(2 weeks, 6 days 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 pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship this morning, Dr Allin-Khan.
I will begin by stating the Government’s policy on Kashmir. India and Pakistan are long-standing important friends of the UK and we encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting political solutions to maintain regional stability. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) has secured the debate, and as hon. Members have asked about a voice for Kashmir, I want to reiterate that this is an opportunity to bring our constituents’ concerns to the House of Commons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, the history of the region is intertwined with our own. It is very important to take account of that, which is why we have regular interventions in Parliament on this important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that we had not spoken enough about it. I remind him that he made points about it at the Adjournment debate on International Human Rights Day in December, and there have been a number of other interventions and written questions on the subject.
We recognise that there are concerns about human rights in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who said that human rights are paramount. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards.
A number of hon. Members mentioned journalists’ freedom of speech. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) be happy if I wrote to her about the woman she mentioned, so that I can provide details? We will follow up directly on that case, and I will put a copy of the letter in the Library. Our position is clear that any allegation of human rights abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said it is important to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected. That is the role of Members of Parliament—to raise concerns, which our Government will then raise with the Governments of India and Pakistan. As Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I have interlocutors in Delhi and other places, and in the high commission here. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who oversees the FCDO’s work with Pakistan, Afghanistan and the middle east, also regularly raises points with his interlocutors, as we both bring forward these concerns.
We undertake diligently the role of monitoring the situation and recording concerns. We understand that several restrictions have been put in place over time in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many hon. Members referred to internet blackouts, which we monitor carefully and ensure we raise effectively. Unfortunately, they tend to spike at times of violent outbreaks.
On the importance of human rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) mentioned the important Amnesty International report. Other Members have mentioned the work of Mary Lawlor. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
Some Members mentioned prison conditions, and that goes to the heart of the issue. We welcome reports that some detainees have been released, but we remain concerned by ongoing detentions. More broadly, the Government note that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir used their collective voice with a 64% turnout in the state assembly elections last October, which is a higher turnout than in the UK local government elections, I might add. The electoral process was largely peaceful, and the state legislative assembly in Srinagar has now been restored.
Some Members have raised the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution. The UK Government stand by our long-standing belief that any resolution should consider the wishes of the Kashmiri people. For that reason, we continue to urge both sides to ensure that there is constructive dialogue with affected communities. As I said, we are clear on the importance of rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
The UK is aware of the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment on the validity of the article 370 revocation. Where we have concerns, we raise them directly with the Government of India.
I thank the Minister for replying in such detail to the points made, and I fully accept that she and the Government are raising the article 370 suspension with India. Is she able to tell the House what the Indian response was, or share some detail of the importance with which India took that intervention from the United Kingdom?
The point is that this is a frequent agenda item. Without wanting to go into private discussions, the fact is this: constituents raise the matter with Members, and we then relay that message. That is as transparent as we can possibly be. As ever in foreign policy, it is almost impossible to control the response of our interlocutors. I also responded to yesterday’s urgent question in the House; if I could control my interlocutor’s response, I would be in heaven.
Many Members raised the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for Sheffield Central, and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about communications restrictions and the worrying situation for journalists. It is wonderful to have a journalist, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, in the House making such effective interventions through speeches, with such heart for his community.
Is there a role for the special envoy in relation to religious discrimination and abuse in the region? If so, we all believe that there is no better person than the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to do that job.
Of course. The work of envoys and the work of the United Nations is very important for providing us with data and up-to-date analysis, but the Foreign Office also has a role in visiting the region. The way our heads of mission are able to go into those parts is really wonderful. Some Members mentioned a journey that UK Members of Parliament made some years ago. Their entrance was blocked because some areas are simply too difficult to enter; they are too violent and not safe enough. We have our own teams—envoys, United Nations teams and our own staff—that are able to give us up-to-date guidance.
I want to touch briefly on freedom of religion or belief, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises it regularly and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke about its importance. I want to reassure them that when I visited Delhi, I met Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities to hear about the different traditions in the region. We had a very impressive visit, which made a huge impression on me, to the Jama Masjid, one of the most ancient religious sites in Delhi.
I thank the Minister for her graciousness in letting me intervene a second time. The Ahmadiyya Muslims are suffering persecution simply because they are of a different kind of the Muslim religion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with them the persecution that they are enduring?
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Ahmadiyya, but that is mainly an issue in other parts of the region. With his permission, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to write to him with more detail.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, the UK Government are aware of reports of the detention of a number of journalists. We are clear about the importance of respect for human rights, and continue to call for any remaining restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible, and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the UN plebiscite. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
On that point, can the Minister confirm whether adherence to human rights and international law will be included as conditions within any trade agreements with India?
Trade is the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to promoting universal human rights, and where we have concerns, we raise them directly with partner Governments, including at the ministerial level. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield also raised trade. Human rights are a golden thread that goes through all the work of the international Departments.
An issue that sits alongside that is aid—we have debated it this week because of the announcement on international aid. I assure the House that we are still assessing the impact in the Indo-Pacific region, and we will come back when we have a clearer picture. As Members are aware, our work is intertwined with that of other donor countries. For example, the United States Agency for International Development has traditionally been a very big partner in aid across the globe. In the light of the recent announcement of the cessation of that aid, Ministers have asked the Department to do an assessment in the coming weeks so that we can understand the impact of the reduction of aid more generally in different regions. As the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I want to know exactly what impact that is going to have, but because the announcement is less than a week old, that work has not yet been completed.
I want to touch briefly on Government visits to the region. The benefit of having in-country expertise is that when it is safe to visit, we can seek and gain the various permissions that are needed. Monitoring the situation in India-administered Kashmir is part of the Government’s duties, and that includes engaging with people from different areas and travelling to different regions, including Indian-administered Kashmir. That is a very important part of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do it. Despite the controls in place, officials from the British high commission in New Delhi request access to Kashmir, monitor the situation and visit the region periodically.
The FCDO advises against travel to certain parts of Indian-administered Kashmir and against all travel within 10 miles of the line of control, whether in Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We encourage all British nationals visiting the region, including our own staff, to follow that advice very carefully. There are limits, therefore, to the frequency and geographical scope of visits. The same applies to our officials at the British high commission in Islamabad, who travel periodically to Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
I want briefly to touch on a couple of other issues raised by hon. Members, but we are getting close to the end of the debate—have I missed anything? One thing I have enjoyed about this debate has been the discussion of the many local organisations, such as the youth organisation in Rochdale mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, of the impact of councillors in our localities and of the important work on International Women’s Day, when we can celebrate the work of our representatives who have deep connections with the area. This work is the tapestry of the UK, and it is important that we bring such matters to the House to reflect constituents’ concerns.
I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North first.
I thank the Minister for her diligent response to the debate. Is it reasonable for my constituents to hope that, within the next four and a half years—a single Parliament of this Labour Government—things will have progressed, rather than being simply being rehearsed and repeated? Her response has been sincere, but do the Government have a clear objective to move things forward and move the dial on this long-standing issue?
I impress upon my hon. Friend the importance of these debates in influencing the work of our teams at the FCDO and putting the work that is being done in our communities on the public record. Through that, they can have a lasting impact. However, we have to remember that we strongly hold to the principle of the important role of India and Pakistan in resolving this situation.
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. I want to pick up on her point about it not being for the UK to prescribe a solution. I entirely understand why that is the position that she and previous Governments have had, but in 1948 there were eight votes in favour of the special resolution of the Security Council. The USSR abstained. The UK was one of the countries that voted in favour of that resolution, which said a plebiscite should happen. Does the UK no longer support the position that we adopted in ’48—I appreciate that that was a long time ago—or do we think that, although it is a potential solution, we do not necessarily want to push it?
Our position is that it is for the two countries to take charge of the overall situation, while obviously listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.
A wish and a prayer is one thing, but to resolve this will definitely come down to the two partners and listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are here to support and to monitor human rights, but as has been clear in the debate, we cannot prescribe, take charge or dictate terms.
Can I at least ask that, in any interactions with the Indian Government, Ministers push for the prosecution of men who use rape and sexual violence as tools of oppression? They are not being prosecuted at the moment.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point—it is International Women’s Day on Saturday. Regardless of where those awful crimes happen, we will always take violence against women and girls extremely seriously—it is one of the Foreign Secretary’s priorities—and raise it with whichever Government have it happening in their area.
Thank you for your patience in chairing the debate, Dr Allin-Khan; I think we will come back to this topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.
(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 of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza.
We urge all parties to fully implement the ceasefire to help deliver a permanent end to hostilities. We are very concerned at reports that Israel is preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. Israel must not block aid coming into Gaza. Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. We urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. The UK is doing all we can to provide support. Alongside our existing support, on 28 January, the then Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries.
We must all work together with the United Nations and all partners to continue to facilitate aid and ensure it is sustained. Fully reinstating commercial deliveries will be key, as will allowing more types of goods in, so that civilians who lost their homes can be protected and civilian infrastructure repaired.
We welcome the announcement of an agreement to end the fighting in Gaza, and we welcome the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far, including British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who both have both close links to the UK. Emily, of course, has met the Prime Minister and discussed her dreadful treatment at the hands of Hamas. The hostages and their families have endured unimaginable suffering from the cruelty of Hamas, and the situation in Gaza has continued to worsen. The current ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward.
As we have made clear, we want to see a negotiated two-state solution, with a sovereign Palestinian state, including the west bank and Gaza, alongside a safe and secure Israel. We have also made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. Forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. We need Palestinian civilians to be able to return to their homes and lives, and to rebuild. International law guarantees them this right. A two-state solution is the only way to secure long-term peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.
As the Foreign Secretary said:
“You can hold in your heart the pain of the Israeli people and the plight of those hostages and their families, and at the same time, you can hold in your heart the awful damage, pain and suffering that this has wrought on Gaza, with well over 45,000 Palestinian people having lost their lives.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 535.]
We must continue to focus on the future and on turning the current ceasefire deal into a political process that leads to a two-state solution, including the west bank and Gaza.
Over the weekend, the Israeli Government took the decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Minister talked about that aid, but it can no longer be delivered. Israel is once again using starvation as a weapon of war, and today we hear that it has also announced a so-called “hell plan” that would see electricity and remaining water supplies cut off.
These decisions coincide with the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, with negotiations on phase 2 barely begun, jeopardising the release of the remaining live hostages, plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and a longer-term peace agreement. The UN has said:
“International humanitarian law is clear: We must be allowed access to deliver vital lifesaving aid.”
Oxfam described the move, made as Ramadan began, as a
“reckless act of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law”,
and the International Court of Justice has previously issued explicit instructions to Israel to facilitate aid deliveries to Gaza.
Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government are again in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and of international humanitarian law? Has she, or have her colleagues, spoken to their Israeli counterparts to condemn Israel’s “hell plan”, and to make it clear that there must be no resumption of the war and that it is unacceptable for the people of Gaza to be denied critical food, water, and medical or any other supplies? What action will the UK take against the Israeli Government if they continue, illegally, to use humanitarian aid and access to water and power as a bargaining chip? I know that the Minister wants the ceasefire to hold. Can she share her assessment of the impact of these latest developments on the prospects for a lasting, just and fair peace?
I thank the hon. Lady for the urgent question. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by the Government of Israel, does risk breaching obligations under international humanitarian law. To answer her question directly, the UK Government have been in touch with interlocutors to make that point. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is in the region pushing for a peace deal, hence my covering this brief today, although I am the Indo-Pacific Minister.
Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. On 28 January, the then Minister for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK has announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) asked about the long-term ceasefire prospects. The UK plays its part in pushing both sides towards a hopeful future for the region. We are working with not just Arab states, but partners such as the US to try to push for a solution that is in line with international humanitarian law.
I have just come back from the middle east, where I went with the Foreign Affairs Committee. While the world watches with increasing alarm the disintegration of the peace process in Gaza, we were warned in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the west bank and Israel that the far-right Government in Israel may have no long-term plan on Gaza, but that there is a long-term plan for the west bank, and that is annexation. The international community is well aware of that. It sees the evictions, the demolitions, the increasing number of Israeli settlements, and that 40,000 people have recently been displaced. In these days of hard power, what is plan B? What will the international community do to stop the annexation of the west bank? It will not be enough to simply condemn it once it has happened.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her ongoing interest in this important matter of foreign policy, and for the work that she and her Committee have done, including through personal interviews and visits to the region. That is all part of the supportive role that the UK must play. It must take an international role in pushing for peace.
The UK Government have taken a very tough position on militant factions or groups attacking Palestinians in the occupied territories and the west bank. We continue to look at the measures available to get our message across in not just words, but actions. With my right hon. Friend’s permission, I will write to her as Chair of the Select Committee with an updated assessment of the situation.
As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released.
The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel.
I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip?
Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly?
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for emphasising the effect on families on both sides of this terrible conflict, but particularly on the British families whom the Prime Minister has met, and on Emily Damari, and their dignity and grace. She also mentioned all those who want a home, want security in the region, and have been affected by this most horrendous of wars. She evoked the terrible images of hostages being released while the most macabre of pantomimes went on behind them. That cruelty is utterly unacceptable, and the UK has made that very clear to interlocutors, both at ministerial and Foreign Secretary level.
The shadow Foreign Secretary has talked about phase 2. There have been stops and starts in this peace process, as there often are in these very difficult situations. Our role is to continue to speak very closely with the US and with Steve Witkoff to push for practical, day-to-day solutions. She asked about British aid and what negotiations we are undertaking. We are in daily contact with the region, and are pushing for discussions, conversations and dialogue, so that aid can get back in. Following this urgent question, we undertake to contact the Red Cross, one of our partner organisations, with the message that this House wants that aid to re-enter the area, and to save lives.
The powerful scenes of Palestinians celebrating the start of Ramadan, even as their homes and lives have been reduced to rubble by Israeli forces, send a defiant message to the world that despite the displacement and destruction, Palestinians remain rooted in their land. Will the Minister confirm that the decision to block all aid to Gaza, collectively punishing the entire population, is a war crime and a breach of international law, contravening provisions of the Geneva convention and the Rome statute?
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the devastating impact of no aid getting through, and to say that a halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that recently announced by the Government of Israel, risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. It is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to make legal decisions or judgments, but I assure my hon. Friend that the former Minister for development pledged £17 million to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter can reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. My hon. Friend must reassure her constituents that the Foreign Office is doing all it can to get infrastructure across the OPTs and into Gaza, in order to relieve the suffering.
The Israeli Government are wrong to prevent humanitarian aid entering Gaza. That threatens the lives of Gazans who are dependent on aid after the destruction of the past 15 months, and is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Israeli Government back down and let that aid in? I understand the depth of distress in Israel about the despicable way that Hamas terrorists have played psychological games with the hostages and their families, but withholding essential supplies of food, medicine and shelter only worsens the devastation faced by the Palestinian people.
In the west bank, we also see illegal settlers violently attacking Palestinians and apparently receiving the support of members of the Israeli Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that we in the UK must do all we can to undermine the extremists in this conflict, so that a second phase of the ceasefire can be negotiated, all hostages can be released, and Gazans can receive the aid that they desperately need?
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his words. He is quite right to emphasise the psychological impact of this terrible conflict, and the traumatised state of people in the region. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we welcome the release of the 38 hostages in Gaza, including of course Emily Damari, whom we have already mentioned. We think so much of those members of the Lifshitz family—they of course had strong ties to the UK—who were held hostage by terrorists in Gaza and who died. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for providing support to ensure that the horrific ordeal of individuals and families can come to an end, but unfortunately, this is not the end. That is why it is so important that we take this moment to push.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing practically. We are in daily contact with the region, including our mission there. Obviously, in the context of the international debate, interventions such as this urgent question push for a just solution for those on both sides of this terrible conflict.
Last week, I was in the west bank, alongside other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on our wider trip to the middle east. While the world’s attention is rightly on the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza, we met Palestinians in the Jordan valley whose schools were being attacked, whose mosques were being burned, and whose livestock were being stolen by extremist Israeli settlers. This is happening with the apparent connivance of the Israeli security forces, and it appears to be part of a wider plan for annexation. What steps are we taking to prevent further erosion of Palestinian land in the west bank that would put the two-state solution even further away?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his expertise on aid and foreign affairs. He is quite right to emphasise the actions of some settlers. There are many settler communities that just get on with it, and that want a peaceful solution, but he is right to say that there is violence in the settlements, which are of course unlawful under international humanitarian law and harm the prospects of a two-state solution. I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record the impact on the faith community, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan, and the fact that mosques have been attacked. We will ensure that that point gets through in our next discussion with our interlocutors, both on the Israeli side and on the Palestinian side.
No one is surprised that as soon as the world’s attention shifted from Gaza, Israel reimposed its siege, preventing the entry of all humanitarian aid. The Minister knows the impact that this will have on the beleaguered civilian population, who are already suffering from disease, starvation and an absence of healthcare. After 17 months in which Israel has been given carte blanche, none of us—least of all Netanyahu—expects there to be any meaningful consequences from Israel’s actions, but does the Minister consider what is happening in Gaza to be collective punishment? If she does not, what would she call it?
Sometimes, the words we use are really important. There has been an enormous amount of suffering. We know that so many in Israel feel that we do not understand their need for security, and so many in Gaza feel that we do not understand the depth of their suffering. We must redouble our efforts to communicate what we want, which is a two-state solution and a peaceful future for both communities, which must live side by side.
The leaders of the Arab world have made welcome proposals about the future of Gaza and its people. What update can the Minister give on the UK’s support for those proposals, and will she join me in welcoming the fact that the proposals recognise that the terrorist death cult Hamas can have no part in the future governance of Gaza?
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that, as a proscribed terror organisation, Hamas have certainly displayed some very frightening characteristics that we would expect of a terrorist organisation. There was also the macabre pantomime that we saw in the past couple of weeks during the release of hostages—that was truly shocking. I thank him for his question. The exact detail on the next stage of the negotiation is to be defined by the two parties, but we play a real role both with the ally, which is Israel, but also working with Egypt, Qatar and the wider region. That is why our Minister right now is in the region, making the point that we want to be involved, pushing for a peaceful solution and to see that day when terrorism is not extant and the two communities can live side by side in peace.
I was going to ask what we would do if the Israelis refused to let in aid, or to turn on the water and power, but I think we all know that basically the answer is nothing. Instead, let me ask this. The Minister rightly mentioned the macabre display around the return of the hostages and the condition of those hostages, and she is right. I think she said that she has taken that up with interlocutors. Why has not she mentioned the return of the Palestinian non-combatants? Why has not she mentioned their condition when they are returned, often emaciated and showing signs of torture? Why has she not mentioned the number of senior medics who have been detained without charge and then died in mysterious circumstances in Israeli detention? Apparently there is some kind of investigation, but it never comes to a conclusion. Is she surprised that people have become cynical about British conduct in this conflict, when it seems that we are only concerned about the welfare of one side?
With all due respect, I think that across this House we have had a very balanced approach to the suffering of all the communities in the region. The right hon. Member is right to mention the terrible suffering of those who have experienced arbitrary detention or alleged torture by various law enforcement agencies. He is also right to include that in what needs to be the next step of the negotiation—the hostages on the one side, but those being released from prison on the other. I remind him that there are concerns that some people who might have been released should not have been. All of that has to be taken in the round and balanced. I encourage balance and understanding about the suffering of both sides of the community and the desire for security in the words that we use in the House.
The issue of collaboration and infiltration between Hamas and some UNRWA officials is well documented. Clearly, people in Gaza need aid, so can the Minister update us on how we are monitoring the work being done to restore neutrality and confidence in UNRWA?
The UK Government have been a supporter of the work of UNRWA throughout this conflict and before it. We have been supporting UNRWA financially, as have all international organisations and countries. There have been problems with certain challenges to individuals who have been employed by UNRWA, but we have consistently joined with allies in expressing our concerns about the role of UNRWA being curtailed. At the UN Security Council sessions on 6 November, 11 December, 3 January, 28 January and 25 February, and in a joint statement with partners on 27 October, we urged that the important work of UNRWA can continue.
The blockade of aid is just the last line in a long list of activities that Israelis have committed against the Palestinian people. Now that we have cut our overseas aid to a mere 0.3% of GDP—the lowest in real terms in 20 years—does the Minister still agree with the Labour party manifesto that international aid makes the world
“a safer, more prosperous place”?
Does she agree that, with this move, the UK’s historic role in the middle east is dead and over?
The hon. Member is right to talk about the ongoing need for aid in the region, and the Prime Minister was very careful in his speech at the end of last week—I think he has mentioned it since then in the press—to say that humanitarian aid must continue. Gaza was specifically mentioned, because it is one of our top priorities. The hon. Member is aware that the decision to divert some of our aid spending into the defence of Europe is only a week old, but he must also be aware that we will come forward with the detail of that. I reassure him and his constituents that Gaza was specifically mentioned in this House by the Prime Minister, because it remains one of our top priorities in the Foreign Office.
It is clear that Israel has been emboldened by Trumpian tactics in imposing a total siege and blocking all supplies, including humanitarian aid into Gaza, to force new ceasefire terms. We in this House should be clear and call that what it is: collective punishment of the Palestinian people, starvation as a method of war, and a blatant war crime. Will the Minister finally sanction Israel for these gross violations of international law?
Specifically on the question of sanctions, I think my hon. Friend knows what I am going to say, which is that we do not talk about them until we make a decision. We review any tools that we have available to us to protest. We also need to understand that we are in the midst of a peace process. We know that peace processes throughout history have had stop-start elements. What we are doing is making clear our views—the views of this House and of the Government—that humanitarian aid must not be prevented from entering Gaza. While this important peace process is going on, people still need to eat. They still need lifesaving medical treatment. Children still need to be educated. That is the point we have continued to make all the way along.
In her letter resigning as Development Minister last week, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) wrote that
“it will be impossible…given the depth of the cut”
to maintain the Government’s support for all their development commitments. She explicitly cited aid to Gaza. At this point, I commend the Totnes Friends of Palestine for raising £10,000 to help those in Gaza. With hospitals destroyed, a lack of clean water, desperate food shortages and now more threats to power and water supplies, how will the Minister ensure that last week’s cuts to development spending will not worsen the humanitarian catastrophe happening in Gaza?
I congratulate the hon. Member on all the work she does in her community to show international support and solidarity for communities in Gaza. We know that the humanitarian situation remains extremely challenging, with more than 48,000 having been killed and 90% of the population having been displaced, many repeatedly. I think the UK has a really good story to tell. We have been in there for many decades now. She mentions the outgoing Minister for Development, and a further £17 million was announced on 28 January so that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. The hon. Member asks about ongoing funding, and she is right to ask that question and hold our feet to the fire. Once we have had time to look at the coming financial years and the comprehensive spending review, she will have her answer.
Does the Minister agree that Israel’s decision to block aid to more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza is collective punishment? With 80% of Gaza’s health infrastructure destroyed, 1,000 medical workers killed and the World Health Organisation estimating that 14,000 Palestinians, including 4,500 children, require urgent medical evacuation, what concrete steps have we taken to ensure that aid gets in and that those who need medical treatment have that treatment made available to them?
I thank my hon. Friend for her ongoing campaigning on humanitarian aid for Gaza. It is very positive that the Rafah crossing remains open: that has led to a significant increase in the number of medical evacuations in recent weeks. It is vital for Israel to ensure that there is a sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza, and officials from all relevant Whitehall Departments are exploring avenues to ensure that our support best meets the needs of the those who are critically ill there. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about the medical staff who are under threat. We have supported them with technical advice and training, and we have also announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, to be delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza.
Yesterday the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel heard from the families of five of the remaining hostages. It is estimated that of the 59 who are still in captivity, only 24 are alive and 35 have been murdered. The recently released hostage Eli Sharabi described the conditions in which he was detained: he was held in chains, brutally beaten and starved. Alon Ohel, who was held alongside him, remains in captivity. The families believe that the remaining hostages are in a very vulnerable position. Clearly the demand must be for all of them to be released immediately, and that should be the aim of the British Government. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that happens?
I thank the hon. Member for his ongoing support for peace in the region. He specifically mentioned the family of Eli Sharabi, and we know that those families have a UK connection. The UK has played an active role in co-ordinating with international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on three occasions since taking office, and has worked closely with European partners in pushing for a resolution to secure the ceasefire. I think the situation has improved on that front in the last couple of weeks, but the hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of the return of hostages as part of the negotiated next part of the peace process.
I thank the Minister for updating the House on this troubling matter. The Israeli Government’s decision is contrary to international humanitarian law and clearly undermines such a fragile ceasefire. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been absolutely clear about the right of Palestinians to return home to Gaza to rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that their right to return is jeopardised by the blocking of critical humanitarian aid, and what actions will the Government take if that right continues to be restricted?
My hon. Friend is right that humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and we urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally. He asked what else this Government will do. We will continue to support the peace process, which should involve both sides getting around the table, freeing the hostages, allowing the aid in, and having a vision for the future of this region that is so affected by conflict and death.
I pay tribute to the former Development Minister, my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for her work in this area, and also for the wise words in her resignation letter.
The Minister has rightly said that forced displacement is unacceptable. Indeed, I think she said that the actions of the illegal extremist settlers were unlawful. You may have seen the Oscars ceremony this week, Mr Speaker, which featured an incredible film called “No Other Land”, which highlights the forced displacements in Masafer Yatta, and was made by Israelis and Palestinians together. It won the Oscar. I bet they would trade every gong going for that film to have its desired effect, and for the violence to stop. We can do something, and if ever there was a time for us to ban the illegal settlement goods that fund those extremist settlers, is now not that time?
I thank the hon. Lady for all her work in the community and also in the House, educating Members not just on the two sides that we always think about but on the Christian community in Gaza and in Palestine—the Palestinian Christians who are so much affected by the current conflict. She mentioned the UK’s position on settlements. I want to be clear that our position is that they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution.
Many Members have spoken about the importance of humanitarian aid, which is vital to saving so many lives, but the role of the aid workers who are working on the ground in horrific conditions is also vital. According to estimates, more than 320 have been killed, the highest number on record, but we see many aid organisations being attacked on social media, with claims that they have links to terrorist organisations. What more can the Minister do to make clear the Government’s support for these vital international aid workers and organisations? They include Islamic Relief, based in my constituency, which is one of the UK’s five non-governmental organisations certified by the core humanitarian standard in respect of aid and transparency. What more can we do to support these vital aid workers?
I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this regard, and I thank those aid organisations that are based just across the river. Not only must aid reach those who need it in all areas, but the important work of aid workers must be respected and they must be protected. It is horrifying to hear reports that, for example, six babies have died from hypothermia and cold-related injuries in Gaza in just two weeks. Islamic Aid, the Red Cross and all the other organisations that make up the partnerships across the region must be able to get into Gaza to do their important work, and must also allowed to bring in goods such as tents, medical equipment and machinery that are needed to support the resumption of basic services in Gaza.
I thank the Minister for her responses to the urgent question. Over the weekend and in the Chamber yesterday, the Prime Minister made very clear his support for Ukraine until peace is achieved, for which I am eternally grateful; but will the Minister confirm that our support remains with Israel as we attempt to secure peace for now and a lasting solution to maintain it, and that we hope that a future can be achieved for the children on both sides of the Gaza boundary?
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the children involved in this conflict. He is well aware of the trauma that can be passed down from generation to generation, and of the many orphans in the region. I thank him for his commitment to the state of Israel and a secure future for its people so that the suffering of people in Palestine can also come to an end.
As well as expressing my sadness and alarm about the Netanyahu Government’s again blocking aid from entering Gaza, may I point out that over the years I have repeatedly expressed my concern in Parliament about the forced evictions and illegal settlements in the west bank? Now, shockingly, for the first time in two decades, there are tanks in Jenin and further displacement of Palestinians. What representations are the Government making to the Israeli Government that aid must not be blocked from entering Gaza, and that this illegal occupation and these further evictions must be stopped immediately?
My hon. Friend’s question gives me a further opportunity to emphasise that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm the prospects for a two-state solution. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear to Israeli Ministers on a number of occasions that their Government must clamp down on settler violence and end settler expansion.
I thank the Minister for mentioning orphans, who, unfortunately, do not have much of a voice in this place, although sadly there are too many in the world as we see more and more conflict.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that civilian lives are just as precious whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, and that we should do all we can, across the House, to save lives. I fear, however—this may be a surprise—that the biggest foreign policy headache for the Government over coming months may be not Ukraine but Israel, with the divergence of the new American Administration over Israel being of great concern. Does the Minister accept what has been agreed today at the Arab summit in Cairo—a $53 billion five-year reconstruction plan for Gaza which will allow displaced Palestinians to return, no Trump Gaza riviera, and countries in the region putting Palestinians back into Gaza and at the heart of its future?
I thank the hon. Member for his question, which has many aspects. He is aware that the majority of homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed and the delivery of basic services, including energy and water, has been badly affected. Over 60% of the electricity distribution network has been damaged or destroyed. Over 90% of main roads are damaged, profoundly limiting the mobility of people, aid and goods. That is why the underlining of the $53.2 billion is so welcome. We are supportive of regional efforts cohering around a single workable reconstruction plan for Gaza, and we support the regional expertise in construction to get going on that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about orphans, he is perhaps aware that one of the Foreign Secretary’s main areas of concern is the welfare of children, particularly children who are orphans or in need of adoption or fostering. I will take back the concern that he expressed about that workstream, on which we do quite a lot in the Foreign Office, and emphasise its importance.
The suffering of Palestinian children who have been attacked by Israeli drones is devastating, and the fact that those children are denied medical support and assistance is even more so. The Minister has said that we are looking at medical evacuations, but does she agree that actions speak louder than words? When will enough be enough, and when will these children get the attention that they so desperately need? Other countries are providing support right now.
My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about children. Whether it is in Sudan, Ukraine or anywhere else, we know that children suffer deep trauma as a result of conflict, and we are deeply alarmed by the disproportionate impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. Half of Gaza’s population are children, and the consequences of tens of thousands being killed, injured or separated from their parents threaten not only their individual futures, but the very fabric of Palestinian society for generations to come. Most, if not all, students in Gaza have not had access to education since 7 October, and at least 88% of school buildings will need full or major reconstruction.
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask what we are doing. The UK is supporting the restoration of education services in Gaza, including through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East. She will be aware of the important work to maintain the ceasefire so that we have a hope of realising the reconstruction dream.
I am very pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the withholding of humanitarian aid is a direct contravention of international humanitarian law. What steps are her Government taking to work with partners in the region and in Europe to apply pressure on the Israeli Government, to ensure that the flow of critical aid is no longer impeded?
That is precisely why we have ministerial visits to the region: to emphasise the importance, not only to the Government but to this House, of the message that we must keep pushing for a peaceful future. In the meantime, we must provide enough food to eat and enough water to wash and to cook, to educate children and keep people healthy and safe.
Have the Government carried out an assessment of the impact of the withdrawal of USAID from the region? In light of any assessment that may have been carried out, are the Government confident that the decision to cut the international aid budget will not be an increasingly detrimental problem in Gaza? I understand that the Prime Minister has said that funding for Gaza is ringfenced and that our humanitarian aid will continue, but I am concerned that the withdrawal of American aid may leave a vacuum that we cannot fill.
It is true that, over the decades, the people of the USA have been generous in providing aid across the world, including in the region. It will be almost impossible to replace the important work that USAID has done over the decades in the middle east. I will not, however, give up hope, because we have to keep making the case for working together internationally. A lot of the work in the region is done by partners working multilaterally. Much of that work has been done by USAID, but it is also about trying to encourage other countries, including those in the region that have more vibrant economies, to step up to the plate and fill the gaps.
On my hon. Friend’s specific question about the assessment, it is not complete, because the decision is still relatively recent, as is our own decision on UNRWA a week ago. I trust that we will come back to the House when we know the shape of the comprehensive spending review and how we will address this difficult problem.
On Monday, the London School of Economics’ middle east centre will host the launch of a book called “Understanding Hamas”. One contributor to the book, Azzam Tamimi, has previously called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Speakers at the event deny that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and wrongly dismiss Israel as a “white, settler colonialist nation”. Will the Minister join me in saying very clearly that this is not an accurate description of Israel? There is no genocide, as I heard an hon. Member claim earlier, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seeks to murder Jews and has brought nothing but destruction and disaster to the people of Gaza.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing his research before coming to the House, and I can confirm that Hamas is a terror organisation that is proscribed by our Government for those reasons. It is really important that we are robust in our defence of the right of the state of Israel, our ally, to exist.
The people of both Israel and Palestine have been failed by their leadership, with horrific consequences. One person who knew that more than most was my constituent’s father, Oded Lifschitz, whose coffin we saw paraded horrifically through the streets of Khan Yunis. We should say his name in this place, because he dedicated his life to securing peace between Israel and Palestine. He drove ambulances over the border to help Palestinian people. We can be clear in this Chamber that withholding aid and using starvation as a weapon of war is wrong, but if we want to challenge that leadership, we must step up ourselves. The Minister previously spoke about what we are doing to try to support medical needs in Gaza. For the avoidance of doubt—may Oded’s memory be a blessing, and in his cause we will follow up—can the Minister be clear that we will evacuate people who need medical assistance from Gaza to the UK?
The Lifschitz family have a great champion in my hon. Friend, who has come to the House and laid out in clear terms her expectation of the Government. There are certain schemes to assist families in medical emergencies. With her permission, I will write to her with the detail and the exact guidelines that are used by the Government to determine who is eligible for those schemes.
There have now been 60,000 known deaths in Gaza. Israel is already accused by the ICJ and the ICC of war crimes, including genocidal acts, and it is now committing a new war crime by denying food and water to the people of Gaza. What will it take for the British Government to cease all arms supplies to Israel and to end the use of the RAF base in Akrotiri as a staging point for delivery to Israel? When will we end the security co-operation with Israel to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to support a regime that is breaking international humanitarian law in so many respects?
As the right hon. Member is aware, as soon as the Foreign Secretary took office he ordered a review of the compliance with international humanitarian law of various export items. Following the review, the Government suspended export licences to Israel in a number of categories, assessing where there was a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.
As the right hon. Member will also be aware, the question of genocide is not for a Minister to determine at the Dispatch Box. Legal experts continue to look at the definitions and descriptions of acts of war, and they will come forward with their determinations over time.
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?
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The UK will certainly continue to work, as it has done, ceaselessly with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. Her request has been heard in the Chamber.
What message does the Minister think the Government send about their commitment to international aid in Gaza—and, indeed, anywhere else—by not only cutting it to 0.3%, which is its lowest level this century, but removing the ability of this House to scrutinise that cut or any remaining spend by moving ministerial responsibility for aid and development from this Chamber to the other place?
I thank the hon. Member for her question; there will be an opportunity in the estimates debates later this week for her to ask further questions. However, as I am sure she is aware given her expertise in aid and development and in soft power, it will take some time for the comprehensive spending review to come forward with a picture of the resource implications. I know that she and her party fundamentally support the decision to look at the security of Europe and to try to make that part of the balance in our foreign policy work.
I understand that the Minister does not want to give a legal opinion, but is it not clear that banning all supplies to Gaza is a breach of the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute? Failure to call that out emboldens Israel in its collective punishment of all Gazans. Will she confirm, as it was missing from her earlier response, that when the Government finally recognise the Palestinian state, it will include not only the west bank and Gaza, but East Jerusalem as its capital?
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as the vice-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, and for his ongoing campaigning in this area. To be clear, humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and Jerusalem should of course be the shared capital.
My constituents are horrified at reports that the UK Government are not only complicit in Israeli atrocities, but have actively and directly participated in the war crimes and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel. Will the Minister explain to this House what the UK’s participation and role have been in the Israeli genocide and the ongoing atrocities that continue in Gaza and the west bank?
As I have mentioned, it is not for the Minister here, but for legal experts to determine the definition of genocide. On the role of the UK, the reason I, as the Indo-Pacific Minister, am before the House is that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east is currently engaging in conversations and pushing for a peaceful solution. There can be nothing better than a face-to-face meeting with a Minister of His Majesty’s Government in the region having those important discussions and pushing for peace.
With almost 20,000 Palestinian children having been killed, Gaza and its people are in a state of devastation. The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. The denial of humanitarian aid is a war crime, and it leads to babies freezing to death—an example the Minster gave earlier. What specific action are the Government taking with allies to pressure the Israeli Government to comply with international law and let aid into Gaza?
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she did before she entered Parliament on aid and supporting international solutions for war-affected areas. Our work continues with our partners—Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners—to build consensus, because we all want to live in a world where aid is no longer necessary and there is a vibrant economy and people have jobs, schools and hospitals. That is what the UK is doing: redoubling our efforts for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace.
It has been very frustrating to hear about this Government’s practical inaction in the face of flagrant breaches of international law in the siege of Gaza, and I sincerely hope that the Government do not continue down this path of inertia. With that in mind, what steps is the Minister taking to recognise Palestine as a state immediately as part of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders? This is surely essential to reinvigorate the peace process and deter extremists seeking perpetual conflict in Gaza, the west bank and across the middle east.
The hon. Member is quite right to describe what feels like a hopeless situation, but I would remind him that over the last few weeks we have seen some rays of sunlight and a few bits of hope as—hopefully—less violence is being perpetrated and more people are going back to their homes. However, he is right to push the Government and to ask what more can be done, and that includes visits to the region to speak to the interlocutors I have mentioned and to keep pushing for peace.
Of course, many of us in this House want to see progress towards a permanent two-state solution following the current ceasefire and hostage deal. In December, the Prime Minister announced that the Foreign Secretary would be convening a meeting of partners to support civil society in both Israel and Palestine. What update can the Minister provide to the House on how the UK plans to support the international forum for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
In the short term, Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza will be phased—all parties have agreed to that—but in time we must see the occupation end, as confidence is rebuilt in Gaza and Israel. The Palestinian Authority should play a key role in the future governance and security of Gaza. For the deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate, including on future security arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians and allow the safe distribution of aid, in the vision of the two-state solution.
It is a fact. The concern is that Hamas are now using aid as their major source of income and are seeking to control the billion-dollar aid industry there now is in Gaza. What assurances can the Minister give that UK aid will not be used to sustain that terrorist organisation or to control the local population?
If the right hon. Member is reading things online, he needs to be careful that they are correct, because while there have been recent arrivals of aid, we all know that there is a continuing need for aid. We all want to eat fresh food, we all need fresh medications, and we all need water and all those other things, and the essential aid going in needs to be refreshed every day. What we can say in this House is that providing access to essential civilian services with that aid is also crucial. I encourage him to widen his sources of reading on the access of aid into Gaza and the west bank.
Instituting an aid blockade, while getting on for 50,000 Gazans have been killed and there is a polio epidemic, surely looks as if civilian deprivation is being used as a weapon of war. What are the Government doing about that, and to ensure that the entire fragile ceasefire does not fall apart and the hostages can come home?
I thank my hon. Friend for specifically mentioning polio. We are very pleased to hear that the latest polio vaccination roll-out reached 99% of the children who were targeted, but we remain gravely concerned by the lack of adequate medical care in a wider sense in Gaza. All prisoners detained in Gaza, including medical staff, must be allowed full International Committee of the Red Cross access.
Other than the Minister’s response to the excellent question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I strongly welcome both the tone and content of the Minister’s answers. It is clear that there is no justification for the vindictive and counterproductive actions of the Israeli Government, but they are clearly emboldened by the US President. In seeking to build international alliances to put pressure on the Israeli Government to change their actions and stop that vindictive behaviour, what conversations are the Government having to ensure that their view is conveyed to the United States so they can adopt the same line as we are?
To provide clarification on some of the ideas that have been proposed, for example on the future of Gaza, we have made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states, and the forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping to keep us on track with what people in the region actually want, and for supporting around the table all partners who are pushing for a peaceful deal between the two parties.
Does the Minister agree that, especially at a time of such intense suffering for so many civilians in Gaza, this use of both humanitarian assistance and aid is totally unacceptable and not conducive to a lasting ceasefire and long-term peace?
My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the need for the steady inflow of aid. Anything else could potentially be a breach of international humanitarian law. What we see in peace processes are hiccups: one step forward and two steps back. We would be pushing for all parties to see this as a hiccup. I hope to wake up tomorrow morning to the happy news that all is back on track, aid is getting in, conversations are happening and that the peaceful future we all want for the two parties is becoming a reality.
(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
I congratulate the Father of the House on securing this important debate and on bringing together Members from across the House to speak in it. In the short time we have remaining, I will endeavour to respond to all the issues raised.
I pay tribute to the work of Yachad, which educates Members of Parliament on the realities, brings people up to date on important work that is happening, and gives us hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned—as a good Co-operative MP—in remembering the importance of green shoots.
The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans while allowing the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far. They include British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who has close links to the UK. The bodies of eight deceased hostages, including Oded Lifshitz, who had links to the UK, have also been released.
We have been clear from the outset that a ceasefire is simply the first step towards a lasting solution to this crisis and a lasting peace. What is needed now is a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. That is why it is so important that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee visited the region to deepen their understanding, so that we can continue to have these debates in Parliament, and push those of us who are on the frontline in discussions with interlocutors to ensure peace, security and the protection of fundamental rights for both Palestinians and Israelis.
The Palestinian Authority will have a key role in the future security and governance of Gaza. For the current fragile deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate. That includes making future security arrangements that protect Israelis and Palestinians and respect their human rights. Most importantly, aid must now flow into Gaza and must be sustained. We just had an urgent question on this in the House, to which I refer others who were not there. Aid includes the supply of medical equipment, shelter items, water and sanitation equipment, which are essential for humanitarian and early recovery needs. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by Israel, risks breaching obligations under international humanitarian law, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) mentioned, should apply to us all.
The UK is investing in this ceasefire, and we continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We announced a further £17 million in funding at the end of January to make sure healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Crucial partners such the Red Cross, which the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), mentioned, and individuals working in the field of aid and development must be able to pass borders and get desperately needed aid into these difficult areas.
The Government have announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, delivering essential services to civilians in Gaza and the west bank and to Palestinian refugees across the region. This includes support for essential healthcare, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, is so important. On education, we earmarked £5.8 million of UK funding this financial year for Global Partnership for Education work in Gaza and the west bank, and for the Education Cannot Wait initiative.
The UK will play a leading role in international efforts to support a Palestinian-led recovery and reconstruction, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We welcome the leadership of Arab partners, as demonstrated by the discussions in Cairo today about plans to reconstruct Gaza—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about the importance of agriculture and the economy. We are supporting efforts towards finding a single viable plan for the next phase of the ceasefire and reconstruction.
Civil society must have a strong role in Gaza’s early recovery. It is crucial to lay the groundwork for inclusive governance, accountability and transparency. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US, and Arab and regional partners to build consensus for a governance and security framework in post-conflict Gaza.
So many have mentioned the west bank. Its stability is absolutely essential if the fragile ceasefire in Gaza is to last. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described the use of protective presence and the NGOs that are working in this important area. We recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns, but we have continually urged it to show restraint in its military operations and for civilians to be protected. We also continue to call on Israel to hold violent settlers to account. In October, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions targeting three illegal settler outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank.
We reiterate, as the Father of the House did in his opening remarks, that settlements are illegal under international law and undermine prospects for peace. The UK condemns comments that propose the annexation of land in the west bank. This would undermine prospects for peace, lead to greater instability, and be illegal under international law.
We are not in the business of providing running commentary on the US role in this particular conflict, but we do share the US President’s desire for the ceasefire to be sustained. Like him, we want Hamas to release the remaining hostages, as is set out in the ceasefire agreement. The UK commitment to a two-state solution remains strong and unwavering, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) emphasised in their contributions.
Gaza needs to be rebuilt for the Palestinians who live there. Our priority is the implementation of the ceasefire deal in full, creating the foundations for a pathway to peace. An effective Palestinian Authority is vital for lasting peace. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and to President Abbas, and has offered our support as their Government implement much-needed reforms to build the pathway towards the future. However the Government of Israel, as well as the Palestinian Authority, retain a responsibility to support the rights of Palestinians. Working closely with our international partners, we will continue to pursue the objectives of the two-state solution. I shall leave it to the Father of the House to wind up.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThe UK Government are committed to human rights in Sri Lanka and are leading international efforts to promote accountability and human rights, including at the UN Human Rights Council. In a visit to Sri Lanka last month, I raised these issues with Ministers in the new Government in Colombo.
It is over 15 years since the end of the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka, but those responsible for the many war crimes committed during that conflict, including the targeting of civilians and sexual violence, have still not been held accountable. In opposition, the Foreign Secretary called on the Government to follow the example of our allies, including the US and Canada, in imposing sanctions against individuals suspected of committing these appalling acts. Now he is in government, will he commit to finally doing so?
In October 2024, the UK and our core group partners got a resolution on Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, outlining just what the hon. Member says. It renewed the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to report regularly on Sri Lanka, and to protect and preserve evidence to use in future accountability processes. We consider a range of justice and accountability options, including sanctions, and keep evidence for any potential designations under close review.
In January, a Minister in the Foreign Office said that they would challenge the Northern Ireland Executive to be more robust in their reporting of international affairs and meetings. At the start of this month, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister met again with the Chinese consul, but still no details of that meeting or previous meetings have been reported or shared. Has that challenge been made, and what was the response?
We regularly engage with Northern Ireland on all matters of foreign policy. However, this Chinese consular matter is not something that Ministers can discuss at the Dispatch Box.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe UK Government have been in touch with the South Koreans, our great friends, and we continue to support the arrangements there, any democratic moves towards stability and the ongoing relationship with the UK.
The Israeli Government have stated that Israel’s presence in the Golan heights buffer zone is defensive, limited and temporary. Given that the Israeli Cabinet has recently approved a financial package to increase the number of illegal settlements in the Golan heights, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the veracity of Israel’s statement?
My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been in arbitrary detention in India for more than seven years. The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have been extremely generous with their time and assistance to help resolve the situation, but can I seek the Minister’s assurance that those efforts are ongoing?
Ministers have engaged frankly with counterparts in India on Mr Johal’s case, pushing for faster progress towards a resolution, including the call for an investigation into allegations of torture by the authorities.
The Government are right to continue the all-party approach to the next International Development Association replenishment of the World Bank, which is extremely good value for taxpayer money. Will the Foreign Secretary press the Treasury to match what the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), did in adding £2.5 billion to the 0.5% official development assistance budget, to help defray some of the costs of first-year asylum seekers, which that budget bears? Otherwise, we will be spending more development money in UK postal districts than in Africa.
(2 months, 2 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 of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong police offering rewards for the arrest of pro-democracy campaigners, including British nationals overseas resident in the United Kingdom.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on Christmas eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.
We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right hon. Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.
China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure hon. Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here.
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. This is an incredibly serious matter. As the Minister and the House know, on Christmas eve we saw the Hong Kong police once again trying to give the national security law extraterritorial reach and threatening people on British soil. We unequivocally reject any attempt to apply the national security law in the UK. In government, the Conservative party were consistent and clear that it should be repealed.
Today, I want to press the Government on how they will respond to this latest attempt to clamp down on freedoms and dismantle the essence of what made Hong Kong such a special and successful place. Will the Minister explain what practical steps are being taken across the Government to protect those in the UK with bounties placed on their heads, and assess the security of the Hong Kong community in the UK? They have come to the UK under the BNO route established by the last Government when I was Home Secretary, to live in the UK free from fear of intimidation. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviours.
Has the Foreign Secretary raised this outrageous attempt to suffocate fundamental freedoms with his counterpart, Wang Yi? Once again, does this not show that this Government’s supposed reset with China is just one way? Before meeting President Xi, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a relationship that is consistent, durable and respectful, and stated that the pair agreed that there would be no more surprises. Does the Minister believe that trying to arrest BNOs in the UK is compatible with any of those comments? Did the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities notify Ministers in advance, or was this a surprise?
Will the Minister confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether the Chancellor will raise these bounties at the highest level when she jets off to China next week to beg for a quick investment to bail out her failing economic strategy? She cannot ignore human rights issues, whether in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, on her visit. Will the Government take this incident into account when considering the planning application for the new Chinese super-embassy in London?
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising a number of concerns. We are as one on the outrageous attempts to reach across the water to try to impose any intimidation on people based here in the UK. She mentions other human rights concerns, such as those in Xinjiang, and says that long-standing policies, such as the national health service not purchasing cotton equipment from the Xinjiang region, are the right policies. Of course, those policies were brought in following pressure from Members from her own party over previous Parliaments. She is also right to emphasise the importance of the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, which she brought in as Home Secretary, which provides an enormous contrast between a repressive regime and one that welcomes people newly arrived in the UK. Indeed, it is across our regions that the 12 hubs, which were created under her leadership of the Home Office, are going from strength to strength. They are giving people based in the UK the confidence to raise their voice, become active in their local communities, take English classes and all the rest.
The right hon. Lady mentions the Chancellor’s trip; I knew this would be one of her themes, so I have come prepared. As she is well aware, we are in a position where our economy is quite fragile. While we have clear national security concerns—today is a good example of those—we have to balance those concerns with being an outwardly facing and globally trading nation, where we need to sometimes be involved with countries whose values may not align completely with ours. I make no apologies for trying to support British business abroad—including in Hong Kong, where British businesses have said how lovely it is to see MPs visit them. I was able not only to be robust in my condemnation of these sorts of actions, but to support British business, our friends who are based in difficult places and undertaking hardship postings, and our diplomatic staff, who live our values day by day to uphold the strong framework of human rights abroad.
I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she and the Chancellor on next week’s visit will raise the case of my Unite colleague Carol Ng, who became the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and who became involved in the democracy movement and has been imprisoned for four years now. During the last statement, I appealed to ensure she had family access. Could her case be raised again, both to secure her release and to at least secure her the opportunity of meeting her family?
I will, of course. Would my right hon. Friend write to me with the exact details and his most recent update? I have had the privilege of meeting trade union colleagues from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a number of other areas that are very exposed to the People’s Republic of China and some of the tactics we have seen there. I have been pleased that there has been great collaboration across not only the trade union movement here in the UK, but defenders of human rights—be they environmental, relating to freedom of religion or belief or across the great range of freedoms that we enjoy here, and which we want other countries to share, too.
The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing?
I would be delighted to meet Ms Lau again; I believe I met her at an event with Dame Helena Kennedy in the previous Parliament, but it would be lovely to refresh that acquaintance and to hear from her following the traumatic experience she has had. I would be very happy to provide an update in writing, but I will also provide one here—as much as you will let me get away with, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have personally promised Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, that whenever I have the opportunity, I will raise the case of his father, who remains on trial; in fact, the trial was due to restart on 6 January. I have as many briefings as possible from the consul general to Hong Kong and his team, who are very conscientious and diligent in attending all the trials they can get tickets for and who give me regular updates. I have promised the Lai family that I will continue to do that; I believe I have a meeting with them in the diary in the coming weeks.
On the Chancellor’s visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer about balance. Unfortunately, because of our rather exposed position post Brexit, our economy has to be outward looking. If we want our constituents to get away from food banks, we need to have more import-export and to be pragmatic on the matter of having an economic relationship with our fourth biggest trading partner. It is hard to tell the House that, because I want to just talk about the other elements of the relationship. However, when I go to my constituency, and people tell me how hard their lives are and how, over the past 14 years, our economy has gone into decline, I know I have to stand up for our economic relationships as well.
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the contribution that Hongkongers have made to the UK, which is particularly true in East Renfrewshire. The Hongkongers in my constituency will welcome the strong comments from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, we have heard those comments many times from the Front Bench, and the response from Beijing has been to imprison dozens more people, put more bounties on the heads of British people, escalate transnational repression and keep people like Jimmy Lai in prison. At what point do the consequences come for these actions? As other Members have asked, I ask not just when our senior Ministers will stop going there, but when we will stop welcoming Hong Kong officials here. I also ask whether the Government can and will meet the British nationals who have had bounties put on their heads, and whether they are being given specific security advice.
Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.
My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others.
I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously.
I fully accept that, as a sanctioned MP, the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned. I respect and admire his doggedness in raising these issues in the House. I hope he will reply to my invitation, from me and the Foreign Secretary, to visit me in the Foreign Office to discuss his ongoing concerns, including those he has raised today.
Specifically on the Mandatory Provident Fund, this is an ongoing dialogue. Both my predecessor, the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I raised the documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early. Basically, the Hong Kong authorities have a particular approach, but we are quite right to keep campaigning on that. Why should BNO passport holders not receive the funds to which they are entitled? He mentions HSBC. We will continue with any financial institution that is not being fair to its own investors. We will continue, with his support, to campaign for that. On sanctions, he is well aware that there are many sanctions against Chinese entities. I will write to him with the detail of where we are at with sanctions, but he is also aware of the Government’s long-standing position on sanctions, which is that we do not talk about them in the House because that could take away from their efficacy in future.
What representations have been made to the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador here in London on the consequences of a third round of bounties targeting democracy activists, including British nationals and BNOs, here on British shores?
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. He will be aware, from the Foreign Secretary’s statement, that it is being taken extremely seriously. We have raised through officials—this happened only on Christmas eve—the concerning example of transnational repression. That is an ongoing discussion. We have a high-profile visit next week. Our officials are in regular contact with Chinese officials who have their embassy here in the UK. In Hong Kong, our excellent consul general meets regularly not just with Hong Kong Ministers but with the Beijing official office in Hong Kong, to put on the record our concern, anger and ongoing human rights concerns wherever they may come from.
No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses.
The right hon. Gentleman can obviously read his coffee cup granules or tea leaves better than I can. I do not know, but I am concerned about the increasing regularity of these sorts of issues. I share his view that we need to understand more. We need to be as robust as possible with representatives here in London and through our excellent diplomatic representation abroad, and join together with the like-minded—an area he has worked on through Congress and other Members. In the case of the US, which is always very robust in its response, I note that its export-import trade flows have increased rather than decreased.
I welcome the Minister’s statement and her robust words, and her outstanding disagreement when it comes to China’s approach to protecting UK people on our soil, in particular those with a bounty on their head or those subject to China’s national security laws. I also welcome her words on HSBC’s disgraceful behaviour in withholding pensions from people who have worked and saved all their lives. What can we do to protect people here on UK soil further? What discussions has she had with her Home Office counterparts to ensure that UK police forces fully understand the seriousness of the threats to Hongkongers’ safety on UK soil? How can we be assured that UK police forces are being adequately trained to understand the pressure from China?
I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful comments and her support for the cross-party campaign for financial freedom for BNO passport holders here in the UK. If I may, I will pick up on her point about training. On transnational repression, whether from the People’s Republic of China, Iran or other countries with whom we have such a significant disparity in values, it is very important that we continue to deepen our understanding of, and improve our training on, how cyber-crime works and the influence of social media. I am sure she agrees that another area is our learning institutes, including universities, where students report feelings of being watched and being under surveillance. We are wise to all those things. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I are working together closely on the challenge of transnational repression. It is much more difficult in this day of social media, but we will redouble our efforts to train law enforcement officers, local government and teachers, so that we can pick up on any fears that victims of transnational repression might be experiencing.
I agree with the Minister that the UK-China relationship is necessary, but she will know that it is complicated and often conflicted. Russia has attacked political dissidents and refugees in this country, even to the point of murder. Iran is seeking to track down political dissidents in this country. Now the Chinese state—let us be honest about it—is making direct threats against people living in this country who have sought political asylum. I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, are the security services resourced enough to counter the increased threat? Secondly, are Hongkonger political dissidents safe on the streets of Britain?
The right hon. Member asks two excellent questions. The first concerns training and capabilities, which feature in our audit of Government Departments and the extent of their preparedness for these increasingly different challenges and threats—they are part of what we are looking at. In response to the second question, I can tell the right hon. Member that BNO passport holders are safe because we keep them safe, and we ensure that there is adequate training and up-to-date knowledge on an ongoing basis. I think that we have the best intelligence services going, particularly when it comes to questions of this sort, but we can never be complacent. Instances such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others give us an opportunity to underline from Parliament the important and cross-party nature of cracking down on transnational repression.
Chloe Cheung, a resident of Leeds, has been subject to a £100,000 bounty simply for telling the truth about Jimmy Lai. At 19 years old, she is the youngest person to be subject to Hong Kong’s national security law. What reassurances can the Minister give Chloe and other Hongkongers that they will be protected from transnational repression while they reside within our borders?
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent constituency work, and for knowing his constituents so well such a short time after being elected. I can reassure him that if he feels that the advice that his constituent has been given is in any way lacking, he can write to me so that I can secure a specially designed package of safety for that vulnerable 19-year-old.
How far are the Government prepared to go before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decides to push back in relation to this issue? I have heard many reports, in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, of the targeting of families and friends of mine by Chinese authorities. They feel vulnerable in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all of which is now on the frontline. The Government must step up and protect our citizens.
I thank the hon. Member for relentlessly raising in the House the issue of human rights and the concerns of his constituents. May I refer them to the excellent welcome programme, which is run through local authorities? It was introduced by the last Government and is being continued by this Government. Its purpose is to provide a warm welcome and help people with employability and some of the softer skills—English language courses, for instance—but it has a hard edge to it as well: it is linked with community policing, so that we can be absolutely sure that no one here in the UK is afraid for their safety owing to intimidation from a Government many miles away.
I thank the Minister for coming here to give reassurance. Many thousands of people from Hong Kong have decided to settle in Milton Keynes, and we are very pleased that they are adding to our wonderful diversity. Some of those who contacted me over Christmas are quite concerned, and not just for themselves but for their families who remain in Hong Kong and are fervent believers in democracy and in their nation of Hong Kong, and who want to ensure that that is protected through their ability to campaign for it. The rise of transnational aggression continues. Also over Christmas, one of my constituents, Hazar Denli, who is a whistleblower, was issued with an arrest warrant from Vietnam. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can deal with something that is happening increasingly across the world?
I thank my hon. Friend for being such an involved constituency Member and for being so responsive over the Christmas period. A number of every active MPs are sitting behind me. Let me make a more serious point. These are the sort of constituency concerns that we want to jump to immediately. In the first place, could my hon. Friend approach her constituent and check that he has the required safety package and that the police in that wonderful city of Milton Keynes are aware of the case? Could she also send me some details about the other case that she mentioned, which I am happy to look at, so that I can write back to her with an informed answer?
I am fortunate enough to have a large community of Hongkongers in my constituency, who are extremely welcome, but they often speak to me about the limitations imposed on them by the conditions of the BNO visa under which they have arrived in this country. They cannot gain full access to healthcare, education or employment opportunities. Does the Minister agree that addressing some of the concerns felt by Hongkongers in Britain will send the Chinese Government a strong message about how much we value our Hong Kong citizens, and how hard this Government work to support their freedoms and their right to live in this country?
I have the pleasure of walking in Richmond Park, which is a lovely thing to do, and I thank the hon. Member for her concern for her constituents.
The scheme was designed by the last Government. There are now 293,000 BNO passport holders in the UK, and on the whole I think it is a success story, given the 12 hubs, the welcome programme, the English courses and so on, but there are always improvements to be made. Perhaps the hon. Member would direct her question to my colleagues in the Home Office in the first instance, but also copy me in. I am keen to know how we can be even more welcoming, so that we can provide the contrast of a society that values difference and values newcomers and what they bring, but that also makes everyone feel safe.
The British Hong Kong community, including those who have made their homes in my constituency, will welcome the Minister’s robust answers today. Will she confirm that Beijing’s actions against BNOs will be scrutinised as part of the Government’s China audit?
Yes, of course, but it is a fairly broad audit, so if there is anything specific that my hon. Friend would like our officials to look at, will he send me just a couple of paragraphs so that I can wind that into our response? We want an up-to-date audit and we are hoping to publish it in the coming months, so perhaps he could do that soonish.
We want to be robust on human rights and security, and we are concerned about cyber-security and other aspects of the transnational repression that appears to be growing, but this also has an edge to it, in that we are looking at our own national interest and at where we are exposed economically. This is a difficult thing that we have to do in foreign policy: to look to our own interests, as well as defending our broader human values and human rights.
The Minister was right to point out that Brexit has made us more vulnerable. I wonder whether the UK is fit for the increased challenges to democracy, be they from the Russian Federation, Iran or China; the Intelligence and Security Committee highlighted that some years ago. I also note that a foreign oligarch called for the unelected Head of State to get rid of the democratically elected Government, using his own social media channel.
On a serious note, will Ministers introduce updated measures showing how they see themselves defending democracy in the UK, including the rights of those who are already here, while also protecting us all from outside interference?
I will not be tempted down the particular track that the hon. Member has invited me to go down, involving oligarchs and so forth, but what I will say is that we live in a very uncertain time. There is a sense of “safety first” in foreign policy: we would like to close everything down and just operate within the UK, but that option is not available to us. What we therefore seek to do is bring ourselves into line with other interlocutors. Janet Yellen, a very robust interlocutor, has visited Beijing a number of times. The Australians, the Singaporeans and a number of others do not have to leave their values at the door if they want to have a discussion about a particular economic opportunity, or if they are worried about something; they say what they want to say in an engagement. I can promise the hon. Member that there will be no return to the golden era and a pint with Xi Jinping, but there will be a heightened awareness of our national security, and human rights will be paramount.
The Chinese Government respect one thing: strength. So long as they continue to perceive that we are cringing, they will treat us with the contempt they believe we deserve, so how many Hong Kong officials have we sanctioned?
As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is still functioning here in the UK. We are keeping a close watch on the situation, and we keep all these things under review. My visit to Hong Kong in November was instructive, and I can assure him that nobody was cringing when I met the representative from Beijing. If you think this Minister cringes, then you don’t know her.
If human rights are paramount, why should we allow our trade balance to determine how we respond to abuses of human rights?
The hon. Member asks a very important question. There is a three-legged approach in good foreign policy, with national security first, human rights as our duty, and an eye to our economy, because I do not think any of us wants the continuation of a situation where our economy is at the bottom of the league table, which is how it feels now.
The malign extraterritorial reach of the Chinese Communist party is being played out in very human terms, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on bringing an example of that to the Floor of the House today. Why, then, are this Government potentially facilitating that reach by handing over the Chagos islands?
This urgent question is about Hong Kong, but I think it is very important that when international courts make decisions—be that on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or other international court judgments—we comply with them.
Does the Minister agree that the national security law for Hong Kong is in direct conflict with article 23 of the Basic Law for Hong Kong and a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration?
We have been relentless in pushing back on the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. When meeting civil society organisations in Hong Kong in November, I reassured people there of the values of this House. For those of us who were founding members of Hong Kong Watch, when the Prime Minister of the time was having a pint with Xi Jinping, we will never turn away from underlining the importance of those fundamental rights and what Hongkongers enjoyed in the past. It is terribly sad to see the erosion of those rights, but we cannot just give up and walk away. We have to have a dialogue, we have to keep pointing out our point of view, and we have to keep pushing back.
Hongkonger residents I represent in Sutton and Cheam are regularly in touch with me to outline their fears and uncertainty, living under the threat of the transnational repression operated by China. The news that China is now issuing arrest warrants and bounties for the identification of pro-democracy campaigners in the UK is another step in that fear and repression. They often wonder, will they be next? May I ask the Minister again to make it clear to China that these bounties are illegal and that any individuals who engage in the practice will be prosecuted? More broadly, will she start to stand up to China and its unacceptable persecution of British residents by applying Magnitsky sanctions to the Hong Kong officials responsible?
We will always maintain our flexibility on Magnitsky sanctions; that is the benefit of them, post Brexit, as we have our own sanctions programme now. The hon. Member will be aware of the important work we are doing to sanction certain Chinese companies that are facilitating Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. We will continue to look at what we can do within that regime, to ensure that we use any tools we have to strengthen international processes and procedures and to stand up again and again for what is right in the international arena of human rights.
What oversight is there by the Foreign Office of our devolved institutions’ connections with China? I ask because Simon Cheng, a pro-democracy Hong Kong activist who is in exile because he was tortured in China, has properly criticised the fact that when the First Ministers of Northern Ireland recently had contact with Chinese authorities, they refused to publish a record of those meetings. What oversight is there to ensure that we are presenting a united front across the United Kingdom to China?
I do not think the hon. and learned Member intended a pun with “united front”. Taking his point very seriously, I think we could be doing more, and if he could write to me with the example he mentioned—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has also mentioned a particular incident to me in Edinburgh that I was unaware of—I would like that, so that I can challenge our officials to come up with a more robust, joined-up approach. As he is aware, following the general election in July, the Prime Minister set out first to Edinburgh, then to Cardiff and then to Belfast to emphasise the importance of the devolved regions to a holistic way of looking at governance. This is a really good example of where we could be doing more.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing, and I believe she has said that concerns will be raised. Concerns have been raised time and again, and it has got us nowhere, so is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not the minimum we could do to raise our voices a little more loudly, demonstrate our anger a little more publicly and cancel the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing?
The hon. Member is quite right to say that it has been raised, not least by the Prime Minister when he met Xi Jinping; he is on film raising the Jimmy Lai case, which is in the courts right now. That is the nature of a dialogue—to raise it—but we will be robust in the way that we raise those cases, and we will continue to make a point. There will not be cancelling of trips, on the basis that there has to be an element of outward focus by the UK, particularly given the economic legacy and the position we find ourselves in. I will pass on the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will certainly listen to any further suggestions he has, but I believe that engagement is necessary.
Harrogate and Knaresborough is blessed to have a small but thriving group of Hongkongers who have made it their home and opened up a number of local businesses, adding to the fabric of our towns. My worry is that, with the latest arrest warrants and transnational repression, Hongkongers will not want to be visible in public, playing that part in our communities. What tangible steps will this Government take to get the message down to people on the ground that this is not something we will stand for and that we will stand by and support them?
I thank the hon. Member for his question and, with his permission, I will take it away to see which hub he is closest to. Twelve hubs were set up specifically for the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, so keen were we in 2021 to extend the hand of friendship to those who were so cruelly treated in Hong Kong and continue to be. I will write back to him; if he could email me with any specific constituency issues, it would mean a more informed reply.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberMay I say how appropriate it is for you to be chairing the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have been such a champion for women since you came into the House, and when you were Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee? The theme of women and equalities has been raised again and again by Members during the debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing the debate, and for the fact he has secured it on Human Rights Day. We have just had a lovely occasion with Mr Speaker, where we celebrated the work of Parliamentarians for Peace, co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I will attempt to answer the question she raised in her intervention later in my remarks.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East for his tireless work to promote the importance of international human rights, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights. I congratulate him on his recent election as chair of the British group at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, standing up for democracy, free from fear of violence, for every country. The magic of the IPU is that it brings together members from so many different countries, with their different versions of democracy, all straining towards that common goal.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said about the importance of online safety and democracy. Having taken her seat in this House, I am sure she is aware now of the erosion of our rights as Members, brought here on the wind of democracy, being attacked online, and how disgraceful that is. We must seek new and fresh ways of tackling online abuse.
I also appreciate the contributions of other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who talked about the issues in Colombia, the indigenous groups and the illegal armed groups. Human rights defenders have put their lives at risk to defend their land and traditions, as other hon. Members who share her interest, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, and have gone to Colombia and got to know the concerns there, have made us aware. The UK Government’s important work in Colombia on human rights—which goes back to before the peace process and includes supporting the country as it brought that process in and monitoring it, with its new Government—started in this House and continues to have its support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East also mentioned those who have gone before us, such as Lord Avebury and the former Member for Rochdale. I may not have known him as well as my hon. Friend, but he did a fantastic job of supporting the women of Belarus who did not start out as politicians or human rights defenders but whose husbands were locked up in the summer of 2022 and who ended up becoming public figures in their own right. Once again, they were attacked online and attacked for all they have done to stand up for their country.
As hon. Members are aware, today marks Human Rights Day, commemorating the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East is aware of and was invited to the celebration in the Foreign Office this afternoon to mark Human Rights Day. We would all have liked to be there but we are doing this debate instead, so we are celebrating it in our own way. The team, who I must commend for their excellence, have put on an important event to listen to those who work in non-governmental organisations, human rights defenders and others who care passionately about human rights. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, celebrated how far we have come. Today is a celebration of that and the UK’s important role, but it is also a reminder that we must keep pushing forward where human rights have not yet been achieved.
As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke about women in Afghanistan, we continue to call for the human rights of all Afghans to be protected, including those of women and girls and religious and ethnic minorities. Officials at the Doha-based UK mission to Afghanistan regularly press the Taliban on human rights. We are still making very limited progress, so we must continue to speak out in this House. That way, if there is any online coverage in Afghanistan today for Human Rights Day, those women will know that we are talking about them, their education, their wanting to become midwives and nurses, which is being blocked by the Taliban, to be teachers, to work, or to have small businesses. Instead, we are seeing a terrible deterioration of women’s rights. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a concern that you hold dear.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the UN General Assembly this year, the declaration sets out
“The very essence of what it is to be human—of equal and inalienable rights based on a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
As one of its original drafters, the UK must continue championing its importance and building upon its foundation, given the challenges that we face today. The Government will act to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law around the world.
The Minister’s powerful speech highlights the responsibility that we all have to protect human rights in the UK and around the world. Earlier today, I was with Councillor Amjid Wazir from Stoke-on-Trent and a group of Kashmiris who were presenting a petition to Downing Street to highlight the ongoing human rights abuses in Kashmir, the lack of self-determination, and the continuing violations following the suspension of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the political autonomy of Kashmir and Jammu. All too often, Kashmir seems to be forgotten about; it is not talked about in this place nearly enough. May I ask what the Government’s current view is on the ongoing issues in Jammu and Kashmir? Can she take back to her Department our wish to discuss this matter fully in this House, because it has been a while since those people were given a voice here and I think that they would welcome it?
I thank my hon. Friend for his important point and for the work that he is doing to represent his constituents, such as, for example, going to Downing Street with a petition. Interestingly, the other Member who is very strong on Kashmir is my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East who, like other Members here, regularly brings groups of constituents to the House. I know that the cross-party work that is done to promote human rights and to ensure that we observe their importance in Kashmir is crucial. That situation is monitored by the FCDO, and I would be very happy to write to him in more detail about the exact way in which that is done, bearing in mind, of course, that India and Pakistan play a crucial role in maintaining the peace.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for her kind words earlier. We know that human rights defenders have been detained without trial in many places—Khurram Parvez is just one example. The same is true of politicians and political activists, such as Yasin Malik, whose condition we are very concerned about. It would not be appropriate if, today of all days, we fail to mention the situation in the middle east, particularly given what is going on in Syria, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to those points in her closing remarks.
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Yasin Malik, whose situation the FCDO is actively monitoring. I know that she is aware of that, because she is a regular correspondent with the Foreign Office and a very active member of the all-party group on human rights.
On Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we are, of course, monitoring the humanitarian response there. On Syria, we all knew how terrible the situation was, but to see the unspeakable conditions in those prisons, to see the newspaper pictures of those nooses covered in human blood, and to understand that people, including women and children, have been buried six feet under in cells has been truly devastating. We do not know what the future holds for Syria, but it is a very fragile situation. What we do know is that this House, on Human Rights Day, has emphasised the importance of human rights being at the heart of the middle east on several different fronts. As these different situations develop, human rights must play a key role in any peace process and in how Syria is governed in the future.
I will shorten my speech a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that people are keen to get on to human rights and IPU events this evening. We want to maximise the impact of all the tools at our disposal, and our approach sees the agenda in five themes, which I will quickly outline. The first is on defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. Today, a third of the world’s population live in countries with a closed civic space, which is clearly unacceptable. We will defend those spaces by changing our fundamental relationship to enable grassroots actors in partner countries to advocate for people’s rights. We will protect media freedom, building on the call from Commonwealth leaders last month to implement the Commonwealth media principles across our diverse family of nations, to which I refer the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East set out so clearly, the Government must continue to promote and support democracy in this world, and we are doing so through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The taskforce is an enduring function of Government, which seeks to secure the democratic integrity of the UK from the full range of threats, including foreign interference. It comprises Ministers, operational leaders and senior officials, and it brings together His Majesty’s Government’s work on defending democracy to ensure we have a whole-of-Government response to the threats we face. The taskforce is reviewing the UK’s response to transnational repression, which was eloquently laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East. With his permission, I will write to him and all members of his APPG once the review is finished to give him a sense of where we are going on this important work, and so it can marry up with his earlier request that we look in an organised and systematic way at how we organise our work on human rights not just across the Foreign Office, but across Government. We must have a robust and joined-up approach across Government and law enforcement, not only on the human rights agenda, but specifically on transnational repression.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight his concerns about the killing of human rights defenders. They do inspiring work, often putting themselves in harm’s way. We heard from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about human rights defenders and peacebuilders who put their lives at risk to speak out. I confirm that our human rights defender guidance is being reviewed, and we expect it to be finalised and published in the new year. We will certainly take account of the wise recommendations from the debate about what a review should cover and of the examples used. Meanwhile, we continue to work with partners to address the shocking level of reprisals against human rights defenders, including women.
Our second theme focuses on upholding the rule of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned critical right-to-life violations, such as the misuse of the death penalty and the use of excessive force against unarmed protesters. We need to promote and demonstrate respect for the rule of law in addressing those and many other issues. We have levers within the multilateral system to promote and defend human rights, including at the United Nations and through regional bodies, such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. My hon. Friend made particular mention of attacks against human rights defenders in Colombia, which I covered earlier.
I am delighted that we have a renewed parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, including a number of hon. Members of this House, and I look forward to them reporting back and bringing such matters to the House’s attention. I am glad to share that we are seeking election for another term on the Human Rights Council from 2026 to 2028, where the UK leads negotiations on resolutions that put in place accountability mechanisms for priority countries around the world, including Syria and Sudan.
As I said, in Syria, Assad with support from Russia and Iran has committed brutal atrocities. Our focus now is on working with the Syrian people and the international community to move quickly towards an inclusive political transition. We are committed to tackling impunity and supporting an effective and independent International Criminal Court as the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.
Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is the cornerstone of UK policy, and we call on all parties to conflicts to implement their obligations, reducing impacts on civilians and other non-combatants. This autumn, we published an updated voluntary report on our domestic implementation of international humanitarian law, and we are supporting other states to do the same. As ministerial colleagues have said in the House, we are clear about the unacceptable humanitarian situation in Gaza—a matter that many in this House have championed. We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools at our disposal to work with international partners to bring about a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages.
Accountability is not just about international processes, and that is why we work in partnership with the USA and the EU to ensure that Ukraine can fully and fairly investigate allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. We have our best legal minds working on that. In other places, such as Nigeria, we are advising on dealing with vulnerable witnesses, including children and survivors of sexual violence. Our legal diplomacy is second to none.
The third of our five themes focuses on championing equal rights for all. I have already spoken about the Taliban’s disgraceful exclusion of women from all aspects of public life. We want to address the stalled progress and roll-back on the rights of women, girls, LGBT+ people, and those belonging to other marginalised groups globally. That is why we will continue to champion the rights and freedoms of women and girls, including in sexual and reproductive health and rights, and to support women’s rights organisations and challenge harmful disinformation. We will support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, working with female parliamentarians globally to address barriers to their political empowerment.
We have announced a groundbreaking global programme to prevent technology-facilitated gender-based harassment and abuse, backed by over £27 million of funding. I hope that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be pleased about that development. That programme will pilot innovative work with partner countries to promote a safer online experience, counter extreme misogyny spread online, and support victims and survivors of online harassment and abuse.
Finally, we will defend the rights of people belonging to marginalised communities—for instance, by funding the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum to advocate for disability rights. By championing freedom of religion or belief for all—if the hon. Member for Strangford were in his place, he would be pleased to hear me say this—we are fighting back against the threats that so many people face for simply what they do or do not believe in.
The fourth theme focuses on supporting accountable, effective and inclusive institutions. Sadly, we are seeing a drop in the quality of institutional life internationally. We want to work with partners to protect democratic processes and strengthen Government legitimacy. In Moldova, for example, we have helped President Sandu’s Government to counter Russian disinformation through the UK’s Government Communication Service International. In Brazil, we are sharing UK expertise, as the Government there develop their own online safety Bill. In Nigeria, we are supporting Kaduna state to improve budget transparency. We are continuing long-term work with Nepal, supporting the transition from conflict to democracy.
The final theme focuses on responding to shared global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles. This debate further challenges the Department to get that right. We are living in a rapidly changing world that demands that we adapt, but we must do that while maintaining our principles. We are taking multiple steps to do that effectively. We are conducting a national assessment of our approach to tackling business-related human rights abuses, including in global supply, and ensuring that our actions are firmly based on the evidence of what does and does not work. We are actively engaging at the Council of Europe to address the impact of climate and nature emergencies on human rights. We are hosting the second democracy action partnership with Indonesia in Jakarta to support democratic resilience in the region. We are working with partners, such as the UK-based Centre for Information Resilience, to remotely verify and document digital content relating to the horrific violence in Sudan.
Those five themes lay a strong foundation for defending and promoting human rights around the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East will agree—based on what I have said, and indeed on the FCDO’s earlier event to mark Human Rights Day, which sadly we both missed—that the Government do indeed see human rights and peace building at the heart of our work. We recognise that many Members share that commitment, and I thank them for attending today. Ultimately, a freer, safer and more just world is in everyone’s interests, and this Government will work flat out with our partners to achieve that goal.
Question put and agreed to.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the parliamentary elections in Georgia.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Following the elections in Georgia on 26 October, the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), made clear our support for the findings of the OSCE office for democratic institutions and human rights’ election monitoring mission preliminary report on the election. That report highlighted a range of concerns, including frequent breaches of voter secrecy, procedural inconsistencies and reports of intimidation and pressure on voters, which had a negative impact on public trust in the process. This has seriously damaged Georgia’s international reputation. I hereby reiterate our call on the Government of Georgia to implement the recommendations issued by the OSCE monitoring mission after the publication of its final report.
Georgia and the UK have enjoyed a long history of close bilateral relations, and we have fully supported Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations in line with the strong will of the Georgian people and previously supported the Georgian Government’s reform agenda. However, since gaining EU accession status almost one year ago, several measures introduced by the Georgian Government have taken the country on a harmful trajectory away from European values, and we have seen an increase in anti-western rhetoric by the Government.
The Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories spoke to Georgian Foreign Minister Darchiashvili on 9 October to relay the UK’s concerns about the introduction of a law on transparency and foreign influence and a law on family values. On 11 October, we reiterated our concern as to how that contributed to pressure on civil society and human rights. Those actions undermine Georgian citizens’ clear ambition for a modern, inclusive Euro-Atlantic future and jeopardise the UK's close partnership with the Georgian Dream Government. People in Georgia are making clear their opposition to Georgian Dream’s decision to pause the country’s further moves towards a European future.
I am deeply concerned by reports of excessive use of force by Georgian police against protesters exercising legitimate democratic rights. This morning, the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories released a statement condemning the use of brutal force that has continued over recent days. We have called on the Georgian authorities to de-escalate the situation and reverse their harmful trajectory away from European values. Continued steps away from democratic norms and freedoms will serve only to harm Georgia’s international reputation and risk fundamentally damaging relations with Georgia’s friends and partners. The UK Government have already decided to review their relations with the Georgian Government, including by freezing our annual Wardrop strategic dialogue until we see signs of a reversal of this anti-democratic slide.
First, thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. As you will be aware, people across the Chamber have friends in Georgia, who will be reassured that we have taken the time to discuss this matter. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee of the John Smith Trust, which has done fantastic work in Georgia and elsewhere. I hope you do not mind me mentioning that.
Georgia is a country in which I have lived and worked; I know that other colleagues have done so as well. Like others in the Chamber, I care for it deeply. I thank the Minister for her statement. I highlight the work that she mentioned of her ministerial colleagues, the excellent work of the embassy in Tbilisi, and UK-based international non-governmental organisations, who have done fantastic work for years.
We have been so disturbed in the aftermath of the elections. The dangers of destabilisation in Georgia are acute when 20% of Georgia’s territory is still under Russian control—it is occupied.
Further to her statement, will the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with European partners over Georgia’s EU accession, which is vital to its long-term stability, and what work is ongoing to ensure that the rule of law is enshrined and fortified and to protect the freedom of the media and journalists and the freedom to protest? Finally, having visited the border with Russia recently, I ask the Minister what work is being done to ensure that Georgia maintains sanctions on Russia regardless of the Administration in Tbilisi.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to and intimate knowledge of Georgia. I underline the importance of his points on the freedom of the press—we need to know what is happening—and the freedom to protest. Emotions were running high following the election campaign, but police brutality is never acceptable. It is so important that people who wish to are able to express their views safely. I thank him for putting that on the record.
On the discussions the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories has had, the hon. Gentleman underlined the importance of UK support for the democratic process and spoke about the irregularities during the election campaign, which worried us, as partners during the election proceedings. As he will be aware, we have called for an investigation into those irregularities so we can be clear that the results were correct. We have taken the decision to pause our discussions at a political level until there is more stability; in that time, we will see how things develop with the forming of the new Government, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right to lay out his concerns. We will relay them not just from ourselves as a Government, but from this Parliament.
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her intimate knowledge of the elections in Georgia. Our current position is to monitor the situation. We are looking carefully at what our European partners say, but we are also encouraging the Georgian authorities to determine any complaints, as there have been a number of complaints about irregularities. We are clear that all irregularities should be thoroughly investigated. In addition, we are calling for demonstrations to be peaceful, an end to any police brutality, the exercise of restraint, and respect for the process of the formation of a new Government. While we are not calling for a rerun of the election, we want to know the outcome of the investigation into those irregularities.
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks so far. The shocking and disturbing scenes in Georgia have been hard for all to witness, and I note the statement put out by the Foreign Office this morning. We share the Government’s deep anxiety over the situation in Georgia.
What is happening in Georgia matters. From the law on foreign influence to election irregularities and the excessive use of force in recent days against protesters and journalists, we are witnessing Georgia being dragged down a dangerous path. It matters for the Georgian people, for our important bilateral relationship, and for the wider Euro-Atlantic community, which sincerely seeks closer ties and a deeper friendship with Georgia. Our clear and unambiguous aim should be to support the Georgian people, and that includes their desire for a future rooted in the Euro-Atlantic community.
Will the Minister confirm she has told her Georgian counterpart, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down the aggressive rhetoric, de-escalate the situation on the streets and stop blaming others for the current tensions? Will she also commit to pulling every diplomatic lever to support the Georgian people as they go through this dark period?
Finally, and more broadly, I will circle back to the question I asked last week at Foreign Office questions, because this is a clear example of the dangers of Europe becoming a more contested space. Will the Minister urgently come forward with a plan that builds on the work of the previous Government to be more muscular in leveraging our soft power, so that we can counter attempts to sow division and instead bang the drum for the Euro-Atlantic community? We need to demonstrate to countries in Europe and around the world that a partnership with us, and choosing democracy and openness, is the best route to prosperity.
We believe that the Georgian authorities must investigate all irregularities and reverse the declining commitment to democracy, as the right hon. Lady has laid out. We fully support Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, in line with the strong will of the Georgian people. Georgia is a valuable international security partner in the south Caucasus with which we enjoy a long history and close bilateral relations. We are therefore redoubling our efforts to connect with Georgians, to encourage restraint and peaceful demonstrations, and to encourage the investigation of those irregularities, so that there can be no doubt about what actually happened at the recent elections. The UK remains resolutely committed to Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders.
The right hon. Lady asked about soft power. Of course, in this House we all know the importance of soft power. That is why we are working hard with the British Council and groups that support democracy and young people in different democracies. Following 14 difficult years for soft power in the UK, when all funding was drained away from our important soft power organisations, that is also why we are seeking to rebuild our reputation for soft power, where perhaps we have stepped backwards a little over the past few years.
My Georgian friends and colleagues in civil society, with whom I have worked for many years, are calling this a Maidan moment for the country. Protesters have been brutally assaulted, and there have been reports of journalists being hospitalised. Given that many Georgian Dream officials have ties to the UK, will the Minister say whether, if this continues, the full range of Government tools will be considered? Sanctions, visa bans or financial restrictions, for example, would hit those responsible where it really hurts.
I thank my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, for his pointed question and his support for freedom of the press. We know that journalists must be free to report the facts. Although he tempts me to speculate, he knows that I will not go there on any future sanctions arrangements; we always keep those quiet until we make the announcement, for obvious reasons. He commented on the backsliding on freedom of the press and on the links between Georgia and the UK, which we will certainly investigate. If he has specific questions or concerns in relation to those matters, could he write to us so that we can investigate?
The suspension of Georgia’s EU accession process is the latest troubling step taken by the pro-Russian Georgian Government, and I welcome the assurance that the Government are pressing for the investigation of irregularities in that election. However, the use of excessive force against protesters and journalists is unacceptable. Political and democratic rights should be protected, and free and open political protests must be permitted.
What further steps can the UK Government take to raise these issues with the Georgian Government? The US has decided to suspend its strategic partnership with Georgia. I heard the Minister say that the Government are pausing UK engagement, so will she tell the House under what conditions she would follow the US and go further to formally suspend the UK’s strategic partnership?
Finally, the UK and the EU must speak with one voice in opposing democratic backsliding and Russian interference in Georgia. How is the Minister strengthening the UK’s dialogue with our EU partners to roll back Russian influence and support democratic groups in Georgia?
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his fulsome questions. With regard to our involvement in the region, we backed and paid for observers for the election period. We are waiting to hear about the investigation into irregularities. The current UK position is that, due to our growing concerns over Georgia’s negative Euro-Atlantic trajectory—going away from the EU—and democratic backsliding, including on the laws on transparency, foreign influence and family values, in June the UK decided to freeze the annual Wardrop UK-Georgia strategic dialogue and defence staff talks. We use a suspension initially because we want to appear reasonable, and we want Georgia to be reasonable back, but that does not preclude future more definitive actions if necessary.
The Minister will be aware of widespread reports of vote buying, ballot stuffing and carousel voting—people voting multiple times—in the Georgian election. It comes just a few weeks after very similar reports from Moldova where, again, there was massive electoral interference. What more can we do to help countries that are trying to move away from Russia’s orbit and become more democratic, and to stop Russian interference in those elections?
The right hon. Gentleman has a long history of raising these sorts of concerns in the House, and I thank him for it. The Georgian Government showed no sign of taking seriously the need to make the progress that the UK wanted. Indeed, they took retrograde steps, harming progress towards EU membership and passing laws to designate NGOs and media outlets operating in Georgia that receive more than 20% funding from abroad as agents of foreign influence—of course, an excuse to crack down.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s points about coercing voters and an atmosphere of pressure on civil society, in response, the opposition parties refused to take up their seats. We are watching very carefully. The Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has spoken to Tbilisi, and our excellent mission there is monitoring very carefully and reporting back on a daily basis on the formation of the new group. If the right hon. Gentleman emails the Minister, he will give him a blow-by-blow description.
What kind of conversations are the Government having with counterparts in Georgia to ensure that the right to assemble and the freedom to protest are being respected?
I thank the relatively newly elected Member for his question. Those of us who participate in elections all know how emotional they can be, but that is no excuse for police brutality should protestors want to protest about coercion during the elections, how the elections took place or the result itself. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised in the House today the importance of restraint and of pushing back against the atmosphere of pressure on civil society. It is particularly disheartening to see young people, who are so excited about a more open and hopeful future, freedom of the press and freedom to associate, being cracked down on in the way that they have been.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) on securing this urgent question. Last week the European Parliament called for a re-run of the elections, describing them as being neither free nor fair, and accusing the ruling party of being fully responsible for democratic backsliding in Georgia. Why have the UK Government not gone as far as the European Parliament in calling for a re-run of the elections? Will the Minister commit to sharing the evidence that she gets on electoral irregularities? What representations has the FCDO made to the Georgian ambassador to the UK about the road that the people of Georgia are being forced down?
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his general interest in foreign policy matters in this House. He will be aware that the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), made clear the UK’s support for the findings of the preliminary report of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election monitoring mission. The Government supported the programme with 50 observers to the elections. The report highlights irregularities, but while the investigation into those electoral irregularities is ongoing, the reasonable position to take is to wait for it to be completed so that we can understand exactly what went on and how much coercion there was. As a result, we would speak to our interlocutors—the Georgian ambassador and our mission in Tbilisi—about impressing upon Government figures the impact on Georgia’s international reputation of having a whole lot of young people protesting in the public squares.
We have called on the Government of Georgia to implement the recommendations of the monitoring mission after the publication of the report, so that we can base our policy on the facts in that report. As I explained to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), we do not have an identical position to European partners. We want to take a reasonable position and ask questions, but that does not preclude taking firmer action later if we remain concerned about how the Government are formed following this election.
I thank the Minister again for her answers. Freedom, liberty and democracy are vital for Georgia to have an unfettered, stable Government, and so that people can express themselves without violence. It is clear that Russia has negatively influenced the election and the Government. How can our Government work in tandem with those who want democracy, as every Georgian citizen wants and deserves? Does the British embassy in Tbilisi have enough staff and resources to respond to all the British citizens in Tbilisi? What advice is given to them—do they stay; what should they do?
I thank the hon. Member for his ongoing commitment to freedom and peaceful relations and his interest in keeping the UK’s reputation for supporting democracies so alive in this House. Our mission in Tbilisi will be watching or reading this urgent question, including his concerns and questions. It is so important to support Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, in line with the strong will of the Georgian people over the past few years, particularly in the light of the conflict in Ukraine, which is in its neighbourhood. That is why we have been such a strong supporter of democratic reforms over many years, working with Parliament, civil society, independent media and the Government to support reforms and Georgia’s continued progress towards membership of the Euro-Atlantic community.
The mission in Tbilisi is well resourced. We have excellent professionals there, working very closely to understand the exact investigation into the irregularities of the election, trying to see what is happening with the formation of the new Government post-election, calling for restraint so that those battles on the squares do not turn into any form of police brutality, but retain that vision of freedom and democracy.
I have met young Georgians here in the UK who are watching with desperation, fear and depression as legislation on foreign influence restricts their rights, the media and organisations dealing with all sorts of development rights. They are also seeing their colleagues brutally repressed on the streets as they try to have freedom of association and to keep what is enshrined in their constitution—movement towards EU accession—as it is being ripped away from them. What can the Minister say to those young people? Will she and the ambassador be open to meet them? They are in a terrible state of anxiety right now.
I thank the hon. Lady for her concern. I thank her, too, for her impassioned plea for peaceful expression of political views and for the UK to play its role in supporting not only that vision for freedom, but a stable assessment following the election, acting on the information and investigation material that have come forward from the report. Of course we supported the election observers, so we need to listen to what they say as a result of those investigations. Let me also thank the hon. Lady for her condemnation of the brutal and excessive force used against protesters and journalists. I will certainly pass on her exhortation to be on the side of those with vision and those who wish to freely express their point of view.
(3 months, 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 of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
The UK’s support for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression is ironclad. In July this year, the Government committed to provide Ukraine with £3 billion of military aid every year for as long as needed. In October, we announced that the UK Government would provide a further £2.26 billion as the UK’s contribution to the $50 billion G7 loan, earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. This will be provided in addition to our bilateral military aid. We are also stepping up and speeding up delivery of our military support.
The UK is also leading the way in terms of pressure on Russia and Putin’s war machine. To date, we have sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime. Sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 billion since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. Putin’s problems are growing, with 700,000 casualties to date, voluntary recruitment down 40% and an unsustainable war economy. Russia has been forced to rely on Iran for missiles and on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for foot soldiers.
Our support to Ukraine is a core UK national interest. A Russian victory would diminish the west’s global standing, create a zone of instability on our eastern flank, and embolden Putin and other autocrats. This could require cold war levels of defence spending. On 19 November, we passed a grim milestone—1,000 days since Putin launched his full-scale invasion. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes or forced into exile, and as we know from our constituencies, we have homes full of Ukrainian families.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we stand with the people of Ukraine during this terrible period of its history. It is wonderful to have cross-party support for that, and for the support that the UK will deliver for as long as it takes until Ukraine prevails, to ensure that this can never happen again.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Following the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, we need some clarity from the Government on their approach to Ukraine. At the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister said that it was important to
“put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations so that they can secure a just and lasting peace on their terms”.
We can all agree that Ukrainians must be able to determine their own future. I am sure the Minister recognises that the language used by the Prime Minister yesterday evening at the Lord Mayor’s banquet about negotiations is new.
On 21 November in the House, the Prime Minister made no reference to negotiations for peace, stating:
“We have consistently said that we will do what it takes to support Ukraine and put it in the best possible position going into the winter”,
and that
“Russia could roll back its forces and end this war tomorrow.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 373.]
As the Minister pointed out, the Foreign Secretary stated here on 19 November:
“The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 163.]
We all agree that putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s illegal invasion is right. We are all proud in this House, across this Government and the previous Government, of how we have led on that support to Ukraine and its people. However, if the Government are framing that through the lens of negotiation, does the Minister believe that that represents a departure from the current approach and from the statements issued in this House?
The Minister will herself have seen President Zelensky’s latest remarks about NATO membership. It is important for NATO to speak with one voice on these matters, and this unity is absolutely crucial, so can the Minister update the House on the Government’s current position on Ukraine acceding to NATO?
We all continue to see more appalling brutality from Putin, with his pummelling of civilians and Ukraine’s energy systems constantly as winter kicks in, which is starting to hurt the people of Ukraine. The misery that that could inflict is the most atrocious form of psychological and physical warfare. The UK has led so much on Ukraine, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government are looking at what more can be done to protect Ukraine’s energy infrastructure? Can she reassure the House that we will keep on doing everything we can do to support the defence of freedom in Ukraine?
I reassure the right hon. Lady that there is no change in the UK position. We have always said that we will support Ukraine to achieve a just peace on its own terms. The PM has been clear, including in his speech last night, that
“we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support…self-defence for as long as it takes”,
because it is for Ukraine to determine its position in any future discussions. Putin cannot be trusted—Russia has violated multiple previous agreements—and the clearest path to peace is for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine tomorrow and respect Ukrainian borders.
On the NATO membership question that the right hon. Lady poses, Ukraine’s place is in NATO. The allies agreed in Washington on 10 July that Ukraine is on an
“irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership”,
and the UK fully supports that goal.
While Europeans spend barely the cost of two cups of coffee a week on support for the war in Ukraine, 41% of Russia’s total expenditure is spent on the war. They have had to cut social security and raise taxes to pay for the war effort. While speculation about the future of the war is understandable in the current circumstances, it is really important that we remain firm. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine? We stand with Ukraine.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and its members, heard from the Foreign Secretary last week about the UK’s steadfast support for Ukraine and our strong friendship. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Select Committee Chair is aware of that given all the Ukrainians who are based in homes in her constituency, and I reassure her that we will be steadfast and keep the support going for as long as it takes.
We are watching with grave concern the most recent developments in Ukraine, and the attacks on its energy networks at the weekend show that Putin has no concern for non-combatants. The use by Russia of a hypersonic missile and the alleged change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine are clear efforts to intimidate Ukraine’s partners. Does the Minister agree that we must stand firm in our support for Ukraine?
President-elect Trump has said that he will end the war within 24 hours, and Vice President-elect Vance has said that Ukraine must give up its territory in negotiations, but ceding any territory will only give the wrong signal to other autocratic regimes around the world. We must urgently repair our broken relationship with our European allies to ensure that we act united in support of Ukraine, regardless of Trump’s potential actions. What is being done to strengthen the UK’s commitments and contribution to European collective security to support Ukraine?
We support the Bill to release the interest on frozen Russian assets that are held in the UK to help Ukraine, but will the Minister commit to work with allies to mobilise the principal, not the interest, on more than $300 billion of assets, so that there is a plan B if America withdraws financial support?
I thank the hon. Lady for her meaty contribution. On energy, the UK has provided more than £370 million for energy security and resilience in Ukraine through grant, in-kind support, and loan guarantees. That includes £64 million to support Ukraine to repair, protect and replace energy infrastructure targeted by Russian strikes. There is nothing worse than seeing families in darkness during conflict.
On Russian assets, we are pleased that our sanctions regime has respect across the globe. That began under the previous Government and enjoyed cross-party support throughout the last Parliament, and it continues to enjoy support. Our best legal minds are designing out the fraud and kleptocracy that for so many years has dogged our economy—that is a personal priority of the Foreign Secretary. Right down to the proceeds of Chelsea football club, we are fighting every inch to ensure that money from those assets goes straight back into supporting Ukrainians.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister’s comments last night that we need a just and lasting peace for Ukraine on its terms, and in any negotiations that should be the central position. Following the election of President Trump, what discussions have the Government had with our international partners about the potential impact of that on Ukraine, especially given reports from Kursk in Russia that certain troops are holding on to their positions, waiting on the outcome of the incoming Trump Administration’s thoughts on negotiations?
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his questions. We are all watching closely what is happening in Kursk, and we are extremely concerned by the additional forces from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who are estimated to be around 10,000 in number. It is so sad to see the strong potential for those young men to be victims of this war. We are also aware that it will be a tough few months while we re-establish our joint working with all partners across the US, the UK and Europe, but of this we can be sure: it is not a good sign or a good message for anyone to see that an aggressive invasion, such as Putin’s invasion across the borders of Ukraine, can somehow be the right thing or that it can be successful. We must use all our diplomatic tools across the Chamber to speak to friends in the UK and the US who have great friendships with the people of Ukraine and to continue to make the case for the men, women and children of Ukraine.
It is excellent to see all Front-Bench spokesmen, including the Minister, so united on this question. Does she accept that Putin has made his attitude to the independence of Ukraine—namely, that it should cease to exist as an independent nation—crystal clear, and therefore any enforced treaty to which he is a signatory is utterly and completely worthless?
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the psychology of this conflict. It is why it is so important, particularly in these desperate winter months, that we remain firm. I commend him and others for all their work on the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and all their work on security and intelligence, to provide that important, dedicated cross-party support to Ukraine. In the end, we know that it is for Ukraine to determine its position on its future, its just peace and its vision for its own people, but we will be behind the Ukrainians so that they know we can be relied on.
I was heartened to hear the Minister say that we would support the self-defence of Ukraine for as long as it takes. One of the most important aspects of that is the development of new military technology, particularly through joint ventures between the UK and Ukraine on areas such as drones and unmanned aerial vehicles. One such example is the Black Arrow project. The first stage of that project has been completed and the drones have been manufactured, but they have been stuck here since May this year, because no export control licence has been granted. Will the Minister implore her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to facilitate those licences quickly, as those drones will help not just the defence of Ukraine, but our sovereign manufacturing capability for defence?
I commend the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine not just for his very long train trips across Ukraine to visit and offer his support, but for his technical knowledge. If he will give me permission, I will write to him with details of exactly where the project is at, so that he can give reassurance to all of his many followers in Ukraine.
Today, the BBC is reporting a Russian submarine sailing between Japanese islands and close to Taiwan. Last month, we had reports of a Russian ship being monitored by HMS Cattistock near our own UK waters. How concerned should we be that Russia is flexing its muscles? Will the UK be stepping up its direct support to Ukraine and making our troops, particularly our Royal Navy, ready for additional patrols and potential direct involvement to defend our allies and our shores?
I thank the hon. Lady for her detailed knowledge and her question. We know that the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific work closely together on all these Navy questions. I would not want to give anything specific away at the Dispatch Box that might help President Putin, but it is good to see that she is monitoring that. It is so important that we continue to work together, whether that is through the training of forces on the ground, air defence or Navy assets.
It is clearly more important than ever that the UK works closely with our European friends and allies as we face the common threat of Russian aggression. Can my hon. Friend outline how the Government intend to strengthen co-operation with the EU on the security challenges that we all face?
My hon. Friend will be aware that just last week, Germany made an important announcement about continuing military support. There has been a step change, particularly in light of the importance of the defence of Europe. Having a war on European soil is so instructive, and I think people are slowly coming to the table. It is clear that the UK has a real leadership position, and that is why the EU-UK security pact work is so important. The Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is working hard to develop that. As Members will be aware, we have just announced more collaboration with Germany where possible, and specifically in relation to Ukraine. In general, the UK has so much to offer the EU in that regard. We know that the ongoing conversations we are having more holistically about EU-UK relations are enriched by our defence capability.
I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for her statement. We are just past the anniversary of when Ukraine voted for independence. To remind everybody, every single part of Ukraine voted for independence. Does she agree, and will she remind any incoming Administration anywhere—perhaps in the United States—that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is set in international law and must be respected?
The key words are “respecting borders”, and that is where the neocolonial philosophy of President Putin, as he laid out originally in that seminal essay before the war, shows how completely at odds with the modern viewpoint he is. Yes, we will support Ukraine on its vision of its own borders, its own strength and its own sovereignty.
It can feel, with Russian submarines recceing our waters, with North Korean troops fighting for Russia and with Iranian drones causing the death of Ukrainians, that Russia wants a bigger war. We must deter it. That is why we must absolutely drive a victory for Ukraine—a total victory. Does the Minister agree with me and General George Marshall that the best way to win a war is to prevent it in the first place?
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service to the UK and for his intimate knowledge of what it actually means to be at war, and therefore to talk about deterrence. I am committed, as is the whole Front-Bench team, to working as closely as possible on all the international friendships and treaties and the pressure that we can bring to bear, so that we can achieve a lasting peace together and be behind Ukraine as it steps forward into a very uncertain future.
One aspect of support that the UK could offer Ukraine is expired medical equipment and dressings. A charity based in Axminster in my constituency, called Medics4Ukraine, has just got back from Odesa. It has been training municipal workers, and it says that it needs dressings, haemostatic dressings and gauzes. Will she speak to her counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to see whether some of the expired items could be released for that purpose?
I refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the discussion in the Adjournment debate last night on medical assistance in conflict. The UK has an enormous amount of resource in that area. I will certainly look into what is possible and write to him with what we are already doing in relation to Ukraine.
I very much welcome the statement, the ongoing commitment we have seen from this Government and the co-operation with the previous Government on Ukraine, because it is not just about security in Europe, as these things are in our self-interest. May I impress on the Minister that if Ukraine is allowed to fall, it will not just be a European problem? So much grain that is grown in Ukraine finds its way to Africa. If Ukraine falls, people in Africa will starve, too.
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. We all watched two summers ago with bated breath as the Black sea grain negotiations occurred, and the impact of missing out on that important agricultural wealth in Ukraine, and the deleterious effect it had on developing nations, were of concern to all in this House. He is right to speak about the knock-on effects of conflict. We must redouble our efforts to stop that happening.
Many of the Ukrainian refugees living in my constituency have expressed relief and gratitude that there has been continuity of policy in still supporting Ukraine with the change of Government. But at a time when Russia is finding that its economy is affected by the war and is having to rely on Iran, China and Korea to continue the war, does the Minister think it unwise to start talking of negotiations about land and so on, which will only encourage Putin and his regime? Should we not be talking about increasing the resolve of our partners, giving military support and seizing Russian assets to let Ukraine use them?
There is no change in the UK position; we have always said that we will support Ukraine to achieve a just peace on its own terms. The Prime Minister has been clear, including in his speech last night, that we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support its self-defence for as long as it takes.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee made a strong case about the financial pressure that Russia finds itself in. What additional pressure can we place on Russia? Are there any plans to introduce a sanctions Bill?
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—we have a good showing of Select Committee Chairs in the House today. I reassure her that the UK has imposed measures on over 2,100 individuals and entities, the most wide-ranging sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. Most recently, we have imposed sanctions against 69 vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet transporting Russian oil outside G7 sanctions. May I say how pleased I am—I am sure that I speak for everybody across the House—that through our leadership on sanctions, with our best legal minds, we have managed to bring in all those financial penalties against the aggressor?
I thank the Minister for her answers. President Zelensky has been clear that NATO membership must mean article 5 including the entirety of Ukraine territories. What discussion has the FCDO, and perhaps the Minister, had with our NATO allies to ensure that that is the case? Will she commit in particular to discussing the issue with the current and incoming US Secretaries of State to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is taken on behalf of Ukraine?
As the hon. Member is aware, Ukraine’s place is in NATO; it has said so itself. He supports that principle. Allies agreed in Washington on 10 July that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Of course, the UK fully supports that goal. The hon. Member plays an important role in that because in the US there are important Irish counterparts, or those who might have heritage there, who will want to hear from him to lay out the case for supporting Ukraine.
Given the NATO Secretary-General’s recent warning about a growing alliance between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, will the Minister clarify what work the UK is doing to counter that threat?
As my hon. Friend might have gathered, it is from a position of weakness that those countries are being relied on to shore up support. That is why it is so important that we look holistically at our sanctions regime, which cannot be just about the current conflict. It must also be about how we stop the Iranian military juggernaut and how we look at the military industrial complex, which works across all sorts of different regimes. That is why it is also so important to understand how the economies of the DPRK can tip into Russia and for us to work with countries who support us and do not support that particular access so that we can win the argument as well as the battle.
I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity she has brought to the urgent question. I do not think anyone in the House agrees that Vladimir Putin can be allowed to get away with taking even a single inch of territory in Ukraine, and I do not think that anyone is not alive to the danger of giving people like that what they want—they always come back for more. Given those facts, will she confirm that we will back Ukraine for as long as it takes, and that any eventual deal will be completed entirely on Ukraine’s terms and not on Russia’s?
Of course. That is why we have supported Ukraine as it has made the case for wanting to be in NATO and as it has made the case for being as close as possible to friends in Europe. That is why we have supported the Ukrainians in their requests for either military or non-military aid. That is why we have implored others, even as far away as the Indo-Pacific, to assist in this push to ensure that there is as much support as possible to stand up to bullies.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWe have had an excellent debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I congratulate him on securing this debate, on his work in the national health service, on his ongoing commitment as a surgeon, and on his deep expertise in this issue. I am also grateful for the interventions of other Members present, and I will try to respond to the points raised.
This debate takes place at a timely moment, because the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), is actually in Cairo as we speak. She is at the Gaza humanitarian conference, discussing—among other issues —the importance of ensuring that aid workers, including medical workers, can operate effectively and that civilians have access to the services they need. The Foreign Secretary, alongside his French and German counterparts, has also written this week to the Government of Israel to urge stronger action.
I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary work that aid organisations and health workers are doing in some of the harshest conditions around the world. As Members would expect, the UK firmly supports all efforts to prevent conflict in the first instance, but where conflict does occur, those affected must have access to medical services. Medical workers and facilities must be protected in line with international humanitarian law. Access to medical services includes routine care for pregnant women, safe delivery of babies, child vaccinations and primary healthcare for all. Those services are always important, but they are especially so when people are desperate to reach a safe place; when food and clean water are scarce; and when sexual violence is an increased threat, as is so common during conflicts. The tragic loss of life among health workers, including in Gaza and Sudan, is a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who deliver lifesaving medical assistance during conflict and crisis.
Let me now turn to how the UK is helping. In short, we are acting on three key fronts. First, we remain committed to promoting compliance with international humanitarian law and encouraging all parties to armed conflict to respect it. We are working to minimise impacts on civilians by protecting health workers and medical facilities, by working with the United Nations and the Red Cross to ensure that those affected by the conflict have access to the help they need, and by signing up to the political declaration on strengthening the protection of civilians from the humanitarian consequences arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We reaffirm long-standing and ongoing efforts to protect civilians in this regard.
Secondly, we are targeting our aid towards those most in need, whether by providing medical supplies, helping to train medical staff, or ensuring that those medical staff have safe access to patients.
Can the Minister inform the House how much of the aid provided by the UK is actually getting into Gaza, and to the people who need it?
The most recent figure in open sources from the weekend is that, of the usual 500 lorries going into Gaza, about 67 got in. That was in the press at the weekend. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West talked about the importance of aid getting in. We have redoubled our diplomatic efforts in imploring that access be improved, so that we can get aid in. We have tripled the aid, but what is important is that we gain access. That is the case whether it is in the Gaza conflict, in Sudan or in helping desperately ill people in Myanmar. All across the globe where that is an issue, we are making access a key issue in our diplomatic work. Sometimes we are more successful at that than at other times, but we try to work across international organisations to ensure that crucial access for patients.
The FCDO is also funding partner organisations within countries, such as the World Health Organisation, UN agencies and the Red Cross, to help them to prepare for and respond to conflicts effectively. We are supporting a range of specialist non-governmental organisations and local partners to deliver critical medical services at the frontline, especially where no other partner can deliver. The key strength of locally led organisations is that they are staffed by people from the affected areas and the communities themselves.
The third way we are helping is by deploying specialist medical teams on the ground, of which my hon. Friend has a great deal of knowledge.
Will the Minister join me in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for securing this Adjournment debate? He will be too modest to highlight his considerable skill and knowledge on this subject, but before taking his place in this House, he practised as a transplant surgeon in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire and my home town of Clydebank, where he worked in the Golden Jubilee hospital. Does the Minister agree with me that the situation in Gaza is catastrophic, that Gazans are in desperate need of food, shelter and medical support with the onset of winter, and that the UK should be the lead voice in ensuring real world humanitarian solutions?
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the expertise of our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Very modestly, our hon. Friend also mentioned another colleague from Scotland. It is these professionals who make such a difference on the ground, and I know the whole House is thankful to them for their work. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) is excited to have these experts in his constituency.
We know that there are times when the health system of a country is so depleted during conflict that there simply is not the capacity to help people despite international support. That is why we invest in the UK’s official emergency medical team, so we can deploy specialist medical staff to help save lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West will be aware, the team are made up of highly qualified medics from around the UK and beyond our shores. They are trained to deliver high-quality surgical and specialist rehabilitation care to save lives and reduce disability. For example, the British emergency medical team have recently started providing services in Lebanon, treating patients with burns and other injuries. The same team have helped alleviate suffering in Gaza this year. Until now, they have provided 275,000 patient consultations across a wide range of medical services. He mentioned the winter, and there is a new term in the world of aid, which is winterisation, where aid organisations club together to address the specific issues that come up at this time of year.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is an extraordinary accomplishment under the most challenging of circumstances, yet perhaps one story captures the impact of all strands of our work better than anything else. I would like to share with the House the story of a three-year-old girl called Razan from Gaza. In the early morning hours of 1 September, a bullet passed through the thin fabric of the family’s tent. It went through her mother’s hip and lodged in the neck of her child. The child was rushed to a hospital run by UK-Med and funded by the FCDO, and the mother was taken to another facility for her own life-threatening injury. The little three-year-old girl was in surgery for three hours in a tented field hospital surrounded by fighting, fear and uncertainty. Miraculously, the bullet had narrowly missed her spinal cord, and thanks to the skilled work of the UK surgical team, it was removed and she has recently been discharged. That is only one story among a quarter of a million patient consultations seen by the British team, and it brings home the importance of the trained medics, critical supplies, and safe access that we talked of earlier.
Let me respond specifically to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) about evacuations. We all know that the plight of sick and injured people in Gaza is deeply distressing, but we have tried to work closely with Israel, asking it to engage with partners urgently to establish sustained safe and timely passage for patients who need medical or surgical interventions that are not available in Gaza.
We recently announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through WHO Egypt to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza, because it is close to the region. The UK is also supporting the provision of essential healthcare to civilians in Gaza, including support to UK-Med for operating its field hospital. There are provisions that allow Palestinians to come to the UK for private medical treatment under the immigration rules. Where a relevant application is made, consideration will be given to exceptional circumstances, or where there are compelling or compassionate grounds. The Government are keeping all options under review in response to events in Gaza.
In conclusion, the UK remains fully committed to protecting medical workers and ensuring that people have access to medical aid during conflicts. While those actions are making a tangible difference on the ground, there is of course more to do. That is why we will continue to advocate for the protection of the most vulnerable, address barriers to accessing medical services, and strengthen our own medical and surgical capabilities to deploy in conflicts.
Question put and agreed to.