share approach to attract private capital, share risks and recycle funds, enabling greater impact and scalability for development projects. The UK is a strong proponent of the new model and the leadership and innovation showcased by IDB Invest. For that reason, we aim to achieve at least a fivefold increase in our shareholding, from 0.22% up to 1.5%—subject to shares being available—for a total value of up to $106 million.
Let me lay out some of the outcomes that IDB Invest expects to achieve by 2030 through the new business model and capital increase. It will dedicate at least 60% of investments to climate and green finance; will finance 2.5 million micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which in turn could support 9.5 million jobs; will create more than 300,000 women direct beneficiaries of its programmes and support 1.6 million of the region’s poor and vulnerable people; and will improve access to agricultural services and investments for 44,000 farmers. It is also predicted to achieve a reduction of 3.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and to generate 1,400 MW from renewable sources for new clean energy projects. In addition, IDB Invest will continue to share lessons learned in the implementation of its business model with other development finance institutions to encourage more private sector investment globally. This represents excellent value for money: for every $1 that the UK invests, $5 of development-related assets are generated, taking us one step closer to achieving the region’s sustainable development goals.
Both the Asian Development Fund and IDB Invest are instrumental to achieving UK objectives overseas and are among our closest and most important development partners. The financial contributions covered by the two draft orders will deliver UK international development and foreign policy objectives in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries and will bring opportunity to tens of millions of people globally through innovative reform processes. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions and for his interest in this critical area. I will endeavour to answer as many points as I can.
First, I was pleased that the previous Government supported the work of the Asian Development Bank: that was really encouraging to see. I am also pleased that a new president has been announced. I met with him when he was a candidate to become the new president of the bank, and he certainly shares a similar reform orientation to that of the new UK Government.
The shadow Minister mentioned the UK’s funding, which perhaps needs to be put in the context of the previous Government’s support. We are talking about up to £120 million now, which is a slight increase on the UK’s contribution of £117.6 million made by the previous Government. It is helpful to put it in that context.
The connection between the environmental schemes on which ADB is focusing and economic growth is very clear. Previously, it has been very focused on mitigation, in terms of projects to deliver energy where it is required, and ensuring that that is done on as sustainable a basis as possible. It is also about infrastructure development, but above all it is about ensuring that its work is additional and is not crowding out private sector investment. It has to focus on the core mission for MDBs, which is to be additional to any private funding.
The shadow Minister asked about regional co-operation. A particularly important area is encouraging intra-regional trade and encouraging, for example, the integration of energy systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the light of the climate crisis. These are areas that have been examined.
The shadow Minister asked about overall reform. The new UK Government certainly recognise that the last Government were committed to reform, but we want to go far further and faster. That is what we have been pushing on, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to achieve it. We really do want to ensure that every penny goes as far as it possibly can when we are talking about taxpayers’ resources. We have seen that with the World Bank’s openness to reform and with what we managed to achieve in our negotiations around our announcement on the International Development Association. There was a commitment to ensure that every pound would be stretched on the balance sheet of the bank; it has been really clear about that and about the reforms that it is making. The announcements that we are making today also show a strong push towards the reform that is so critical. Finally, I must mention the measures that we have been pushing with the Green Climate Fund, where we have seen positive innovation, particularly in serving fragile and conflict-affected states and in the announcement that it has made about funding in Somalia.
The shadow Minister asked about BII. As he would expect, I have had frequent interaction with BII since becoming the Development Minister. I was there a couple of weeks ago. He asked about measures now being undertaken that the new Government are promoting, particularly on catalysing private-sector growth. BII is one of the few such organisations that has had an explicit focus on African nations, and particularly those that cannot access finance from other sources. I am pleased that the Financial Sector Deepening Africa project is proceeding apace and that we are seeing investments to support small-scale businesses as well as larger ones. I was in Zambia last week and saw some of that for myself. It is good to see that continuing work.
The shadow Minister talked about the need to ensure that the UK’s work is supporting development and growth in other countries. That is absolutely the raison d’être of our new approach to development. It has to be focused on partnership, recognising that the new UK Government’s core mission is growing our economy, and our partners overseas have the same core mission. We need to work with them to realise that mutual interest.
The shadow Minister asked about British firms. A review is being undertaken within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: it is being led by Martin Donnelly and is focusing on economic diplomacy. The review is not within the scope of the draft orders, so I will not talk about it, but the shadow Minister may find it useful to find out more about it.
I have discussed the reform plans within the IDB directly with its president. In many ways, it has been a leader among multilateral development banks. It is positive that it has held the presidency of the grouping, bringing MDBs together for the first time so that it can share knowledge of reform and push things forward.
The shadow Minister asked about the Caribbean. The fund will, absolutely, be focused on the Caribbean, which is really important. That is particularly the case when it comes to adaptation-focused investment. IDB Invest will be making 10% of its investments in the Caribbean, and 60% of its focus will be on pro-environmental and climate measures, including adaptation, which are particularly important for those countries and overseas territories that are being hammered by the impacts of the climate crisis right now.
I hope I have answered most of the shadow Minister’s questions. He talked about the need to support smaller charities; we absolutely agree, but I am afraid I cannot resist saying that unfortunately the record of the previous Government includes a huge amount of volatility around funding for international development. We are determined to deliver a longer-term approach whereby we do not see in-donor refugee costs eating up a variable and—as under the Conservatives—increasing amount of international development funding. We want to bring that proportion down over time.
We will ensure that information is available about IDB Invest into the future. I know that the Inter-American Development Bank itself will be reporting on that. If the shadow Minister has any subsequent questions, on that or any other matter, I will be more than happy to respond in person or in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024.—(Anneliese Dodds.)
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the UK’s focus on Sudan during the UK’s presidency of the UN Security Council this month and about the humanitarian emergency in Sudan.
Eighteen months into this devastating conflict, the war that began as a power struggle between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces has become one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes. Nearly 25 million people—half of Sudan’s population—are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. Sudan’s neighbours are also struggling under the strain of hundreds of thousands of refugees. The UK is using every lever, including through our role on the UN Security Council, to convene the international community to alleviate suffering, pursue peace and hold those responsible for atrocities to account.
On 12 November, Lord Collins chaired an open meeting of the Security Council, calling for urgent measures to protect civilians. On Monday last week, the Foreign Secretary brought together partners in New York to agree on collective action to pressure the warring parties, remove barriers to humanitarian operations and ensure aid reaches those in desperate need. In partnership with Sierra Leone, the UK introduced a Security Council resolution that called for protection of civilians and full, unimpeded aid access. I am appalled that one country chose to block that vital resolution.
Russia’s veto is a disgrace, but let me be clear: Russia’s actions will not deter us. We will continue to use our role as UN Security Council penholder on Sudan to drive forward action to safeguard civilians and deliver lifesaving aid. The decision to keep the Adre border crossing open for three more months is welcome, but that must become permanent and it must be free of deliberate bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the SAF that are costing lives. The RSF must also heed international humanitarian law; indeed, all warring parties have no excuse but to do so.
Without urgent support, even more Sudanese people will die, not only from bombs and bullets, but from starvation, preventable illness and exposure. I met some of those who had fled from Sudan to South Sudan. What they told me about wading through floodwater for hours, children dying from diarrhoea in the rain and their desperation to find food will never leave me. That is why the UK is doubling its aid this year, providing an additional £113 million to support people in Sudan and those who have fled to neighbouring countries that are so generously hosting large numbers of displaced people. The funding will allow our partners to deliver food, water, shelter and healthcare where it is needed most. As part of that uplift, we are also providing £10 million to Education Cannot Wait, giving 200,000 vulnerable children in refugee and host communities a safe space to learn and support for their mental health as they endure this traumatic crisis.
The people of Sudan face a humanitarian emergency of horrifying proportions. Under our presidency of the Security Council, the UK is rallying international action. We are steadfast in our commitment to the Sudanese people to secure humanitarian access, pursue peace and deliver hope for a more stable and prosperous future. This Government will continue to do everything in our power, with our partners, to bring this devastating conflict to an end. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
I welcome this statement not least because it provides an opportunity to highlight what is a humanitarian catastrophe. Yesterday, I was fortunate to meet representatives of the World Food Programme. From speaking to them and to others in the sector, I know how crucial it is that we continue to raise the importance of this issue and to keep the situation in our minds.
This war, which is driven by a man-made power struggle, has already resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis. It is, as I said earlier, a humanitarian catastrophe. Any further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Sudan will have dire consequences. There are already 25 million people—half the entire population of Sudan—in urgent need of assistance. Eleven million people have had to flee from their homes, and 7 million need urgent food assistance. There are reports of systematic human rights abuses, including sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties. What has been happening in Darfur is also incredibly disturbing.
The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided. Sadly, we are all well aware of the knock-on effect in the surrounding countries. The UK has already invested a great deal of diplomatic energy into trying to bring about a cessation of hostilities and to press for unhindered, safe humanitarian access to Sudan.
The previous Government also invested heavily in aid to Sudan to alleviate the suffering. I would like to take a second to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in his place today, for the leadership that he has shown in response to this crisis and for his commitment in government to the people of Sudan.
We understand that the new Government have announced further aid measures, which of course is welcome, but I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details to the House on which trusted organisations she has partnered with for her emergency aid package. We note that she has said that the package will provide food, water, shelter and healthcare where it is most needed, but can she provide specific examples of the aid items she hopes it will deliver and at which areas of Sudan she envisages it being targeted?
The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the problem of getting aid into Sudan in the first place, let alone the challenges of distribution. Can she assure the House that everything possible is being done to ensure that this aid can be genuinely effectively distributed? What recent conversations has she had with partners to encourage other countries to provide support to the humanitarian response?
Turning to the warring parties, our position remains that there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities. We understand that the resolution the Government introduced at the UN Security Council with Sierra Leone was thwarted by Russia. However, we would welcome a further update on other avenues the Government are actively pursuing, including backing the Jeddah process. The Government and our allies need to be working around the clock to press the warring parties into a ceasefire and to exert whatever pressure they can to see the lifting of arbitrary obstacles to humanitarian aid delivery.
In conclusion, I am sure the Minister will agree that the status quo in Sudan is not sustainable and that it must change. The UK has a leadership role here. We must use it to its fullest extent.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her remarks and her clear concern about the situation. I hope that a loud and clear message has been sent that there is cross-party concern about what is going on. I was very encouraged by how she described the situation and the need for the UK leadership that we are determined to deliver.
I was very encouraged to hear that the right hon. Lady has met representatives of the World Food Programme to discuss these matters. I, too, met a number of its operatives when I was in South Sudan. They are working incredibly hard to get in the support that is needed. In fact, there was some coverage of this on the BBC this morning—very welcome coverage, given that there has not been a huge amount of media coverage of the situation—including interviews with some of the operatives.
The right hon. Lady talked about the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities and violations of human rights. The UK Government are extremely concerned about that. We were determined to ensure that we had a renewal of the mandate for the fact-finding mission. We were pleased that it was renewed, this time with increased support from African nations. It is important to get a picture of what is really happening, so that there is no impunity.
The right hon. Lady rightly referred to the regional impact. We have seen the impact on South Sudan, Chad and a number of other countries, including countries that were already in difficult situations in terms of food security. She talked about the work of the previous Government, for which I am grateful. As I said, this is a cross-party issue. We are determined to intensify that work, given the deteriorating situation, and to work with other partners to push this forward. We have seen leadership right across the UK on this issue, including from Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh on her visit to Chad, which followed that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
The right hon. Lady asked about the package for delivery of aid. We are working with UN agencies and Education Cannot Wait on targeted support for vulnerable children. She mentioned the need for specific forms of support. We have ensured that our aid, including water and sanitation support, is being delivered in a way that recognises the prevalence of violence against women and girls. Disturbingly, many people in internally displaced persons camps, and in refugee situations, have been subject to that violence, so we have ensured that our support is tailored and effective.
The right hon. Lady asked about other countries we are seeking to work with. We have taken the matter up repeatedly with the African Union and worked to ensure that there is that engagement. The African Union is keen to work with us on this issue, and I have raised it in a number of bilateral engagements, as have many other UK Ministers.
The right hon. Lady talked about the Jeddah process. It has been extremely frustrating that we have not seen all parties to the conflict engaging in those attempts to broker peace. We have been clear that they must participate. Their failure to engage with a number of processes is effectively leading to a humanitarian emergency in Sudan. There has been forum shopping, and that must end.
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Yesterday, in the Committee’s session on Sudan, Dr Eva Khair, director of the Sudan Transnational Consortium, made it clear that we should regard this not as a civil war but as a war on civilians, and she is right. Since April 2023, when the war started, 61,000 people have been killed, with 11 million people internally displaced—nearly a quarter of the population. Fourteen regions are at risk of famine, and the UN’s fund is only 57% funded. I welcome the personal involvement of both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Development, but I seek assurances that that commitment will continue, because we are the penholder and a former colonial administrator, which means that we have special duties when it comes to Sudan. Will the Minister give assurances about how she is convening the international community to stop the war and, importantly, to involve civil society in the debates?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those important issues and for the work of the Select Committee on these matters, including its recent hearing. She is right that the conflict has had a dreadful impact on civilians. We are determined to use every multilateral and bilateral mechanism and relationship that we have to seek the end to the conflict that is so desperately needed, an end to the restrictions on humanitarian aid, and an end to the atrocities being perpetrated against civilians. She talked about the UN mechanisms. We are determined to keep exercising leadership. As I said, Russia’s veto will not hold us back from continuing to push hard to advance these issues. We are determined to make a change on them.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for the UK’s work at the UN Security Council this past month. The Liberal Democrats welcome efforts to secure a ceasefire in Sudan and join Members from all sides of the House in condemning Russia’s attempts to stop one. The UK should not accept that the consequences of the Russia veto are that we cannot act to protect civilians, so what actions are the Government taking? Given that we can act and we do not have to wait, will they consider a UK Sudan-wide no-fly zone, building on the one in place in Darfur? Does the Minister agree that we should not bestow legitimacy on warring groups? I understand that the RSF is days away from claiming that it is forming a Government. If it does, does she agree that it will be civilians who lose out?
We will shortly pass the rotating presidency on to the US. Will the Minister update the House on what conversations she and her colleagues have had with UN counterparts to ensure that this brutal conflict, which sadly has been ignored, is brought to an end so that civilians are protected? With the inauguration of President Trump just weeks away, what representations have we made against the division of Sudan? Will the Minister commit to doing all she can to raise the profile in the UK of that conflict?
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), raised the conflict at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister agreed that
“it is an important issue”
and that he did
“not think we discuss it enough in this House”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
Will the Minister join the Liberal Democrats in calling on the Disasters Emergency Committee to start an appeal, just as it did recently for the middle east? The committee previously communicated to our spokesperson in the other place, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that this conflict is not deemed high-profile enough to start one.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the issues he raised. He will no doubt be aware that there is a UK arms embargo for all of Sudan, and there is also a UN arms embargo on Darfur. I hope that that helps fill out some of the multilateral and bilateral work that the UK has been engaged in on embargoes.
On the engagement of the armed groups—the warring parties—particularly in peace talks, I have discussed that matter at length with a number of members of civil society. Relating that to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), many of those civilian groups are very concerned that they need to be involved in the peace talks. I met a number of their representatives in Addis Ababa, particularly of the civil society grouping Tagadum, which we are supporting because that civilian voice is incredibly important. More generally, as I mentioned before, we also believe that all warring parties must prioritise taking part in the talks that are so necessary to end this conflict.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have had discussions around the US’s role. I discussed that directly with the US lead on humanitarian issues. In fact, we were involved in joint sessions at the UN General Assembly on the matter. Finally, he mentioned the key issue of the profile of the emergency in Sudan—the largest number of displaced people anywhere in the world. Sudan was one of the first issues I wanted to be briefed on and active on when I came into my role. It was the reason I visited South Sudan over the summer. I know many Members and, indeed, many of our constituents are deeply concerned about the situation. I am pleased that we are seeing more media coverage. Of course, when it comes to a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, that is a decision for the broadcasters to take, but I hope the renewed interest we are seeing in the media will lead to its gaining a higher profile.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I have raised the terrible conflict in Sudan on a number of occasions. Too often, it has felt like a forgotten conflict, despite the scale of suffering there, so I welcome the Minister’s leadership on that issue. She talked about the regional impact. What steps has she taken to support South Sudan, Chad and Egypt? How is she engaging with grassroots groups in South Sudan so that their voices are heard as we try to move towards a solution to that terrible conflict?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues, and I thank her and many other Members gathered here for their leadership on them. She mentioned the situation in neighbouring countries. I am aware that in Chad, South Sudan and Egypt there are large numbers of refugees from Sudan. We have discussed those matters with representatives from each of those countries. We are seeing quite different profiles in the relative economic circumstances of refugees in those countries and in how they are being supported. I know that in Egypt there is a determination to support people, as indeed there is in South Sudan and in Chad.
On conversations with civil society organisations in South Sudan, I have had a number of discussions—particularly with women’s rights organisations there—about the conflict, and I have spoken directly with some of those who have fled Sudan. I have spoken with representatives from Chad about it as well. We must be conscious that, as I mentioned, many of those countries already face significant challenges in food insecurity, economic development and the impact of the climate crisis, and now they are dealing with this major influx of refugees. We must pay tribute to them for enabling those refugees to seek safety and security within their borders.
We come now to a member of the International Development Committee.
I very much welcome the statement and the increased focus on Sudan. Evidence given to the International Development Committee is clear that those in Sudan feel that the conflict has been forgotten and ignored, partly because it has received so little international media attention. Anything that can change that is welcome. I commend to the Minister the evidence that the Committee took this week, which sets out that the most effective way of delivering aid is through local groups on the ground. More widely, what engagement has the UK had with the United Arab Emirates in particular, given their huge influence in that conflict?
I thank the right hon. Member for raising those incredibly important issues. I was pleased that an FCDO official engaged in that meeting, which I know was a helpful exchange of information. The right hon. Member talks about the local groups engaged in delivering humanitarian support. When I have met representatives of such groups—particularly the so-called emergency response rooms—I have been incredibly moved by their bravery, courage and absolute selflessness in getting support to those who need it. They are resolutely non-partisan in supporting their communities, and are a real sign of co-operation in action, in the hardest possible circumstances. I pay tribute to them.
The right hon. Member talks about the influence of other countries in this situation, and mentioned the UAE. As he will be aware, a number of countries are concerned about this situation, and we have had bilateral conversations, including my own discussions, with representatives from the UAE and other countries elsewhere in the Gulf.
I call another member of the International Development Committee.
I thank the Minister for her updates. Part of the reason that Sudan is becoming not just a devastating conflict but a protracted one is the involvement of state and non-state actors from elsewhere in Africa, the middle east and further afield. Does she consider Sudan to be a foreign policy priority as well as a humanitarian priority, and what diplomatic actions is the Department taking with the warring parties and their backers to urge de-escalation?
Yes, to use the words of my hon. Friend—who of course has considerable experience in the area of humanitarian emergencies—this is a foreign policy priority for the UK Government. That is demonstrated by the recent leadership of the Foreign Secretary at the Security Council. It will continue to be a foreign policy priority, as has been made very clear by the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, by the Prime Minister. We will continue to use every lever available to us to ensure that we are speaking up for the people of Sudan and doing all we can to secure an end to this dreadful conflict.
The current war in Ukraine and the battles between Israel and the terrorists from Lebanon and Gaza are regularly reported to this House, yet more civilians are being killed in Sudan than in all these other conflicts. This conflict has been largely ignored across this House and in our media, so I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement today and support it completely. Now, of course, an end to hostilities has to be secured, but equally, those responsible for human rights abuses need to be brought to justice at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. What action is the Minister going to take to make sure that happens?
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. As we can see, there is considerable concern about this situation right across the House; we need to be working together on this emergency, and I have certainly found the Opposition to be keen to do so.
The hon. Member talks about the need to ensure there is not impunity for the atrocities that we are currently seeing. That is absolutely a priority of the UK Government. As I have mentioned, we were really determined to ensure the renewal of the fact-finding mission, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for having managed to secure the initial mission. There was some suggestion that it might be difficult to get it renewed, but we actually saw an increase in support for it—two African countries backed it, which was really encouraging. We are determined to work right across the board to ensure that there is no impunity, but above all, that the voices of people on the ground are heard. That also involves backing civil society, which again, the new Government are doing.
I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement, as well as the work done by the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations, despite the failure of the resolution. Eleven million displaced people is a staggering number; some 2 million have gone to neighbouring countries and, specifically, 1 million have been displaced to Egypt. The regional and global consequences of that displacement are huge, so how can the UK assist those countries, particularly Egypt, which may also face the prospect of refugees from Gaza?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The word that he used is absolutely correct: we have seen a staggering movement of people, both internally within Sudan and, as he mentioned, to neighbouring countries. We have had a number of discussions with those countries about the challenges that this displacement has posed. They have, of course, kept their borders open to enable those fleeing such an appalling conflict to seek sanctuary, but we need to make sure their voices are heard. That is why we have ensured that we have listened to those countries’ concerns about these matters, particularly in our delivery of support. The Education Cannot Wait support that I have talked about is also supporting children in host communities.
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today to make this important statement. Unspeakable atrocities have taken place and are taking place in Sudan, and the humanitarian disaster that has followed is horrific, both in its nature and its scale. In that light, my SNP colleagues and I welcome the additional £113 million in aid that the Minister has promised. However, I must press her on three specific points.
First, can the Minister tell us whether the overall aid budget will increase accordingly, or is this simply moving money from one budget heading to another? That is an important point. Secondly, although this aid is welcome, it is insufficient. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), called for a no-fly zone; can the Minister say what specific measures and actions she is taking to prevent these atrocities in Sudan, beyond the provision of aid? Finally, only moments ago, the Minister said that she was appalled by Russia’s veto of a Security Council resolution, and that that veto is a disgrace. On that, she is absolutely right, but will she commit to consistent UK leadership in condemning UN Security Council members who veto humanitarian resolutions going forward?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. On the overall aid budget, I can assure him that this is not just shifting funds around. If he looks at the programme budget for the FCDO for this year, 2024-25, compared with next year, 2025-26, he will see that there is an increase of £450 million. Of course, we are inheriting a situation where there has been huge turbulence within the aid budget, particularly because of the increase in in-donor refugee costs under previous Governments, but we are determined to get a grip of that turbulence and have a much more planned approach for the future.
The hon. Member asked about the measures being taken beyond aid. I have talked about the arms embargo, and we are engaged in many diplomatic efforts. Because he specifically highlighted atrocity prevention, I will also mention that the Minister for Africa, Lord Collins, hosted an event with his Dutch counterpart at the UN General Assembly that was specifically about conflict-related sexual violence. We are determined to ensure that the voices of those women and girls who have been impacted are heard, and that we are taking action against it. Of course, the UK is determined to be absolutely consistent when it comes to the prevention of access to aid during conflicts, and the hon. Member has seen that from this Government.
I call another member of the Select Committee.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many members of the Select Committee, myself included, have heard of the role that online disinformation and hatred have played in some of the atrocities in Sudan. What leadership can the UK demonstrate in helping to quell some of this digital fuel on the fire in the war against Sudanese civilians?
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We are indeed seeing a huge amount of misinformation circulating, and a lot of it is digital. That is why we have been determined to support the Centre for Information Resilience, a research body that is gathering open-source evidence about the ongoing fighting. Where the facts about what is going on are being manipulated, that is linked to fuelling violence, so it is important that we see continued support for reliable information and evidence in this context and also that we combat that disinformation, which has been so damaging.
The war in Sudan is plainly appalling. I heard that 14 million people had been displaced, but 11 million is also an appalling figure. As I understand it, this started out as a war between the general in charge of the armed forces and the general in charge of the Rapid Support Forces militia. That makes me think that we need to get upstream of such situations, to try to prevent them happening again. The UK used to be involved in defence engagement: we were delivering courses such as managing defence in a wider security context at the Kofi Annan international peacekeeping training centre, teaching things like democratic oversight and democratic control of the armed forces. Will the Government look again at that training, and see whether we might deliver more such training for military officers and officials in those developing countries that are receptive to it?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting and important question. The issue of conflict prevention is absolutely fundamental, not just for me as a Minister but for the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister. We have been seeking to ensure that the UK does all it can to exercise leadership in relation to what are often described as fragile and conflict-affected states. That includes states that are not yet in conflict but where there are the ingredients for conflict to increase. Unfortunately, of course, the climate crisis is now often linked to some of those conflicts. We have made sure that there is a stronger focus on economic development, for example. We had some good results a few weeks ago from the World Bank, which is focusing on this in its International Development Association replenishment. I will ensure that the specific issue of defence training is raised with the Defence Secretary, and I will definitely be thinking about it myself.
I welcome the statement and the leadership that the UK has shown, particularly in the UN Security Council. When we look at Sudan, the complexities can make us feel as though we cannot act, but it is really important that we do. Having spoken to NGOs on the ground, I know that they continue to push for access. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned, the NGOs are particularly concerned about the UN’s role in this and keen that we continue to push the UN. I welcome the continuation of access on the border in Chad, but can we ensure that the UK is pushing the UN on sustainable access on that border, and that it is not time-bound or unnecessarily conditioned?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these really important issues. The UK Government have discussed these matters in detail with the UN, and I have myself done so with a number of its agencies engaged in the crisis. I know that they have been deeply concerned about the restrictions on aid that we have seen. Some restrictions are very clear, such as the closures of crossings, but there are also those that are de facto because of bureaucratic or administrative obstacles placed in the way of those trying simply to keep people alive through humanitarian aid. She talked about the crossing in Darfur. We had welcome news that it would be open for three more months, but ultimately it must be open permanently. This is an absolutely critical lifeline for millions of people, and we will continue to advocate for that, as I am sure will the NGOs she mentioned. I pay tribute to their work, and it has been a pleasure to meet them and discuss these matters.
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement on the dire situation in Sudan. As has been mentioned, Sudan has been described as the “forgotten war”, which is incredible when we think that, according to the United Nations, 14 million people have been displaced and over half its population is on the verge of starvation. Why does the Minister think it has taken us so long to give this conflict due consideration? I would like to push her on what negotiations we are having with our proxy nations that are playing a role in this conflict, with some of which we have excellent relations. Finally, what tangible actions are we taking to get aid into the country and to distribute it to those who most need it?
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member that this crisis has been an absolute priority for me. As I stated before—I will not rehearse what I said previously—as soon as I came into my role, I was determined that I should be briefed on this situation. I was determined to get as close to Sudan as I could, which I did when I went to South Sudan over the summer. I was really determined to make sure that the UK was exercising its leadership role. We have also been absolutely clear—I have said this in the House a number of times—that there is no reason for any country to be engaged in Sudan unless it is providing humanitarian support. I have said that on the record a number of times, and we will continue to make that case.
I welcome the Minister’s statement on this harrowing humanitarian catastrophe. I especially welcome the fact that the UK is committed to giving an additional £113 million in aid to the people in Sudan. I have two questions. First, how realistic is it that this aid will actually get to the people still in Sudan? Secondly, given the large number of countries hosting huge numbers of refugees, have they in any way indicated how long they are willing to continue hosting refugees?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. We are confident that the UK support is reaching those in such desperate need. That is requiring creativity, diligence and repeated work from those on the ground, particularly to ensure that they are able to get aid to where it is needed. There is often a complex process of negotiation, and that is in the context that there should be no impediment on aid, but we are determined that it will get to those who need it.
My hon. Friend talked about the response of neighbouring countries to the large influx of refugees. The last conversation I had with one of those countries was with some Ministers and representatives from Chad. They are determined to fulfil their responsibilities, and they are extremely concerned about their Sudanese brothers and sisters, as they described them to me, who have come over the border. However, that country is already under a huge amount of stress, so we pay tribute to it, but we need to see the international community stepping up.
I thank the Minister very much for her positivity when she comes to answer questions in this Chamber; we are all encouraged by her true and honest enthusiasm, so I put my thanks on the record. With an estimated 25 million people looking for food and 14 million people displaced, Sudan is fast becoming the crisis point of the world. Although I am loath to suggest engagement in any theatre of war, my question to the Minister is this: can we do more? Can we do more to offer safe and secure camps for women and children, with the chance of education and clean water? Can we do more to assist those who are seeking to do better and to battle with tyranny? If we can do more, my question is: will this enhancement start today?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind words. I know that he is engaged significantly on these issues, and he has been at all the discussions of them in the House. I know that many of his constituents are concerned about this situation as well.
It really is important that we see far greater safety for those who have fled this conflict. The hon. Member talks in particular about women and girls. I mentioned before the extremely disturbing fact that, while of course women and girls must be safe everywhere, we have, for example, had rape reported in camps for internally displaced people and at checkpoints. The fact that we have seen this taking place in those contexts is extremely disturbing. We are absolutely determined, as the UK Government, that we will be working with partners and the UN agencies to ensure that we do all we can to provide such safety and security, which of course includes the food security that he has also championed.
I call another member of the Select Committee.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. This week the Select Committee heard compelling evidence, including about the important role of the Sudanese diaspora, and not only in the UK but in other countries. The Minister has rightly recognised the importance of listening to civil society organisations and working with them in Sudan. Will she speak specifically about how the Department is engaging with the Sudanese diaspora here, and what practical steps are being taken to tackle the cost of remittances, given that many people are sending money back to their loved ones?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—of course, she has considerable expertise in this area. The role of the Sudanese diaspora is incredibly important. I am sure that many of us will have had discussions with members of the diaspora in our constituencies and heard their concerns about the humanitarian situation, but also about what they are doing to support friends, family and the wider community. I have certainly done that myself, and I know that Lord Collins is determined to ensure that we have a strong relationship with the Sudanese diaspora. Indeed, we should consolidate it for the future because we all want the same thing: peace, security and humanitarian support for people living in Sudan.
I thank the Minister for her statement. This week the UN called the crisis in Sudan an “invisible crisis”, so it is really powerful that we have had so much agreement here today, which I hope will shed some light on the crisis. Others have spoken about the gender-based violence, which the UN has described as an “epidemic”. I am pleased that the Minister is taking the issue really seriously, and I know that this is more than just a job for her. However, Sudan is also a place where minority faiths are persecuted, so when we are thinking about distributing aid, will we take account of all human rights as well as the need to save lives?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question; he is of course right about the need to act against conflict-related sexual violence, which many Members have referenced. On religious freedom in particular, which has previously been raised in the House, we remain concerned by the wider human rights situation across Sudan since the 2021 military coup. We continue to promote freedom of religion or belief as a means of enhancing tolerance and inclusion in Sudan, but we are not aware of any significant increase in the specific targeting of, or discrimination against, any religious minorities because of their beliefs, including Christians, in the country since April 2023. We will, however, keep this under review.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement and for her leadership on the growing humanitarian crisis in Sudan. It all too often feels like a forgotten conflict, given the systemic human rights abuses we have heard about. With that in mind, does she agree that Russia’s veto of the joint UK-Sierra Leone UN Security Council resolution on protecting civilians is indefensible and will only extend the human suffering in Sudan?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That resolution was asking for what anyone can see is desperately needed in Sudan: an end to impediments to aid; above all, an end to the conflict; and international action to support the people of Sudan. We were deeply disappointed and frustrated that Russia vetoed that resolution, but that will not dim our resolve to work with other partners on this issue.
Last but by no means least, I call Steve Race.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for coming to the House to give this statement and for all the work the Government are doing to support the Sudanese people in the face of severe malnutrition and starvation. Keeping the Adre crossing open is extremely important. The Sudanese armed forces have committed to three months, but what diplomatic pressure are the Government bringing to bear to ensure that that crossing remains open for longer than three months? The ability to bring in ready-to-use therapeutic food is so important, and there are global shortages in the production of RUTF at the moment. Ahead of the nutrition for growth summit next year, will the Government commit to investing in scaling up production of RUTF?
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he is absolutely correct. The nutrition for growth conference is coming up next year in Paris, and I was discussing that yesterday with some civil society experts. We must ensure that we are doing all we can so that there is provision of those much needed resources, especially for those already suffering from malnutrition. My hon. Friend also mentioned the additional challenge of those impediments to access to aid, which must be lifted. I am pleased that the House is united in its condemnation of those impediments, and I hope we can continue to work together on this appalling crisis.
ROYAL ASSENT
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024.
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsI wish to inform the House that the Government have today pledged new support to the World Health Organisation alongside international partners as part of the WHO’s first investment round.
Nowhere is multilateralism more critical than for global health security. The WHO is the cornerstone of the global health multilateral architecture, and a vital partner to delivering both our domestic health mission and our global ambitions for a safer and more prosperous world, reconnecting Britain and resetting our relations with the global south.
With a future pandemic a certainty, climate change a fundamental threat to public health, and the rise of antimicrobial resistance-related deaths, the link between national health security and global health security has never been clearer. From surveillance and tackling pandemics to strengthening country health systems ready to address the challenges of tomorrow, the WHO plays a vital global leadership role.
The United Kingdom has long been a champion of global health through our support to the WHO and other global health institutions, recognising that health security transcends national borders. In an interconnected world, health threats do not respect boundaries, as shown by covid-19 and the recent mpox outbreak.
The UK will invest up to £310 million in core voluntary contribution funds in support of the critical delivery of the WHO’s 14th general programme of work and its transformation agenda. Our CVC investment recognises the need for flexible, predictable, multi-year support, to enable the WHO to be the strongest, most agile and effective organisation it can be in tackling challenges today and of future health crises.
This investment, alongside other international partners’ support, will enable the WHO to prioritise activities that directly contribute to better health outcomes worldwide. Outcomes supported include: an enhanced global health emergency response—better protecting 7 billion people from health emergencies by 2028; ensuring universal health coverage—supporting 5 billion people to access quality health services without suffering financial hardship; combating antimicrobial resistance—accelerating actions to counter the growing threat of AMR; and strengthening climate resilience—supporting adaptation plans to better prepare nations for the impacts of climate change.
Through our investment over 2024 to 2028 we reiterate our commitment both to the WHO and international partners of working together towards the collective goal of a healthier, safer, and more resilient world.
[HCWS243]
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for securing a debate on this difficult case. He referred to the fact that I am a new Minister—that is correct—but he is also a new Member, who clearly is doing his utmost to represent his constituents as powerfully as he can. He spoke eloquently about the case of Mr Cornelius, which I will come to in a moment. He also talked about the close relationship between the UK and the Emirates in business, tourism and defence. I agree that it is an important relationship. As he did, I recognise the many other parliamentarians who have been active on these issues, working on behalf of Mr Cornelius and his family both in this Chamber and in the other place.
The Minister for the Middle East—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer)—is unable to take part in this debate because he is travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I want to begin by recognising the awful toll that the past 16 years will have taken on Mr Cornelius, his wife and children, and the rest of his family and friends. I was humbled to hear from my hon. Friend that we are joined by some of them here this evening. I appreciate their presence.
Supporting British nationals overseas is at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our consular staff endeavour to give appropriate and tailored support to them and their families 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The new Government are reviewing how to strengthen our support for British nationals overseas, which includes the appointment of an envoy. We will ensure that we do as much as we can to learn lessons from what has worked and what may not have worked in the past. It is important that we draw on that evidence moving forward.
On this particular case, let me assure the House that since his detention in 2008, FCDO consular staff in the UAE have visited Mr Cornelius on a regular basis, most recently at the end of October. Consular staff here in the UK are in regular contact with his family. Let me also reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is so active on these issues, for which we are very grateful, that there has been ministerial activity as well as consular activity, which I will go on to explain.
On 23 October, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East met members of Mr Cornelius’s family. It was clear to him that Mr Cornelius’s detention has had a devastating impact on them. The family has demonstrated great strength and resilience over many years, under very difficult circumstances. The Minister wanted to listen to the family during his meeting, and he made it clear that Mr Cornelius’s case remains a priority for the Government, and the FCDO will continue to provide consular support to him and his family. He also reassured them that the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities, senior officials and Ministers. Shortly after that meeting with the family, on 30 October the Minister wrote to His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, to reaffirm the UK Government’s interest in Mr Cornelius’s case and welfare.
The House will understand that I will not share personal information relating to Mr Cornelius’s case in this place. However, I will set out the factors that have guided the response. When a British national is detained in another country, our priority is to ensure that they have access to legal representation and that their welfare needs are met by the local authorities. The Vienna convention on consular relations requires that, in providing consular assistance, we do not interfere in the judicial affairs of another state. We therefore cannot get people out of prison or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings. Consular staff are not trained lawyers and cannot offer legal advice, but they provide information on the local jurisdiction and lists of English-speaking lawyers to support British nationals.
If there are allegations of torture or mistreatment from any detained British national, we will always offer to raise them with local authorities, with the detainee’s consent, and ask for them to be investigated. Where there are concerns that legal procedures may not be being followed correctly or do not meet internationally recognised standards, we will decide our approach on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we will be guided by the appropriate experts, including human rights advisers. I want to provide that assurance, given the broader issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. The best interests and welfare of the detainee are at the forefront of everything we do, and that has informed the approach to supporting Mr Cornelius and his family.
I will now turn to some of the legal aspects of the case. In 2022, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Mr Cornelius is arbitrarily detained, and made several recommendations. It is for the UAE, as the state detaining Mr Cornelius, to respond to those recommendations and take any necessary action. We take the working group’s findings extremely seriously. Where we have specific concerns about Mr Cornelius’s case, with his consent, we raise them with the UAE authorities. Mr Cornelius has local lawyers representing him in his challenge to his ongoing detention. FCDO consular staff have regularly attended hearings as observers. We are determined to continue to demonstrate the UK’s close interest in this case.
Let me reassure the House that this case remains a priority for the FCDO. Our officials and Ministers will continue to support Mr Cornelius and his family as best we can. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield for initiating the debate, and others who have intervened during it.
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, another consular case was mentioned a couple of moments before the beginning of this debate—that of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah. I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that the case has been raised at the highest level, including on 14 November directly with the Foreign Minister of Egypt by our Foreign Secretary. I will of course write to my right hon. Friend, but I wanted to provide that update given that the case was mentioned a couple of moments ago.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the jailing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.
I thank the right hon. Member for her question on this important matter, and I welcome her to her new role. It is a real pleasure to be across the Chamber from her this morning.
I am glad to reassure the right hon. Lady that my colleague the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has issued a statement on the verdict. She makes clear that China’s imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. She makes clear that the sentencing decision was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent. As she says, the so-called NSL45 were guilty only of exercising their rights as guaranteed under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law, and of exercising their right to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. China’s imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and the UK Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong.
The jailing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the draconian national security law is appalling. It is a serious blow to freedoms in Hong Kong. The harsh application of this disturbing law to suppress people in Hong Kong cannot go unanswered. In government, my party consistently championed for that law to be repealed, and we gave safe routes for British nationals overseas in need of protection. I am proud to have established that scheme as the then Home Secretary. We also published reports twice a year on the situation in Hong Kong to raise our grave concerns about the erosion of freedoms with the Chinese authorities and at the United Nations.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister met President Xi and said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries tried to avoid surprises. He even confirmed that he had called in the application for the new Chinese embassy. But less than 24 hours later, the Sino-British declaration has been trampled on yet again, with the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners. Where does that leave the Government’s reset with Beijing? Did the Prime Minister actually secure any commitments on Hong Kong yesterday? Will the Prime Minister now be holding further conversations with President Xi to convey his concerns about this appalling jailing? Why did the Minister for the Indo-Pacific this morning not call, in her statement, for the repeal of the national security law?
The official No. 10 read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi failed to mention Jimmy Lai’s case. We understand the Prime Minister did raise concerns, but that is not enough. Did he call for Jimmy Lai to be released and for an end to his politically motivated trial? A yes or no answer is needed, because there is an important distinction between the two.
The UK has an historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We must stand up for their rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law. The Government must provide the mettle needed to handle the relationship with China, to stand up for the freedoms and democracy of Hong Kong, and to raise their game.
The Government absolutely agree about the historic relationship between the UK and Hong Kong and the current incredibly strong and important relationship. In opposition, my party rightly supported the measures for British nationals overseas. We have been crystal clear in our view on yesterday’s sentencing. I repeat that it was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent.
Respectfully, I have to say to the right hon. Lady that when she seeks to lecture the new Government on our approach to China she should be aware of what we saw over the past 14 years: a wild oscillation in policy towards China that went from the golden era period right through, finally, to a complete lack of engagement that was out of step with our partners, including the US, France and Germany, which were having those conversations. The new Government have been determined to have those conversations.
The right hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister’s meeting, where he made very clear his concerns about human rights issues. He did raise Jimmy Lai’s case. That is very clear from the footage of that meeting. If she has not seen it, I respectfully encourage her to look at it. We will continue to raise human rights issues as part of our consistent approach to China.
The verdicts and sentences of the 45 are, like the 2020 national security law itself and the treatment of Jimmy Lai, clear violations of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. Following the meeting between President Xi and the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend please share with the House what steps the Government plan to take to ensure that the joint declaration is adhered to?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that she is undertaking on this matter through her leadership of the Select Committee.
The UK Government have been very clear about these issues. The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the case of the British national Jimmy Lai, whose trial will resume tomorrow and whose case is a priority for the UK Government. The Foreign Secretary raised it during his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, at the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on 26 July, and, as I have said, the Prime Minister also raised it during his engagement a few days ago. We will continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately, and we will continue to press for consular access and, indeed, exert pressure in relation to the other human rights issues that are of such concern to everyone in the House.
We are deeply concerned by the sentencing of the NSL45. Beijing’s assault on fundamental liberties in Hong Kong—liberties that it is obliged to preserve under the joint declaration—continues. We have a moral duty to stand with Hongkongers, not least Jimmy Lai. I met his son Sebastian last week. His father has been held for in solitary confinement for more than four years, despite a serious health condition. Does the Minister understand that meeting Chinese Ministers, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have in the last month, without setting out any consequences gives China the green light to continue? We saw under the Conservatives that this passive approach yielded no results, so does the Minister agree that there should be no further ministerial meetings until these human rights abuses are addressed, and specifically, does she agree that there should be no visit by the Chancellor to Beijing until Jimmy Lai is released?
The Foreign Secretary has also met the family of Jimmy Lai and, like all of us on this side of the House, is deeply concerned about his situation. Jimmy Lai is, of course, 76 years old, and there are deep concerns about his welfare. The UK is absolutely clear about the fact that he must be released immediately. I have to say, however, that I do not agree in any way with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the current UK Government’s approach. During the latter years of the previous Government we saw what was arguably a passive approach and a lack of engagement, with no meetings and visits, and that was not the right approach to take. It followed the golden era when there was a very different approach—an approach, some would say, that was not clear-eyed. The current Government are instead being consistent. We are engaging where it is necessary to challenge as well as engaging where it is necessary to compete and, indeed, to co-operate. That is the right approach when it comes to these matters of human rights, as well as our relationship with China more broadly.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I thank Ministers for their efforts and recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister. However, after nearly four years in solitary confinement for Jimmy Lai and with a trial beginning in a court that we know will only ever find him guilty, at what point does the delicate diplomacy have to give way to something more like a demand for his freedom?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of that engagement. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the UK Government are deeply concerned about Jimmy Lai’s situation, but we have been crystal clear—and that includes the clarity provided by the Prime Minister, which, in respect of this issue as well as others, was very much in evidence during his meeting at the G20.
I have sat watching both Governments on this one, and I do not think that any Government have the right to accuse the party that was formerly in power and talk about what it got wrong, because that Government got it all wrong and this one are getting it all wrong as well.
The key point is this. The Minister has referred to all those who have been incarcerated but particularly to Jimmy Lai, who is in solitary confinement. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister rightly started to raise the issue of Jimmy Lai and human rights, all the journalists were cleared out of the room straightaway because the Chinese Government did not want them to hear what he was saying. Just before that meeting, President Xi said that China would “brook no interference” when it came to democracy and human rights, and that is one of his four red lines. I put this question simply to the Minister: does she not think that without some kind of sanction, China will go on and on? America has sanctioned many senior officials in Hong Kong for these abuses, and we have sanctioned none. Does she not think it is time for us to say, “We will sanction someone if you do not stop”?
I believe it is appropriate to make relative judgments so that we can assess the right way forward for the UK’s relationship with China. That is why the UK Government are conducting an audit of our relationship with China so that we can have a consistent approach. We believe that is incredibly important, so I am afraid that I respectfully do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had a ringside seat for some of the actions of the previous Government during the golden era, and for what was suggested then around trade protections. We need to move forward with a more clear-eyed approach, and the UK Government could not have been clearer on these matters of human rights, including the Prime Minister himself, as the right hon. Gentleman just acknowledged. On sanctions, he will understand, of course, that I will not speculate on future designations, as to do so could reduce their impact, but I can reassure him that the FCDO continues to keep potential sanctions designations under close review.
Over 5,000 Hong Kong families have settled in Reading over the past few years, including in my constituency, and I have stood alongside Hong Kong activists in peaceful demonstrations here in the UK. The onerous sentencing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong will give people a broad reason to fear transnational repression and continued harassment here in the UK. Can the Minister assure us that she will work to upkeep not only the BNO visa programme and the path to citizenship, but the civil liberties of Hongkongers here in the UK who may be at risk of transnational repression?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I have read her fascinating book, which covers human rights in China, and she is clearly an expert on these matters, as well as having constituency experience. The UK Government’s view is that any form of harassment is unacceptable and that political freedoms must be retained, including in the UK and, above all, for BNOs. We will continue to ensure that that is the case.
In 2023 the Hong Kong police issued arrest warrants for eight overseas activists under the national security law. What are Ministers doing to challenge the extraterritorial reach of the national security law?
We were very clear, as were the previous Government, at the time of the passage of that law. We believe it is incredibly important that people in Hong Kong and beyond are able to exercise political rights and, indeed, to participate politically. All that the group of individuals who have just been sentenced were doing was exercising their right to political participation. We will resolutely defend that right, including in the UK and elsewhere.
I look forward to the Minister’s report on the audit of the relationship with China and of the continuum of actions, from sanctions onwards, that the Government are looking at. In the meantime, may I ask the Minister to raise with the Chinese Government the case of Carol Ng Man-yee, who is a colleague of mine in Unite and a Labour party member? She was involved in organising for Unite in the disputes with British Airways over the years, and she became president of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. She stood in the primaries and lost, but then took no further action. She was sentenced to four years and five months. May I ask the Government to raise her case, and particularly the need for her to have visits from her family and her trade union rep, so that we can impress upon the Chinese Government that, in addition to our lobbying for her release, we need to ensure that there is humanitarian treatment of such prisoners?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s ongoing audit of our relationship with China, and for the information that he has provided about one of the individuals who has been sentenced in China. I am aware that an Australian citizen is among those who have been sentenced, but I was not aware of the information provided by my right hon. Friend about his colleague who has been sentenced for her work in the UK. It is very helpful to be aware of that, and I would be grateful if he sent me more information about this matter.
Today I brought together 118 parliamentarians from 24 countries and the EU to call for the Chinese Communist party to immediately release Jimmy Lai. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to meet Xi Jinping in the same week that Jimmy’s sham trial resumes, yet the Prime Minister used just 13 words in support of Jimmy’s cause in his meeting with Xi—and no, he did not call for Jimmy’s release; he just mentioned his poor health. What we learned was that the Government have called in plans for a new Chinese Communist party mega-embassy as a favour to Xi, and at his request. Why?
I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her considerable experience, will be well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was at the G20 leaders’ summit, which every member of the G20 attended. I am sure that she will be aware of how these meetings work. On the embassy to which she refers, it is standard for applications to be called in if they affect other Governments. Calling in the application should not be taken as any indication of our views on the merits of the scheme. As this case will be determined by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
I was pleased to sign the letter from parliamentarians of 24 countries that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) just mentioned, and I thank the Minister for confirming that a meeting took place with Sebastien and the Foreign Secretary. Can the Minister outline how we will work with other countries in a concerted, co-ordinated effort? As we have heard, many of them have individuals in arbitrary detention in Hong Kong. How can we co-ordinate across those countries to get the release of activists such as Jimmy Lai?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the need for co-ordination. Obviously, there has been co-ordination among parliamentarians, which has been very positive to see, and the UK Government will continue to co-operate with others on these issues. We have also worked with other countries’ Governments on cases involving dual nationals.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for organising a powerful letter, and I was glad to be able to put my name on it. Given the concessions that were given to China by the Prime Minister and the particular responsibility that we have to Hong Kong, what did the Prime Minister get out of the meeting? Can the Minister tell us the read-out from the Prime Minister, and when will she publish her audit? Following the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), will the audit include the option of sanctions?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. The read-out can be easily accessed. I will not read out all of it, but I will underline the fact that it makes it very clear that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to engage “honestly and frankly” on those areas where we have different perspectives, including Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine. That is taken directly from the read-out of the meeting. As I said, there is also footage of it, which the hon. Gentleman can easily access. On sanctions, I refer him to my previous response.
So long as we are limited to saying how cross we all are about our different perspectives and the Minister keeps sanctions under review, China will take not a blind bit of notice, will it?
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I hope, that going into detail about sanctions in advance is extremely problematic for the entire sanctions system—it would reduce its effectiveness—which is why Governments of all complexions do not comment on future designations.
This is a bad day for human rights, but for the Hongkongers living in my constituency it is a frightening day. Beyond the broad reassurances that the Minister has already given, what specific action will the Government take to protect Hongkongers living in the UK from state surveillance?
I recognise the concern that will be caused by this matter, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The UK Government are absolutely resolute in our determination to ensure that BNOs are able to live their lives freely, and without prejudice or fear, in our country. We remain absolutely committed to upholding their human rights, and we will continue to do so. If there are specific instances of concern, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman informed me of them.
My constituent and friend, Sir Henry Keswick, who died earlier this month, was for many years the chairman of Jardine Matheson. He was a great believer in the opportunity for good relations between this country and China. There is an awful inevitability in the fact that, the day after the Prime Minister met the Chinese President and declared a new era of positive relations, the Sino-British declaration was comprehensively breached. Does the pragmatic relationship that the Prime Minister thinks he can have with China include getting assurances that the national security law will not jeopardise the interests and welfare of British businesses and employees working in Hong Kong?
I would like to communicate my regret at the passing of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who seems to have had great expertise and engagement on these issues. The Prime Minister was very clear that while the UK will seek to co-operate with China on areas of mutual interest, we will also compete, and indeed challenge, where we must. That was explicit in his message, as it has been from day one of the new Government. That is why we are conducting the audit—to ensure consistency towards China on all issues across Government.
It is clear that any Hongkonger who crosses the Chinese Communist party faces grave risks. Will the Government update the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidelines on overseas business risks to include more detailed information on the risk posed to businesses by the Hong Kong national security laws, particularly article 23?
My Department keeps all forms of guidance continuously under review. That includes guidance for business people and, of course, for travellers. That is the case for Hong Kong, as for every other location where Brits might be operating. In those determinations, we will ensure that we look at a whole range of factors covering personal safety and legal risk.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Like other speakers in this Chamber, I have a large Hong Kong community in my constituency, in Colindale, and that community is very worried about transnational repression. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs to discuss this issue?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of his constituents. Such concerns have indeed been articulated by others in this Chamber. Either the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), or I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this.
Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had made the release of Jimmy Lai his priority, yet the official Downing Street read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi just says that they discussed “different perspectives” on human rights, and does not even mention Jimmy Lai by name. How can the release of Jimmy Lai be a Government priority if, on the eve of his show trial, the Prime Minister’s official read-out cannot even mention his name, after he met the man responsible for his arbitrary detention?
I would respectfully refer the hon. Gentleman to the footage, which is widely available and which makes the point extremely clear.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will gather the frustration that we all have, on both sides of the House, about what is going on; she probably shares it. What steps can she take with the Chinese Government to address what can only be seen as political lawfare, given that our Prime Minister seems to have some access to the Chinese President? Does the Minister agree that we cannot sit back while 47 people are found guilty of nothing more than proposing candidates for a democratic election, and that we are watching the death of any pretence of democracy in Hong Kong?
The UK Government are not sitting back. We are standing up, and we are being very clear indeed about our position. I mentioned earlier the clarity with which the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has stated the UK Government’s position. That follows engagement on these questions from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is now beside me on the Front Bench, and of course from the Prime Minister. It is incredibly important that we have a Government who raise these matters directly with the Chinese Government. It is arguable that we had a bit of a vacuum in that respect over the few months prior to the election, but that is something we were determined to rectify.
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this important debate, and for the many contributions by Members from right across the House on this matter of grave importance. I will do my best to respond to the points raised, but this was a very broad-ranging debate, so I hope Members will contact me directly if there are any issues that I do not manage to cover. I will take the decision not to fully cover all the issues about regional developments in order to respond to those specific to this debate. I hope colleagues will accept that.
Gaza is clearly in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. On 12 November, the warning from the famine review committee marked a terrible new milestone: famine is now imminent in areas of northern Gaza. Starvation, malnutrition and related deaths in these areas are rising fast, as is the risk of disease. Hospitals and roads have been destroyed and, as the acting UN emergency relief co-ordinator Joyce Msuya put it, Gaza is now “unfit for human survival”.
The situation is appalling and man made, and Israel must act to address it immediately. I have heard directly just how dire conditions in Gaza have become from the staff of non-governmental organisations who risked their lives to get help in. The accounts they have relayed to me of the suffering they have sought to relieve are harrowing. We heard as much from a number of Members, although most clearly in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and from the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
We know the disturbing statistics: more than 300 aid workers have been killed in the conflict—the highest number in any single crisis. Yet trucks, humanitarian workers and medics are at the border, ready to get life-saving support into Gaza as Israel continues to hold them back from making the last few miles of their vital journeys. We are increasingly concerned by reports that Palestinians are being prevented from returning to their communities as well. The situation in the west bank is also deteriorating.
As a number of Members have mentioned, Israeli incursions and settler violence have left hundreds of Palestinians dead this year and access to vital services, including healthcare, is being restricted for many others. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is no longer in his place, was correct in saying that healthcare is absolutely a right.
The Opposition asked for an update about activity around entry points. The UK has been working intensively with other countries in the region and beyond to identify new entry points, wherever possible; I saw that for myself in Jordan. However, we also have to recognise the reality that conditions continue to worsen in Gaza at the moment. Israel must take the urgent action needed to change that. First, it must protect the civilian population and infrastructure. It must protect healthcare workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned, and humanitarians, as well as journalists, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang).
I will push on, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
So many have spoken so powerfully, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), based on his personal experience of the need for access, particularly for healthcare workers. The Foreign Secretary has raised our grave concerns with Minister Dermer and Minister Katz. In response to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), I should say that, as he would expect, we have repeatedly made representations bilaterally and multilaterally to countries in the region and to the US.
As hon. Members will be aware, on 2 September the Government announced the decision to suspend certain licences for UK exports to Israel in respect of items that could be used in the Gaza conflict, having concluded that there exists a clear risk that those might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. On 5 November, the Minister with responsibility for the middle east spoke to the Israeli ambassador about the renewed strikes on Kamal Adwan hospital. Those mean that northern Gaza now has no fully functioning hospitals.
The sick and injured must be allowed to leave Gaza to receive care. Israel must rescind evacuation orders as soon as possible so that displaced families can return to their homes and communities and rebuild their lives. There must be no forced movement of people within or outside of Gaza; my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) rightly raised that. The UK Government have been crystal clear that that is unacceptable.
Secondly, Israel must make good on its commitment to “flood Gaza with aid”. As I made clear in the Chamber on 29 October, the UN and its agencies must be able to fulfil their mandate. My hon. Friends the Members for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) clearly stated that UNWRA’s mandate must be committed to. The UK Government have absolutely done that; I did it myself at the UN General Assembly. We are clear that there should not be attacks on UNRWA or attempts to undermine it.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the Opposition spokesperson, to her place; sorry, I should have said that earlier. She referred to the Colonna report. She is absolutely right that the UK Government have provided support to UNRWA so that it can be implemented. I have discussed it directly with the UNRWA leadership, who are taking those measures speedily into account, particularly around neutrality. Indeed, they had wished to act on that issue for a considerable time but did not have the funds to do so. Now they do and they are taking all allegations very seriously indeed.
A number of speakers have mentioned that winter is advancing. The flow of aid has now reached its lowest ebb since the conflict began. It is not matching need and so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, we must ensure that civilians can withstand winter conditions and that there is the required humanitarian provision.
A number of Members have raised the UN Security Council. Reference was made to Lord Collins, who chaired a meeting to underscore the risk of famine in northern Gaza. The Foreign Secretary reiterated the UK’s unequivocal position yesterday. We are working hard with partners, including those in the global south, so that the Security Council can act on this catastrophic situation and push for a ceasefire, for hostage release and for a massive scale-up of aid. I hope that responds to the question laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on that specific issue. There is no excuse for Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid. The restrictions must be lifted. There is no excuse for violations of international humanitarian law either. The UK Government’s position is that that must be respected by all sides.
On the International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the UK Government fully respect the independence of the ICJ. We continue to consider its advisory opinion carefully, with the rigour and seriousness that that deserves; I say that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who is no longer in his place.
I have previously set out details of the aid provided from the UK. I know I have run out of time, Sir Roger, so I will speedily mention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that we have provided support to the Egyptian Government and to the World Health Organisation for their care to Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza. I will write to him on that subject. That has been part of a much larger package of measures that we have instituted to support healthcare, as well as food, nutrition, education, psycho-social support and so forth.
We always keep sanctions under review, but we condemn those remarks that have sought to dehumanise Palestinians.
In conclusion, alongside our international partners we call on Israel to take immediate steps to address this catastrophic situation, protect civilians and let in the promised lifesaving surge of aid that is so desperately needed now.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsI really regret this playground-style characterisation of issues that are so fundamental, particularly for those who live in Gibraltar. I mentioned the comments of the Chief Minister of the Falklands, and the right hon. Member has now forced me to quote them, given the nature of what he has just said. The Chief Minister said some of these claims are
“more about party politics, blame-gaming and Tory Party leadership issues…than”
they are actually about the sovereignty of people who live in the overseas territories. He could not have been clearer.
[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 608.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds):
I really regret this playground-style characterisation of issues that are so fundamental, particularly for those who live in Gibraltar. I mentioned the comments of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, and the right hon. Member has now forced me to quote them, given the nature of what he has just said. The Chief Minister said some of these claims are
“more about party politics, blame-gaming and Tory Party leadership issues…than”
they are actually about the sovereignty of people who live in the overseas territories. He could not have been clearer.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a real pleasure to serve in this Chamber with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing this debate and speaking so powerfully. I will do my very best to answer her questions in setting out the Government’s approach to this genuinely critical area, which is so important for all our futures, particularly those of the poorest people in the world.
This Government are getting on with reconnecting Britain to the world and modernising our approach to international development in a spirit of genuine partnership and respect, as I set out in a speech at Chatham House a couple of weeks ago. That speech built on the Foreign Secretary’s lecture at Kew Gardens, in which he reiterated our view that action on the climate and nature crisis must be at the heart of everything that we do. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for making reference to that; it is a genuine and important commitment. We believe that action on the climate crisis is critical to grow our economy and bring opportunities to people across our country and globally, and we know that our partners around the world share that ambition. When I was in Indonesia, for example, I was pleased to sign an agreement on critical minerals with the Government there, working on the climate crisis and green growth with them. We have a strong shared agenda, and we need to solidify that partnership globally.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) on securing this important debate. We have already heard that the UN has identified a need for £600 billion of additional private finance if we are to tackle climate change. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that in the UK, due to the expertise of the City, we are uniquely placed to lead on that? Does she also agree that the UK delegation to COP in Baku must make an ambitious new goal for private investment in the climate a major priority?
As ever, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on every point. With your permission, Sir Roger, I will come back to the subject of private finance in a moment, as well as to the precise contours of our engagement around leadership in the COP system and, more broadly, in innovation in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points.
We are clear that situations of extreme humanitarian need globally are so often driven by conflict and climate crisis—in fact, they are often driven by the two intertwined. I unfortunately saw that for myself in South Sudan, at the Bentiu camp for internally displaced people. People escaping the horrific civil war in Sudan are managing to make it to the IDP camp, but they are surrounded by floodwater. It is now a permanently flooded area, making an already horrendous situation worse. We need to recognise the fundamental impact that the climate crisis is having right now, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire rightly underlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) rightly mentioned the COP system. I will come to the climate COP in a moment, but the UK team is currently hard at work at the biodiversity COP—COP16—in Cali, Colombia. They are working with partners from around the world, from indigenous people to the presidency of next year’s climate COP in Brazil.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I have just returned from Colombia with a delegation from the United Kingdom at the biodiversity COP. I can report to her that there was huge support from across the world for the definitive action that the Government are taking and the leadership they are showing on nature and biodiversity. That should give her all the more confidence to make a strong case to those going to Baku.
I am glad to hear that. It appears that we are making strong headway in protecting and restoring the wonders of the natural world, both land and sea, including at that COP meeting. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we must consider nature along with climate when we face up to the problems and opportunities that arise from this situation. Nature holds so many of the essential, cost-effective solutions that can help us to meet many shared goals, including building climate resilience. It is important to consider both.
I am very pleased to be heading to Baku for the climate COP alongside the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who attended previously when in opposition. As well as coming forward with our own ambitious, nationally determined contribution for the UK at COP29, we are determined to support others to scale up their ambition and action. That includes initiatives such as the global clean power alliance, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire may have heard mention of. That is a strong commitment from the new UK Government. We are determined to deliver greater political momentum.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked about the relationship between domestic and international policy. For the first time, the UK is able to speak with credibility on this because of the new Government’s stating that we will not grant new oil and gas licences, removing the ban on onshore wind and introducing other measures. It shows that we are not just talking the talk—we are walking the walk. That kind of credibility is critical in these negotiations.
When speaking with our friends based on small islands and in fragile and vulnerable states, such as many of those the UK Government met with at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, we hear very loudly and clearly how difficult it is for them to access the finance that they need, especially climate finance. Very little of it is getting to those who need it, particularly fragile and conflict-affected states. The UK is determined to work with our partners to change that. I have prioritised, including at the World Bank annuals last week, trying to push hard for sources of climate finance and adaptation finance to be available. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning the role of farmers. The proportion of climate finance that reaches farmers in the most fragile and conflict-affected states is minuscule, particularly for adaptation. That must change urgently.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that we must increase the level of dedicated climate finance from all sources across the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. We are determined to agree an ambitious new collective quantified goal; that is absolutely pivotal to our negotiations and vital to maintaining the global consensus of the Paris agreement and keeping 1.5° of warming within our reach. The UK is working extremely hard on this. The Department I am based in and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working closely together and with our new climate and nature representatives. We have been carrying that forward at every opportunity.
Of course, that collective quantified goal needs to be agreed. From the UK’s point of view, we are determined to exercise leadership. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who was engaged in this 16 years ago and managed to achieve great things then, is working with my Department, our representatives and so many contacts from all across the world to say, “How can we put forward the overall figure that is needed?” It has to be jointly agreed, as the hon. Member knows. The most important thing is that we get a figure out at the end because if those negotiations do not succeed, we will be taking a step backwards when we are in a situation of such urgent need.
Might the Minister be able to put a number on what she would consider UK leadership to be financially?
As the hon. Member rightly mentioned previously, the UK has traditionally been a funder in this area, focusing particularly on the quality of climate finance and ensuring that there is sufficient grant and concessional finance. That is something we are determined to continue to do.
I go back to the fact that it has to be a collectively agreed goal, but the hon. Member could not see a team working harder on this matter. We want to ensure that we get to an agreement. Of course, many forces do not particularly want to see the global north agreeing with the global south on this—we believe we can come together. In fact, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting we saw the agreement within the Commonwealth around plastics pollution. We need to take that same spirit forward when it comes to this goal.
For our part, as well as co-chairing the global green climate fund, we are working towards making good on the UK’s pledge to get help to those who need it. We want robust roles to be agreed for article 6 on how countries co-operate to reduce emissions. We need real follow-through from the global stocktake on commitments such as tripling renewable power and doubling energy efficiency globally by 2030, and we need implementation of the national adaptation plans as we scale up finance in support. We have committed £100 million to the taskforce on access to climate finance that the UK co-chairs with Rwanda, and we are working with the World Bank and the board of the new fund for those facing devastating loss and damage; the hon. Member was right to mention that as being important.
There is a huge amount to do. A few days ago, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor headed to the International Monetary Fund, I was at the World Bank in Washington pressing it to shoulder more risk so it can do more to unlock hundreds of billions of dollars and help the poorest and most vulnerable. To go back to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), that has to include unlocking private finance, which is incredibly important, and we need to see innovation, too.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire rightly referred to the fact that we need to be front-loading this funding right now. There is interesting innovation going on with some of the multilateral development banks, and we are pushing them to deliver on making that finance available as quickly as possible; when it comes to mitigation in particular, now is the time we need to be acting. We are championing financial innovation, including insurance and guarantees. Under the new Government, the UK has been pushing particularly for climate-resilient debt clauses.
I will finish on that subject of debt, which I know is of huge concern to many, and my hon. Friends the Members for Southgate and Wood Green and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) were right to mention it. We have been pushing the G20 process for more action on debt. It is positive to see Zambia going through that process, but we need to see more action. That is why we are pushing hard on this and in the Paris club because it cannot be acceptable that we see such high levels of spending on debt rather than on health, education and, indeed, the kind of issues we are talking about.
I refer back to the figure that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned—the UN’s finding that we need £600 billion of international climate finance per year to address the challenge that we face. That is actually the same amount that is invested in oil and gas every year. Does the Minister agree that we must put a complete end to all public subsidy or support for fossil fuel industries right now? Can she comment on the role that the UK could and should play in ending all such subsidies?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She may have heard the Chancellor state today that this new Government will ensure that what was described as a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, but did not operate as one because of the numerous loopholes, will be tightened up. We will ensure that support for decarbonisation is incentivised, rather than disincentivised, as it was under the previous approach to taxation, so big changes are taking place.
Now is the time for the global action that the hon. Lady rightly focused on. I was in New York for the UN General Assembly with some representatives of small island developing states, which are particularly hard hit. They said that their slogan used to be, “1.5 to stay alive,” but it is becoming, “1.5 and we might survive”. This really is urgent, and the new UK Government are determined to do all we can to exercise leadership, working in partnership with others.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what assessment he has made of legislation approved by the Israeli Knesset to ban UNRWA.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this critically important issue. Let me be clear: jeopardising the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and, in turn, its ability to carry out lifesaving work is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated clearly in this House yesterday, it is also “wholly counterproductive for Israel”. Removing UNRWA from the equation would make an already unacceptable humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories far worse. It would also, of course, undermine the work of the United Nations more widely.
We are working closely with our international partners to urge the Israeli Government to step back from the brink and ensure that the legislation passed yesterday in the Knesset does not stop UNRWA being able to carry out its vital role in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. UNRWA is indispensable in the provision of aid for Palestinians. No other agency can get aid into Gaza at the scale needed. All humanitarian actors depend on UNRWA’s distribution network to get aid to those who need it most. That is why we restored funding to UNRWA as soon as possible, providing £21 million of funding. This is helping to provide emergency food, shelter and other support for 3 million people, as well as supporting UNRWA’s wider work assisting 6 million Palestinian refugees across the region. Some £1 million of the UK’s funding is helping the implementation of Catherine Colonna’s reforms.
We expect UNRWA to uphold the highest standards of neutrality. As I have said, we are providing funding and support for its reform process to enable that. The Secretary-General and the commissioner-general of UNRWA took the allegations seriously, and acted decisively. They cannot now be used to justify cutting ties with UNRWA. That is why we and our international partners voiced our concern at the weekend about the legislation that the Knesset has now passed, and called on the Government of Israel to make sure that UNRWA’s work can continue. The Prime Minister has been clear that the world
“will not tolerate any more excuses on humanitarian assistance”.
Israel must enable more aid to enter Gaza now and protect civilians. There can be no justification for denying civilians access to essential supplies. It is unacceptable that UK-funded humanitarian supplies have been unable to reach those in desperate need. Winter is coming, and the Palestinian people cannot wait. Israel’s Foreign Minister Katz reassured the Foreign Secretary over the weekend that aid will get in, and we will continue to press Israel to meet those commitments.
Finally, the Foreign Secretary reported to this House yesterday that Foreign Minister Katz had told us that the Knesset passing the Bill did not necessarily mean it had to be implemented. We will continue to use every lever we have to put pressure on the Israeli Government not to implement the legislation. It is not in their own interests, and it is certainly not in the interests of the Palestinian people, or indeed of humanity.
I thank the Minister for that response, and I also welcome the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary yesterday. However, our statements of concern will do nothing to help the lives of innocent Palestinians, who will be further devastated by this decision.
The Minister will know that the decision yesterday was backed by 90% of the Knesset. It will see UNRWA evicted from the premises it has held for over 70 years, and it will severely block its ability to provide essential services such as healthcare and education to millions of Palestinian refugees and others. It is a reckless move, and one that threatens to dismantle the backbone of the international humanitarian operation in Gaza, worsening an already catastrophic crisis. It will also deprive them of essential food, water, medical aid, education and protection, which is already being obstructed.
The decision will also have catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, where essential humanitarian aid is crucial both for the refugees and for the host communities. It is clear that these actions are part of a wider strategy to delegitimise UNRWA and to undermine the international legal framework protecting their rights—specifically, the right of return for Palestinian refugees who have been languishing in surrounding countries.
Does the Minister agree that the real intent is in part to undermine UNRWA’s efforts to promote the status of Palestinian refugees, and to obstruct future political solutions? Can I also remind the Minister that the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take all measures in its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the genocide convention? By banning UNRWA’s operation, Israel is disregarding the ICJ’s provisional measure to ensure the delivery of lifesaving aid to Gaza.
My final question is this: we have seen the decimation that has taken place; is it not time to fulfil part 2 of the Balfour agreement? We have the state of Israel; should we not have now a state of Palestine?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I am aware that she has considerable direct experience of the importance of UN organisations from before she became a Member in this House. I agree that we must not see the undermining of UNRWA. It has a specific, long-standing role, provided within a clear framework that countries signed up to. It has a role not just in Gaza but in the west bank and the broader region. She is of course right that UNRWA is critical for the delivery of aid through the operations of other organisations as well. As Members would expect, I have discussed this not just with Commissioner-General Lazzarini and others under his leadership in UNRWA, including when I was in Jordan, but with other organisations that are active in Gaza. They are very clear that we should not see the undermining of UNRWA, and that ultimately it is critical for the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.
We are following developments in the Knesset carefully. We Conservative Members want more aid to reach innocent civilians in Gaza because the situation there is desperate, but we also recognise that UNRWA must rebuild the trust and confidence that it lost, following the deeply troubling allegations that staff were involved in the appalling 7 October attacks and the outcome of the subsequent investigation. Catherine Colonna’s reforms need to be implemented in full, because we recognise that UNRWA has a good, indeed often critical, distribution network. Can the Minister update the House on the progress that UNRWA has made in implementing the Colonna reforms, and what measures have the Government put in place, since restoring funding to UNRWA, to monitor its neutrality?
More broadly, during our time in government, Israel made commitments that would increase the amount of aid reaching Gaza—for example, a commitment to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid through Ashdod and Erez, extend the opening hours of Kerem Shalom, increase the total number of aid trucks and allow more types of aid in. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on what discussions she has had with her Israeli colleagues about fulfilling those commitments, and indeed on what credible alternative plan Israel has developed.
Despite the pause in future funding to UNRWA implemented by the last Government, we remained absolutely committed to getting on with aid delivery. Among other measures that we took, we assisted over 5,800 children with severe malnourishment, and 853,000 children, adolescents and carers with the provision of wider emergency services. We also sent in many airdrops, and funded a field hospital that is treating thousands of patients. Will the Minister confirm that there are other ways to deliver aid without UNRWA, and that the UK stands ready to help in every way possible, with its extensive expertise, so that we reach the most vulnerable?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. She raised a number of critical issues. I was pleased to see cross-party agreement on the desperate need for more aid to enter Gaza. Also, we agree, of course, that the Colonna reforms need to be implemented, and the new UK Government have been very clear that we will do what we can to ensure that. Indeed, £1 million of the support we provided to UNRWA is dedicated to ensuring that those reforms are implemented. We continue to monitor the situation actively. As the hon. Lady would expect, I have discussed this directly with the leadership of UNRWA, and I believe they are putting those measures in place. They have put many in place, including many that they had wished to put in place for a long time, but were unable to, for lack of funds. This is critically important.
The hon. Lady referred to comments made previously by Israel. Of course the Government of Israel stated that they would flood Gaza with aid; concerningly, however, October might be the month with the lowest levels of aid going into Gaza since the start of the conflict. There really does need to be action to change that. There has been a very strong message on that from right across Government—of course from me, but also from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We need to see a change here.
However, I would perhaps question some of the hon. Lady’s final comments. All the organisations with which I have discussed these matters, with a wide range of perspectives on the delivery of aid, have stressed the critical role that UNRWA plays. It has an unrivalled ability to distribute the support that is so desperately needed, and is, if anything, even more important as we approach winter, which could be very difficult indeed for the people of Gaza unless we act.
UNRWA staff are expected to uphold neutrality, and receive compulsory training on humanitarian principles. It shares staff names and ID numbers with host countries. It has its 1,300 buildings inspected quarterly, and it commissioned a report from a group led by a former Foreign Secretary of France, who concluded that UNRWA upholds the principle of humanitarian neutrality. While of course there are changes that can be made, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendations are relatively peripheral, and fundamentally UNRWA does deserve the trust of the international community?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments, and all the work that her Select Committee is undertaking on these issues. We should state, as a new UK Government, that we were appalled by the allegations that those involved in the 7 October attacks on Israel might have included UNRWA staff. It was absolutely right that investigations took place within UNRWA to determine what happened, and that there was decisive action. That was fundamental, actually; it was incredibly important.
My right hon. Friend referred to Catherine Colonna’s report. It underlines the need for neutrality, and I mentioned previously that the UK Government are determined to play our part in ensuring that the Colonna report is implemented, including by allocating £1 million to that end. We are very clear that the kind of change that we could see around the position on UNRWA recently cannot be linked to discussions around the Colonna report. Decisive action, which the UK Government supported, has been taken, and UNRWA is needed to support humanitarian aid right now in Gaza.
We are deeply concerned about the Knesset vote to ban UNRWA. This comes at a time that could not be more desperate. One of the UN’s most senior humanitarian officials warns:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”
We welcome the Government’s continued support to UNRWA, including on implementing the recommendations of the Colonna report as quickly as possible. Can the Minister say what confidence she has in the assurance that the Foreign Secretary received from Foreign Minister Katz that the Israeli Government were not obliged to implement the Knesset decision? What precisely are the Government doing to achieve immediate access for humanitarian aid, and does the Minister agree that as well as words of condemnation, the UK must set out the consequences for breaching international law? Will she consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for inciting illegal settlers in the west bank to violence against Palestinians?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe we are of the same mind on the passing of the UNRWA Bills by Israel’s Knesset. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the UK is gravely concerned about this. We believe the passing of those Bills risks making UNRWA’s essential work for Palestinians impossible. It risks jeopardising the entire international humanitarian response in Gaza and the delivery of essential health and education services in the west bank, and we have joined with allies in making that very clear over the weekend and into the beginning of this weekend. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that included the Foreign Secretary reiterating his deep concern to Israel’s Foreign Minister Katz on 27 October; he made the UK’s concerns on this very clear.
The hon. Member asked what immediate action we were taking on access to aid. We are using every lever we can identify to try to progress that access. I have mentioned our deep concern about the situation; we see far too few trucks entering Gaza with desperately needed supplies. That is particularly important now, in the run-up to winter. We will continue to work multilaterally and bilaterally to push forward on that.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned the important subject of international humanitarian law. The new UK Government are resolutely committed to international humanitarian law. We keep our sanctions regime continuously under review. I will not comment on the specifics of it now, for reasons that he will understand. We have been clear that the actions of those engaged in promoting illegal settlements and violence towards Palestinians on the west bank are completely unacceptable. We have stated that many times and have made that clear. Finally, on whether there are implications from this position, I refer him to discussions we have had in the House on the arms export licensing control regime.
My right hon. Friend said that we are at an end now, when it comes to Israeli excuses about why aid does not get in, but this is beyond excuses; this is potentially an act of deliberate policy to destroy the most effective aid route into Gaza. What are we actually going to do about it, if Israel continues to ignore our requests and pleas to it? I come back to the issue of sanctions. If Israeli Ministers decide to implement the Bill, are they not effectively engaging in an act of warfare by starvation? That is a breach of humanitarian law. Will we use sanctions against those Israeli Ministers who get involved in promoting this policy?
My hon. Friend raises important points. There is no doubt that there will be severe consequences if the work of UNRWA is obstructed. We have already talked about this issue. It is clear that only UNRWA has the reach required to get the aid needed to those in desperate need in Gaza. We do not believe that there is any justification for the position that has been taken. The UK Government have been clear about that, and we have articulated that not only bilaterally, but with our partners, immediately, over the weekend. The UK Government’s position is clear. He will understand that no UK Government announce exactly what they are doing around sanctions. That is appropriate and correct. We will always keep our sanctions policies under review, as this House would expect.
Whether or not UNRWA is compromised, the fact remains that the Knesset, and quite possibly the Israeli Government, believe that it is, and without Israel, no aid gets through. What measures therefore need to be taken to improve aid resilience—in this conflict and others—so that we are not overly reliant on one agency? What plan B is the Minister working on to ensure that UK aid is channelled through alternative agencies?
The UK Government have been clear that UNRWA has a clearly mandated role in relation to not just Gaza, but the west bank and the broader region. It has had that role for many years. That has been clear in the international community. The role of the UN in general is incredibly important and internationally supported. It is critical that UNRWA’s role is not undermined when it plays such an important part constitutionally, if I may say that, and internationally, as well as in the delivery of aid. We will do all we can to ensure that support reaches those who need it, but ultimately UNRWA is the body with the greatest reach, and that is needed now, given the extent of humanitarian need.
The Israeli Government’s banning of UNRWA shows blatant and cruel disregard for human life. Without access to necessities that only UNRWA can provide, such as food and medicine, thousands of innocent Palestinians are facing malnourishment, disease and death. Given that Netanyahu has shown no interest in supporting legitimate human rights organisations, no interest in a ceasefire and no interest in a two-state solution, I am grateful that our Government have given a clear commitment to recognising the state of Palestine. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect recognition of the state of Palestine and a pathway to getting to that point?
Briefly, this recent decision was taken by the Knesset, so it is a parliamentary decision, rather than one by the Israeli Government. We are concerned about its consequences, as we have been discussing. The UK Government believe that we must see a ceasefire. We need to see the release of hostages. We need to see the immediate delivery of aid and access to it throughout Gaza. That is incredibly important. We continue to believe and to advocate strongly for the two-state solution that is so desperately needed. That will provide the security and stability that is needed, both for Israelis and for Palestinians.
Israel is once again choosing to block aid to a civilian population that it is bombing. It is sinister and it is collective punishment. Can the Minister outline a single red line that Israel can cross that would lead her to question its status as an ally of the United Kingdom?
The new UK Government have been absolutely clear, as I have stated previously, that international humanitarian law must be upheld. I am sure that the right hon. Member was in the House when we had those debates that talked, for example, about the fact that we need to ensure that the International Criminal Court’s mandate is respected and that the role of the International Court of Justice is respected. He will, I am sure, have been present for debates on the UK Government’s position on arms exports, where we believe it is important that international law is held to, and this Government has been delivering on that.
The situation in northern Gaza is dire. I welcome the leading role that the Government have played in providing essential humanitarian aid for Gaza, including through the support packages for UNRWA, UNICEF, UK-Med, the World Health Organisation and the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. Does the Minister agree that the ongoing Israeli restrictions on the flow of essential aid are completely unacceptable and should be lifted immediately?
We believe that any restriction on aid is unacceptable. It is incredibly important that we see access to the water and sanitation services that are desperately needed, as well as to food and shelter, which are particularly important as winter approaches. My hon. Friend is right to mention the situation in northern Gaza, which is particularly concerning. The UK Government will continue to do all that we can to advocate for more aid getting into Gaza.
With 90% of the Knesset voting for the Bill yesterday, it is surely naive to suggest that it will not be enacted. Therefore, other preparations need to be made. Despite the strong urgings of the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and others, the Israeli Parliament voted for the Bill, knowing full well the collective international view of that proposal. Do the Government now realise that the Israeli Government, and indeed Parliament, is effectively diplomatically flying solo when it comes to these issues? If, as we all believe, no other agency can step in at pace and at scale to deliver the aid that is clearly needed, then, as was said by the leader of the SNP—an unlikely bedfellow for me—the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), is this not now verging on the definition of collective punishment? The Government can no longer just either wring their hands or urge.
We are very clear that UNRWA has an essential role, not only because of its reach and depth, but because it has that clear UN mandate in Gaza, the west bank and the wider region—indeed, I have discussed this issue with counterparts from Lebanon too. It is important that we do not see UNRWA undermined; that is critical for the UK Government. As the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, we have joined allies in expressing our deep concern. We will continue to push hard on this issue because we understand what the consequences will be if UNRWA does not have the continued ability to operate. We know what the impact will be on not only those in humanitarian need but the UN’s role more broadly, and that message could not come across more clearly from the Government.
Under international law, Palestinian refugees retain their right to return. By seeking to dismantle UNRWA, Israel could, as part of a wider plan, be pressurising Palestinian refugees to relinquish that right to return. Despite our Foreign Secretary and Governments of many other countries raising concerns and pleading with Israel, the Knesset went ahead with this vote. What additional pressure will the UK Government apply to Israel, which continues to violate international law and breach the UN charter?
I am not going to speculate about the reasons behind a decision made by another Parliament, as I do not believe that would be appropriate. What we must be clear about, however, is the UK Government’s response, which has been very clear. As we have discussed already, we do not accept this decision, which we believe is the wrong one. Only UNRWA can deliver the aid that is desperately needed, and we will continue to advocate for that very clearly. That aid is critically needed, given the extent of the displacement taking place in Gaza, with large numbers of people having been moved not just once or twice, but nine or 10 times. The Government will continue to push very strongly on these issues.
If the Knesset Bill is an indication of how Israel now sees international treaties and international law, there is surely no point in further negotiations on a free trade agreement with Israel? Should we not just end those negotiations now?
As I have stated, I will not speculate on the activities of another Parliament. However, I will be very clear about the UK Government’s response, particularly when it comes to the potential humanitarian impact. Others may wish to discuss trade issues, but for me, as Development Minister, the most important thing is how we ensure access to aid for those who are so desperately in need in Gaza. That is what I will continue to focus on.
With winter on its way, as the Minister said, it is vital that we are clear about the importance of aid and of challenging all who obstruct it. The Israeli Finance Minister said that the starvation of 2 million people in Gaza might be “justified and moral” in order to free the hostages. Let us be clear: the hostage families do not think that. The Israeli National Security Minister backed the protests against aid convoys reaching Gaza. I understand why the Minister says that she will not give a running commentary on sanctions, but if we do not have sanctions now, what else is open to us to send the clear message that aid must get to Gaza immediately?
I most definitely share the deep concern at, and the rejection of, the truly appalling comments to which my hon. Friend has just referred. We are very clear that they were completely unacceptable; we could not have been clearer. Some in the Opposition have suggested that the sanctions regime should be in opposition to taking action on the legal regime on arms exportation, but the Government believe that we need to keep all these issues under review, as the House would expect us to in fulfilling our legal requirements. That is why we announced the changes to arms export licences a few months ago.
The run-up to the vote in the Knesset was that UNRWA confirmed last Thursday that its employee Muhammad Abu Attawi actually led the attack on Kibbutz Re’im, where British national Aner Shapira was brutally murdered—after throwing seven grenades back at those attacking him, he was killed by the eighth. Given those circumstances, what assessment have the Government made of UNRWA employees’ direct involvement in the 7 October attack? Until the individuals involved are rooted out, there will of course be mistrust in UNRWA delivering the aid we all want to see going in. Will the Minister take action on that issue?
The Government have been very clear that UNRWA must meet the highest standards of neutrality, as was of course laid out in Catherine Colonna’s report. As I mentioned, the Government have provided financial support to the tune of £1 million to ensure that UNRWA is taking the necessary actions. I have discussed the issue in detail with Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini and other members of UNRWA’s leadership. I know that they are taking action on this issue, and rightly so.
I utterly condemn this decision by the Israeli Parliament. Tens of thousands of people have died as a result of Israeli firepower, and now thousands more will die as a result of an Israeli-induced famine unless the world acts. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if this decision is put into effect, it will be a breach of international humanitarian law? A track record of honouring international law is required if we are to keep arms export licences open.
We have been very clear about UNRWA’s role. As I have mentioned, UNRWA has a critical role, which is provided for via the UN, in relation to not just Gaza but many refugees in the rest of the region—it is incredibly important, and it is internationally recognised. This Government have already taken action to ensure that we fulfil our responsibilities on international humanitarian law. Again, I refer my right hon. Friend to the decisions we have taken on arms export licences.
In effect, the Knesset yesterday legislated for extraterritorial decisions over Gaza, the west bank and refugee camps, and decided that UNRWA is an illegal organisation within Israel. What sanctions will the UK Government take against Israel for that? The one thing Israel will understand is if we suspend arms supplies to it, because those are being used to create the humanitarian catastrophe that exists in Gaza and that is beginning to exist in the west bank as well. If we do not do that, British arms and American arms that come through Britain will be complicit in the destruction of life of the Palestinian people.
We will continue working with our international partners and through the UN to press Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its vital operations; we know how important its role is. I do not want to bore the House, because I have already responded to questions about sanctions, but we continue to keep sanctions under review. However, the right hon. Member will surely be aware that the Government have already acted to suspend arms licences—30 of them—where it was clear that there could be a risk to international humanitarian law and where they could be used for lethal reasons in Gaza. We have already put those measures in place, because we take that responsibility to humanitarian law very seriously.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific and catastrophic, and the Israeli Knesset has actually voted to make it worse. Without UNRWA, millions of Palestinians will lose life-saving food, medical treatment, housing and much more. I am grateful that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have condemned the Knesset decision, but does she agree that the fact that 90% of the Knesset voted to ban UNRWA is an indictment of the Knesset, as well as an insight into the value that Israeli parliamentarians place on Palestinian lives and therefore on human life?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the UK Government have been clear on this. We do not agree with the Knesset’s decision. We believe it is wrong. We believe that UNRWA has a clear, mandated international role in the region, which is particularly important right now in Gaza given the extreme humanitarian need. As she intimated, we are very concerned about the potential impact of any harm to UNRWA’s operations on the provision of food, services, education or healthcare—the support that people in Gaza so desperately need.
Further to the very serious point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about UNRWA staff’s involvement in the evil attack on 7 October, terror infrastructure has been found in 32 UNRWA facilities in Gaza; we have seen a 3,000-strong Telegram group of UNRWA teachers openly celebrating the 7 October attack; Israeli intelligence shows that up to 10% of UNRWA staff have affiliations to terror organisations; and a Palestinian eyewitness has borne witness to the fact that he saw an UNRWA school director selling food meant for civilians at $100 a carton. It is clear that UNRWA is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. Will the Minister work with Israel and other allies to find another way to work with organisations that can be trusted to deliver aid into the hands of civilians, not terrorists?
The UK Government have been crystal clear that we expect robust processes to continue to be followed. UNRWA must meet the highest standards of neutrality, as is laid out in Catherine Colonna’s report, including it comes to staff vetting and acting swiftly when concerns arise. We have seen that in UNRWA’s leadership. As I have mentioned, the UK has allocated £1 million to support UNRWA in implementing the Colonna report’s recommendations.
Another day, another outrage from an Israeli Government, who are treating the international community, international law, the UK Government and, above all, Palestinian lives with utter contempt. Words are not enough; actions are needed to force the Israeli Government to end the war crimes and the violations of international law. When will the UK Government impose on Israel the scale of sanctions that they have imposed on Russia?
I refer my hon. Friend to the comment that I made earlier: this was a decision of a Parliament—the Knesset—rather than of the Israeli Government. The UK Government have been very clear about our position on this. We believe that UNRWA has a critical role to play in Gaza and that international humanitarian law is incredibly important, and we have acted on that basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the new UK Government have been very clear that there is a definite mandate for the ICC and the ICJ, and we will continue to keep our sanctions regime under review.
The Government have to accept that the far-right Government of Israel are laughing behind their hands at us at the moment. They know that they are operating under the comfort blanket of a UK Government who say that they stand with Israel and that Israel has a right to defend itself. But when has murdering children in their hospital beds been tantamount to defence? In what way is the cold-blooded slaughter of 11,000 children tantamount to defence? Rather than the use of words to condemn the actions of Israel, why does the Minister not follow suggestions of many Members in the House today and start taking action to make the Israeli Government sit up?
The new UK Government have been absolutely clear that the kind of comments that we have seen from some Israeli Government Ministers are totally unacceptable. The views that have been expressed towards Palestinians both in Gaza and in the west bank from some members of the Government are unacceptable. We could not have been clearer on that, both in opposition and now in government. The hon. Member talks about action, but we have been acting time and again on the humanitarian situation, and we will continue to do that. We have also been acting to make sure that we uphold our responsibilities under international humanitarian law. As I mentioned, that has been very clear in the decisions that have been taken around the arms export licence regime.
This month we have seen just 28 trucks a day entering Gaza, with none in the north, leading to a catastrophic humanitarian situation. In 90 days, we may have no infrastructure left in Gaza to distribute that aid. Does the Minister believe that this is a deliberate and systematic destruction of a nation, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy it in whole or in part? Will she enlist the international courts to test that?
The UK Government have been very clear that we are extremely concerned about the situation in northern Gaza that my hon. Friend referred to. It is unacceptable that this month will potentially see the lowest level of aid delivered since the beginning of the crisis, yet the need is even more intense now than at any point. People’s resilience is completely destroyed in many cases, so we are very clear about the need to provide aid. We will also continue being absolutely clear about our adherence as a Government to international humanitarian law.
The Knesset’s decision to brand UNRWA a terror group was very well signposted, so the question now is: what leverage are the Government prepared to use to prevent this decision from being enacted? I think we can all agree that another round of hand-wringing, head-shaking and soft, whispered words of disapproval will be as successful as they have ever been in the past. Perhaps it is time to summon the Israeli ambassador and tell them in no uncertain terms that if this goes ahead, the UK will have no choice but to immediately end all arms sales to Israel, specifically the F-35 components on which its military campaign relies so heavily.
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I find the description of the UK Government’s communication of their views as soft whispering very surprising. He surely cannot have failed to have seen the very clear concern expressed by the Foreign Secretary, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) and by me. That has been expressed not only through international deliberations and the fact that we have worked clearly and strongly with allies on this, with the joint statement produced over the weekend, but bilaterally as well. It is well known that the Foreign Secretary took this up directly with his Israeli counterpart. The new UK Government are determined to ensure that we are upholding international humanitarian law, which is why we acted on the legal requirements of the arms export regime, as I described.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), my right hon. Friend suggested that it was difficult to explore the motivations behind the Knesset’s decision. But we have to be clear that UNRWA is being targeted because of its mandate with Palestinian refugees. The Knesset’s vote will likely be devastating for lifesaving aid operations. It is also a unilateral attempt to impact the right of return and make a two-state solution even harder. Does she agree that this is unacceptable?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being crystal clear, as the UK Government have been, that UNRWA has a clear mandate—one that is obviously part of the UN framework not just in Gaza but in the west bank and the wider region. We have stated that numerous times, and we are in concert with our international partners to make that crystal clear. We will continue to make that clear. As I mentioned, with winter approaching it is critical that UNRWA can continue to operate without impediment.
These are the words of the United Nations humanitarian chief, Joyce Msuya:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying”.
If someone so high up in the United Nations is making statements of that nature, we can safely make the assertion that the onslaught on Gaza is genocidal in nature—the measure being intent, and not, as the Foreign Secretary alluded to yesterday, the volume of counted deaths. Will the Government alter their position on this matter? What will they do, by way of resolute action, to ensure that this crime against humanity is halted immediately? Words are not enough; action is needed.
I agree that words are not enough. One of the reasons I met Joyce Msuya when I was at the UN General Assembly was to ensure we are working in concert with UN bodies on the humanitarian crisis and catastrophe within Gaza. We need to ensure that UNRWA is able to continue its lifesaving work. We need to see that other lifesaving measures are adopted, too. It was the UK Government who pushed so hard to ensure leadership on the polio vaccination campaign. We continue to push to ensure that the measures that are so vital for those in Gaza continue and that far more aid goes into Gaza than we are seeing at the moment.
If I have the Government’s argument correct, it is that there is a window of opportunity now between the decision by the Israeli Parliament and the implementation of the measure by the Israeli Government. Yesterday, I think it was the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) who raised the question of what the consequence would be for the Israeli Government if they went ahead to implementation.
The message today—I say this with regret to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect because we have worked with each other over the years—is that: on sanctions, there will be no additional sanctions, we are just reviewing them; on arms, we will continue to supply the parts for the F-35; on trade, which was raised, the trade negotiations will just continue; and on diplomacy, we will allow to remain in this country without any consequence the Israeli ambassador, who is an advocate of a greater Israel and therefore opposed to the UN position on a Palestinian state and a two-state solution.
Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the message to the Netanyahu Government will be that nothing will happen during the window of opportunity and that they will be able to act with impunity still? Will she go back and consult her colleagues, and come forward with a series of actions that will have some effect in saving lives in Gaza?
I would say to my right hon. Friend that the message from the UK Government to the Israeli Government is actually extremely clear. It has been articulated by our Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all members of the Government who have spoken on this issue. The world will not tolerate further excuses from Israel on humanitarian assistance. I stated that in my speech and deliberately so. That is a very strong message and it must be heeded.
The fact is that Hamas are deeply integrated in the civilian and humanitarian infrastructure of Gaza, whether hiding their soldiers in hospitals—we saw this week 100 terror suspects captured by the IDF in a hospital in northern Gaza—or being deeply integrated in UNRWA. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned a senior Hamas commander who was working for UNRWA. The fact is that Israel is not going to facilitate the work of UNRWA in Gaza, so the question is: what is the Government’s policy? Is it simply to lament this decision and to criticise Israel, and to threaten as yet unspecified consequences which are clearly not satisfying this House? Or is it to do something practical to get aid in to the Palestinians, working with Israel and other partners to develop an alternative supply route that will get aid in, accepting that UNRWA will not be that mechanism?
The UK Government have actually stated time and again that we expect robust processes to continue to be followed by UNRWA. Not only did we state that, as the Opposition did previously, but we have done something about it. We have ensured that some of our support to UNRWA is going towards ensuring that the recommendations of the Colonna report are implemented. We have seen UNRWA take decisive and swift action when allegations have been made, and rightly so. That is right and proper. It would be for any UN agency, especially including this one, given its vital role.
The hon. Gentleman talked about practical measures. On practicalities, we believe that to suggest there is an alternative to UNRWA, given its depth of reach and the scale at which it operates, is incorrect. It is the only body that can currently provide the infrastructure that is needed, and it is already mandated by the UN and the international community to do so.
The former Israeli Defence Minister, the late Moshe Dayan, famously once said:
“Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”
Regrettably, the same could now be said of Britain. I have every reason to believe that the Foreign Secretary is making a strong case for peace, but it seems to me and millions of others that the relationship with the Israeli Government is entirely one way. When will the Government start using robust leverage above and beyond what has already been done to ensure that Israel acts on British advice, as well as the advice of other international partners?
The UK Government have not been intimating advice. We have been providing very clear injunctions, especially when it comes to UNRWA and the need for its continued operation. We have always acted in line with our responsibilities around international humanitarian law and we will continue to do so.
Last week, I joined constituents from my constituency United Nations Association in Newbury Market Place to celebrate the ideals of the UN. Yesterday, I was shocked and appalled to see a fellow member state’s Parliament start the process of banning a UN-mandated body. Given that the UK Government will take over the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council this coming Friday, what will the Government do via that vehicle to demand that the banning of UNRWA is immediately undone?
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for their support of multilateralism, which is surely now more important than ever. The pact for the future came out of the UN General Assembly. To me, that is a demonstration of the power of multilateral action, even in these deeply challenging times. We will use our role in the UN Security Council to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld and that, as the UK, we play our part in leading responses to humanitarian crises like the one we have been discussing today.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said, on Sunday the UN’s top humanitarian official warned:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”
I spoke to the United Nations special rapporteur in person last week. He was in absolute despair about the lack of action from the world against what is happening in Gaza. I implore the Minister to give him and the House some reassurance that the Government are actively reviewing how the sanctions are working and what else they can do to force Israel to begin to work under humanitarian law.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for meeting the UN representative. I know that many Members have been seeking to engage with the multilateral organisations involved in this situation. The UK Government have, of course, engaged repeatedly with all the UN agencies involved: the World Food Programme, UNICEF, with which I have directly discussed the situation, and UNRWA itself. I pay tribute to all those who are engaged in that manner, as well as to all the charities and other bodies so engaged, including UK-Med, which is doing an incredibly important job. The new UK Government will continue to do all we can to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld here, as well as in every other context.
Of the 12,000 UNRWA employees, about one in five are members of Hamas, and almost 500 of them are members of Hamas’s military wing. When I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he could guarantee that UK taxpayers’ money would not go via UNRWA if there were any links with Hamas, he did not answer my question, so I ask the same question today. Is the Minister able to give UK taxpayers a guaranteed assurance that Hamas has no links with UNRWA in aid delivery in Gaza?
When it comes to the views of the UK public and UK taxpayers, it is critical for us to reflect on what has taken place over the last few days, when we have seen a great many Brits stepping up to support the DEC humanitarian appeal for the middle east. This is clearly of great concern. Of course it is important that whenever there are allegations of activity that is not neutral—particularly some of the appalling allegations relating to the 7 October attacks—they are fully investigated. When it has been provided with that evidence, UNRWA has investigated and taken swift action, and we will continue to do all that we can, as the UK Government, to ensure that that remains the case. As I said earlier, that has included providing funding to ensure that the neutrality reforms that UNRWA itself has wanted to implement for some time are indeed being implemented and followed.
Last night, I spoke to constituents who support the provision of medical aid directly into Gaza and the west bank. They were angry and heartbroken, because after each of the conversations I have had with them in the past year, the bombing and destruction have increased. I welcome the statements from the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend about the situation, but the vote in the Knesset risks making things worse—for aid, for the release of the hostages, for a two-state solution, and for the recognition of Palestine. What hope can right my hon. Friend give my constituents, the Palestinian people and the world community that this time it will be different?
I thank the constituents to whom my hon. Friend has referred. I mentioned earlier the many Brits who are deeply concerned about the situation, and I pay tribute to all the UK medical staff who are directly engaged in Gaza. I have had the incredible honour of meeting some of them, and their work is truly lifesaving in extremely difficult circumstances—perhaps the most difficult that we can imagine. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Knesset’s decision is deeply counterproductive for Israel itself, as well as being very harmful to UNRWA, to the delivery of humanitarian aid and, indeed, to the UN system.
Like many other Members, I was appalled at yesterday’s decision by the Knesset. This is a humanitarian crisis. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are displaced: they are now without homes, without water, without food and without healthcare. If UNRWA is banned, what practical steps can the Government take to ensure that aid gets into Gaza and, more importantly, that the people who need it receive it?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the situation. We need to ensure that lifesaving supplies of water, sanitation, food and shelter do reach those who are in need in Gaza, and other Members have expressed particular concern about the situation in northern Gaza during these exchanges. The Government have made it very clear that UNRWA plays a critical role that cannot be replaced by other organisations, and we will continue to make it very clear that its mandate must be supported and it must be able to continue to operate.
The vote in the Israeli Knesset is deeply worrying, and will result in further suffering, starvation and deaths in Gaza. What urgent steps are the Government taking, alongside international partners, to get more aid into Gaza?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that very important question. We do need to see more aid entering Gaza, because it really is needed. As many Members have pointed out, winter is coming, but we have not seen enough aid entering even over recent months and, as I said earlier, it seems likely that October will turn out to be the month during which we have seen the lowest level of aid actually entering Gaza since the conflict began. We are very clear that any restrictions on aid are unacceptable, and we have been working with international partners in that regard. My hon. Friend will have seen the joint statement that we released over the weekend; it was part of a series of actions that we have taken with partners, bilaterally and in multilateral organisations, to ensure that we are playing our part and that the UK is offering leadership.
A few weeks ago, I sought assurances from the Foreign Secretary in respect of children being killed after being given the polio vaccinations that the Minister has mentioned. Those vaccinations were undoubtedly given by staff members working with UNRWA. Close to 1,000 civilians have been killed since I sought that assurance from the Foreign Secretary. We will all recall that young teenager burning alive in a tent with an intravenous drip. Given the current state of affairs, does the Minister agree that all our talk of diplomatic and political levers is falling on deaf ears, and that the only real thing that this Government can do is put words into action, namely sanctions—including trade sanctions—embargoes on all licences, and the unconditional recognition of Palestinian statehood?
The UK Government’s position is very clear. We have advocated—in the Foreign Secretary’s case, since the first hours that he was in office—for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed, for the release of hostages and for the provision of aid in Gaza that is so clearly required. There is no question about that position, on which we have been crystal clear.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of the conflict on healthcare staff. Let me draw his attention to the fact that we have seen more humanitarian workers killed in this conflict than in any of the other conflicts that we are seeing around the world. We have taken action, and we do believe that the UK must fulfil its responsibilities to international humanitarian law. I believe that the hon. Gentleman can see that very clearly, for example in the decisions that have been taken about the arms export licence regime.
Given the humanitarian collapse in Gaza and the risk of mass starvation, the Knesset vote is obviously deeply dangerous for the Palestinians, but does it not also send a deeply dangerous signal internationally to civilians in conflict zones, in that other states that have been accused of violating international humanitarian law may take succour from this vote and target UN agencies providing lifesaving aid?
As has been discussed this afternoon, the UK and our partners have made it clear that the Israeli Government cannot continue to restrict aid—nor, indeed, should that be done by any other Government or any other warring parties internationally—but unfortunately we do see a number of violations of international humanitarian law. Earlier today, we discussed the situation in Sudan, where we have also seen restrictions on aid. Those are unacceptable. Civilians must be protected in war, and the UK Government will continue to advocate strongly for that.
I thank the Minister for her answers and for her clarity, which is much appreciated. Does she accept that Israel did not take this decision lightly, but based it on intelligence gathering which indicated an infiltration of Hamas within UNRWA? Does she agree that we must work to find a solution to ensure that charitable foundations are free to supply the aid that is so desperately needed? While the UN has a role to play, will she liaise with Israel to determine how we can get help on the ground to those who need it throughout Gaza and Israel?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions and, as ever, for his sincerity in discussing these issues. The UK Government will continue to work with charitable foundations and organisations. A number of them, including many based in the UK, provide incredibly important support for the people of Gaza. However, we are clear that when it comes to the delivery of aid and services, there is no other organisation that can fulfil the role that UNRWA performs because of the need for scaled and deep support, and also because of its critical mandate from the UN.
I join the Government in condemning the decision by the Israeli Parliament. Does the Minister agree that cutting ties and undermining UNRWA leaves us aghast at a time when we need institutions to work effectively, independently and without prejudice to build any prospect of peace and a future after a ceasefire and the return of the hostages? Worst of all, the ban further compounds the misery for the Palestinians and for those of us who still hope for a two-state solution.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a long-term perspective on these critical questions. Given the humanitarian catastrophe, we agree that this decision, if implemented, will be deeply harmful not just currently, but in the future. As we just discussed, we will continue to work towards the ceasefire that is so desperately needed. When that ceasefire is achieved and we see a cessation of hostilities, it will be incredibly important that the reconstruction continues. We will need to see UNRWA and other UN agencies, as well as other countries in the region, involved in that process. A number of different partners will need to be engaged in the very important effort of rebuilding, which the UK Government have discussed with many partners.
Has the Minister seen the latest letter from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA? It states unequivocally:
“Today, even as we look into the faces of children in Gaza, some of whom we know will die tomorrow, the rules-based international order is crumbling in a repetition of the horrors that led to the establishment of the United Nations”.
Does she agree with him that the implementation of the UN mandate
“may become impossible without decisive intervention by the General Assembly”
and UN Security Council members?
I have discussed these issues directly with Commissioner-General Lazzarini and other members of the UNRWA leadership, as my hon. Friend would expect. I agree that we all need to do what we can to preserve the rules-based international order. On the possibility of the UN General Assembly taking action on this issue, I spoke for the UK when the matter was discussed at the UN General Assembly in New York about three weeks ago.
It is incredibly concerning that the Knesset is pursuing legislation to restrict UNRWA’s work. Does the Minister agree that the international community needs to put in place mechanisms to fully monitor and incentivise the implementation of the Colonna reforms in order to assure and give comfort to Israelis and Jewish communities in the UK that UNRWA’s staff will never again be able to participate in terrorism?
I appreciate the considered question that my hon. Friend has just asked. The Colonna report itself, and the work that has been undertaken since, has focused on how we can ensure that the reforms—particularly those relating to neutrality—are implemented but then continuously reviewed, so that we know that neutrality is carried out throughout the organisation. The UK Government have supported this endeavour financially with a £1 million contribution. We believe that it is important, and we will continue to discuss this issue with UNRWA and, indeed, other multilateral bodies and bilateral partners in the future.
Does the Minister agree that the way to stop this conflict is to get the hostages released? Can she explain to the House what connections have been made through diplomatic channels with those who are holding the hostages so that we can get them released, which I believe would end the fighting?
I very much agree that we must see the hostages released. I know that many of us have been thinking about the immense pain of the families and friends of the hostages, who have now been in captivity for such a long period; it is an incredibly concerning situation. As one would expect, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have met a number of the hostages’ families, as have I. We will continue to do all that we can to make it clear that the hostages must be released. We will continuously advocate for that, for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed, and for the aid that is so desperately required in Gaza.
Bills Presented
Children’s Hospices (Funding) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ian Byrne presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the funding of hospices specialising in the care of children and to publish proposals for measures to guarantee access to hospices for all children who require palliative care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November 2024, and to be printed (Bill 115).
Registration of Death (Religion) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Preet Kaur Gill presented a Bill to make provision about the collection of religious information of the deceased where the death has been registered; to make provision for religious data to be provided on a voluntary basis; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 116).
Firearms (3D Printing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Preet Kaur Gill presented a Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 117).