Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I gently suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might be bringing his remarks to a close? There are many other Members who wish to contribute this afternoon.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am doing my best, I hope as briefly as I can, to explain these technical amendments in a hugely important Bill, in a part of the Bill that the promoter has advocated for because she believes it is a safeguard. I think it is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we establish whether it is such a safeguard, and if it can be improved, how it can be improved—but I entirely take your strictures on board and I will come as quickly as I can to a conclusion.
This is not an equality of arms point—I accept that these are not opposing parties in the traditional sense—but it is really about the presentation of new evidence. Presumably the advice to someone whose application for a certificate has been refused and who has new evidence to present would be to reapply to the commissioner, but what is someone who has new evidence to challenge the basis for an existing certificate to do? Judicial review is no help. That is about the soundness of the decision already taken, which will be assessed using the evidence already presented to the panel that took the original decision.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to be flippant or to test the patience of the House, but we have just heard an important speech from a former Attorney General on some key legal points. This is still a private Member’s proposal. How can the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), respond to whether to accept amendments to her proposed legislation if she is not in the Chamber to hear the arguments? Is it not a discourtesy to the House and those who have spent some considerable time working on amendments, on both sides of the argument, for her not to be here to hear what they are advocating?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair.
I remind the House that although there is no formal time limit, many Members wish to contribute in this very important debate and it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to within the eight minutes that was suggested.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I voted in favour of the Bill, partly because I believed in the principle of it—I believe the right to choice, and in the right not to choose—and partly because I believed that we needed to have a way of checking somebody’s clear intention. At the moment, horrible deaths are happening and there are no such checks in place, so I was keen to see how this House could come up with a system that, although it would not be perfect, would be better than the terrible status quo we have now.
At that stage, we had two checks by medical practitioners, and then a third layer: the involvement of a High Court judge. Although I was pleased with a third layer, I was not convinced that it was the right way to deal with the matter. I am therefore pleased that that the Bill Committee proposed a panel of experts to make those checks, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has rightly addressed some of those points.
For me, having that panel in place is very important, and it is our job to see how we can strengthen it, so I want to speak to amendments 78 and 79. Amendment 78 would improve this provision by ensuring that there is a unanimous decision in favour of a certificate of eligibility—abstentions would not apply. That is better than what was previously drafted and is certainly better than a High Court judge. Amendment 79 would require those reasons to be set out in writing. There will be scrutiny of those decisions and we do need to have the reasons properly set out.
I appreciate that all hon. Members in the Chamber, and all those who have taken part in this process, have approached it with the best of intentions. It is not easy—it is difficult—and we have constituents giving us examples from both sides. We are doing the best we can to alleviate people’s suffering—that, I hope, is our common intention across the House.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend for her passionate contribution, but this is exactly how we make law. We take evidence and have discussions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I respectfully remind hon. Members that on Report we debate the amendments to the Bill, not the process of how law is made?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be aware that there are still many who wish to contribute to the debate. May I ask that contributions are kept to five minutes?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for putting me on the Bill Committee where, in my view, we did some excellent work. Although we have heard an awful lot of claims about the process, I think anybody objective who reads the Bill that is now being reported to the House will recognise that it is a strong piece of work that is measured and seeks to strike a balance in a difficult area of complexity, humanity, compassion and morality.
Before I discuss some of the amendments, I want to bring the House back to what we are trying to deal with: a set of people who have been told that their struggle with disease is over, that they are heading towards an inevitable death and that there is nothing more that medical science can do for them. What we are trying to do is to give them the chance to face death on their own terms. That is the simple mission that the House has been set.
The second thing I want Members to contemplate as they look at this slew of amendments is that although it is easy to look at each amendment individually and see its merits or demerits, we must bear in mind the machine we are building as a whole, and the fact that we are putting those people through this process at a time when they are facing the end of that struggle. They are thinking about what the nature of their death will be like and they are talking to their friends and family, putting their affairs in order, and being concerned about when that awful day is going to come. We have to have some compassion in the process as well as compassion in the purpose.
When Members consider some of the amendments I will highlight, I ask them please to keep in mind that we will have to put these people through a possible two-month process at a moment when their time is severely limited, very often to less than six months. For example, new clause 7 and amendment 50, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), would restrict the number of patients that doctors can deal with in any 12-month period. That will severely restrict access and may mean that patients who are partway through the process have to change suddenly because their doctor is time limited, pushing them out, notwithstanding the multiple safeguards we already have in the process.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) gave an interesting speech about amendment 47. Again, in that amendment, he would be creating another step, another delay and another set of problems for the dying person to overcome or issues for them to address. In his amendment—I am sure he is a much better lawyer than me—I found it odd that he would effectively be creating an inexhaustive list of individuals who could be called upon in any circumstances who might be “properly interested” in the welfare of that individual. To me, the person who should be the most interested in their future is the person themselves. Any step we take that cuts across their privacy, their autonomy and the alacrity with which they can seek this solution to their impending or perceived agony seems a step too far. I do not understand how, practically, the commission is supposed to ascertain who those individuals are—are they neighbours, friends or just family? What is the definition of family? We need to put that contemplation and how they want to handle their death squarely in the hands of the dying person.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it was a compelling point made in Committee and is certainly one that we recognise. That is why the amendments on training that she tabled in Committee were adopted—specifically to ensure that everybody involved in the process is sensitised to detecting those issues and to make clear that any doctor in the process, and indeed the panel, might want to know why family are not being informed. That is specifically why a social worker was put on the panel: to understand the psychosocial environment in which the person is taking that decision. Fundamentally, in the end, if I am facing my death in a matter of weeks and decide in my capacity that I do not want to inform my family, that is my choice. That is my decision. I may have to explain my reasons to the doctors, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. On that point, I remind Members that we are very short of time.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be swift.
That is my choice, and this Bill is rooted in the need to give autonomy to those facing death who have capacity. We should take care to tread carefully upon that right.
On the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), new clause 16 says that somebody cannot be “substantially motivated” by certain considerations. I do not really understand what “substantially motivated” is meant to mean. To me, this misunderstands the complexity of what it must be like to be told that you are dying. The things that might run through your head—the affairs you might have to deal with, the news you have to break to your family, the impact it will have on your small children—form a cocktail of motivations. But the one thing I have learned over the last 10 years from campaigning for and spending lots of time with dying and bereaved people is that towards the end of their life, they have absolute clarity about what they want, because it becomes clear to them towards the end what their death will be like. At the very least, they want to have this card in their back pocket to play if they require it. Remember: these are people who are facing death, who are struggling with death, and we have to give them the power to advance over it.
Kit Malthouse
Sorry, but I am conscious of time.
Finally, amendment (a) to new clause 10, which we might divide on this afternoon, is difficult. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As sponsors of the Bill, we are clear that there should be a conscientious objection clause to allow individuals to opt out, and that is strengthened by new clause 10. But allowing an employer—any employer—to say that any employee in their employment cannot participate if that is what they decide seems to me a step too far, and it could prove to have unintended consequences. First, the board of every healthcare trust in the country will become a battle for control between those who oppose and those who do not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, people may suddenly find that they have to uproot themselves, after years of living in a care home, and relocate to get the kind of death that they want. In effect, the amendment prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying. As I said on Second Reading, in my view, as they face their end, we should prioritise the rights of the dying.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had intended to speak about new clauses 1 and 10, but I will restrict myself to new clause 1 for the sake of time. New clause 1 says:
“No health professional shall raise assisted dying…unless that person has first raised it.”
If the patient does not mention the issue and specifically ask for it, the doctor would be entirely prohibited from even mentioning it. That is problematic for many reasons. It goes against good medical practice, and is actively opposed by the British Medical Association. For me, the new clause would undermine the hard-won rights of people to be fully informed of their medical options, and would make the application of the Bill unfair and unequal, to the detriment of marginalised people in particular.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Just this week, the Health and Social Care Committee heard from vulnerable service-users who talked about white coat syndrome—that people are more likely to be pushed into options when given them by medical professionals. That is the concern behind the amendment. I do not know how I will vote on the Bill, but I am minded to support the amendment because of what I have heard from people from vulnerable communities.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will expand on this, but that is exactly why good medical practice requires all options to be on the table. Patients should not be influenced by the opinions, whether philosophical or medical, of a doctor; they should be able to give full and informed consent. I believe that new clause 1 would chill those discussions, and limit the option of an assisted death to those already in the know, those who are the most medically literate, and those who are often the least marginalised in society. It would result in unequal access to a legal process, and flies in the face of good medical practice, which has moved away from the paternalism that harmed patients and took away their individual control. After many years of fighting, mainly by women and marginalised communities, it is now established that good healthcare practice means patients having full information to make their own decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I urge the few remaining Members who will get in to keep their remarks brief, please.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
As I thought about today’s debate, I asked myself, “What more can I say than I said in the previous debate?” Yet there is much more, because as the Bill made progress through Committee, its intentions were exposed over and over again. Commitments, safeguards and kind words championed in this place have been set aside. On Second Reading, we were told that the Committee considering the Bill would be balanced and representative, yet its make-up did not reflect that intention: 55% of MPs voted for the Bill on Second Reading, but 61% of the Committee supported it.
The mask has slipped time and again. One of the biggest blows to the Bill, which the public listening today need to know about, relates to the need for approval via High Court judges. On Second Reading, that was laboured as the strongest safeguard, but that safeguard has been removed at a stroke. What is now being legislated for is a panel of psychiatrists—and a voluntary panel, at that. Impartial judges have been replaced by a voluntary panel, which could well be made up of enthusiasts for assisted dying, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has now said that there are not even sufficient psychiatrists for such panels.
I want to be absolutely clear: this Bill is immoral. If it is passed at a future date, it will create a publicly funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service. That means that the state will have the ability to give a legal drug to end a life. It is immoral, and it goes against my strong Christian faith, and that of many of my constituents in Upper Bann and people across the United Kingdom.
Dame Meg Hillier
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people have put in to speak today, and we appreciate the huge challenge to you, chairing this debate, and for the Speaker’s Office. It is normal for private Members’ Bills that the debate continues in an orderly and proper fashion so that everyone can have their say. We appreciate that that is much more challenging in these circumstances, but we have heard many times that we are running out of time, Members are not taking interventions because of concerns about time, and the informal time limit has dropped to five minutes. I am aware that the Front Benchers still need to speak. It is in the power of the Chair, of course, to refuse any suggestion of a closure motion. I would like to ask you whether there is any thinking going on about whether this debate can continue. Many of those who have tabled amendments have not yet been called to speak, and I, for one, would like to hear their points of view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She would not wish me to anticipate any decision on a closure motion at the current time, I hope. She makes a valid point that many Members who wish to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, but she will also know that there will be further debate on the second group of amendments.
Dame Meg Hillier
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concern is that this is the last debate on these amendments. It is in the control of the Chair whether to grant a vote on a closure motion. I simply make that point, as I am sure you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I reassure the hon. Lady that I have heard her point. I repeat that I will not make a pre-decision on any closure motion that has not yet been moved.
Dr Opher
I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of the need to fit in as many people as possible.
I will address a few issues on the assessment of capacity under new clause 9. One key point about assessing capacity as a doctor is that in most cases it is very clear cut: someone either has capacity or they do not. That is quite easy and quick to establish. With a very small number of patients, it is more difficult. By amendment to the Bill made in Committee, we must now refer such a person to a consultant psychiatrist for an assessment by a specialist. They are then in the best position to assess those very difficult points of capacity. That very much strengthens the Bill.
I will speak very briefly to new clause 1. As doctors, we must, under our ethical obligations, give options to patients. If we are absolutely forbidden to do that—new clause 1 would make it a crime, so we could be convicted for doing so—that totally wrecks the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and unworkable.
Sarah Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. On that point, I have particular concerns—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I just clarify whether the hon. Gentleman was giving way?
Sanctions
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.
We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.
Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.
Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.
This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups.
All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine.
On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House?
Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion.
Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets?
Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future.
Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable.
We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions.
DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.
As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.
The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.
The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.
The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.
The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.
There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade.
Middle East Update
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
From the Father of the House to the 2024 intake, we are hearing across the Chamber—from Labour, Conservative, Green, Plaid and Scottish National colleagues—a consensus about what the Government need to do on behalf of the British people. We need our Government to recognise the Palestinian state, we need to make sure that the hostages are returned home, and we need to stop the killing of innocent Palestinians who are now faced with starvation. Minister, on behalf of this House of Commons, I plead with you and the Government to take action—
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Over and over again, from all parts of this House, we witness grandstanding against mass migration and the most vulnerable in any society—refugees and asylum seekers—while knowing all too well that refugee crises are not born in a vacuum, as attested to by the situation unfolding in Gaza before the eyes of the world. Refugees have no choice; they are forced out of their homes and thrust on the world, looking for somewhere safe to seek asylum. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to get to his question very quickly.
Mr Hussain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister pledged to the British public that he would go harder on the issue of migration. Given what the Israeli Government are now saying, I ask the Minister whether his Government will come down harder—through action, not mere condemnation—to ensure that the world is not faced with a new and devastating refugee crisis.
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the most painful elements of this crisis has been that even those Palestinians in Gaza who wish to leave have not been able to do so. Regrettably, we have already discussed forced displacement many times this afternoon, so I will not rehearse the point, but I can assure him that in the face of potential further escalation in the conflict, we will redouble our efforts to secure the ceasefire that I know everybody in this House wants to see restored.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Israel is starving Gaza to death. I am sorry, Minister, but when Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed before our eyes, mere words of regret or condemnation from the Government are simply not good enough. We in this House will be judged in history for failing the Palestinian people, so I urge the Minister to listen to the consensus that is being built across the House today and act. We do not need words; we need action for the Palestinian people.
Prisoners of Conscience
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is an enormous privilege to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a tremendous advocate for the voiceless. May I begin by reiterating the importance of the questions that he has raised and by asking the Minister to address in her winding up the question of what action has followed the telephone call between the Prime Minister and President al-Sisi on the question of pursuing the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? Is there any plan for securing the release of Jimmy Lai?
We have had many prisoners of conscience of our own. At random, off the top of my head, I could name Thomas More, Dr Barnes, Latimer and Ridley, Cranmer, Archbishop Laud, and even John Bunyan in Bedford jail. A free Parliament that had the will to do so could have campaigned for their release, and history might have been significantly different. The problem for us now is that the prisoners of conscience are well beyond our jurisdiction, so when we raise cases with Ministers, often enough we have no leverage whatsoever with the jurisdictions that have imprisoned them. We can no longer simply deploy the Royal Navy, as we might have done in the past, and as indeed we did when we deployed it to eradicate the scandal of the international slave trade.
Even in those jurisdictions where we do have alliances, shared national interests and good diplomatic relations, often enough Governments have bigger fish to fry with respect to regional security and stability, and international trade, so when we raise cases with Ministers, we are told, “These were raised at the highest level”—indeed, when I was a Minister, I raised them at the highest level —but not much action follows.
Are we wasting our breath? Are we wasting the House’s time? This is not a counsel of despair. It is essential that we continue to do as the hon. Member for Strangford has done: to persevere. We have to try—we have to try to lift the odd starfish, as he says. At the very least, we will have sent a powerful message to those prisoners, their relatives and their friends that they are not forgotten, that we do campaign for them and, indeed, that we pray for them.
We are reminded in chapter 12 of the Acts of the Apostles that St Peter, guarded by four squads and chained between two soldiers, is sprung by an angel. In chapter 16, Paul and Silas are sprung in an earthquake and end up evangelising the prison governor. Until those miraculous days return, however, we are confined to continuing to raise matters with Ministers.
Accordingly, I raise the case of Ali Minaei, a young man in Iran who has been in prison for the last year. He was sentenced for having attended a church service in somebody’s home. He also has a severe heart condition. He is denied medical treatment in prison, and has been subject to beatings, including blows to his chest. It is not untypical for Christians in Iran to be sentenced for crimes against state security, to be given long sentences, to have prolonged interrogation, sexual harassment, and beatings, or to be denied privileges that other prisoners have access to.
I see young Ali as an architype for all those prisoners of conscience that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford mentioned, be they imprisoned for advocating for human rights, for their insistence on freedom of expression, or because of their adherence to a minority faith, and whether they be imprisoned in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, North Korea, Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Venezuela or wheresoever.
I share a belief with my hon. Friend that there will be a day of liberation, when the prisoners will be freed. But that day of rapture will also be a day of wrath and judgment for their oppressors. We ought all to shrink from that judgment, because we share in the guilt of their tormentors through our inaction and by our silence.
James MacCleary
Whole books on liberalism are written about this very topic, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. The situation in the United States at the moment has brought this into sharp focus. For many years, we have heard countries around the world speaking about how America, at times with our support, has intervened in the internal affairs of their countries, and have asked how that is consistent when America has complained about them doing the same thing. Now that America is taking a different role, perhaps some people are reassessing what levels we should go to. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question right now, although I am happy to have a separate discussion with him, if he would like, but hon. Members who are interested in foreign affairs have to think about the subject that he touches on and where the line lies. Famously, the Americans refer to the Mogadishu line as a line that they crossed in Somalia, where they felt they got too involved in the internal affairs of that country. Clearly, that is a difficult issue, but I thank him for raising it.
To conclude, our commitment is clear: to protect, defend and promote human rights for all around the world. We will not rest until every person can freely express their beliefs without fear of persecution.
Catherine West
I reiterate my position that we uphold freedoms. On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman would like me to fall into a trap on, if he would write to me so that I can get exactly the right language, I would be pleased to write back.
I want to pursue my point about the importance of this not being a counsel of despair, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said. A couple of Members have mentioned the country of Vietnam this afternoon, and while there are a number of concerns—including some that I raised with Vietnam’s deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on her recent visit to the UK, in the context of discussions on matters of bilateral interest— I was very pleased to read that there has been an 83% acceptance rate for the universal periodic review recommendations. I hope that Vietnam will be able to develop a national masterplan that specifies concrete, measurable and time-bound actions to follow up on those recommendations. We offer the expertise that we have within the Foreign Office, and stand ready to share our experience as we go on that journey together.
As I mentioned, the UK is determined to use its extensive diplomatic network, and the priorities of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will become clear as he meets with each of the Ministers to lay out his concerns. With his background at the Bible Society, I know that he will have a lot in common with the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am sure that they will bring more debates to this House in future, continuing to challenge Ministers on these important matters.
To give another example, last week my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland and the Minister for the middle east and north Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the former prisoner of conscience Dr Nader al-Sakkaf, who was arbitrarily detained by the Houthis in 2016 for his association with the Office of the Public Affairs of the Baha’is of Yemen. They heard about his experience in Yemen, and discussed ways in which the Government could support him and other cases of this sort.
I also want to highlight the vital work of human rights defenders in addressing freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations, including arrests and arbitrary detention. As the Foreign Secretary said in his Human Rights Day speech in December last year,
“Human rights defenders around the world risk their liberty—and often their lives—for their belief in upholding fundamental human rights for all, through protesting, documenting human rights abuses, supporting political prisoners and standing up for democracy and justice.”
Without human rights defenders, we would not know the full scale of abuses and violations. I think of the tragic story this week of Viktoriia Roshchyna, a journalist whose body was returned without organs to her family following detention in Russia. I know that that will be of interest to the hon. Member for West Suffolk, given his association with the Index on Censorship—it is an absolutely tragic case. The UK is pleased to support important flexible funds such as Lifeline, which has provided almost 100 grants to civil society organisations under threat in over 30 countries since July 2024.
Turning to our bilateral engagements, the Government do not shy away from challenging countries that are not meeting their obligations. We continue to highlight our concerns, both publicly and in private. To give just one example, it is a central part of our work in Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east and north Africa visited Pakistan in November last year, and was able to advocate for freedom of religion or belief with Government Ministers and business and religious leaders. High commission officials, including our political counsellor, regularly meet representatives from the Ahmadi, Christian, Hindu and Sikh communities.
We have followed the same approach with the Nigerian Government, including during Nigeria’s universal periodic review last year. We are investing £38 million through our strengthening peace and resilience programme in Nigeria to help address the root causes of conflict in the middle belt and beyond. That, in turn, builds the capacity of the country’s security forces to tackle violence against all civilian communities, including those of different religious backgrounds and beliefs.
On Syria, which is very much in the news this week, we have made it clear that the Government must ensure the protection of all civilians, set out a clear path to transitional justice and make progress towards an inclusive political transition. We will judge them by their actions. The shadow Minister asked how conditional our support was in trying to push for better human rights. I can guarantee that in the discussions about lifting sanctions in recent months following the ceasefire, we have discussed our vision for more freedoms for all the different groups in Syria.
Moving on to our multilateral work, at the UN we regularly participate in interactive dialogues with the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. In March, our special envoy was in Geneva to engage in a session on the intersection between freedom of religion or belief and torture. Last October, we participated in the interactive dialogue in New York on the link between freedom of religion and peace. We frequently raise FORB during the UN’s universal periodic review process, such as in our statements on Bhutan, Nicaragua and Qatar last November. In the case of Nicaragua, we noted our increasing alarm at the deteriorating human rights situation. That includes the harassment and arbitrary detention of members of the Church and the closure of organisations affiliated with it. We continue to work closely with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe as well. It provides a valuable platform for us to discuss and consider freedom of religion or belief and related issues.
Many Members have mentioned article 18, from which the Article 18 Alliance takes its name. It is a coalition of 43 countries formed to defend and advance religious freedom globally. The hon. Member for Strangford is involved in that alliance. The UK is an active member and works closely to combat discrimination and persecution based on religion or belief. That includes highlighting specific cases of prisoners of conscience and co-sponsoring statements and campaigning for their release, such as the chair’s statement on Tibetan religious prisoners of conscience and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Linked to those important campaigns, we have worked closely with the Article 18 Alliance on statements that condemn FORB violations and promote mutual respect between different religions and belief groups. For example, in November last year, we joined an important statement that condemned anti-Muslim hatred and urged countries to uphold the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Before I conclude, there are a couple of points that I have not covered. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about China, and I reassure him that we raise our concerns at the highest level. A number of people have mentioned one of our most high-profile prisoners of conscience, Jimmy Lai. Just this week, I met Sebastien Lai, and I discuss Jimmy’s progress and how he is getting on regularly with Sebastien’s constituency MP, who sits on our Benches. Our staff in Hong Kong attend the court regularly to watch every single element of that procedure. We are working hard to continue to keep that at the highest level, whether that is Prime Minister to President, Foreign Secretary to Foreign Minister, or me at ministerial level when I can.
The hon. Member also asked about the China audit, which I can confirm we will be bringing forward soon. Within that process, I have met Rahima Mahmut on the Uyghur situation. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is ongoing concern about that, and I reassure him and others watching this debate that we have definitely looked at that subject and how it impacts on our day-to-day lives and business practices here in the UK.
Briefly on Iran, we know that Christians in Iran are persecuted. That includes the ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Christians who face political, economic and social barriers. They are entitled to freedoms as a formally protected minority, but they are often unable to practise their religion and are banned from preaching to other Iranians. Persian Christians and converts from Islam are considered apostates and face severe harassment, detention and lengthy prison sentences. Christians often face propaganda charges as a result of their religious activity. The UK is on the core group for the recurring Iran resolution led by Canada, which always includes language relating to freedom of religious belief and Christians. We are looking forward to the next UN 3C resolution, which will be tabled in November 2025.
We have had a very good debate, and I thank the House for its patience. To conclude, this Government remain committed to addressing the issues of prisoners of conscience and freedom of religion or belief. No one should suffer for their beliefs, and we will continue to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief at every opportunity.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the inward visit of Prime Minister Mustafa.
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday, and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving just and lasting peace in the middle east, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood. The Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA are the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the west bank are reunified under their authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. There can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.
The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership, and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Aid workers need protection. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.
We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the west bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.
Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking. We fully support the implementation of those much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. The reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery, and promote peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the Palestinian Authority underlined their commitment to delivering their reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of the visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.
As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. The visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the middle east—at this critical moment. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Falconer
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked many questions. Let me be clear: the British Government see the Palestinian Authority as a vital partner, and they are a vital partner that must go through reform. The new Prime Minister has shown leadership on that reform agenda and has made progress on a range of issues. The right hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. One is the content of textbooks, an issue on which we have discussions with the Palestinian Authority and which I have discussed with other parties who have strong views, understandably, on the importance of ensuring that both communities are raised with a belief in co-existence rather than hatred.
There are a range of other very important reform questions that are at issue. One of them, on which the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, is the so-called “pay to slay” arrangements. Progress has been made on that, and we must encourage the Palestinian Authority in those reform efforts. The memorandum of understanding is intended to provide a framework to upgrade that co-operation, because the Palestinian Authority are the vital partner for peace.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked what we will do to ensure that Hamas leave the Gaza strip and do not play a governance role. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that there is a serious and credible alternative to Hamas, and that must be the Palestinian Authority, which is what our efforts are aimed at.
The right hon. Lady asked two important questions about the UK Government’s position in relation to Iran. We welcome the talks between the United States of America and Iran. I was in Oman after the first stage of the talks and the Foreign Secretary has been there recently. We are talking to all parties and we want to see a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapon threat that Iran poses not just to the region but to the world. We hope that these talks will prove successful.
The right hon. Lady asked, reasonably, about the allocation of the £101 million. I am not in a position to give a full breakdown of exactly where the money will go, though I will provide the House with that breakdown. I would anticipate that funding is directed to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority directly, but once we have full programmatic details, we will return to the House with that breakdown. We are talking to partners about those allocations and I am happy to come back in writing on some of the more detailed questions.
Lastly, we support the Abraham accords. I was very pleased, while the right hon. Lady was there, to sign the UK up to an agreement with Bahrain and the US which includes explicit reference to the Abraham accords. We are supporting the Abraham accords not just in our words but in our actions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At the meeting last night between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Palestinian Prime Minister and his delegation, it was clear that they were very encouraged by the discussions they had had with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and rightly so, because the memorandum of understanding shows serious thinking about the long-term future of Israel and Palestine and leadership towards peace. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to take the next serious step, which is to finally recognise the state of Palestine? The best time to do that might be alongside the French in New York in June.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her courteous treatment of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night. The question of recognition is raised repeatedly in this House. Our position remains the same: we do wish to recognise a Palestinian state, and we wish to do so as a contribution to a two-state solution. We will make the judgment about when the best moment is to try to make the fullest possible contribution.
As I said to the Palestinian Prime Minister this morning, our responsibility is for the reality of the situation on the ground—the practical viability of a Palestinian state. Of course, other states have taken a different position from the UK Government and chosen to recognise a Palestinian state. That has not called it into existence. Our job in the British Government is to make a practical contribution to a two-state solution, and that is how we intend to approach this issue.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I was glad to see the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary meet the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Mustafa and reaffirm this country’s support for a two-state solution. A Palestinian state as part of a wider two-state solution remains the only path to long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats have called for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. I ask the Minister this question most weeks and will ask it again, and I hope the position will change one week: following yesterday’s meeting, will the Government now take this vital step and commit to working with international partners such as France on issuing a joint recognition statement?
Now is the time for a restoration of the ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a return to the political process. This Government have pledged a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including for humanitarian relief. That is welcome, yet for more than 50 days Israel has blocked aid from entering Gaza and shuttered border crossing points. As a result, the food stocks of the UN World Food Programme, which previously reached half of Gaza’s population, have entirely run out. The risk of starvation, disease and death is very real, even as 116,000 tonnes of food aid languishes at border checkpoints. In a joint statement with French and German counterparts, the Foreign Secretary called this “intolerable”, and rightly so, but what are the Government doing to end the blockade and ensure that aid can flow into Gaza?
The International Court of Justice has opened hearings on Israel’s responsibility to facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Two weeks ago, the Government said that they continue to consider the ICJ’s opinion on the OPTs. Can the Minister update the House on when we can finally expect the Government’s response?
The Government have also reaffirmed their condemnation of violent west bank settler activity, but what concrete steps are being taken to pressure Israel to act on illegal settlements? Finally, will the Government now consider sanctions on those Israeli Ministers, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who encourage settler violence?
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend speaks forcefully about the importance of focusing on the hostages, the restrictions on aid and the death of innocent civilians on both sides of this conflict. As I have said a number of times this afternoon, I do want parliamentary delegations to continue to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the west bank, and I hope this incident will prove to be an aberration.
Gaza: Israeli Military Operations
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members still want to get in, and there is an important statement to come, so could questions be a little briefer, please?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for raising the matter. I concur with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in that we have been here before. We keep getting the same responses. Our constituents continue to write to us about this—they want hope. The reality is that over a thousand Palestinians have been killed within the last fortnight. Today marks a month since Israel broke that ceasefire, blocking critical aid into Gaza in defiance of international law. I ask the Minister—I know he and the Foreign Secretary are working hard—what more it will take before we as a UK Government take a different course of action, because Israel is not listening to warm words any longer.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend and east midlands colleague is right to raise the issue of the deterioration of the application of international humanitarian law. There are too many places in conflict where there is a very serious risk of breaches of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. We are doing all we can in Geneva and New York, and on the ground in places including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to ensure that the risk of breaches of IHL does not continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to questions.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarification, when I made my contribution, I referred to Jordan. I should have referred the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I recently went to Jordan at the invitation of the King, and I should have said so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for putting that point of clarification on the record.
Gaza
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am planning to run this urgent question for only about another 10 minutes, so it would be very helpful if questions were short, please.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Over recent days, we have seen the power of co-ordinated action when addressing a most challenging diplomatic, military and humanitarian crisis, yet in 17 months we have not seen a parallel in addressing the challenges over Gaza. What action is the Department taking to ensure that there is such a co-ordinated effort, and will the Foreign Secretary call such a summit?
Ukraine
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I can barely believe that I have got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.
I understand fully the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach that they have got to take in Washington this week, but we know that President Trump listens to the people who last spoke to him. Can I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to outline two important points? First, European military assets—not NATO assets—are often used to support American operations in the Indo-Pacific, and the American military really appreciates how we put our shoulder to the wheel. It is not the Americans only ever supporting Europe; we also help the Americans.
Secondly, last week, I and several hon. Members and noble Members were at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where it was made clear that what will be presented at the Hague summit is what is actually needed for European defence rather than just GDP targets. May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that it will be important that he takes a position with the President of the United States that if those demands add up to more than 2.53% of GDP, our country will set itself on a path, within the time targets, to achieve those?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I remind Members that if we are to get everybody in, shorter questions—and shortish answers, please—would be helpful?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Indo-Pacific, and it is important that we remember AUKUS and our critical partnership with Australia and the United States in relation to that. He quite rightly mentioned defence spending, on which much has been said in this Chamber—and much, I am sure, will be said when we go to the United States.