Middle East

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the middle east. I will begin with Syria. We have been horrified by the recent violence in the south, including civilian deaths. Clashes between Druze and Bedouin militias have quickly escalated into intense fighting, with involvement from Government forces and further Israeli strikes on the Syrian military. As I have said directly to Foreign Minister al-Shaibani, we want to see the fighting ended, civilians protected, and the rights of all Syrians upheld. The violence in Suwayda must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable. We want humanitarian access to be restored and for aid to be delivered, and Syria’s sovereignty must be respected.

The UK can be proud of our support to the Syrian people over many years. A stable Syria matters to the UK’s national interest, in terms of terrorism, irregular migration and regional stability. We must work to prevent extremism, sectarianism or lawlessness taking hold now that Assad is gone. That is why we are backing a sustainable ceasefire. It is why we support an inclusive transition, and it is why I visited Damascus recently to support the new Government and to press them to meet their commitments.

I will now turn to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is two and a half months since Prime Minister Netanyahu restarted offensive operations. The Israel Defence Forces have driven Palestinians out of 86% of Gaza, leaving around 2 million people trapped in an area scarcely over 20 square miles. Whatever this Israeli Government might claim, repeated displacement of so many civilians is not keeping them safe. In fact, it is quite the reverse.

The new Israeli aid system is inhumane and dangerous, and it deprives Gazans of human dignity. It contradicts long-established humanitarian principles. It creates disorder that Hamas are now exploiting, with distribution points reduced from 400 to just four. It forces desperate civilians, children among them, to scramble unsafely for the essentials of life. It is a grotesque spectacle, wreaking a terrible human cost.

Almost 1,000 civilians have been killed since May seeking aid, including 100 this weekend alone. There are near-daily reports of Israeli troops opening fire on people trying to access food. Israeli jets have hit women and children waiting for a health clinic to open. An Israeli drone has struck down children filling water containers, which Israeli officials blamed on a technical error. Hamas are of course contributing to the chaos and taking advantage of it, but I utterly condemn the killing of civilians seeking to meet their basic needs. The Israeli Government must answer: what possible military justification can there be for strikes that have killed desperate, starving children? What immediate actions are they taking to stop this litany of horrors? What will they do to hold those responsible to account?

I am a steadfast supporter of Israel’s security and right to exist. I treasure the many connections between our peoples, and the horrors of 7 October must never be forgotten, but I firmly believe that the Israeli Government’s actions are doing untold damage to Israel’s standing in the world and undermining Israel’s long-term security. Netanyahu should listen to the Israeli people, some 82% of whom desperately want a ceasefire, and to the hostages’ families, because they know a ceasefire offers the best chance to bring their loved ones home. Those hostages may be hidden in cramped tunnels under the ruins of Gaza, but we will not forget them, or Hamas’s despicable actions, and we will continue to demand their unconditional release. This offensive puts them in grave danger, but still Netanyahu persists.

Indeed, Minister Katz has gone further, proposing to drive Gaza’s entire population into Rafah, imprisoning Palestinians, unless they are persuaded to emigrate. This is a cruel vision that must never come to pass, and I condemn it unequivocally. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law. Many Israelis themselves are appalled. As the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said,

“it marches us into the abyss”.

He is right.

Today I join a statement with 31 Foreign Ministers as signatories. It had a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now. There is no military solution. Negotiations will secure the hostages. Further bloodshed serves no purpose. Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire. I thank the United States, Qatar and Egypt for their tireless efforts. I am sure that all Members share my intense frustration that the ceasefire has not happened. Until there is a breakthrough, we must keep doing all we can to relieve the suffering.

UK aid has saved lives, reaching hundreds of thousands with food, water, hygiene and sanitation, and essential healthcare. Under the most appalling circumstances, our aid is saving lives today. That includes the almost £9 million the UK has provided to UK-Med since we entered office, reaching half a million patients inside Gaza and 24,000 in the past fortnight alone, including three-year old Razan—UK-funded medics removed a bullet from her neck after nearly three hours of surgery. These doctors and nurses working in the most extreme conditions are true heroes. They deserve the thanks and admiration of the entire House.

We are also working multilaterally. The 149 trucks from the World Food Programme and UNICEF entering Gaza in recent days included food supplies funded by the UK. Thousands more trucks laden with aid paid for by British taxpayers can enter the moment that the Israeli Government let them in. Today I am announcing an extra £40 million for humanitarian assistance in Gaza this year, including £7.5 million for UK-Med to sustain its vital operations in Gaza and save more lives.

Accompanying the horrors in Gaza is an accelerating campaign to prevent a future Palestinian state in the west bank. It is embraced by Netanyahu, encouraged by his Ministers and driven by an extremist ideology that wants to suffocate the two-state solution, which is the only route to a lasting peace and security. We see it in the unprecedented pace of settlement expansion and in the shocking levels of settler violence—and even settler terrorism, for that is what the most egregious ideological attacks are. The deliberate attempts to squeeze the Palestinian Authority, unjustly denying them access to their own funds, harms Israel’s long-term interests in the process. Now the Israeli Government are reintroducing plans to construct new units in the E1 area of occupied East Jerusalem. If built, that settlement would separate the west bank’s north from its south, and Palestinians in the west bank from East Jerusalem. These plans are wholly unacceptable, they are illegal, and they must not happen.

We are striving to keep open the prospects of a two-state solution. UK assistance has been preserving the Palestinian Authority, contributing to essential Palestinian workers’ salaries and supporting them to progress critical reforms. Today I can confirm that we are enhancing our support, providing £7 million to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian governance, implementing the agreement signed by me and Prime Minister Mustafa earlier this year, and delivering the reform plans that President Abbas has set out. I can also confirm that we are providing £20 million to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s many services for Palestinian refugees.

Alongside that support, we are leading diplomatic efforts to show that there must be a viable peaceful pathway to a Palestinian state involving the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, in the security and governance of the area. Hamas can have no role in the governance of Gaza, and nor must it be allowed to use it as a launchpad for terrorism. Israeli Ministers should support the Palestinian Authority, not actively undermine their economy, as Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich are doing. The UK is co-leading with Egypt the humanitarian and reconstruction track for the forthcoming two-state solution conference, and we are pushing to agree plans for a credible next phase in Gaza, with a responsible, reformed PA at their core, so that we can turn any temporary ceasefire into a lasting peace.

In our year in office, this Labour Government have acted to address this horrendous conflict. We restored funding to UNRWA after the Tories froze it. We suspended arms export licences, when the Tories had declined to act. We have provided nearly a quarter of a billion in humanitarian assistance this year and next, getting medical treatment and food to hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza. We have stood with the hostage families at every stage. We have worked with Jordan to fly medicines into Gaza, with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians, and with Kuwait and UNICEF to help children in Gaza.

We have delivered three sanctions packages on violent settlers, suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and sanctioned far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We have defended the independence of the international courts. We have signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority and hosted the Palestinian Prime Minister in London, pushing for the reform they need. We called for, worked for and voted for an immediate ceasefire and the release of the hostages at every possible opportunity, and we will keep doing so until this war is over, Hamas release the hostages and we finally have a pathway to a two-state solution. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The violence, loss of life and conflicts that continue in the middle east shock us all. Events in the middle east have a direct impact on our national interests and on people living on our own country, from concerns about family members in the region to demonstrations on our streets, and from the threats from Iran to the rise of antisemitism. We on the Opposition side of the House are clear that we want to see an end to the conflict in Gaza. We want to see the return of the hostages. The humanitarian support, which is so desperately needed, must get in. There must be an end to the terror inflicted by Hamas and Iran. However, the reality of peace and a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza seems to be drifting further away.

What is Britain’s role when it comes to workable outcomes and practical solutions to advance an end to this conflict, and what diplomatic action is being taken with regional allies and the United States? Where is Britain’s voice and action when it comes to putting new pressure on Hamas to agree to the most recent US proposals to secure a ceasefire, and release the hostages who have been in cruel captivity for more than 650 days? As for the statement that the Foreign Secretary signed earlier today, can he explain what an “unconditional and permanent” ceasefire means for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

Last week, I met Keith and Aviva Siegel, and heard about their harrowing experience of being held in brutal captivity by Hamas. I pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery and resilience, and for their dedication to securing the freedom of the remaining hostages, from Gali and Ziv Berman to Matan Angrest and Omri Miran, and all those being held in barbaric captivity. They must be returned to their loved ones. The hostages are being denied humanitarian access by Hamas. What are the Government doing about that, and when was the Foreign Secretary’s last intervention on the issue?

The situation relating to aid for Gaza has deteriorated beyond all rational comprehension. The daily reports of casualties seeking aid are appalling, and we utterly condemn these attacks. But our words and political statements of condemnation are not saving lives, so what practical solutions, proposals and options have the Foreign Secretary and the British Government discussed with Israel in respect of aid supplies into Gaza? What dialogue is there to find agreement on the opening of access for that aid that goes beyond the current dangerous approach? I remind the House that the last Conservative Government, through Lord Cameron, secured new aid routes and better aid access to save lives. Surely the desperate urgency of the situation, which we all see, calls for such options to be considered once again.

I reiterate our long-standing position that settlements are not helpful to achieving long-term peace. Israel should not take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and must use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We want a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that it should come only at a time that is conducive to peace and cannot be the start of a peace process—certainly not while Israeli hostages are still in captivity in Gaza. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan and international measures to see the exit of Hamas from Gaza?

As for Syria, the barbaric violence that we have witnessed in recent days cannot continue. All groups and minorities in Syria must be protected. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his recent discussions with the transitional Syrian leadership. Did he convey to those in charge that they have a responsibility to end the armed conflict in their country and guarantee the protection of all minority groups in Syria, before the international community removes sanctions and normalises diplomatic relationships? What assurances has he received from the transitional Government, and have those commitments been met in any way with measurable action? Will he update the House on whether any of the £64.5 million dedicated to Syria that was announced by the Government earlier this month will be used to deal with the aftermath of these latest clashes, and on how it will be spent? Does he deem sufficient action to have been taken by the interim Government on the destruction of chemical weapons? Does he believe that the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham Government are capable of securing Syria’s borders, and does he intend to change the proscribed status of HTS? What is his assessment of the effect of the sanctions that have already been lifted? Have they had any unintended side effects? Syria’s future still hangs in the balance, and we need to be wholly evidence-led in our approach.

The Foreign Secretary did not mention Iran, but we understand from reports that Iran, Britain, France and Germany are due to hold nuclear talks in Istanbul on Friday. What is the purpose of those talks, is he co-ordinating actions with the United States, and what is the content of the deal that he wants to see?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks, and I am grateful for the cross-party consensus in the House that this war must come to an end. I note the huge concern that we all feel, not just in the House but in the international community, about the humanitarian suffering that we continue to see.

The right hon. Lady asked what more could be done and prayed in aid the work of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron. She will recognise that Lord Cameron and, before him, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) raised the humanitarian situation with the Israelis. It has become steadily worse. The number of aid points is now down to four, and, while the new foundation is offering aid, people are dying as they scramble for that aid. I note that the right hon. Lady did not say we should return to the 400 aid points that we had in the past, and she will note that her Government did not refund funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but we believe that the UN and its system are best placed to deliver aid to Gaza, and that is the position that we continue to maintain.

Against that backdrop, the right hon. Lady asked what we were doing on a multilateral basis and what we were doing in working with others to bring this to an end. I ask her to read the statement that has landed, which 31 countries have now signed up to. Of course we are pressing and working with colleagues. I spoke to Minister Sa’ar once again today, urging him to do the right thing—to secure a ceasefire, but also to look at the aid system that is not working.

As for governance, the right hon. Lady will know that in a couple of weeks’ time we will participate in the two-state conference that has been organised by France, and she will also know that that conference is now dedicated to looking closely at the governance arrangements that must be put in place. When Hamas leave—and they must go; they cannot govern Gaza—how do we ensure that it is not a 60-day pause, but that we bring an end to this and move to the two-state solution? The right hon. Lady knows our commitment to recognition, as set out in our manifesto, and the conversation about recognition that is going on internationally.

The right hon. Lady rightly pressed the case on Syria. When I met al-Sharaa, I made it absolutely clear that his Government had to be inclusive. I pressed him on his background as a terrorist, and on our concerns—the concerns that exist in this Chamber—but we must work with him to ensure that the Government are inclusive, and to ensure that security is fundamental. As the right hon. Lady will understand, there is much that we need to do to support them on counter-terrorism at this time, and, in a country where 90% of people are living in poverty, to ensure that people receive the aid and support that they need—and, indeed, that that aid and support go to the areas affected by the murders we have seen over the last few days.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Earlier today, 31 countries put out a powerful message: the war must end now, aid must go into Gaza unrestricted, the hostages must be released, and all parties must uphold international law. That powerful message was sent to Israel, and by return it was rejected. It was denounced by Israel as being “disconnected from reality”. So what now? In that statement, the 31 nations said:

“We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.”

What are we going to do, may I ask, and does that include the final recognition of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right to call into question so quickly the Israeli Government’s rejection of the advice of their friends and 31 countries, which have come together to express their horror at people losing their lives when simply reaching out to get aid and humanitarian care. She referred to the debate about recognition. We will be working with our French colleagues, who are focusing the upcoming conference on how we get to two states; as she would expect, the UK will play its part. On the broader issues, I hope and pray that we get a ceasefire, and of course that will lead to further activity as we head towards the UN General Assembly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome his commitment to a diplomatic resolution in Syria, and to holding the Governments of Syria and Israel accountable for protecting all civilians, especially minorities.

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the situation in Gaza is inhumane and grotesque and that a ceasefire is desperately needed. I welcome the aid allocations that he has announced, but the problem is that the situation is not new and that repeated expressions of regret by this Government have not prevented further carnage from being wrought by the Netanyahu Government.

The whole House saw the passion with which the right hon. Gentleman announced the British, French and Canadian joint position on 20 May, and with which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), sanctioned Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir on 10 June. In those statements, Ministers said that “we cannot stand by” and that they would respond

“not just with words but with action.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 913.]

I think they meant it, and yet two months later, the Secretary of State has only words, not action. Once again, his joint statement with other countries says only that

“We are prepared to take further action”,

and yet children queuing for food or water are still being killed every single day as the Israeli Cabinet maintains its grotesque blockade of humanitarian aid. It now proposes an open-air prison for all Gazans, which, according to Ehud Olmert, would amount to “ethnic cleansing”.

Today, I spoke to the Oxfordshire doctors Nick Maynard and Nada Al-Hadithy from Nasser hospital in Gaza. They described the desperation of civilians facing the latest Israeli attack, on Deir al-Balah, and the deaths of patients for want of basic dressings, and said that IDF snipers fired directly into the hospital compound. Yet settlers in the west bank continue illegally to occupy Palestinian homes and land, and the remaining hostages, who have been held in Gaza for over 650 days at the hands of Hamas terrorists, are no closer to release.

I have written to the Foreign Secretary frequently to set out the many more steps that Liberal Democrats believe he should take, so I will simply ask him this. Does he truly believe that his Government are doing all they can to put an end to the terrible violence and starvation being visited on Gaza in clear contravention of international law? Can he explain why there have been so few consequences since he and the Under-Secretary of State spoke so powerfully in the last two months? And can he dispel the widespread view that he is not setting the policy he would choose, but that he is instead being reined in by No. 10’s desire not to upset President Trump by acting more boldly?

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself with much that the hon. Gentleman said. It is a source of great regret to me that we have not brought this most horrendous of wars and conflicts to an end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to the Israeli Government’s response to the statement signed by 31 countries, which I had not heard because I have been sat in this Chamber. That ignoring of the international community is tarnishing greatly the reputation of Israel.

I listed in my statement the action that this Government have taken in the last year, since coming into office. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government have led much of the multilateral effort, and that sits behind both the leaders’ statement a few weeks ago and the Foreign Secretaries’ statement today. We will continue to press. We continue, of course, to look at what further we may need to do, as he would expect. I wish I could say that if we were to recognise tomorrow, it would bring this war to an end, but I am afraid I am not sure that is the case. What is required now is painstaking diplomacy to get to a ceasefire, and my assessment is that we will not see that ceasefire until the Knesset rises.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to a word that I said, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary did.

[Mr Lammy]

I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, and he has been consistent for a very long time. As I have said, I regret that we are not in a place where we currently have a ceasefire, despite the international community calling for one and the pressure that exists. He is right: what we are seeing at the moment is an abomination, and I join him in those remarks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course we all condemn the evil Hamas, but is not Prime Minister Netanyahu the biggest recruiting sergeant for Hamas? For every fighter he kills, he is radicalising the whole world against the state of Israel because of this appalling humanitarian solution. I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary says, but are words enough? I wonder whether he will oblige the House and allow a free vote, which I bet would pass by an enormous majority, on a motion for further action against the extreme right-wing actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, sanctions, and recognition of the state of Palestine.

[Mr Lammy]

I hope that the Israeli Government are watching and note what senior parliamentarians on both sides of this House are saying. The right hon. Gentleman will know that 83% of the population now want a ceasefire, and he will have seen the remarks of former Prime Ministers and of all the Opposition in Israel, who condemned the most recent proposals suggested by Minister Katz.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier this month I hosted in Parliament Dr Waseem Saeed, a British surgeon who had returned from working in the Nasser hospital in Gaza, where he treated children for severe burns, amputations and shrapnel wounds that were crawling with maggots. He showed us videos that would shock everybody in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel should face a reckoning in the courts for such injuries and deaths, and that the UK should force such a reckoning? More importantly, does he agree that recognising a state of Palestine is really about recognising the humanity of the Palestinian people, and that their children deserve to have equal worth to every child on this planet?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and I would ask the Israeli Government to reflect again on international humanitarian law. I have in front of me “A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook”, and I am hugely concerned, as I read through it, that it feels that there are breaches.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The deaths of those trying to access aid in Gaza are truly shocking. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the number of civilians killed is being disputed by Israel and there are suggestions of disinformation. Does he agree that one way in which we could establish what is actually happening is if international media organisations, like the BBC and Reuters, were allowed full access to Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, 100%.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Each time Members come together for a statement on the middle east, there is a new horror to comment on, a new inhumanity unfolding and a new form of strong words from the Dispatch Box. Last week, IDF shells hit a church sheltering 600 civilians. Several people were killed. The Pope called it “barbarity”. Yesterday, a World Food Programme convoy came under fire from Israeli forces, despite numerous assurances that humanitarian operational conditions would improve. Innocent Palestinians who were queuing for desperately needed food were killed. According to Médecins Sans Frontières, we are witnessing in real time the creation of conditions for the eradication of Palestinian lives in Gaza. So I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is this Government’s red line? At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us in this House think the red line was passed a long time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I remind my hon. Friend of the action that this Government have taken and how we have tried to lead in the international community on this issue. I also join her in condemning what we have seen in relation to civilians. Page 28 of “Conflict, Hunger and International Humanitarian Law: A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook” makes it clear that:

“Parties to armed conflict must take constant care in the conduct of military operations to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

Clearly, that is not happening.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Like others in this House, I am frankly astonished at the statement of the Foreign Secretary. At a time when we have got daily lynchings and expulsions on the west bank, and dozens being murdered as they beg for aid, I am just beyond words at his inaction—and, frankly, complicity by inaction. He said himself that there is a massive prison camp being constructed in the south of Gaza and he knows that leading genocide scholars from across the world are ringing the alarm bells, yet he has the temerity to show up in this House and wave his cheque book as if that is going to salve his conscience. Can he not see that his inaction and, frankly, cowardice are making this country irrelevant? Can he also not see the personal risk to him, given our international obligations—that he may end up at The Hague because of his inaction? Finally, frankly, I make an appeal to Labour Back Benchers: we cannot get your leadership to change their minds; only you can, if you organise and insist on change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I bring in the Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that we have other business to proceed with tonight, so please keep questions and answers short.

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the fury that the right hon. Gentleman feels, but I have to tell him—

[Kit Malthouse]

Why don’t you feel it?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to tell him that it demeans his argument when he personalises it in the way that he does. It is unbecoming, and not something the House expects, particularly of its more senior Members.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

We have seen again images of children dying of starvation and malnutrition, and this comes after months of warnings from the UN system about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of more aid, but we know that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation will not allow in more UK aid. He said to me 10 days ago at the Foreign Affairs Committee that if there was not a ceasefire, he would consider further action against Israel. As we have seen, the Israelis responded to the calls for a ceasefire by launching a new offensive in Deir al-Balah. What further actions will we take to try to end this catastrophic situation?

[Mr Lammy]

We have actually been able to get in some further aid with the World Food Programme, and of course that is important. It is also right to say that, with our funding of UK-Med, we have been able to save lives. Of course, we must endeavour every single day to make the humanitarian situation better.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 8 July, when he was asked what would happen if we did not see a ceasefire in Gaza in the coming weeks. He was also asked whether the British Government would take further measures against Israel. The Foreign Secretary was pensive, and said “Yes”—that the British Government would be taking further measures if the abomination in Gaza continued. Could he tell the House what those further measures are, or at the very least when we might see them?

[Mr Lammy]

We are doing everything we can in supporting our Qatari, Egyptian and US friends to get a ceasefire. The hon. Member will understand that, in looking closely at these issues, even if we are contemplating further measures, they work more effectively if we can co-ordinate allies.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

The ground invasion of Deir al-Balah is the latest to add to the daily attacks on Gazans, and it is further evidence that the conflict has gone too far. Israeli Foreign Ministers have already rejected the joint statement signed by 31 countries, including ours. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what additional specific steps he will take with others to bring about a ceasefire and secure aid for starving Gazans?

[Mr Lammy]

I set out in my statement the action that this Government have taken, and I stand by it. I regret that we have not brought about a ceasefire. I have also set out that we are attempting to get in more aid and how we are supporting the Palestinian people, including the Palestinian Authority, and I stand by that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On the Foreign Secretary’s watch and in his statement today, he has refused to call it a genocide, he has refused to end all arms sales to Israel and, of course, he continues to refuse to recognise a state of Palestine, so here is something he could do. On his watch, just two wee kids who have been bombed or shot by the Israeli forces have been evacuated to the UK for medical treatment. The First Minister of Scotland wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we stand ready to provide hospital treatment to such children. Shamefully, the Prime Minister has not even bothered to respond. Will the Foreign Secretary do what his boss will not, and commit the UK to making sure that children who have been bombed by Israel are treated—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza. He should look closely at our export licensing regime, because much of it is not about arms. It is about, for example, equipment that we send to support non-governmental organisations and others in the area. Of course, I am happy to look, with the Home Secretary, at what more we can do for children who are suffering.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Ministers say it is for the courts to decide whether genocide has occurred in Gaza, but the genocide convention is aimed primarily at prevention, and the International Court of Justice has already found that there is a plausible risk of genocide and advised that all states must act collectively to prevent it. While the occupying Israeli forces are accelerating the building of illegal settlements in the west bank, the scenes in Gaza are horrific, with almost 1,000 people killed by the IDF while just seeking aid. We are seeing starvation being used as a weapon, the forced displacement of Gazans and mass civilian death, and senior Israeli officials are using dehumanising language while proposing to concentrate Gazans into a mass detention camp. So I ask the Foreign Secretary: when will the Government take decisive action, with international partners, to prevent genocide?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend prays in aid the law in terms of plausibility in breach of international humanitarian law. If he looks at my statement back in September, he will see that I assessed that there was a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law. It is for that reason that I suspended arms sales.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Everybody condemns the deaths as people queue for aid, but this aid system that was enforced is only possible because of the support of the United States in its delivery—so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to persuade the United States that this is not the way to deliver aid into Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made representations to Secretary of State Rubio about my concerns with the aid system. I have done that alongside many European Foreign Ministers and members of the G7.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I recently met the mother of Oz Daniel, a 19-year-old who was murdered by Hamas on 7 October. His dead body was dragged into Gaza. Oz loved to play music; he loved Guns N’ Roses and was a brilliant guitar player. This is about a mum who just wants her dead son’s body brought home. A senior US official has said that Israel is bending over backwards to agree a ceasefire and that it is Hamas who are blocking it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what pressure the Government are applying to Hamas, via Qatar and Egypt, to agree a ceasefire and to bring the hostages home?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to the extent that the challenge faced on the ceasefire has been principally that Hamas do not want a pause and the Israeli Government have said that they do want a pause. There has also been discussion within Israel of what withdrawal we would see of the IDF and, of course, changing the humanitarian aid system. That is why a ceasefire has remained stuck, but it is my hope that once the Knesset rises on the 22nd, we will move to a ceasefire.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

As the Foreign Secretary follows the diplomatic path, will he ensure that in the discussions of the two-state solution, it is borne in mind that not only does the state of Palestine exist, but that Israel’s neighbours do need to recognise Israel’s right to exist?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Najwa Ahmed Fathi Radwan and Mohammed Hassan Yousef Daoud are just two of the tens of thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed in Gaza. Many of their names were read out over the course of 12 hours at a really powerful vigil, which I joined in Aylesbury town centre this weekend. Yet today, that list of dead children has likely just got longer, with Israel’s assault on Deir al-Balah. Will the Foreign Secretary say to his Israeli counterparts: enough is enough?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that I said that this morning to my Israeli counterpart.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary, at the beginning of his remarks, mentioned the savagery unfolding in southern Syria, and said that he had spoken to his Syrian interlocuter, Minister al-Shaibani, about it. Has he spoken to Tel Aviv about it, since the only country that has visibly come to the assistance of the Druze, for all the criticism that has been rightly aimed at it, is Israel? If he has, can he say what his assessment is of the wisdom or otherwise of the action that Israel has taken?

[Mr Lammy]

The UK is clear that we expect Israel to adhere to its commitment that its presence in the area of separation in the south is both limited and temporary. I did press the Israeli Foreign Minister on Israel’s activity, which I worry destabilises the situation further.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s labours to get as many international allies on board and the importance of that, but clearly we must do more—this is not enough. Israel’s flaunting of international law and the devastating consequences of that—I understand that Israeli soldiers are reporting being told to kill children, to point and shoot—are completely unacceptable. As a starting point, perhaps we could ensure that we refuse the Israeli air force chief entry to the Royal International Air Tattoo. Also, as others have said, how will we get over here children who need care?

[Mr Lammy]

I said that I will look at what more we can do should children require medical aid in our own country. If what my hon. Friend says is correct, it would constitute a war crime, very clearly. We cannot have soldiers turning their guns on children. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any decision that might come to me.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Last week, I hosted Keith and Aviva Siegel, both of whom were hostages and were released. The previous week, I met families of hostages who all pleaded with all of us to get the hostages released. The hostages have now been in captivity for 654 days, without any access by the International Red Cross. Will the Foreign Secretary call out Hamas to enable the International Red Cross to go to see those hostages and make sure they are being treated humanely?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I said in my statement that Hamas are making hay with the chaos that exists on the ground, and it is quite wrong to restrict the support of organisations such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister responded to my questions on Gaza in the Liaison Committee this afternoon by saying:

“we need a ceasefire and we need it straightaway”

and

“the situation on the ground is intolerable”.

How will we get that ceasefire when the Israeli Government have already rejected the statement by the Foreign Secretary and his allied Ministers as “disconnected from reality”? The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why is my right hon. Friend not hearing that?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing campaigning on these issues. Of course I am hearing the strength of feeling in the House—how could I not?—and of course the Israeli Government can see the strength of feeling in the House. He knows the list of actions that the UK has taken. He knows the work we are doing with close allies. He knows, too, that we have not brought this war to an end, and he will be familiar with the work we are doing with countries such as Qatar, Egypt and the United States to bring about a ceasefire.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Yesterday, it was reported, as hon. Members will be aware, that at least 93 Palestinians were shot and killed while queuing for GHF-distributed food because they and their families are being starved to death. The fact that GHF stands for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation smacks of an Orwellian doublespeak which I find profoundly disturbing. The Foreign Secretary must surely agree that the current system of aid distribution headed by the GHF is both unsafe and grossly inadequate. Is the Secretary of State content that Britain is doing all it can to ensure it is not complicit in the grotesque use of starvation as a tool of war?

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself with what the hon. Lady has said, and I assure her, not just on my behalf but on behalf of everyone in this Chamber, that there will be no complicity among any of us in acts where there could be a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Last week I heard from Keith and Aviva Siegel, who had been held hostage by Hamas. It was a powerful reminder that until all hostages are released, no hostage is released. That is true for Avinatan Or and his family and Gali and Ziv Berman and their family—in fact, it is the families of hostages who are some of the loudest voices calling for an end to this war. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the next ceasefire is permanent and will see hostages get out of Gaza and aid get in?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; he is right to mention the hostages. I meet regularly with hostage families and did a few weeks ago in my office. He is absolutely right that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli people—83%—want a ceasefire so that the hostages can get out, and they want it to be a sustained and enduring ceasefire, which is not currently the position of Benjamin Netanyahu.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said that Palestinian mothers are repeatedly watching their children slowly starve to death, be maimed, be killed and be buried alive, and that it is a deliberate part of Israel’s strategy physically and psychologically to destroy women and the continuity of the Palestinian people. She called this a femi-genocide. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the situation is intolerable, yet by failing to pull every single lever that this Government could pull, they are tolerating it. When will he stand on the right side of history and implement a full arms embargo, widespread sanctions and a ban on the import of settlement goods, and when will they fund evidence collection for prosecutions?

[Mr Lammy]

I stand by all the decisions we have made as a Government, which are numerous; I listed them in my statement. On the full arms embargo, I am content that we are not sending arms that could be used in Gaza. I ask the hon. Lady to look closely at the export licensing regime, because there are many things that are sent to Israel, and they are for use by NGOs in Israel sometimes so that they themselves are not injured in theatres of conflict.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Doctors have told us that they walk into the emergency room and see, if not starved and emaciated children, tiny bodies strewn across the floor with burns, blasts and bullets, and their job is to choose which child to save and which ones they will have to let go. That is decision making. The Foreign Secretary has an option right before him to make a decision that could make a difference to those children—to protect all health facilities, with the means to do that at the UN. I trust that he will do that. Secondly, if he does not recognise the state of Palestine, there will be no state left to recognise.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the vision that she paints, and I associate myself with the remarks she makes in relation to children, particularly about starvation and the situation that they face. Of course we are working closely with the UN system. I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the beginning of last week to get the latest on the aid situation, and we will continue to work with him.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary states that he believes in a two-state solution—as I have done since at least the 1973 Yom Kippur war—but that Hamas must not be a part of it. Does he agree that the best chance there ever was for the two-state solution was when Israel withdrew in 2005 from the Gaza strip? Hamas was elected in January 2006 and has been in power there ever since and is still managing to hang on. Does he accept that if ever the Government did recognise a Palestinian state, it would have to be the west bank without the Gaza strip, given the internecine slaughter between Hamas on the one hand and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the other that followed the last withdrawal?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Hamas cannot continue to govern in Gaza, and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber agrees with that. I do believe that there are prospects beyond that. Indeed, the IRA laid down its arms, and that is a template for how to demilitarise and how leaders in this circumstance can perhaps exit Gaza. However, the continued undermining of the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli Government, including the starvation of funds, is an attempt not to get to a two-state solution which all of us in this House want to see.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

We watch as families survey the ruins of their homes and are mocked by illegal settlers in the west bank, and we watch as a little boy looks at his dead relative, waiting for him to take another breath. I watched a mother whose baby had its leg amputated before it even got to take its first step. Where is our humanity? To have a two-state solution, we need two states. Let us recognise Palestine. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what words I need to say to him to get our Government to take real meaningful action? Tell me what to say and I will say it.

[Mr Lammy]

I would say to my hon. Friend that we do need humanity, and everything that this Government have done has been to ensure that there is humanity and to ensure the dignity of the Palestinian people and the hostages that are still underground. We will continue with everything we have to get that ceasefire, and we will throw everything at it—that is what we are doing. I sense her frustration and that of many Members in the Chamber. I am as frustrated as she is, but frustration alone will not deliver what we want to see.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Israeli Government should bear heavy consequences should they decide to proceed with the approval of the illegal E1 settlement plan in occupied East Jerusalem, which will threaten the two-state solution?

[Mr Lammy]

The last Government suggested back in 2014 that there would be consequences if the Israeli Government move forward with E1, so it is absolutely the case that there would be consequences if they made such a move, not just from the UK but from all international partners.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Children are being starved and shot in front of our constituents’ eyes. They are watching illegal settlers systematically and strategically undermine the Palestinian state. It is not that there is a risk of international humanitarian law being broken. International humanitarian law is being broken in front of our eyes, on an hourly and daily basis. Our constituents are asking what this Government are doing to stop it, and they are asking that because it is unbearable and they can see that the current approach is not working. We were promised more action weeks ago, but today we are still not seeing more action, so what are the Government are doing to secure accountability under international law, and when will they recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her strength of feeling and for campaigning on and championing this issue in her constituency, but I remind her that we are supporting many groups that are on the ground in the west bank documenting expansion and violence. That work assists the United Nations and the global community.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

There is a narrative around aid—we all want to see it reach the innocent in Gaza—which is that Israel is blocking it getting into Gaza. However, over recent months Israel has facilitated nearly 2 million tonnes of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. As of this morning, 700 trucks of aid have passed from Israel and are sitting in Gaza, undelivered. Will the Foreign Secretary agree that aid is getting through, and that what needs to get better is the delivery?

[Mr Lammy]

I am afraid I cannot agree with that statement. I do not recognise those numbers.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

As I understand it, Hamas want Egypt, Qatar and the United States empowered as legal guarantors not only for a 60-day truce, but up to the signatory date of any final agreement with Israel. Can America not be prevailed upon to act as a guarantor beyond the final settlement? Hamas could be forced to reconsider their objectives under pressure from a population desperately looking for long-term security.

[Mr Lammy]

We are working particularly with Arab partners on this issue. Hamas have to exit—they have to step away from the governance of Gaza. My hon. Friend is right: we cannot have a pause for 60 days; we need an enduring, permanent ceasefire.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza are being deliberately starved to death; aid convoys are coming under fire; children are being shot by soldiers; and schools and hospitals are being bombed. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what further war crimes would need to take place before the UK Government sanctioned the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu himself?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman would struggle to point to any Government of a major G7 or European state that have done as much as we have in office. We led the sanctioning of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir specifically because of their language and behaviours in relation to the west bank. We have said that we keep sanctions under review, as he would expect.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement with other Foreign Ministers, urging Israel to agree to a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. I say to my right hon. Friend, who I know is entirely sincere, that Members—and, indeed, the British people—have heard urgings, demands and outrage in this Chamber, yet the situation only gets worse, with more and more Palestinians dying, each life of incalculable value. In my Adjournment debate in April, I asked what more we could do to help the Palestinian people. When the Minister responded last week, he made some useful clarifications, including that Israeli settlement goods should be labelled so that British people can decide what they are spending their money on. When it comes to the actions of the UK Government, however, I have to ask my right hon. Friend: is this it?

[Mr Lammy]

In some senses, that is in the hands of those who continue to prosecute this conflict. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when she says that each life is of incalculable value. I think I have made more statements on this subject than any other Minister has made statements in this House over the past year—of course, the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has also made his fair share of statements. The strength of feeling is well known, and it is reflected not just here, but across the globe. The current course of the Government of Israel is bringing that country into ill repute. That is what is happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Last week, in Bogotá, the Hague Group met, led by South Africa. Those nations pledged to support the ICC and the ICJ, to refuse all arms sales to Israel, to refuse the facilitation of arms to Israel, and to refuse anything that enhances the occupation of Gaza and the west bank—in short, global opinion supporting the Palestinian people. Will the British Government also sign the Hague declaration and support that group of nations, which are determined to bring the world’s attention to this, to end the genocide that is going on and the continuing occupation?

[Mr Lammy]

I will speak to my South African counterpart about that issue. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we in the UK support the ICC—indeed, it receives funding from British taxpayers—and the ICJ, and we also stand against what we are seeing in the west bank and in Gaza, so I would say that much of what he has said is consistent with UK policy.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

On Friday, the UN reported that 800 people had been killed near aid sites in Gaza over the past six weeks. Over the weekend, yet again, 100 people died just seeking food and water. I want to ask the Foreign Secretary a question he has been asked twice before. This month he told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he would take further measures against Israel if there was no ceasefire and if the intolerable situation in Gaza continued. What exactly did he mean by that—specifically on trade, recognition and more? Our constituents want to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

All action is under review at this time. We are pressing for a ceasefire, and our assessment is that we could see one shortly after the Knesset rises. My hon. Friend will understand that a ceasefire is our priority, as it is the single act that would stop the suffering that we are seeing in Gaza. She lists some of the actions she would expect to be under consideration with international partners. Of course, we must act internationally alongside our partners if we are to have any effect.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that this war must end. However, we must remember that it was started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people, took captives and still abuse those captives today. The war could finish tomorrow if the terrorists released those captives and agree to a ceasefire. Much has been said today about Israel trying to starve the people of Palestine, but the fact is that since the new arrangements were put in place to stop Hamas stealing aid, 82 million meals have been supplied in Gaza. Instead of talking about a two-state solution and recognising a state that does not exist—and that, if it did exist, would be controlled by terrorists—our Government should be standing by the Israeli Government, who are seeking justice for their own citizens.

[Mr Lammy]

I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, save for his remarks that the hostages must be released.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to gently point out to the Foreign Secretary that the reason so many of us are here is that we have been waiting a long time for this statement. With the situation unfolding, as many colleagues have said, our constituents continue to write to us. Last week, Save the Children held a photo exhibition in Parliament in partnership with Choose Love and the photographer Misan Harriman—I should declare that he is the chair of the Southbank Centre, which is in my constituency. I want to read a clip from that exhibition. A question next to one of the pictures asked:

“If you had one superpower, what would it be and why?”

The answer of the young girl in the photo was:

“the ability to change events in order to help my country to become free and help my children live in a safe environment like the rest of the children in the world”.

We are seeing children being killed while trying to access vital food and aid. We must ask ourselves: what more can we be doing? We are seeing children malnourished and starving. I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is the real action from this Government to stop that, so that more children can live?

[Mr Lammy]

I hear the strength of my hon. Friend’s conviction and views when she asks for more action. We are taking action—we have taken action every single day in office. British taxpayers are funding the alleviation of suffering. Is it enough? Have we brought this war to an end? We have not brought it to an end. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the UK will be unable to do that unilaterally, which is why we are working with partners internationally. I have I have done that every single day in office. Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK Government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Twenty-nine arms export licences were suspended in September due to the possible breaking of international law, yet between September and December we saw a further 34 licences. Will the Foreign Secretary explain that decision? How many licences have been granted this year? What is the UK Government’s red line for a total arms trade embargo?

[Mr Lammy]

Most licences are not for military use. Most do not go to Israeli authorities. Many are for civilian use, such as product testing or body armour for journalists and NGOs. I am quite sure that the hon. Member would not want us not to support those organisations. Some are for components going to Israeli companies that are then re-exported to third countries, including NATO allies.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is right; we have been waiting weeks for this statement. The truth is that our constituents do not understand—and neither do we—how we can track our stolen mobile phones to China or Algeria but we cannot track F-35 components in the multimillion-pound arms trade. They do not understand why we have not reported Israel directly to the International Criminal Court for what has been happening to aid workers, and they do not understand why, given that this House voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine, that has not been enacted. I hear the Foreign Secretary’s frustration, and I do not doubt his frustration with his partners, but tonight we could say, “We do not need a conference—we will recognise the state of Palestine.” Will he join us—yes or no?

[Mr Lammy]

Again, I understand my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling. She knows that there will be a two-state conference on 28 July, and of course we will participate. But she will have also detected that at that conference our French and Saudi Arabian colleagues are talking not about recognition but about how we get to two states and get an enduring ceasefire. It may be that as we head to September and the United Nations General Assembly the issue of recognition is raised once more.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Since 2023, the Israel Defence Forces have killed a record number of journalists and killed a record number of humanitarian workers. They continually murder starving children as they queue for aid. An Israeli soldier outed his commanders for their illegal orders to arbitrarily kill civilians. That is not a sequence of coincidences, but war crime after war crime and a clear message to the world: do not intervene and do not observe what we are doing to the Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary has said that he wants a two-state solution. He can take a giant leap in that direction right now with a one-word answer. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member has heard what I have said about my commitment to two states. He knows that we have not yet got a ceasefire, and he knows that we are working with international partners to ensure that we get an enduring ceasefire. He knows the debate around recognition, because I have talked about it not just in Select Committees but at this Dispatch Box on many occasions.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Seventeen thousand, nine hundred and twenty-one children have been killed in this horrific war in Gaza. The Israeli army willingly opened fire on children collecting food and trying to access water. Children are literally being starved to death, and those children not killed are left with disabling injuries. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the war in Gaza must end, but we have seen the response from the Israeli Foreign Minister—the Israeli Government are ignoring what this Government are saying. What will the Foreign Secretary do now? Is it not time for an end to all arms sales, not just some of them, and a complete ban on all settlement goods? He said that he will be part of the conference on 28 July, but he does not need a conference to recognise the state of Palestine.

[Mr Lammy]

I say politely to my hon. Friend that when last year some countries took a step to recognition, it did not change things on the ground. She asks with passion, what is going on? My focus is what is going on and trying to alleviate the suffering. While I recognise the debate on recognition, and we must move to recognition at the appropriate point, I say to her politely that, in terms of this conflict, I do not believe in all honesty that recognition would change the situation on the ground.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Every day we see more and more reports of children being killed in cold blood while they queue for food. The horror cannot get any worse. Prime Minister Netanyahu has already rejected the statement signed by 31 countries—it did not take him long—and it is clear that he is not interested in stopping this horrific offensive. The time for words is over. The House wants to see action, with widespread sanctions, an end to all arms sales and recognition of Palestine as a state. Netanyahu deserves nothing less, and he might actually take notice if we take action. Will the Foreign Secretary consider taking more action to bring this horrific offensive to an end?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes to that last bit. I want to see a ceasefire in the coming days, but of course we continue to consider what further steps we can take with allies to bring the war to an end, as the hon. Member would expect.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Israel’s plans to transfer control of the Ibrahimi mosque from the Palestinian municipality of Hebron is highly inflammatory and a violation of international law? Will the Government condemn any transfer of authority away from Palestinians and consider sanctions against the Kiryat Arba settlement municipality if it assumes such a role?

[Mr Lammy]

We are concerned about the statements made and the language used. We do believe that they are inflammatory and that, were that to take place, that would breach Israel’s obligations. We are looking closely at Israel’s behaviour.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Words do matter, but actions speak louder. What Members across the House and citizens of the country—our constituents—cannot understand is why the Foreign Secretary will not take the actions available to him to end UK complicity in this horror. A full arms embargo and an end to all military co-operation, a full ban on all settlement goods, sanctions on all those responsible for genocide, recognition of the state of Palestine—why will he not take those concrete actions now?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the hon. Lady that the UK Government are not complicit in any actions that would breach international humanitarian law. I took that step back in September alongside restoring funding to UNRWA. She asked for a full embargo. She will note that there was a judicial review of that decision, and the Government’s position was upheld. She does not want to see us or our allies weakened in other conflicts that have a direct bearing on the safety and security of the people of Britain.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary reiterating this Labour Government’s total opposition to Israel’s military operation, something my constituents raise with me regularly, and our shared abhorrence at the sight of children being shot at as they seek food. The Israeli Defence Minister announced his plan to forcibly transfer all Palestinian civilians in Gaza to a camp in the ruined city of Rafah, which the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has deemed a concentration camp in all but name. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is a completely unacceptable violation of international law that cannot go ignored, and will the Government guarantee further action against Israel if it proceeds with the plan?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes. My hon. Friend talks about the statements of Ehud Olmert. It is also right to say that others—Yair Golan, Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Ehud Barak, the former IDF chief—have all condemned what Minister Katz has suggested, and I too condemn it wholeheartedly.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Last week, as a Minister met Yair Golan, shaking hands, smiling and taking photographs, a Palestinian mother faced a dilemma: should she stay where she is and see the starvation of her children, or should she venture out and see the children being blown to pieces, adding to the 17,000 others who have died and the 10 a day whose limbs are blown off? These children do not need these empty words. Words will not stop their bleeding, they will not stop their killing, they will not nourish their bodies and they will not stop the tears of their mothers. I agree with the Secretary of State that even recognising the state of Palestine today would not make any difference to the children on the ground, so will he take a tangible step and propose a British-led, internationally supported hospital in Gaza, in partnership with a coalition of the willing, to provide some remnants of humanity in this darkest of hours?

[Mr Lammy]

Notwithstanding the huge humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza, I am proud of the work of UK-Med, the funding we have been able to give it and the extra money that I have announced today, and that medical aid is getting through to relieve some suffering. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will continue to do more, and I reassure him that I am working with my Jordanian counterparts, in particular, to see what more we can do to alleviate that suffering.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Aid should be a lifeline in humanitarian crises, yet it has become a death trap for Gazans. People are starving, yet one of the only ways they can get food is to risk their lives by going to an aid distribution point run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are seeing the militarisation of aid, and we cannot let that set a precedent? May I press him further on his conversations with the Israeli Government and the US Government on bringing the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to an end?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of aid workers. The widespread loss of life among aid workers is a travesty. It is unprecedented. I remind colleagues of chapter 2 of “The Conduct of Hostilities”, the handbook for legal practitioners in international humanitarian law, which says that distinctions lie at the heart of international humanitarian law and requires parties to armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians—including, of course, aid workers —and combatants. It is a travesty what we have seen take place over the last two and a half years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his thoughtful use of words on a very contentious issue. The latest reports of attacks on the Druze people indicate that hundreds of Druze civilians, including women and children, have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, executed and mutilated, with Christians suffering at their side. Despite the fact that they are fighting back, there is a real and valid fear of genocide of those people, who have a strong faith and, as such, are worthy of our protection. What can the Government and the Foreign Secretary do to secure peace and hope for those people, who are currently being targeted and need aid urgently?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for naming the Druze, who have seen awful atrocities visited on them in the last few days, and the positions of minorities in Syria. I saw that the Pope commented—unusually, in the strongest terms—on what he has seen. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I raised these issues with the Syrian leader myself, urged him to act and said that there must be accountability as he grips the entirety of his country. Of course, these incidents were also taking place under the Assad regime, and in some ways have been going on for a long time, but the suffering that is being wrought on minorities in Syria at this time is totally unacceptable.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

The situation facing Gazans is truly catastrophic. We must secure a ceasefire as soon as possible, with all hostages freed and unhindered access to aid. Our experience in Northern Ireland shows that to build a long-term, sustainable peace we need to invest in civil society and peacebuilders, to create a consensus and to change opinions for the better. Will my right hon. Friend therefore tell us what the UK Government are doing to support the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that British taxpayers are funding NGOs that work across communities. We are supporting that work on the west bank and in Gaza. We are supporting accountability, because that is No. 1 when we look at some of the injustice being wrought. We will continue to do that work, including with the international humanitarian fund.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

There are no red lines. Every single allegation made by the Israeli Government about the crimes committed by Hamas has been re-enacted and executed—for example, killing of innocent people, beheading of babies, burning of babies alive, rape, and hostage-taking, including of many hundreds of doctors. Now we are actually seeing children being shot in the genitals. There are games being played by the IDF. There are no red lines. Will the Foreign Secretary please tell us from the Dispatch Box: what are the red lines? What will cause this Government to take proactive steps?

[Mr Lammy]

What the hon. Gentleman mentions falls into the category of the assessment that I made back in September last year that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law. It was on that legal advice, and the quasi-legal position that I took, that I made sure that nothing we did in this country could be complicit in such action. I want to give him that reassurance. He paints a vivid picture. It is unimaginable that the suffering has gone on for as long as it has.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached horrific levels. Israel’s aid delivery model has failed to meet humanitarian needs. As a mother, I cannot bear to watch children being murdered. My constituents cannot bear to watch. I welcome the statement, but what are the Government doing to deliver the three actions that my constituents want to see them deliver: a UN-led ceasefire, the release of hostages and a credible pathway to a two-state solution?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning all three of those things. We are working for a ceasefire, although it is my assessment that we probably will not get one now before the Knesset rises. We are absolutely working to get the hostages out. I have called to mind opinion in Israel that wants to see a ceasefire to get those hostages out; I reminded the Israeli Government of that, and I did so again when I spoke to the Minister. The aid situation is abominable. That there are trucks waiting at the border is totally reprehensible. As I say, I am guided by the practitioners’ handbook on breaches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, the duty of care, proportionality and distinction, particularly in theatres of conflict, and I am deeply troubled that these seem to be being breached.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of additional aid to help the people of Gaza, but it is aid that will join the millions of dollars and thousands of trucks that are stood outside the border not being allowed into Gaza. There are 1 million children in Gaza starving to death. Palestinian children are our children. We must do everything in our power to get food to them. Some 85% of the population are facing a level 5 starvation assessment, so—please—what steps will the UK Government and the Foreign Secretary take to feed our children in Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his remarks. He knows that in the occupied territories, Israel controls who gets in and who gets out. He knows that the last time we saw a ceasefire, we saw a rapid escalation of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. That is far from the situation today. We were able, working with the UN system, to get some WFP trucks in—an increase over the last few weeks—and our EU colleagues have been doing a considerable amount with the Israeli Government to increase the amount of trucks. Is it sufficient? No, it is not, and we therefore remain deeply worried about malnourished children, notwithstanding the statements that have been made in this Chamber about children whose life has been taken away from them as they have waited for aid because of the system that has been put in place.

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) touched on, the situation in Gaza is all the more infuriating when we hear that the UN has three months-worth of food waiting in warehouses on the border, while it is reported that 19 people died of starvation just in the last 24 hours. I am grateful for all that the Foreign Secretary has done so far on this issue, and I know that he agrees with me that the war must end now, but what are the next actions that we need to take to make that a reality?

[Mr Lammy]

We have to bring about that ceasefire, and we have to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. That is what I set out in my statement today, but I remain as frustrated as my hon. Friend is that this war is not over.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has been kind enough to meet me a number of times over this year, so he knows well my constituents’ feelings about this conflict. They are concerned and disgusted by the sight of the mass killings and starvation of the Gazan people, but they are also frustrated by the lack of medical care and humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary knows that I have many surgical colleagues working in Gaza and who have worked in Gaza, including Dr Mohammed Mustafa, who—alongside the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Australian Government—is desperately seeking to get a maternity hospital caring for women and children into Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary lend his support and the support of his office to this endeavour?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, absolutely. I am grateful for all the work that my hon. Friend has done, and his background in medicine helps to bring these issues to public attention.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

According to the UN, nearly 800 Palestinians have been killed near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid points. The UK sending £129 million in aid is nearly pointless given the denial of the UN’s aid system, and Israel’s cruel blockade is choking off supplies to the people who need it and looks very much like starvation as a weapon of war. The RAF broke a previous blockade with airdrops months ago, and although we welcome the additional £40 million of medical aid that has been promised today, and today’s international statement, Israel has rejected such appeals. So I ask again, please, what are the additional steps that the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee we would take to break this cruel blockade and get aid to those desperately in need?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard the statement that I made today on the extra steps that we are taking in terms of humanitarian aid. He will have seen the statement, made by 31 international partners, on the fact that this war must come to an end and that aid must get in. He is right to condemn the aid system. We warned Israel about reducing the aid points to four, and now we are seeing the horrors in front of our eyes. I remind Israel again about its obligations to international humanitarian law and my worry that they are being breached.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We rightly re-funded UNRWA, but since then aid has become a daily death trap and starvation is widespread. Our calls for a ceasefire only saw the last one get broken. Now, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the chilling order to forcibly displace an entire population of 2 million people has been condemned by ex-Israeli PM Ehud Barak. What more concrete actions are we taking to stop the man-made destruction of Gaza—35 hospitals, as well as hostages, soldiers and civilians—before our very eyes? History will not judge this well, and words are not working.

[Mr Lammy]

We stand with the international community in all our efforts. In terms of what comes next, we support the Arab plan. We are working with Arab partners to improve that plan and to get to the day after, which we can get to if we get that ceasefire.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Gaza is facing catastrophic, famine-like conditions and people are dying in appalling circumstances. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is fundamentally failing to properly distribute adequate humanitarian aid and is turning distribution into another frontline in Gaza. What actions is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that UN NGOs can get into Gaza and deliver the humanitarian aid that Gazans desperately need?

[Mr Lammy]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the UN about this last week. We are working with the UN, and I was pleased that the World Food Programme was able to get some extra trucks in. We will continue to work closely with the UN, because we believe that it must be a fundamental part of the system that distributes aid to the people of Gaza.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I note the agreement reached with the 30 other nations. However, as we know, Israel has already rejected it. It seems to me that Israel is becoming more and more emboldened by the lack of concrete action by the international community. While people starve or are killed while queuing for food, and while those sheltering in the Caritas Jerusalem shelter were bombed at the weekend, it really does begin to look as though there is genocide unfolding before our eyes. I realise that the Foreign Secretary will want to take a legalistic view of that, but to those of us looking at it from a moral and logical point of view, there can be no other words for it. Although I understand and I agree with the Foreign Secretary that recognising the state of Palestine will not bring this to an end, it would at least give the people of Palestine something to cling on to and some hope, so can we please not discount the opportunities to raise that issue, but advocate for it and declare that we regard Palestine as a state?

[Mr Lammy]

In my experience, my hon. Friend chooses her words carefully, and the whole House will have heard what she has said this afternoon. I reassure her that, in my discussions with the Jordanians, the Saudi Arabians, the Qataris, the Emiratis and the Egyptians, and indeed with Prime Minister Mustafa, we of course discuss the recognition issue, as we have been doing with our French colleagues.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The Israeli Government’s unrelenting denial of aid to civilians is turning an entire population of Palestinians to skin and bones, starving them to death. As kids die, the Israeli Government are pushing ahead in defiance with their humanitarian plan for Gaza—a plan that has been described as a “concentration camp” by the former Israeli Prime Minister. Can I press the Foreign Secretary to enforce further sanctions, and can he lay out what tangible pressure this Government are putting on Israel to stop using hunger as a weapon of war?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that, as he would expect, I raise these issues with Israel on a regular basis, and I raised that issue with Israel this morning.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Inhumanity is a red line drawn by international law and underwritten by universal human rights. In Gaza, that red line has not just been broken; it has been ignored, betrayed and erased. The Foreign Secretary tells us that Netanyahu is not listening—in fact, he is putting his middle finger up to the UK Government. Will the Foreign Secretary send military personnel to protect Palestinians from the genocide being committed by the IDF?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend conveys to the Chamber. I listed all the things we are doing. I think the most important thing that the UK Government can do is press to get that ceasefire, press to get an alleviation of the suffering, and, of course, to do everything we can to see the hostages returned.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I just want to be clear on the Government’s legal position. On 11 June last year, the Government reported that they saw “no serious risk of genocide” in Gaza. All this time on, and after the statements that the Foreign Secretary has made, can I be clear: is he saying tonight that the Government accept that there is a plausible risk of genocide? If he is not, will he instruct his officials to undertake an immediate review and report to Members as rapidly as possible? If there is a plausible risk of genocide, that would place legal duties on the Government—and all of us, I believe—to act accordingly. As we have seen in the past when we have had rogue states, like South Africa, the best form of bringing them to heel is financial sanctions. If the Foreign Secretary met the finance houses and banks in this country and they denied credit lines to Israeli banks, that would be probably the most effective thing we could do to bring the Israeli Government to their senses.

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made back in September and the addendum to that statement, which set out the basis on which I have judged that there was a clear risk to international humanitarian law. He knows that the long-established position is that it is for the international courts to make any determination of genocide. Our assessment is there is a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Cat Eccles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles]

The people of Gaza are being starved to death despite UNRWA having enough supplies to feed the population for three months. It is not a matter of logistics; it is sheer cruelty. GHF ration centres are purposely located in the south in militarised zones with sporadic opening hours and sudden closures, leaving people with no option but to make that long journey on foot and wait many hours on the off-chance that supplies may become available—or they may be killed while trying. This is not just a genocide; it is now ethnic cleansing. When Israel’s Government are ignoring calls from 31 countries, what further action can we take?

[Mr Lammy]

As my hon. Friend has heard, what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of human dignity. As she would expect, the Government, working with our partners, keep everything under further consideration.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

We see the brutality and bloodshed in Gaza every single night on our screens. It is disproportionate and horrific, and it has gone on for far too long—bombs, bullets and now the blockades. There can never be any justification for shooting people while they wait and queue for aid. I know that the Secretary of State shares my desire for peace, a two-state solution, an immediate ceasefire and the flowing of aid into Gaza. Will he share what he is doing to help achieve that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right: there can be no justification for shooting people as they are queuing for food—none whatsoever. I reassure him that we continue to work with the UN system and with close partners like Jordan to do all we can to alleviate the suffering.

Syria: Visit by Foreign Secretary

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

I am today updating the House following my visit to Syria, where I met President Al-Sharaa and renewed the bilateral diplomatic relationship. This was the first visit by a UK Minister in over 14 years and marks the beginning of a new chapter in our relationship with Syria.

Eight months on from the fall of Assad, who subjected the Syrian people to 14 years of brutal civil war, it is right that we engage with the new Government. A stable Syria is in the UK’s interests: peace means fewer people being exploited by people smuggling gangs in Europe and making perilous journeys on small boats to Britain. By engaging with the Syrian Government, the UK is helping to ensure the protection of human rights, the safe destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons programme, and progress towards combating terrorism and extremism, including from Daesh.

I had a productive meeting with President Al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Al-Shaibani, during which we discussed the full breadth of the UK-Syria relationship. We discussed the importance of stability, and a political transition that delivers for the Syrian people. I stressed the importance of tackling security threats to the UK, reducing the drivers of irregular migration and improving the conditions to enable Syrians in the UK and across the region to return home.

The pace of change in Syria has been encouraging. I welcome the commitment to hold free and fair elections and the representative appointments made to the Cabinet in March. It is important that the transition proceeds in a genuinely inclusive and representative way and respects the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnic or religious background.

The Syrian Government have committed to a brighter future. Immediate priorities should include the implementation of a deal with the Syrian Democratic Forces, a focus on social cohesion and an improved response to sectarian violence, and the protection of human rights.

There still remains much to do. We will continue to judge the new Government on the action they take to deliver on these commitments.

We welcome the commitment made by Foreign Minister Al-Shaibani to co-operate fully with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons programme is finally declared and destroyed. During my visit, I announced a further £2 million to support the OPCW in this vital work. This follows an earlier UK contribution of £837,000, part of which helped facilitate three OPCW deployments to Syria. The UK has also developed a further package of logistical and technical support for OPCW and Syria, and continues to encourage partners to follow our lead in supporting this essential work. The MOD, with FCDO, will provide a further update on this activity in due course.

The UK has long stood by the people of Syria and will continue to do so. The scale of the challenge facing the Government and ordinary Syrians, as they emerge from almost 14 years of conflict, is immense: the economy is broken, 90% of the population are in poverty and over 16 million people require humanitarian assistance. While in Damascus, I announced a further £94.5 million to provide urgent humanitarian aid to Syrians, and to support Syria’s longer-term recovery through education and livelihoods, and countries hosting Syrian refugees in the region.

The UK was one of the first to relieve sanctions—and lifted several sanctions on key sectors in April, and asset freezes in March on entities including the Central Bank of Syria. Our focus now is on supporting Syrians to rebuild their country and economy and to create the conditions to boost trade and investment. In my meeting with Foreign Minister Al-Shaibani, we agreed to work together on establishing a UK-Syria business council.

As I said on my visit, the UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new Syrian Government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians.

[HCWS801]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. How much funding his Department plans to provide to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance for the 2026 to 2030 period.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

We are proud to be founding partners of Gavi. We have invested more than £5 billion since 2000 helping to immunise more than 1 billion children. Gavi has enjoyed good cross-party support in this House and I am looking forward to updating the House accordingly.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said, and I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that vaccination remains an international development priority. Ahead of tomorrow’s high-level pledging summit, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK must continue to make a significant contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance to ensure that millions of children are protected from some of the world’s deadliest yet treatable diseases, such as malaria?

[Mr Lammy]

I am not going to anticipate the announcement that we may make tomorrow, but I am hugely grateful for the hon. Gentleman raising this issue. We are a proud founding member of the Global Fund and were very pleased to co-host its eighth replenishment alongside South Africa. I look forward to making an announcement very shortly.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

4. What recent steps his Department has taken to facilitate the seizure of frozen Russian assets.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

We have renewed engagement with our allies to pursue all lawful avenues to make Russia pay for Putin’s illegal war on Ukraine. I have engaged with G7 Foreign Ministers on this, and I look forward to speaking to partners at the NATO Hague summit later on today.

[Lisa Smart]

I saw for myself the impact of Russia’s barbarism in Kyiv and Chernihiv last month, and I heard directly from some of the brave Ukrainians who had been subject to war crimes in Yahidne. There is a lot going on in the world at the moment, but what assurances can the Foreign Secretary give the House and those Ukrainians waiting to be able to go home that he is straining every sinew so that Russia pays for its crimes and war crimes?

[Mr Lammy]

Our support is iron-clad. The hon. Lady will have seen our continuing package of sanctions on Russia and will recognise that this issue will be central to our discussions at NATO later on today and tomorrow. Whether it is at the G7, NATO or Weimar+, the UK continues to lead on this critical issue, not just for Ukraine but for European security.

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

Will the Foreign Secretary consider further sanctions on the Russian regime for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children? In recent peace talks, the Russian delegation proposed an exchange of prisoners of war for Ukrainian children who had been stolen from their homes, thereby equating combatants with children, who receive special protected status under international law. Is that not horrific? Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that 53,000 Ukrainian children are expected to attend “summer camps” in Russia this summer, from which they are unlikely to return to their homes?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to prosecute this issue and for raising it at every opportunity. It is a heinous crime. We have already sanctioned some of the individuals who lie behind it. I will not comment on future sanctions, but we are, of course, keeping this under full consideration. It will be a topic of discussion with both Ukrainian Foreign Ministers and NATO Ministers later today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Ukraine has bravely fought back Putin’s illegal invasion, and that is with our undoubted support. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on what action is under way to release the billions of pounds of frozen Russian assets? On the subject of Russian threats and malign influence, he will be alarmed to know that the political opposition leaders in Georgia have been arrested and imprisoned this week. What steps are the Government taking in response, and will further sanctions be considered to curtail Putin’s absolute abuse of democracy in Europe?

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister responsible for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has condemned what took place in Georgia over the last few days, and I endorse that condemnation. On the issue of Russian assets, we are engaged particularly with European colleagues who are more exposed than we are. It has been right to allow new Governments in Europe to take their place and consider these issues, because they require some technical understanding, but we continue to press this issue, and it will be a topic at the NATO summit later today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Over the weekend, while the world’s attention was fixed on the escalating conflict in the middle east, President Putin restated publicly his desire to conquer the whole of Ukraine and his readiness to use nuclear weapons against Kyiv. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that he is maintaining a focus on Putin’s barbaric war against Ukraine.

The Foreign Secretary previously told the House that Germany and Belgium were the blockers to international agreement on seizing frozen Russian assets. Will he set out how he and the Prime Minister will raise this proposal with his Belgian and German counterparts at the NATO summit? Has he considered replicating the EU’s proposals to extract billions of euros more from those assets by moving them into higher yielding investments?

[Mr Lammy]

It is important to recognise that the European Union has just come forward with a new sanctions package—its 18th. I congratulate it on that, given that, as the hon. Member will recognise, countries like Hungary have been backmarkers and blockers on this issue. He has heard what I have said on Russian assets: it has been important for new Governments to be able to consider these things afresh and get up to technical speed. The way forward must be to pool those assets so that all of us bear joint liability, as it were. The discussions continue apace.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to protect the rights of women and girls globally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

11. What steps he is taking to strengthen the UK’s relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia are historic allies with a modern partnership. I met His Highness Prince Faisal bin Farhan immediately after the first Israeli strike, signifying the significant strength and trust in the relationship. The Prime Minister visited Riyadh for his first strategic partnership council with His Royal Highness the Crown Prince, where he committed to an ambitious programme of co-operation and enhanced mutual prosperity.

[Oliver Ryan]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an important partner for trade and peace in the middle east and for the combating of terrorism around the world. With reference to recent events in Iran, how is the Foreign Secretary utilising our relationship to involve the Saudi Government in our de-escalation efforts in the region?

[Mr Lammy]

I have found it hugely beneficial to be able to speak to His Highness Prince Faisal so closely over the last few days, at the outbreak of this crisis and then again in the last 48 hours. We stay in close touch, and Saudi Arabia is a key ally. Of course, we were worried about how the situation would affect regional allies like Saudi Arabia. There is so much that we can do together, not just on security, but on trade. Our trade has grown by 70%, and we remain committed to growing our total trade to £30 billion by 2030.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The creation of the Abraham accords was one of the achievements of the first Trump Administration, and the President of the US has said that he aims for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join those accords. What are the UK Government doing to encourage that process, and what preconditions does he believe Riyadh has for joining the accords?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a good question. We should remember when thinking about 7 October that one of the objectives of Hamas was to tear apart the prospects of normalisation in the region. Notwithstanding the horrors and pain of the crisis in the region over these last months, the Abraham accords and Israel’s changed relationship with so many Gulf partners in particular, but also other Muslim countries, are important to keep hold of. We continue to discuss these issues, but there are no prospects until we get to a ceasefire.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to provide assistance to British nationals impacted by conflict in the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What recent progress he has made on securing the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

I am committed to securing Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s release—I was committed to this before coming to power, and I remain committed now. The Government are engaging intensively on this case. I raise Alaa’s imprisonment every time I am in contact with my Egyptian counterpart, and the Prime Minister has raised it in several conversations with President Sisi.

[Ms Creasy]

I think everybody in this Chamber, including the Foreign Secretary, is desperately worried about the health of Laila Soueif, who has felt that she has no choice but to be on hunger strike since her son Alaa should have been released last September. She is in and out of hospital, desperately ill, “dying in slow motion”, as her daughter says. I welcome the work that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done on this case and the commitments they have made. As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Egyptians have remained steadfast in their objections. Can he confirm that he is considering all options to secure Alaa’s release, including changing the Foreign Office travel advice for Egypt to highlight the risk of arbitrary detention, so that no other family is put through this kind of anguish?

[Mr Lammy]

This case and Laila’s condition concern me greatly. It has been a top priority every week that I have been in office. At every single level—Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Minister, National Security Adviser—we are engaged with the Egyptians. I believe that our strategy is working, but clearly, given Laila’s health, we must see progress at pace with the Egyptian Government.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I recall the right hon. Gentleman, before he became Foreign Secretary, asking the previous Government what “diplomatic price” Egypt had paid for the arbitrary detention of Alaa, before demanding that “serious diplomatic consequences” should be put on Egypt should it not release him. Alaa’s mother is now 278 days into a hunger strike and is critically ill, so let me ask him this: since he became Foreign Secretary, what diplomatic price has Egypt paid, and what serious diplomatic consequences can he point to that Egypt has been forced to pay since July last year?

[Mr Lammy]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I remain in close touch with Laila and the family, and that this is a No. 1 priority for me and I expect to see Alaa released. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he has stood up time after time to raise his concerns about Gaza, and he will understand that if he wants the UK Government to have an effect in Gaza, we must have relations with the Egyptians.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

Britain is at the heart of diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation in the middle east. We are clear that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. While at the UK, EU, G7 and NATO summits and in my engagements from the high north to north Africa, the Government have been delivering security and growth for the British people, deepening Britain’s partnerships and alliances, and addressing the ongoing horrendous conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.

[Daniel Francis]

I know that this House, alongside my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, welcomes the sanctions taken against two Israeli officials earlier this month. What discussions are the UK Government holding with our international partners regarding further actions that could be taken in relation to the incitement of violence against Palestinian citizens?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have seen that we worked with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway on taking those sanctions against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. I cannot speculate on future sanctions, but I reassure him that we are co-ordinating with our allies. He will know that on the issue of humanitarian aid, for example, 26 countries joined us.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Given the clear threat that Iran poses to the United Kingdom, our allies and the middle east, does the Foreign Secretary support the actions undertaken by the United States to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons? He will have heard that President Trump has said that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are gone. Does he welcome that?

[Mr Lammy]

It was important to be alongside Secretary of State Rubio last week in DC. We continue to work closely with President Trump, and the Prime Minister spoke to him just two days ago. The initial assessments of those attacks in Iran are coming in, and we will assess that in due course.

[Priti Patel]

Given the situation that has emerged in the middle east and the fact that the de-escalation has not taken place in recent hours, can the Foreign Secretary outline what measures he is overseeing, in what is effectively quite an urgent situation, to bring back 4,000 British nationals now stranded in Israel? He, like me, will have received overnight a large volume of correspondence from concerned families. What immediate steps will be taken? I understand that another plane is being put in place, but we are now speaking about 4,000 British nationals who are clearly stuck in Israel.

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to see that that flight came into Birmingham. We will do all we can to work with the Israeli Government to open airspace and to continue flights. We have a ceasefire. I have seen, of course, that that ceasefire has been violated, and I urge all partners to keep to that ceasefire so that airspace can open up and commercial flights can resume.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

T3. Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the use of RAF Akrotiri to support Israel’s military activity in Gaza. Given the rapidly developing situation with Iran, can Ministers assure this House that British arms and military bases will not be likewise implicated in any further escalations of that conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

I cannot comment on hypotheticals, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do all we can to protect our assets and our troops in the region and always to stay within international law.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T2. The UN children in conflict report showed that violence against children increased by 25% last year, and that does not even include what is going on this year. The Israeli Government are listed as the most prolific perpetrator of grave violations against children for the second year running, making Gaza the most dangerous place on earth to be a child. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect children in conflict in Gaza and elsewhere, such as in Somalia and Haiti?

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

T5. Almost daily we hear reports of Israeli forces opening fire near aid distribution sites in Gaza. People cannot even access basic food supplies without risking their lives. Given the horrific level of suffering that we can all see taking place, is it not time to end all arms sales to Israel and to recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we have banned the sale of arms that could be used in Gaza, and we liaise with the French and the Saudi Arabians, despite the suspension of their conference. I think the intention is to resume in September.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T4. At the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, the Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was unable to give clear guarantees about the future of the Chagos marine protected area once the sovereignty of the Chagos islands is surrendered to Mauritius. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Chagos surrender deal does not currently secure the marine environment, and that a future environmental protection agreement may result in the UK paying even more money to Mauritius?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

What steps is the Minister taking to stop the killing of Palestinians, and to recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

It is important to recognise that in our country, at Sizewell and at Urenco, uranium is enriched at between 3% and 5%. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found 60% enrichment in Iran. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and we are doing all we can diplomatically to get a negotiated settlement on that problem. Of course, we continue to press for aid to the Palestinians.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

T10. Ministers have collectively restated their commitment to a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but only one of those states is currently recognised. I believe there is support in this House for recognition of Palestine, and that if the matter were put to a vote, that support would be expressed. Would that not strengthen Ministers’ hand, and will they bring the issue to a vote?

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

T7. Does the Minister join me in welcoming the ceasefire between Israel and Iran announced by President Trump, and although the situation clearly remains fragile, does he see an opportunity to restore stability and develop a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear programme—one that ensures that Iran never has access to nuclear weapons?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I do.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Earlier this month, the US President ordered the brutal Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles, and called those protesting against these raids “paid insurrectionists” and “criminal invaders”. A few days later, a gunman assassinated Democratic politician Melissa Hortman. In recent months, figures associated with the US President have spread disinformation and polarising rhetoric via social media, even targeting a Government Minister. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that this level of political violence—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is topical questions; I have to get other people in. Questions are meant to be short and punchy. Please, let us now hear a quick answer from the Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Lammy]

Just as the hon. Gentleman would not expect members of Congress or the Senate to comment on domestic issues in our country, I am not going to stray into domestic issues in the US. It remains the closest of allies.

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

T8. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and his team for all their diplomatic efforts on de-escalation in the middle east. With the rules-based order under enormous strain, upholding international law and multilateral institutions matters more than ever. It is almost a year since the International Court of Justice handed down its judgment on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Given that senior Government Ministers received advice last year on the implications of that judgment for the UK, when can we expect the Government’s response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The all-party parliamentary group for Africa, which I chair, recently published its report on Africa’s just energy transition to accessible and renewable clean energy. What assessment has the Minister made of the report’s nine recommendations, including the recommendation on reforming carbon markets so that they work in Africa’s interests, and the recommendation on ensuring that international development funding is blended with private sector funding for investment in that transition?

[Mr Lammy]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on her recent elevation? I thank her for her work on the APPG, and I assure her that we will review her report as part of our new Africa approach.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Dame Karen Pierce is one of our most senior and experienced diplomats, and I very much welcome her appointment as an envoy to the western Balkans, but since her appointment, we have heard precious little about the western Balkans from the Foreign Secretary’s Department. Can he reassure this House that we have not lost interest in the western Balkans?

[Mr Lammy]

Having been to the region twice—I am going back soon, within the next six weeks—I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have absolutely not lost interest. Dame Karen Pierce is at the centre of that, alongside the Berlin process, which we will host later this year.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

We recently agreed the successful UK-India trade deal, but FCDO co-ordination with India on crisis diplomacy has never been more important, particularly following the recent terrorist attack, the Air India plane crash and human rights concerns, including about the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. Can the Secretary of State explain how security co-operation and consular support are being pursued in the light of the trade deal?

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

What does it say to Britain’s allies, and to our enemies, when neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister can bring themselves to say that the strikes again Iran were right and legal?

[Mr Lammy]

I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio every single week that I have been in office. The Prime Minister and the President of the United States have the best of relationships. That is a signal of how well our special relationship is working.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The Iranian regime hangs gay people from cranes. It funds and arms terror groups, and arms Vladimir Putin. A regime such as that must never have nuclear weapons. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent it from ever achieving its goals?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the horrendous human rights record of this regime, a regime that is the worst sponsor of state terrorism in the world.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Can the Foreign Secretary declare from the Dispatch Box that an Iran with no nuclear weapons is now a more likely prospect as a result of the actions of the Israeli and American forces over the past 10 days?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make this clear to him. Once a country has acquired the ability to enrich uranium to 60%, that scientific knowledge is there and does not go away. Ultimately, this will require a diplomatic solution. That is what President Trump is pushing for, and that is what the UK Government want to see as well.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The postponed French-Saudi conference on a two-state solution may take place as early as next month. Does the Minister think it will provide the significant opportunity that he seeks for us to recognise Palestine as a state, alongside UK allies?

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Cousin marriage is often used as a cover for forced marriage. Have the Government raised the issue of the incredibly high rate of first-cousin marriage with the Pakistani Government, given that so many of those marriages are between UK and Pakistani nationals?

[Mr Lammy]

As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was in Pakistan recently, and we discussed a range of human rights issues.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Colombia and South Africa, as co-chairs of the Hague Group, have called an emergency ministerial conference in defence of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people, to take place in Bogotá in July. Countries across the world are confirming their attendance. Will the UK Government send a representative, and join nations around the world in standing up for international law?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will recognise that we, alongside our partners throughout the global community, continue to raise serious issues relating to the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, and of course I will look in detail at the conference to which he has referred.

Points of Order

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he refers to was a matter of debate and nothing disorderly occurred. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I would urge that good temper and moderation be followed at all times in this Chamber.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of record that former Prime Minister May was considering matters that pertain to our nuclear capability. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was an adviser at that stage, and she had to withdraw her recommendations on the China General Nuclear Power Group. That is a matter of record, and anyone in this Chamber can google it.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the Foreign Secretary is sitting here, I thought it relevant to record that we have just heard that the American Government have put in a second disapproval, for security reasons, to the granting of a Chinese embassy in the proposed location.

China Audit

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the China audit.

China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner.

Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all. China’s power is an inescapable fact. After what the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 described as a “completely inadequate” approach over the past decade to deal with China’s “size, ambition and capability”, we must now look at the facts. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton attempted a golden era. Boris Johnson let Huawei into our critical national infrastructure before U-turning. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak decided that China was a threat but failed to devise any policy response, instead burying their heads in the sand.

This Government conducted an audit of our most complex bilateral relationship to deliver a long-term strategy, moving beyond cheap rhetoric to a data-driven, cross-Government approach. I would like to thank the hundreds who contributed to it, including hon. Members, of course, and experts, businesses, diaspora communities, devolved Governments and close allies. The audit is less a single act than an ongoing exercise that will continue to guide the UK’s approach to China. It informed the Government’s strategic defence review, which assessed that China was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. It informed the national security strategy, published today, which sets out China’s impacts on each strategic pillar of UK national security. It has steered our trade and industrial strategies, which analysed where greater engagement is possible, given the important role China can play in delivering UK growth.

Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do—from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure.

Hon. Members will again recognise that disclosing the detail of the responses to those threats would undermine their effectiveness. However, I can confirm that following the audit we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services; updating our state threats legislation following Jonathan Hall’s review; strengthening our response to transnational repression; introducing training for police and launching more online guidance to support victims; launching, as announced in the industrial strategy, a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions covering the 17 sensitive areas under the National Security and Investment Act 2021; and working bilaterally with China to enhance intelligence flows related to illicit finance specifically, organised immigration crime and scam centres, using new National Crime Agency capabilities.

On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that.

The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights—notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet—while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.

The audit made it clear that our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities. It provided ample evidence of the extent to which our economies are intertwined. China is our third biggest trading partner and our universities’ second largest source of international students. China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK’s secure growth, but over the past decade we have not had the structures either to take the opportunities or to protect us from the risks that those deep links demand. Businesses have told us time and again that they have lacked senior political engagement and adequate Government guidance.

We have already begun to develop new structures, including regular economic and financial dialogues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, setting us on course to unlock £1 billion of economic value for the UK economy and positioning the UK’s world-leading financial sector to reflect China’s importance to the global economy; joint economic and trade commissions; and joint commission meetings on science. We will also launch a new online hub, bringing together detailed and specific business advice. The forthcoming trade strategy will set out how we will support British firms to enhance links with China’s vast and growing consumer market as well as assess new tools to keep goods made by forced labour anywhere in the world off Britain’s high streets.

The audit recognised that China’s global role does not fit into simple stereotypes. China is the world’s biggest emitter but also the biggest producer of renewables. It offers $80 billion towards development annually. It is also the UK’s second largest research collaborator: 11% of British research output included Chinese authors.

So the audit was clear: the UK must develop new dialogues with China on issues such as climate, development, global health and science, as well as on trade. In doing so, we are driving our long-term interests and creating secure opportunities for UK plc.

We cannot deal with China’s complexity unless we improve our capability to understand it, for our national security and for secure trade and growth. The audit showed that under the last Government there was a profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, history and—most importantly—language. Over the past year, I have found that far too few mandarins speak Mandarin. We are already taking action to address that by introducing a new China fast stream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, creating an FCDO global China network and training over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. Enhancing those capabilities still further will be a core focus for the £290 million FCDO transformation fund announced in the national security strategy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a short time ago. The new strategy, which proceeds from the audit, will ensure that the Government examine the full spectrum of interests in their decision-making processes and deliver the consistent approach that was so sorely lacking.

Anyone expecting a simple prescription on China is not living in the real world. The audit has painted a complex picture, but it has provided us with a clear way forward. The UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. Never compromising on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth—those are the hallmarks of grown-up government, acting in the long-term national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I look forward to reading the audit and receiving the detailed briefings that clearly cannot be put in the public domain.

Let us be clear: China thinks that its way is the best and only way, and its leaders are on an international quest for global governance and for its frightening authoritarian model to supersede ours. Ours is one of democracy, openness and standing up for freedom and values.

China has been ramping up its military with alarming conviction, including conventional nuclear and space capabilities, and it is a critical enabler of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—we saw President Xi standing side by side with Putin in Moscow just weeks ago—so be in no doubt that China and Russia are collaborating across all domains to undermine our very democratic freedoms and the west. Beijing tramples on the Sino-British declaration in Hong Kong, threatens British national overseas passport holders on British soil and has imprisoned Jimmy Lai—a British national—through an awful, politically motivated trial.

Beijing’s unjustified aggression in the South China sea is dangerous, and it unacceptably intimidates and challenges the sovereignty of its neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. It is consistently and constantly threatening the peace-seeking democracy of Taiwan while committing the most appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It also applies hybrid and grey-zone techniques against Britain, including malign cyber-activity directed at our democratic institutions and sanctioning our very own Members of Parliament, all the while exploiting vulnerable countries through its belt and road initiative. China also flagrantly brushes aside economic rules and steals intellectual property. It has developed sophisticated models to acquire strategic assets around the world.

Despite all of that, it has taken the Government a year to produce this audit, which seemingly fails to set out any kind of serious strategic framework. I think it is fair to say that we know why: it is because the Government—in fact, the Foreign Secretary touched on this—have gone cap in hand to China to bail out their terrible handling of the British economy. They are setting up closer economic ties with China while knowing very well that British businesses are struggling not just in competing against China, but to absorb the weight of Labour’s own regulatory costs.

We have not heard it in the statement, but can the Foreign Secretary name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices, climate or human rights? He failed to mention that Members of this House have been sanctioned by China.

We have seen signs of naivety from the Government—consistently, if I may say so. [Interruption.] Within one day of the Prime Minister meeting President Xi, he effectively held that as an opportunity to bring about a strong and consistent relationship in which surprises would be avoided. Within the following few days, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. That is completely unacceptable.

What is the Foreign Secretary’s actual strategy to deter China from systematically extinguishing freedoms in Hong Kong? Will he commit to using the full weight of the Government machine to do more to protect BNOs and Hongkongers who suffer outrageous transnational repression in the UK, rather than just issuing guidance and training?

The Government have constantly and suspiciously backed the application for China’s new super-embassy in London. Why are the Foreign Secretary and the Government not showing the same backbone that their Irish and Australian counterparts showed when they saw fit to block embassy planning applications from Russia, which they deemed too risky for national security?

Do the Government have a practical strategy to deter Chinese efforts to capture Taiwan by military means or by stealth, or to oppose the human rights abuses in Xinjiang? What is the Foreign Secretary’s end goal and what are the means of getting there? What will he do to find new critical minerals supply chains in order to reduce reliance on Chinese trade? With that, what will the Government do now to move Jimmy Lai’s case on to an urgent footing, away from the complex consular case handling that it seems to have in the Foreign Office?

The Government need to urgently sort out some of the grave contradictions mentioned in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I will highlight a few. We heard him speak about the China audit underlining

“the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin.”

We do not question or doubt that, but some action is needed. The statement also says that the audit

“reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted both in international law and deterrence.”

How does that help Jimmy Lai at this particular moment?

We will always support the security and the defence of our country, so the Government must do much more when it comes to keeping Britain safe from China.

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it.

Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring.

The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interest that she has taken with the China audit. I did say that I would update the Committee, and I look forward to appearing before it and taking questions on this subject.

In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification. She will note, when she looks across the G7 and other Five Eyes partners, that many of them have handled their approach to China in the way that I have set out. I refer her to the strategic defence review and its contents on China. I refer her to the national security strategy, which has just been published, and its references to China. I also refer her to the UK’s industrial strategy and its references to China, alongside the statement that I have just made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For years, UK Governments have failed to take seriously the challenge posed by China. The Conservatives failed to deliver even the semblance of a coherent approach to dealing with Beijing. Today, after months of waiting for this audit, the Government’s failure to publish a stand-alone document is immensely disappointing. Will the Foreign Secretary set out how Members of this House, including those on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those on the Front Benches with responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security, can be briefed on the more sensitive elements of the audit?

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise China for what it is: a threat to our values and interests. The Foreign Secretary is right that our approach must confront the facts as they are. They include China’s hostility to the UK’s allies and support for our adversaries, its abuse of human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the theft of intellectual property and its efforts at transnational repression. Instead of trying to establish warm relations with President Xi, the Government should commit to clear red lines on what they will not accept. For example, we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong when on a private visit to see her family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what steps he will take if Beijing refuses to give an assurance that MPs will not be blocked from visiting Hong Kong or China?

We now hear reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to wave through Beijing’s application for a proposed mega-embassy in the heart of London. That is not a technical planning matter to be cloaked in the veil of quasi-judicial powers; it is a matter of national security. Opposition has been expressed by the United States and by pro-democracy Chinese and Hong Kong activists living in the UK, who already face Chinese Communist party-sponsored bounties. Has the Foreign Secretary met those activists, and will he formally request that the mega-embassy application be blocked?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, this was a comprehensive audit of our relations with China, and for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised consistently, there are important sections of that audit that must remain classified. He mentioned the Intelligence and Security Committee; as he would expect, mechanisms are in place to allow that Committee to understand some of the details, and to scrutinise them in the usual way. He mentioned the experience of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I want to make it clear that when I recently met the Chinese International Minister and member of the Communist party, Mr Liu Jianchao, I raised that case, and our huge concerns about its implications for the free travel of British citizens and democratically elected Members of Parliament, not just in this country but across the world.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the embassy and had questions about security. Those issues are precisely why the Home Secretary and I, advised by our security agencies, wrote a letter on the issue of the embassy, raising the concerns that would need to be addressed if the proposal was to move forward. And yes, of course I have met activists who are campaigning, particularly on the issue of transnational repression, and so has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who deals with this issue and the Indo-Pacific.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Uyghurs and on Hong Kong, I have lost count of the number of responses I have had from Ministers that have referred to today’s audit. I hope the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I take today as the start of a conversation, rather than the last word on these matters. He has again used his three Cs mantra: competing and co-operating with China, and challenging it when needed. I wonder if he understands that many Hongkongers, Uyghurs and others who are fighting for freedom from or within the People’s Republic of China worry that the order of that is deliberate, and that the “challenging” part is a lower priority. What reassurance can he give to those groups that commercial interests will not trump the responsibility to protect freedoms and security, particularly of British Hongkongers? Can he confirm that the threats identified in the audit, and the national security challenge, will be fed into the decision making on whether to allow the embassy?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing on the APPGs, and for pressing these issues. I said in my statement that we will co-operate where we can but challenge where we must. I have consistently raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims in meetings with counterparts, and I have encouraged them to implement the recommendations on Xinjiang from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Genocide is a matter for the international courts, but it is something that I and our allies in the G7 take very seriously indeed, and we will press this issue with the Government of China on every single occasion.

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

First of all, before we go to the political knockabout, let me say that I have spoken critically on this issue no matter who was in government; let us settle that before we go on. I want to give the Foreign Secretary a quick audit of exactly what should have been said. China threatens Taiwan, has invaded the South China seas and is having massive disputes with the Philippines. There is genocide, slave labour, organ harvesting and transnational repression. There have been attacks on Hong Kong dissidents here, and Hong Kong dissidents are constantly under threat. There have been cyber-attacks on the UK. China supports Myanmar’s repressive military regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also supports North Korea and Iran. It has trashed the Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, arrested Jemmy Lai and placed sanctions on UK MPs, and it thieves all the intellectual property from private companies. What a record! And what would we balance against that? Some potential trade?

This question has already been asked, in a way, but it is worth repeating. On the embassy decision, it was said clearly in the media that China would not apply again after the refusal from Tower Hamlets unless it received assurances from the UK Government. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me that China has not received any assurances? Or has it received private assurances from the Government that it will get what it wants, and will get this embassy?

[Mr Lammy]

Let me express my respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise on the China threat. I acknowledge that he is subject to sanctions; I have consistently raised that point with China, noting that it recently lifted sanctions against Members of the European Parliament. I pressed it recently to do the same for Members here. Let me assure him that there are no grubby deals on any issues, and certainly not on the embassy; I reject any suggestion to the contrary. He describes the context on China. I refer him to page 28 of the strategic defence review, which summarises the challenge better than he did. It states that China is

“a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order.”

We agree.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am the first to recognise, along with him, the need for pragmatism on this issue. He speaks of our closest allies. In Washington a couple of weeks ago, I heard about the Americans’ real concerns about the super-embassy in London. They are banning Chinese electric vehicles because of their autonomous and connected nature, which is an extraordinary move to consider making. I recognise that there is an economic need, but there is obviously political pressure as well. Can members of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, have access to the confidential documents, so that we can be clear-eyed about what we face?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend does in this area, but I must maintain that there has not been that access under any Government, other than for those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have access to high-classification documents, and for Privy Counsellors, who have access to conversations with the Government and officials that they pledge to keep secret. The Government cannot abandon those principles, which have consistently served us well for many years under many Governments.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

On page 39, the “National Security Strategy 2025” states:

“Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.”

Just three pages later, it talks about the importance of

“creating the basis for a reciprocal and balanced economic relationship”

with China. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the inherent conflict between this Government’s desire for closer economic relations, and the Chinese Government’s desire to undermine our economy?

[Mr Lammy]

The paradox is important, but let me be clear that £600 million-worth of new investment in our intelligence services is an important development. Investment in our capabilities, including new powers and capabilities for the National Cyber Security Centre, is an important development, but being able to unlock £1 billion-worth of trade with our third biggest trading partner must also be central to our undertaking at this time.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement, particularly as it has become clearer that the Conservatives badly mismanaged not just their policies towards China but our relationship with it over successive years. China offers economic opportunities, but also poses threats, as we have been hearing. We also heard earlier in the statement on the national security strategy about the importance of partnership and alliances, including with key allies in the Indo-Pacific. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Boris Johnson’s 2019 embracing of China’s belt and road initiative was a serious diversion from the position of many of our democratic allies, many of whom saw the belt and road initiative as a threat?

[Mr Lammy]

Prime Minister Johnson’s record on China is shocking. It led to the grave embarrassment of having to do a U-turn on Huawei, which would have been able to get into the most delicate of our telecommunications infrastructure. It is because of that that we undertook, while in opposition, to do a full audit. That audit is constantly ongoing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will see its results reflected in the industrial strategy, the national security strategy and, of course, the SDR, which was published recently.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I enjoyed playing buzzword bingo when the right hon. Member presented his statement. I remind him that the rebellion on Huawei was actually led by Conservative Members, not Labour.

May I question the right hon. Gentleman about a meeting, which he referred to with a little more pride than I would have done? It was the meeting with Liu Jianchao, who is personally responsible for Operations Fox Hunt and Sky Net, which, of course, concern transnational repression, the kidnapping of Chinese citizens and their repatriation by force to mainland China. He did not seem quite as ashamed of that as I would have been. Why has he still not made it clear that the first scheme, which the Conservatives left intact and ready to go, will not yet be introduced for the whole of the Chinese state, as it should be? That is what it was designed for. For all the words that we have heard, there is not a single practical outcome. It is all still waffle.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise, and it is right to put on the record, that Conservative Members, the right hon. Gentleman among them, have raised significant issues over the past decade or so about the approach to China. That is why, in opposition, we said that we would do a full audit. He will recognise and welcome, I suspect, the extra investment in the intelligence services, and particularly in our national cyber capability. I see him nodding. Those are tangible outcomes. That cannot, on any analysis, be described as waffle.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Before coming to Parliament, I worked in a buying department for a large international retailer. In my career, I saw a move to sourcing from China, and a rise in the popularity of retailers based in China. How will the audit work with the Department for Business and Trade to level the playing field for UK manufacturers, given the imports from China, particularly in the light of unfair trading practices, to protect our economic security and UK supply chains?

[Mr Lammy]

It is a good question, and I refer my hon. Friend to the industrial strategy and the further work that we have to do on supply chains. From day one, this Government have taken a big interest in global supply chains in critical minerals. Together with many partners across the world, we are working with the Global Clean Power Alliance to create new supply chains, in order to deal with the issues that she has raised.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in raising the issue of my being refused entry to Hong Kong. I look forward to reassurances that no UK MP will be refused entry to any Chinese territories.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement mentioned that China is our universities’ second largest source of international students, and that includes my university, the University of Bath. Global academic exchange and the free flow of ideas is at the heart of our liberal values and should be welcomed, but should the Government not be aware of the fine balance that must be kept? We should not allow young researchers and students access to certain knowledge that could ultimately be used against the UK.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a fine balance. We need to invest more in our police capability, and that is an outcome of this audit. We need to continue to work with our universities, so that they understand the threats in this area, as well as the opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

May I say to the Foreign Secretary how much I welcome this China audit? I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. As someone who studied Chinese at university and lived there for a year, I know how complex and different China can be, and the many misconceptions and ignorance around China have been a source of frustration for me. Whatever anybody thinks of our relationship with China, it is absolutely vital that we have clear communication and that we deal with China from a position of knowledge. Does the Foreign Secretary agree how important it is that the FCDO is upskilled to ensure that we have that knowledge of Chinese culture and language skills, so we are fully prepared for the years ahead?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of capabilities. We must have more diplomats with a fine understanding of China and more Mandarin speakers, and we are doing that. Sadly, the last Government cut the number of diplomats with that capability and understanding. We need to invest in the Great Britain-China Centre so that understanding of the culture is across our country, and she is absolutely right on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?

[Mr Lammy]

What I see is naivety on the behalf of the hon. Gentleman. First, to be clear, the Deputy Prime Minister has not made her quasi-judicial decision. It is wrong, and he should correct the record of the House because the decision has not been made. Secondly, why would we want a situation in which the United States, under both Governments, can take the hardest approach on China, but trade is up, and in which our G7 partners understand the risks and threats of China, but all their trade is up, when under the last Government, we were in a situation where trade was down only for the UK? That cannot be right.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Secretary of State for his pragmatic approach. Opposition is easy, but Opposition Members know that if they were in his shoes, they would be doing exactly the same thing. Huawei has been mentioned a couple of times in passing. The reality is the guddle over it delayed the roll-out of 5G by three years and cost the economy £7 billion, which is just incredible and shameful, actually. I welcome the emphasis placed on improving cultural links between the UK and China and, of course, our universities are a key part of that. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that our universities have a say in how we establish better relationships between China and the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that our universities were able to contribute to our China audit.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to human rights situations in Xinjiang and Tibet. I would like to have seen more about religious freedoms, which includes next week’s birthday of the Dalai Lama—probably the most well-known Tibetan in the world. His future reincarnation should be for the people of Tibet, both inside and the diaspora. Given the Tibetan diaspora, the Uyghur diaspora and Hong Kong nationals are under constant surveillance here by the Chinese Communist party, how do the Government plan to take the recently agreed G7 definition of transnational repression and translate it into domestic law?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in December, we appointed my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) as the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. He is right to raise the issues that we are aware of in Tibet. On transnational repression, we have a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression, particularly under the National Security Act 2023, which we will update.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and that answer. He will know that in Bracknell and the wider Berkshire area we have a large Hong Kong community, who have been terrified at the threat of national repression from the Hong Kong Government. What message can he share with my constituents about the protections available for them to enjoy the democracy and freedom of speech that we so value here in the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister for the Indo-Pacific has met some of my hon. Friend’s constituents on this issue. Because of the concerns he rightly raises, I hope he will welcome the training for our police right across the nation on these issues.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Will the Government publish a list of sectors considered overly dependent on Chinese input, starting with critical minerals and clean energy components, to promote transparency? Will the Foreign Secretary outline any clear Government targets for reducing those dependencies?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the powers to counter foreign interference and transnational repression under the National Security Act.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned Hong Kong in his statement. Would he consider speaking to colleagues in the Home Office about rethinking the changes to indefinite leave to remain, to ensure BNO passport holders do not end up facing questions about their status?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

That issue is still subject to consultation and will be announced by the Home Secretary in the usual way.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision?

[Mr Lammy]

Through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, we have a robust framework to make individual decisions such as the one on Mingyang. As the hon. Lady knows, energy is one of 17 priority sectors under the NSIA in which Government can block any potential acquisitions on security grounds, and that remains under consideration.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is four years today since the Apple Daily ceased publication, and Jimmy Lai still languishes in Hong Kong’s Stanley Prison. It is worth noting his name and encouraging the Foreign Secretary to raise his case as often as he can. It is welcome to see in the statement that we are

“strengthening our response to transnational repression”.

Can the Minister confirm that that includes restoring access to the Mandatory Provident Fund, which is another way the Hong Kong Government are spreading their chilling impacts on BNO visa holders here in the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. May I also name-check the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on this issue? The issue is under consideration, and we have been discussing with communities these very important pension issues.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In his statement, the Foreign Secretary says that

“our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities”.

As an example of that, he refers to our universities’ second largest source of international students being China, yet the Intelligence and Security Committee stated in the press notice for its report on China, of which he approves:

“China is similarly aggressive in its interference activities… China oversteps the boundary. It has been particularly effective at using its money and influence to penetrate or buy Academia in order to ensure its international narrative is advanced and criticism suppressed.”

In answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), he said that we look to the universities to take precautions. Given the financial incentive to universities, I would rather look to someone else to take the precautions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do have to be vigilant. As I said, sitting behind this audit is a lot of work at high classification. He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee understands the nature of that work, particularly the work that sits behind the strategic defence review and the national security strategy. That is ongoing, and I am happy to ensure that he is aware of the work we are doing with universities.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred to protections in terms of energy companies, but when it comes to Mingyang and Orient Cable in the highlands and the North sea, the concern is not their ability to produce but their ability to switch off and on the network and our energy security and, as a result, national security. Can he tell us what mitigating measures will be put in place if those contracts are won?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the sensitivity and the import of what the hon. Lady says. That is central to the considerations and discussions that are under way within Government as we look at these issues and balance them against our national security.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

For weeks, some questions on China have been deflected on the basis that we should wait for the audit, so it is rather disappointing that the insight we get today is very opaque. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he reveals that China is the UK’s second largest research collaborator. Has he done an audit of the nature of that research? Are there economic and intelligence risks from that research, and are the Government minded to take any steps either to monitor or to control the extent of that research?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would have liked to hear more and the statement was opaque, but the other side of that coin is that it might be reassuring that the Government are not making all of our intelligence capability and understanding available to China and the outside world. He will recognise that the biggest academic partner in that research is the United States, and given the way the economy of China has grown, certainly over my two decades in Parliament, it is not surprising that it has emerged as our second largest. I want to reassure him that, of course, the agencies are able to offer full advice to universities and examine sensitivities, and we are very aware of the threats he has conveyed to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, and yes.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I want to remind the Foreign Secretary that the Government that invited Huawei into our telecommunications network was actually the last Labour Government between 2003 and 2006. [Interruption.] Well, he has tried to be partisan about it. The ebb and flow of these issues and the mistakes go back quite a long time, and he should acknowledge that.

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of China’s dominance of the world market for cellular internet modules, which are subsidised and sold internationally below the cost of manufacture? What assessment in particular has he made of the insertion of kill switches in Chinese-made wind turbines and PV cells, and will he rule out any Chinese involvement in our energy infrastructure?

[Mr Lammy]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose advice to former Prime Minister May led to the possibility of nuclear information being revealed. He should be embarrassed, and I am surprised he came to this statement this afternoon.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China?

[Mr Lammy]

The audit is a lot of work, and we have not even been in government for a year. We pledged to undertake an audit, we have undertaken that audit and what I have set out is comprehensive. There can be no no-go areas for the UK Prime Minister.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The audit received responses from the devolved Governments. Last month, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister met the Chinese consul general in Belfast. The meeting was described as a formal diplomatic engagement with views exchanged on deepening co-operation. Significantly, there were no press interviews, publicly released minutes or full attendee list; no specific sectors or agreements were referenced. Northern Ireland’s foreign policy is not devolved, so does the Foreign Secretary know what was discussed or agreed? Does he think he should know and will he ask? As a response to the audit, did the Northern Ireland Executive include what was discussed in that meeting or previous meetings between the Chinese Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is essential that we have a fuller understanding of the reach of China, as well as of our goals. British citizens have contacted me about the human rights violations, not only against those in China but those who live on our shores. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that China understands that its reach stops before our shores, and that our people are entitled to think and have freedom of speech whenever they desire, without any fear of reprisal?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We will always fight and press for our democratic norms. We cannot accept repression, oppression and criminal acts committed in our own country. We will stand up to them, and I have made representations to my Chinese interlocutors to make that completely clear.

Middle East

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the Israel-Iran conflict.

Since I last updated the House, the United States has struck three Iranian nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that the action was “intentionally limited”. Britain was not involved in the strikes, just as it was not involved in Israel’s operations, but Britain has long had concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and the United States has now taken action to alleviate that threat. A nuclear-armed Iran would endanger the immediate region and threaten the global community.

This is a perilous moment in the middle east. Waves of strikes between Israel and Iran have lasted for 10 days, continuing overnight. I know that the whole House will have in their thoughts the many civilians impacted by the fighting. I can confirm today that they include one British national injured in Israel. We have reached out to offer consular support.

Iran has consistently failed to reassure the world that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. The House will recall Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling out Iran for perpetrating “serial deception” over years after exposure of the fortified Fordow nuclear site. Today, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is 40 times over the limit set by the joint comprehensive plan of action. Iran is enriching at 60%, while typically, a commercial nuclear reactor such as the one at Sizewell operates with uranium enriched at between 3% and 5%. Iran lacks any civilian justification for this level of nuclear activity, and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors has declared Iran to be in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

As we respond to this fast-moving situation, our first priority remains the welfare of British nationals in Iran and Israel and of our staff on the ground. Our crisis teams in London and the region have been working around the clock, and Israel has put restrictions on its airspace since Friday 13 June. The British embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem are open. All our diplomats remain in place supporting British nationals, and we have bolstered the embassy in Tel Aviv with a rapid deployment team from the UK.

We have been working closely with the Israeli authorities to prepare flights to evacuate vulnerable British nationals and their dependants. Yesterday, we launched a booking portal for British nationals. Today, as soon as it was possible to enter Israeli airspace, I can confirm to the House that a Royal Air Force A400 has flown in to Tel Aviv and taken 63 British nationals and their dependants to Cyprus, from where they will be brought home this evening. Further flights will follow in the coming days, security allowing. We will prioritise those with greatest need and contact those allocated a seat directly. We will send updates on future flights to all British nationals registered with the Foreign Office, and I encourage all British nationals still in Israel and the occupied territories to register their presence, so that they receive our updates. These British nationals should follow instructions from the Israeli authorities. International land border crossings to Jordan and Egypt are open, and commercial flights continue from both those countries. Consular teams are on hand to assist British nationals who have crossed the border.

In Iran, airspace remains closed and there has been a near-total internet shutdown. Due to the security situation, we took the precautionary step last Friday of temporarily withdrawing our staff from Iran. The embassy is operating remotely, though our ability to support British nationals still in Iran is extremely limited. The House will know that the Foreign Office has advised against travel to Iran since 2019. Those seeking to cross Iran’s land borders can contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for assistance, including with additional paperwork.

British nationals in the wider region should follow our travel advice closely. Following a US security alert for its nationals in Qatar, out of an abundance of caution we now recommend that British nationals in Qatar shelter in place until further notice.

Alongside our consular teams, our diplomats are fully engaged in trying to end this crisis. We can and we must find a negotiated solution. The window has narrowed, but the risks of further escalation are so great, and the costs so considerable for Britain and all in the region, that this is the Government’s priority. We do not yet know precisely how far the US strikes have set back Iran’s nuclear programme, but there remains the need for a durable diplomatic solution. Strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades, nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon. That is why we have been working so intensively with the new US Administration to reach a new agreement with Iran.

Iran and President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, held five rounds of negotiations. Britain joined France and Germany in seven rounds of engagements with Iran, too. Even after the Israeli strikes, I travelled to Washington and then Geneva last week, meeting in the White House with Secretary Rubio and Witkoff, and then sitting opposite Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi in several hours of talks, pushing for Iran to accept the diplomatic off-ramp. Directly after the US strikes, we have been at the heart of a collective drive with partners to get back to negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump. I have spoken to Marco Rubio and Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar. We have both been in touch with European and middle eastern partners. That is why I spoke again to Minister Araghchi yesterday.

My message for Tehran was clear: take the off-ramp, dial this thing down and negotiate with the United States seriously and immediately. The alternative is an even more destructive and far-reaching conflict, which could have unpredictable consequences.

The situation presents serious risks to British interests in the region. Following the moving in of additional assets on a precautionary basis, force protection is at its highest levels. The House should be in no doubt: we are prepared to defend our personnel, our assets, and those of our allies and partners. We are closely monitoring how energy markets are responding to the conflict, and we have been extremely clear with the Iranians: any action to blockade the strait of Hormuz would be a monumental act of economic self-harm, making a diplomatic solution even harder.

We are also maintaining a sharp focus on other conflicts in the region, first and foremost the catastrophic plight of Gazans and the ongoing ordeal of the hostages and their loved ones, all fearing that this war leaves them forgotten. Today I met Eli Sharabi, held in chains by Iranian-backed terrorists, who was released from Hamas captivity only to discover that they had murdered his family. Last week the Israel Defence Forces recovered the bodies of two hostages, as well as that of Shai Levinson, an Israeli with British family killed on 7 October, which Hamas had been cruelly keeping from their loved ones. Half a million Palestinian civilians are facing starvation and more than 400 have reportedly been killed in recent weeks trying to access food, while Gazan hospitals have had to stop services that are vital for childbirth and emergency surgeries. This is appalling, it is unacceptable, and it must finally end. The Israeli Government must lift aid restrictions, and Hamas must release all the hostages. An immediate ceasefire has never been more urgent.

The consequences of the current situation are hard to predict. History can offer us no guide after events that are unprecedented in the region. The Government have sought to react quickly to the twists and turns of recent weeks, while maintaining a focus on where British interests lie—with a lasting end to Iran’s nuclear programme, a de-escalation of tensions, and security for our people across the region. We will continue to persevere with diplomacy.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, the IAEA produced a report that was damning of the Iranian regime. Iran was not co-operating, and was breaching its obligations. It had more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, far beyond any level needed for a civilian nuclear programme, and enough material to create at least nine nuclear devices, while its nuclear facilities were buried deep underground to hide its programme—and all this from a despotic authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people, is committed to the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, is responsible for so much of the suffering in the region through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies, is supporting Putin in his illegal war against Ukraine, and is involved in plots and activities to undermine our national security here at home on a daily basis.

It is for these reasons, and for many more, that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That is why we stand with those who are working to stop them—the House will know that, as His Majesty's Opposition, we will always put the defence and security of our country first—and why we will work constructively with the Government to secure the protection of the British people and our national interests. We will support the Government when they are doing the right thing, but we will also question, challenge and press Ministers to go further when we think that more needs to be done to safeguard our interests, and it is in that spirit of constructive scrutiny in the national interest that I put these questions and points to the Foreign Secretary.

First, British nationals and dual nationals continue to be stranded in Israel and the middle east owing to airspace closures. I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this matter, and note the progress being made with today’s flight. I thank the Foreign Office for the work that it has been doing with many families with whom I have also been in touch, who have been able to get on to that flight today. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how many British nationals may need to be repatriated? What resources are being deployed to support those efforts? Is there enough capacity to match the number of people who need to leave, and why does it seem that the US and other European countries were ahead of us in their operational planning to bring back their citizens? The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the US embassy’s advice, and he has given advice to British nationals in Qatar today. Will there be any further notifications for other British nationals in Gulf Co-operation Council states?

Secondly, on Iran’s nuclear programme, the Foreign Secretary could not say on radio this morning how effective the weekend’s strikes were. I understand that it will take time to get information, but if more strikes to further degrade Iran’s nuclear capacities are planned, will the Government consider supporting them? The Government have not taken a clear position on the actions that the US and Israel have taken, but we have seen reports of the apparent legal advice from the Attorney General cautioning against UK involvement.

While I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot comment on any legal advice, do the Government have a position on the lawfulness of the strikes, and does he welcome the ends as well as the means? Does he share my cynicism about Iran’s attempt to cloak itself in the UN charter—the same UN charter that it has undermined for decades through its brutality? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the US will be permitted to take action from Diego Garcia should future strikes on Iran or actions to defend Israel be needed, or do the Government think that there are legal barriers to the US doing so?

Thirdly, with heightened tensions in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give an update on what further steps are being taken to safeguard British military assets in the region and our partners from any unwise military action taken by the Iranian regime? Given the reports over the weekend of a suspected Iranian spy plot targeting our base in Cyprus, are we now stepping up efforts to protect bases?

Fourthly, what steps are being taken across Government and with our police, counter-terrorism and security services to reassess the domestic threat level? The Foreign Secretary cannot go into operational details, so can he give an assurance that robust action and disruptions to any potential Iran-backed plots are under way?

He rightly mentioned the issue of Gaza and the fact that we absolutely must work together to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to people who are desperately in need of it. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on what steps he has taken to engage with Israel to get more aid into Gaza, and does he agree that Iran must be weakened to end its ability to sponsor Hamas and other terrorists in the region?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for the co-operative tone in which the right hon. Lady has made her remarks. Quite rightly, she has a number of questions that I will attempt to answer, but let me begin by saying that, fundamentally, we are in agreement that the regime in Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and all our efforts are designed to ensure that that is the case. The whole House will understand that this is not just about Iran, the region and global security; we have to remain steadfast in our commitment not to see nuclear proliferation. If Iran got a nuclear weapon, others in the region would clearly seek to follow. It is, therefore, a sober commitment, beginning 80 years ago, that we must see to completion in relation to those ambitions.

The right hon. Lady asks about British nationals in Israel. Just over 4,000 British nationals have registered their interest following our appeal last week, and judging by the pattern in previous crises in Israel and the region, we estimate that between 15% and 20% of them will take up the offer of British assistance to leave. As she knows, the airspace has been closed, so that offer—until this point—has been about getting them to the border, but I am very pleased that a flight has landed and taken off, and we hope to work with the Israeli Government on further flights from the area. My understanding is that the Americans have put on a military plane from Israel for its citizens, but she will understand that the uniqueness of the relationship between the United States and Israel facilitated that opening, and I am very pleased we have been able to garner the same agreement with the Israeli Government. This is an ongoing and fast-moving situation, and she has heard what I have advised British nationals in Qatar today. Of course, we keep this under close review, and there may need to be further updates over the next few days.

It was important that I was in Washington DC to sit down with the US Administration, and in that meeting with Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff last week, it was very clear to me that all options were on the table and that President Trump had those options in front of him. I of course discussed with them in detail the trip I would be making to Geneva, alongside my French and German counterparts and the European High Representative, and they were keen and hopeful that it might be successful. It was not successful, but we continue to press the Iranians to take the off ramp and get into negotiations with the United States and the E3 to ensure that they are in compliance.

The right hon. Lady asked about the legal advice. That must rightly be a matter for the US Government in relation to their action. I am pleased that she mentioned the ministerial code. She will know that paragraph 2.13 of the ministerial code prevents those of us in government —and she has been in government in the past—discussing legal advice so that Government can operate in the appropriate way. However, I would say to her that this was not our action. We have been clear that we were not involved. She asked whether we had any request from the US Government. We did not get such a request, but we were notified before the action took place.

The right hon. Lady also asked about state threats, and it is right to say that we have thwarted 20 such state threats in this country since 2022. She will know, including from the fact that we put Iran in the highest tier for national interference, that we take the threats from Iran very seriously. We are reviewing the gaps that Jon Hall found in how we deal with state threats in our country, and we will come forward with legislation in the coming months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The only way to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb is a deal, but there cannot be a deal without negotiations and there cannot be negotiations without trust. President Trump tore up the first nuclear deal and is now acting alongside Israel, and its attack last week ended the US-Iran negotiations for a new nuclear deal. The war aims of this campaign are so unclear, with an emboldened Netanyahu Government calling for regime change, and President Trump hinting at it, too. In all those circumstances, it is difficult to see how there can be negotiations based on trust. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must continue to play a role in the negotiations, even though they must seem an incredibly difficult and challenging prospect?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for her question. It goes to the heart of where the UK should be at this time, and that is at the centre of the diplomatic effort. a diplomatic effort will be necessary at the end of this process because, sadly, once people have the ability to enrich uranium to 60%, that knowledge is not lost. It is the stepping stone to an advanced weapon, and therefore only a diplomatic solution and the correct framework can ensure that we keep the global community safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats share in the condemnation of an Iranian regime that poses an existential threat to Israel and has terrorised its own people as surely as it has citizens from other countries around the world, including the UK. That is why we support the consensus in this House that Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Yet it is not clear that military action by Israel and the US can provide the necessary long-term lock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Following this weekend’s strikes, it was reported that Iran will work at pace to develop weapons with what remains of its enriched uranium supplies. That should give pause to those on the Conservative and Reform Benches who have breathlessly echoed President Trump’s line that the strikes have been an unrivalled success. Instead of bringing security, Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral actions have increased uncertainty and the risk of a full-scale regional war. Their belief that might is right both further erodes the rules-based international order and undermines the prospects of containing Iran and other rogue states in the long term. This is not the UK’s interest.

That is why Liberal Democrats have called consistently for the application of robust diplomacy, supported by International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring and grounded in international law, as the only sustainable way permanently to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Our immediate priority must now be to ensure the safety and support of British nationals in the region, learning the lessons of unacceptable delays on previous occasions, so why has it taken over a week since the start of strikes to begin repatriating Britons from Israel? What more is being done to support those in the wider region who want to leave?

The Government have also remained silent on the legality of this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary now commit to publishing the Attorney General’s advice on whether any UK involvement in the conflict would constitute a breach of international law? Will he confirm that this House will be given a vote before any decision for the UK to enter this conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the thrust of his remarks, which are around the need for diplomacy at this time. He is absolutely right about the malign intent of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian regime, whose desire is to wipe Israel off the map. We must stand up to that pernicious ideology. We are attempting to, again, de-escalate. I remind him that Vice-President Vance said just yesterday that delaying the development of a nuclear weapon was the goal. He said, “We are at war with Iran’s nuclear programme. We are not at war with the Iranian people.” It is important for the hon. Gentleman to keep that in his mind’s eye.

The hon. Gentleman asks about British nationals. He heard what I said about the airspace being closed. I am pleased that the first flight has taken off. I remind him of successive UN resolutions—I refer him in particular to resolution 2231—in relation to this long-standing breach. He asks about the legal advice. He heard my comments on the legal advice. We were not involved. This is not our legal context. He asks about publishing the Attorney General’s legal advice. That might have been appropriate if we were involved—I do not think it is—but we are not involved, so there is no such advice to publish.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s calls to move this to a negotiated solution, and his focus on UK defence and security. He is right that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. However, history also teaches us, on regime change, that interventions aimed at regime change in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have produced prolonged instability, not just in the region but far wider. What concrete lessons does he believe can be learned from this recent history in shaping Iran policy today?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he will forgive me. I am not going to enter into a history lesson from the Dispatch Box, except to remind him that on Sunday I achieved 25 years as an elected parliamentarian. During the course of that period, there have, of course, been debates about regime change. I also remind him that the US has been clear that its intention is to target the nuclear threat. We should keep that in mind.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary now concede that the international community’s unwillingness to take robust action through things like the snapback mechanism and the JCPOA is part of the reason that Israel felt the need to take the initial strikes and America to do likewise? I agree that diplomatic means will ultimately be the only long-term resolution, but that means not just asking nicely for Iran to put its nuclear weapons away, but enforcing that and ensuring it does so through such mechanisms. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that if we are not going to be involved in military action—I understand why we might not want to do that—we will ensure that robust action is taken, and that it is underpinned by measures that will force Iran to do the right thing, rather than just hoping that it will do the right thing?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—I know he knows how difficult it is to deal with Iran. He will remember that under the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to enrich to 3.67%; today, it is at 60%. The question is, how could that possibly be for civilian use? I challenged the Iranian Foreign Minister on that on Friday. We have had seven rounds of negotiations with the Iranians, which began under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government; he was Foreign Secretary for a period of that. Iran has obfuscated and deceived—the time now is to get real.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that while we all want to see urgent de-escalation, the escalating conflict in Iran will not take focus from the UK’s efforts to end the devastating war in Gaza, help the Palestinian people, free the hostages and lift restrictions on humanitarian and medical aid?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The loss of life over the past few days—hundreds of people who lost their lives queuing for food—is appalling and should offend us all. Of course, when I spoke to Israel’s Foreign Minister yesterday, I reminded him once again of my deep concerns over the new system that Israel has put in place to deliver aid and of our belief that that system cannot and will not work, and that we need to return to a much better provision.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has said that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Does he therefore support the recent targeted strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities: yes or no? If not, can he explain how exactly that inaction would have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

[Mr Lammy]

I am afraid I am not able to give an assessment of the effectiveness of that action at this stage, and neither is the United States. The hon. Lady may think that that is a binary question, but I do not believe it is. What the UK is engaged in is diplomacy, and we are working, of course, with our closest ally, the United States.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but we need to match that condemnation with accountability. Here in the UK, Jewish communities in particular are deeply concerned about what lies ahead. Last week, the Iranian ambassador acknowledged before the Foreign Affairs Committee that MI5 had identified 22 threats on British soil that had been organised by the Iranian regime. What is the Foreign Secretary’s message to Jewish communities, who are in a state of high alert at the moment, wondering what will happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right that the Iranian regime is the world’s worst sponsor of state terrorism and state threats. We have three individuals who were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 moving through our judicial system. I want to reassure those in the Jewish community in our country that we take those threats very seriously, and I and the Home Secretary will do all we can to keep them, their buildings, their institutions and their families safe.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As usual, I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary has to say, but I have to ask him this: how many times must a terrorist-funding, fanatical regime threaten to wipe another country from the face of the earth before a Government advised by Lord Hermer of Chagos acknowledge that military action to delay and degrade its nuclear weapons programme is both ethically and legally justifiable?

[Mr Lammy]

I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that there is a convention in our country about the very important role that Attorneys General play in our Government. They are able to give the Government advice when asked for it; that happens under all Governments. I do not really recognise the caricature that I have heard or some of the reports. I want to make it crystal clear that we were not involved in this action and therefore some of what is being said is wholly beyond the pale.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Many constituents contacted me over the weekend, fearful of the fallout from US intervention in Iran. They know, and we know, that wars do not make the world a safer place, but make it much more dangerous. Their concerns are not unwarranted. In 2002, Netanyahu offered a guarantee that regime change in Iraq would bring “enormous positive reverberations” to the region. We now know that there was no imminent threat and no evidence of weapons. The scale of the disaster, not just in Iraq but across the region, was so profound that the Chilcot inquiry insisted that any future military intervention must be met with rigorous scrutiny. Does the Foreign Secretary accept the need for such scrutiny, and will he reassure the House again that we will not enter an endless war fuelled by reckless provocateurs?

[Mr Lammy]

I was in the House during the period in which Chilcot was doing his work, and I reassure my hon. Friend that our Government—and, I hope, all future UK Governments—have learned from its findings.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that Britain was not involved in the strikes on Iran. Will he also confirm whether the US Administration sought permission to use Diego Garcia as the launch point for the strikes? If permission was sought and denied, on what basis did the Prime Minister deny permission? If it was not sought, what does it say about the UK-US relationship that America would rather fly around the world from Missouri than launch from Diego Garcia?

[Mr Lammy]

They did not seek that advice.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his measured approach to this crisis. In past rounds of violence, Iran has often leaned on its proxies to conduct retaliation. They include the Houthis of Yemen, who until recently had been attacking UK and international shipping in the Red sea. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect UK shipping in that area and to keep safe the trade routes that are so vital for our country?

[Mr Lammy]

Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have been considerably degraded over this period. The Houthis have been held back but are still active in the Red sea. We will do all we can, working with partners, to protect our shipping routes. We have been crystal clear to the Iranian regime about the strait of Hormuz in particular.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian ambassador twice last week, and he claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme was legal and purely civil, and he said that they want to negotiate. Can the Foreign Secretary say, on the basis of the numerous meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister that he has reported, whether he gained any impression of Iran’s willingness either to dismantle its nuclear programme or to negotiate?

[Mr Lammy]

That is the central question. What I have found is inflexibility, as well as a failure to face the seriousness with which the international community are looking at this question and to accept both that we have moved on from the joint comprehensive plan of action, which the Iranians pulled out of back in 2019, and that the focus now is on zero enrichment. Maybe they can have a civil nuclear capability, but it would have to be heavily monitored and would need some sort of international regime in locus with it. They have to face that seriousness now at this point.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. He said that the whole House will have in their thoughts the many civilians impacted by this fighting. I have in my thoughts the many protesters who took to the streets after the brutal and tragic killing of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. We saw protesters come forward and stand up against the brutal regime, and we saw people being mutilated. The last 20 years of intervention have shown that war and wider escalation will not help these people; it will not help the ordinary Iranians who are suffering under this regime. I have received many emails from my constituents, one of which said:

“The priority should be to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, not supply weapons to either side of the conflict, and further, to support the facilitation of aid to civilians impacted by the war”.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that the UK will not act immediately to follow any military action and that we will urge the US and Israel to de-escalate and avoid targeting innocent civilians?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Mahsa Amini—a young woman who was imprisoned in Iran because of her appearance and then killed in police custody. Some 20,000 people, many of them protesters, were thrown into jail as a result, and 500 lost their lives—effectively murdered. That is the regime we are talking about, and my hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House of that. On diplomacy, I refer her to the statements I have previously made about our position on it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

A lot of people watching and worrying over the weekend will have seen many of the hallmarks of Iraq. Despite that, the Foreign Secretary cannot tell us whether or not he believes that the strikes were the right thing to do, or whether or not he believes that the strikes were legal, and he has failed to outline today whether this House would be given a vote on any potential military action in this conflict. Is he purposely treating the public as fools?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman may just have got a soundbite, but I am afraid that I am not going to take any lectures from him on the nuclear question. He has a very sorry record on that serious matter. We have been very clear that diplomacy is the way and that de-escalation is our position. That is what a Government pursue if they are serious about foreign policy, and I would recommend our approach to him.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I join the Foreign Secretary in thanking our brave service personnel from RAF Brize Norton for repatriating British citizens from Tel Aviv. In this Armed Forces Week, we are all grateful for their courage and sacrifice.

On Iran, let us be clear about the regime: it has killed thousands upon thousands; upheld the brutal suppression of democracy, as well as the rights of women and of LGBT+ people; and demonstrated a consistent intent to sponsor terrorism and act through proxies with violence to destabilise the region. But all military action must go through the process of international law, and its execution must be based on a plan and intent to return to democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do what we can to support de-escalation as soon as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his service in the RAF, and I am sure that he is thinking about his former colleagues at RAF Akrotiri and across our two sovereign bases in the area, and in particular about our bilateral defence partnerships with so many countries in the region. I am pleased to make it crystal clear that the path through this is a diplomatic one: it is for Iran to return to negotiation and to recognise the power of the global community being absolutely clear that it cannot have a nuclear weapon.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is good news that, reportedly, the Home Secretary has finally decided to proscribe the treacherous terrorist group Palestine Action. Given that she has done that at great speed after the recent attack, and given that the IRGC has conducted or attempted attacks on this country multiple times, will the Foreign Secretary use his powers to persuade the Home Secretary to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The proscription question is always one for the Home Secretary. In relation to the decision that she has made today, it is important to stress that the process has involved all the relevant agencies and their assessment of the activities. I have to say that the attacking of RAF bases is disgraceful and totally unacceptable, and the force of the law must bear down on that. The Home Secretary keeps proscription under review, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised a long-standing issue.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement and acknowledge, as many constituents have this week, the intense diplomatic efforts of his teams in ever-changing and ever-challenging times. But given the intolerable situation in Gaza, my constituents will want to be reassured that we will not let up on pressing in every way we can for more aid to get through and for an immediate ceasefire. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that last week and in the statement, but will he please underline it again?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This morning I sat in my office with Eli Sharabi, who managed to get out of a Hamas cell but lost many family members during that journey. He talked about the starvation he experienced—he went down to 44 kg, having been 70 kg when he went in. It was humbling to hear his story and to be reminded that the humanitarian catastrophe affected everyone in Gaza, but he did say that those from Hamas who were holding him ate plentifully while they watched him and others with him starve.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Given that there is a consensus, I think, across the whole House that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, it seems that there is a lack of willingness to recognise that negotiations, after many years, have patently failed to yield results. Will the Foreign Secretary join Reform and me in thanking the United States and Israel for degrading the Iranian nuclear weapons programme?

[Mr Lammy]

I had two conversations with Secretary of State Rubio yesterday, and I hope that he would say that we have established a good working relationship over the period, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I have a longer-standing relationship with Vice President Vance. To be clear, the United States’ position is that we are at war with Iran’s nuclear programme. This was a targeted attack. It is important to understand the efforts to degrade, but we have not yet had that assessment as to their effectiveness.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Iraq showed the grave dangers of following a right-wing US President into an illegal war for regime change. The consequences were hundreds of thousands of dead, mass destruction, mass devastation, regional chaos and wasted resources. Many fear that the same thing is happening now, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm that any such war on Iran for regime change would be illegal under international law? Will he also confirm that he would oppose any UK involvement in any such intervention or any such war?

[Mr Lammy]

I am confident, through my engagement with the United States and the discussions that I have had, including in the White House last week, that this is not about regime change. I should remind my hon. Friend that the Israelis too have been clear that they are not attacking the civilian leadership in Iran.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It appears that the House agrees with the Government’s objective that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, but the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means. This begs the question: who is really running the Government? Why did Lord Hermer’s opinion on the legality of UK involvement in military action become public last week? Was it leaked? Was it briefed? Does this not demonstrate that the Government are paralysed and divided on this question instead of leading from the front?

[Mr Lammy]

No.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I commend the Foreign Secretary for urging calm and restraint at this troubling time. I know that he has been engaging with our European counterparts—notably with France and Germany as the E3—but as the positions of the US and Israel on Iran harden, does he agree that this is the moment when our relationship with Europe as a collective force for diplomacy and peace will be crucial?

[Mr Lammy]

It was important for the so-called E3—the United Kingdom, alongside Germany and France—working with the EU’s high representative, to make clear our concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the Iranian Foreign Minister and to urge him to come back to diplomacy. All of us were on the phone to him again after the action. Of course there is an important role for Europe, particularly as the custodians of the JCPOA, and because we have a decision to make about whether we will in fact snap back and impose a heavy set of sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week and today, the Foreign Secretary said the Government’s first priority is the welfare of British nationals, and I welcome that, but my constituent who was caught in Iran with her baby unfortunately received no support from the Foreign Office and had to flee with officials at the port and to evacuate to Oman. That was not a secure route and another ferry was bombed along the way. Thankfully, she and her baby are now safe but are still making their way back to the UK without their luggage or any provisions for the baby. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what steps are being taken to ensure that British nationals like my constituent can be repatriated swiftly and safely if they so wish?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very sorry to hear about the position of the hon. Member’s constituent and her baby. It must have been immensely stressful for them to make their way out of Iran in that way. She will know that we have been advising against travel to Iran since 2019. We are able to offer support on the border with Azerbaijan as best we can, but she will also know that the airspace is not open in Iran. If she gets in touch with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), of course we can look at this to see what learnings there may be.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I would first like to associate myself with the condolences to all those who have lost loved ones. We are increasingly seeing foreign leaders not only flout international law but ignore our international rules-based system, which was hard-won after the second world war. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we can get this back on track?

[Mr Lammy]

It was very appropriate to meet the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva, which in so many ways is the home, under the United Nations umbrella, of the multilateral system and the rules-based order. We were with him as the E3 and the EU to reinforce messages that we share with the United States and to try to broker a diplomatic solution, and we will keep trying.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

This morning, the Foreign Secretary was repeatedly asked whether he considered the US’s bombing of Iran to be legal. Although I am sure everyone in this House recognises the brutality of the Iranian regime, his obfuscation in reply was clear, as is the refusal to say whether Britain would get involved in any capacity if the US falls deeper into a conflict with Iran. Can we have a clear answer from the Foreign Secretary now to that question, and will he clearly state that de-escalation must mean no UK involvement?

[Mr Lammy]

We have UK nationals in the region. We have UK bases in the region, and force protection is at its highest level. We have several thousand troops in the region. Of course their welfare is our priority. Of course we have moved assets in a precautionary way into the area, and of course we will work alongside our allies to protect them and to protect our people. I can give the hon. Member that assurance wholeheartedly.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all share the Foreign Secretary’s concern about getting back to considering how we end the horrors we see in Gaza and about getting clarity on the dangerous risks that Iran presents, but that means asking some difficult questions about how we get the negotiations going. We have seen today that the Israeli forces have deliberately targeted the Evin prison in Tehran. It was the prison in which Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was held. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the Israeli Government about whether they are now moving to target non-military installations? What does he think that would mean for the ability to restart negotiations?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday. I spoke to him briefly again this morning, and he reassured me that the military targets and the nuclear facility remain their objective and their focus at this time.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Away from the headlines, as the Foreign Secretary said, hundreds of Gazans have been losing their lives. Let us be clear about what is happening. As tens of thousands of people walk miles daily to beg for food from American mercenaries, they are being shot at random in the street. I think we in this House have moved beyond asking the Foreign Secretary actually to lift a finger and beyond mouthing the words do anything about this, but I have a wider question. Does he envisage the UK playing any part in some sort of consequence in the future for these outright murders?

[Mr Lammy]

I know the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on these issues and acknowledge the consistency with which he has pressed them from the Back Benches. I reassure him that in the White House last week we did not just discuss the situation in Israel and Iran; I also discussed the situation in Gaza, and our discussion is about the chances of a ceasefire. The prospects for that ceasefire are currently with Hamas, deep in their system and in their tunnels, but I remain hopeful that we will get a breakthrough in the coming days and weeks and that the suffering that we are seeing will be alleviated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

When there was US offensive action against Iran five years ago, we saw proxy action taken against UK and US personnel deployed in the middle east, where we sadly lost Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon. I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to give me details, but can he assure me that everything is being done to make sure there is adequate force protection for those who are still deployed on behalf of this country?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question and to be able to give that reassurance about our highest levels of force protection for all our wonderful personnel, many of whom I have met, who are in the region.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and also for emphasising the importance of restraint and de-escalation at this perilous moment. What steps is he taking to try to align and co-ordinate his diplomatic efforts with those of our European and G7 allies, in the hope of presenting a united diplomatic front?

[Mr Lammy]

I have of course spoken to our G7 allies over the past two weeks. I have spoken to our partners in the region, in the Levant as well as in the Gulf particularly, and I will continue to do all I can. Obviously, NATO in the coming days will be another forum in which we can reach a common path towards diplomacy.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

As the Member of Parliament for the largest Jewish school in Europe, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for his earlier assurances on safeguarding the community in this country? May I also commend the way in which he has diligently pursued a negotiated outcome to this destabilised situation? He knows that it used to be said that the Israeli Prime Minister jumped to the tune of America. Now that it seems to be the other way round, what action will he take against Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically, in order to stop the destabilisation of the middle east?

[Mr Lammy]

We do have disagreements with the Government of Israel, and my hon. Friend knows that a few weeks ago we sanctioned two members of that Government. But I remain, and the Government remain, a friend of Israel, able to work at many different levels. We recognise the contribution that has been made to the degrading of proxies working on behalf of Iran that contribute to Iran being the worst actor on state threats globally.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the hon. Member that these issues are of course under consideration in the Government. All contingencies are in place, and we are in discussion with our allies about that, but it would be wrong for me to go into operational detail.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the comments made across the House about the dire and despicable nature of the Iranian regime? That said, last week the Foreign Secretary told the House that attacks on Iran were not in our national interest. So does he believe that the strikes led by Trump and Netanyahu—two hard-right authoritarians with no love for a rules-based order—have made Britain or the world any safer? Or does he agree with me that, for much of the world watching, the message is chillingly clear? In a global order where rules mean little and might makes right, deterrence not diplomacy is now the only defence; and that, as he must acknowledge, makes global security more precarious than ever.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recall that he also recognises the problems of that nuclear threat and nuclear proliferation. An assessment has not yet been made of the effectiveness of that military action, but he will have heard my remarks in relation to diplomacy. That is the way now, and it will be the way that we get beyond this current crisis.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

We have now been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America’s actions or whether he regards them as legal, and nowhere in his statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to tell us whether he believes that America’s unilateral action was compliant with international law?

[Mr Lammy]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I qualified and was called to the Bar in 1995 and have not practised for the past 25 years. It is not for me to comment on the United States and legality. I refer him to article 51 and article 2 of the UN charter, and he can seek his own advice.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is right to focus on de-escalation and diplomacy. However, we know that the joint comprehensive plan of action did not curtail Iran’s enrichment of uranium, so what lesson will he learn as he rebuilds the architecture for diplomacy to ensure that Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear-enriched uranium?

[Mr Lammy]

With Iran enriching at 60% and the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that Iran has no credible civilian justification for that high enrichment level, my hon. Friend is quite right. Therefore, the debate has moved on, and it has moved on to zero enrichment.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the House that if the United States needs to take further action to degrade and destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and requests to use Diego Garcia, Cyprus or any other British military facility, we will make sure that that is made available?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

From my discussions with the United States and with Secretary of State Rubio, that is not their intention; the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that from the thrust of the press conference held in the United States yesterday. He will also know that they are assessing now what has happened and they are hoping that it has been a targeted response and a single response. That is the thrust of what we are being told by the United States at this time.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I understand the priority to evacuate UK citizens from Israel, but advice to our constituents in Qatar to shelter in place until further notice is hardly comforting. May I press the Foreign Secretary to outline what more detail will be provided for UK citizens in the wider region and whether there is a specific threat against them?

[Mr Lammy]

The message I gave earlier at the Dispatch Box is in the context of a fast-moving situation and advice that was given by the US shortly before I stood up. Of course we keep our advice updated, and we are on high alert right across the region.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Is it UK Government policy to pursue regime change in Iran—yes or no?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, from talking to Secretary of State Rubio, Vice-President Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff, that is not the objective of the United States, and of course it is not our belief that it is for us to change the regime of any country. That must be for the people themselves.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right to call for de-escalation at this extremely dangerous time; however, the Foreign Secretary will know that the United States’ attack on Iran has raised serious questions about violation of international law, and Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its occupation and settlements in the west bank are of course also illegal under international law. So can the Foreign Secretary tell me if the Government still profess to believe in the international rules-based order, or are we now admitting that we are content to support countries that act outside it?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer my hon. Friend to what I have said in the Chamber this afternoon. Of course we believe in the rules-based order and international law. That was precisely why I was in Geneva on Friday for seven hours attempting to get Iran to comply and get back around the negotiating table.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On the radio this morning, the Foreign Secretary told us of his adherence to and support for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and used that as an argument for the bombardment of Iran. Has he said anything to Israel about its illegal holding of nuclear weapons, its possession of a delivery system and the obvious danger to anybody of having a nuclear-armed neighbour who may well use those weapons? What has he said to the Government of Israel about their nuclear weapons?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on these issues over many years, and has taken strong positions on nuclear proliferation. I do not want to go back to the days of Mordechai Vanunu, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Israel is not threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons—it is Iran that we must stop at this time.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the attacks on Iran are beneficial to this country or will they create more instability in the middle east and beyond? As an upholder of the rules-based international order, which he says that we still support, is there a cost to the UK if the actions of our allies—the United States and Israel—are judged to be contrary to international law?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is learned in these matters and will have strong views. We are seeking de-escalation and pursuing diplomacy, and we are doing that according to the rules-based order and our belief in the international architecture that was set up on the backs of men and women who lost their lives and gave so much in the second world war.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred a number of times to the diplomatic off-ramp. Will he confirm to the House that the diplomatic off-ramp—the request of the United Kingdom to Iran—is that the regime changes its stance and finally recognises the right of our ally, Israel, to exist?

[Mr Lammy]

I can. Of course the regime should recognise the right of Israel to exist, and it should work with the United States and the E3, particularly, to ensure that it is putting whatever has been developed beyond use.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Over the past decades, Iran and its terrorist proxies have effectively colonised five middle eastern countries and used them as launching pads for attacks against Israel. Iran has been goading and indeed preparing for a conflict with Israel for decades, including the genocidal intent behind its nuclear weapons development. How will the UK support our many allies in the region, including Arab countries as well as Israel, who are facing similar threats from the Iranian regime?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind my hon. Friend that we have the strongest of bilateral defence relationships with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Lebanon at this time, and they can rely on us.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I have to push the Foreign Secretary on this point: a lot of hon. Members have asked him specifically whether he supports the attack conducted by the United States, but he has refused to answer that question. Is that because he realises, like many of the British public, that it was an illegal attack on Iran?

[Mr Lammy]

As I said on the radio this morning and I will say again now, I will continue to work with our closest ally to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s calls for a durable diplomatic solution: no one benefits from the continuation of this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure peace and prevent war in the region, particularly guaranteeing that the strait of Hormuz remains safe for our liquefied natural gas and oil tankers? Securing that trade route is essential for global stability and economic security, including Iran’s.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, because many members of the public beyond this Chamber will be worried about the risk of inflation and of an oil shock particularly. They will want to be reassured that the Government are doing everything they can to be clear to Iran that it cannot blockade or mine the strait of Hormuz—it must not do that. We will of course act with allies to prevent such an occurrence.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It seems that we have been going around in circles for an hour and a quarter. In answering questions, the Foreign Secretary has rightly pointed out that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran reaching 60% enriched uranium. Likewise, he has rightly acknowledged that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran spreading and sponsoring terrorism around the region, yet each time he has concluded with a hope that greater rounds of diplomacy will solve this. Hope is not a strategy. At what point will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there probably can be no diplomacy with a regime that is so brutal to its own people and just will not listen?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is a bright man. He knows that once a country has acquired the means to enrich to 60%, the expertise exists, and only a diplomatic solution can create the framework to eradicate and control that expertise. That is why, in the end, this can be dealt with only diplomatically. It is also why President Trump is urging Iran to return to the negotiating table.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

As well as the Iranian regime’s threat to Israel, it has supported Assad to kill half a million people in Syria, including Palestinians, and it supplies Putin with the drones he is using to massacre people in Ukraine. We must also remember that the Iranian regime persecutes its own people, including human rights activists. Just as Ministers have, I am pleased to say, engaged with Syrian activists in the UK to hear their views on the future of their country, can I ask Ministers and the Foreign Secretary to assure me that they will engage with human rights activists and democracy activists here in Britain to help to guide their approach?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend’s articulacy is spot on. I can give him that undertaking, between myself and the Minister for the Middle East.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

We talk weekly in this place about Russia’s illegal bombing of Ukraine. Russia may not be a close ally like the US, but presumably if international law applies to that, the US bombing of Iran would likewise be illegal under international law. If not, can the Foreign Secretary explain why international law would apply differently to the US? Where does that leave us if this conflict escalates in the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that one should always be wary of moral equivalence. Russia invaded a sovereign country and, for the last years, has been firing rockets into that country, aided by Iran. We will continue to stand up to Putin’s abysmal aggression, and of course he should be held to account.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his continued clarity that the UK has not been involved in this military action in the middle east. I also thank him and his team for all their diplomatic efforts on de-escalation. I agree with what he said about the horrific situation in Gaza, where in the last week more than 100 Palestinians have been killed while starving and waiting for aid. He says that he has pressed the US and Israel on this issue in the last week. Is he continuing to discuss it and to press for action together with France and Canada? Given his remarks about UK citizens in Qatar, what can he say about conversations with the Gulf and Jordan on protecting our citizens, assets and others there, should that be needed?

[Mr Lammy]

I have liaised with Jordan and with Gulf partners, and I will be speaking to the UAE later on today. We will work with them to keep them safe. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record our deep concerns about those who have lost their lives in Gaza over the last few days.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and his Department for the work they are doing to protect British citizens here and abroad. What does he think needs to happen for Iran to abandon its ambitions to build and deploy a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Lammy]

Iran has to recognise that it has lost its air defences, and it is my belief that its friends in Russia and China will not be rushing to its aid. It has to recognise that its proxies are degraded, and that the international community is firm that it cannot have a nuclear weapon and it has now got to come back to the negotiating table. We have to put in place a framework that deals with the stockpiles, with the centrifuges, with enrichment to 60%, and with the problem of ballistic missiles.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his level-headed approach in calling for de-escalation. He has spoken about the threat of further escalation with the closure of the strait of Hormuz, through which—as he knows—a large proportion of the world’s oil supply flows. Can he say more about how he will protect UK householders and businesses from a potential rise in oil prices?

[Mr Lammy]

It is important that we de-escalate at this time and that diplomacy prevails, and of course it is important that we work with our allies for every contingency. I am not in the business of talking up fears of an oil price shock; I am working to reassure the British people that we are doing all we can to see that that eventuality does not come to pass.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

This House has agreed that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, but former Russian premier Dmitry Medvedev has said that a number of countries will now be considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of that statement, and what are the Government doing to prevent it?

[Mr Lammy]

It would be wrong for me to go into detail about that, but of course it has come to my attention. I also put on record my grave concerns about the reports that Iran’s Parliament is preparing to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would further isolate Iran.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Further escalation in the middle east could have devastating consequences, not only for the region but for global stability. Given the provocative and inflammatory rhetoric from President Trump and the risk of unpredictable US action further destabilising the situation, can the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government are taking to work with international partners to de-escalate tensions and protect UK interests? Can he also give a definitive answer to the question of UK involvement?

[Mr Lammy]

We were not involved. Over the weekend, I spoke to my Cypriot and Lebanese counterparts, and in the days before that, I spoke to all counterparts in the Gulf. Of course we are working to de-escalate at this time.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 2.13 of the ministerial code.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

With his 25 years of parliamentary service, the Foreign Secretary will no doubt remember when Tony Blair told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a grave threat to international security. Of course, we then followed America into an illegal war in the middle east, and if the Prime Minister were to go down that same road, he would be wrong too. Is it not overdue that the Government follow an independent and, as Robin Cook memorably said, ethical foreign policy—one created here and not in Washington DC?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend allows me to put on record what a privilege it has been to serve and work as Foreign Secretary alongside a Prime Minister of such tremendous principle and legal learning, who entirely understands his obligations and what good government looks like, and is absolutely steadfast in his belief in the international rules-based order.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the gravity with which he is treating this important topic. One week ago, he told me that he had “huge confidence” in our ability to defend our middle eastern assets from Iranian strikes, but within two days, two strategic assets were vandalised by a couple of civilians on e-scooters at RAF Brize Norton. Does he recognise that the UK must not follow Trump into Netanyahu’s war with Iran, when force protection is inadequately resourced at home?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service in the RAF. I refer him to the statement that the Armed Forces Minister will make to the House shortly about the security of our sovereign bases.

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

Just a week ago, we were here calling for de-escalation because there were so many civilian deaths, but in the past week we have seen an escalation and so many more civilian deaths in Israel, Gaza and Iran. We know that it is much easier to get into a conflict than to conclude it. If the justification for military action is now a nuclear weapons programme and being a threat to neighbours, how many other nations fit that category? Is North Korea not another example, but with an even more advanced nuclear weapons programme? Where are we in terms of justification and article 51 of the UN charter?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of why it would be a travesty for Iran to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and why we must work to ensure that it does not become a North Korea. It must never have a nuclear weapons programme, and we will do everything to stop that happening.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The family of my constituent, Katie Solomon, have been in touch to share their fears about her as she shelters from Iranian attacks in Israel. My constituent Mehdi Moslehi has told me about how his life in the UK started as a refugee from the Iranian regime. Can the Foreign Secretary tell my constituents and the House why, given Iran’s record, he is finding it so difficult to follow the Prime Minister in welcoming the actions of our allies in seeking to reduce the risks posed by the Iranian nuclear programme?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in my Tottenham constituency, I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, which is the home of many in our orthodox Jewish community, many of whom are in Israel as we speak, sheltering in their bunkers. The picture he paints is one that I recognise, and that is why I will do everything I can to work with them and protect them.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Dozens of people from my Hendon constituency have been stranded in Israel and Iran. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his hard work on this issue, and it is good news that the first flight has already occurred. Can he say more about the timeframes for potential future flights and what is being done to support those looking to leave Israel over land borders or by sea?

[Mr Lammy]

I updated the House about our rapid response teams who are working in Israel and at its borders for those who can journey to the land borders with Jordan and Egypt to leave. We have a flight in the air as we speak. I expect that there will be further fights in the coming days, but it depends on airspace and on how those days look.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement in which he says that he has been crystal clear with the regime in Tehran. I hope he has been a lot clearer with them than he has been with the House today, but I will give it one more go, because I genuinely do not understand why he cannot answer this question. Does His Majesty’s Government support or oppose the US military action against Iran at the weekend?

[Mr Lammy]

His Majesty’s Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I did last week in Washington DC.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the energy he has invested in de-escalation, because it is the only moral route out of this conflict. I thank him also for reassuring us that UK forces are not involved and that we have not given up on the plight facing ordinary Gazans. There are 90 million people in Iran, just under 10 million of whom are in Tehran. There are reports of many of them trying to leave the country, and that will be made worse by the reports and speculation on regime change. There are also reports that Turkey and Pakistan might be closing their borders to refugees. Is he keeping a watchful eye on that, and has he discussed it with our international partners?

[Mr Lammy]

I spoke to our ambassadors and teams across the region this morning, because I recognise that this is a worrying and stressful time in all those areas. That is why my central message and task is to de-escalate. We need more light and less heat.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

If I heard the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that the UK would act if Iran sought to block the strait of Hormuz. Did he mean “act militarily”? In what other conditions would he consider military action, and what would he say if the Americans turned to this Government and asked them for support in any military adventure to do with this conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

It would be quite wrong for me to go into eventualities and operational matters at this Dispatch Box at this time, but the hon. Gentleman should be reassured that all contingency arrangements are in place to keep our people safe and to work with our allies to keep the region safe.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The most in-depth study ever conducted of the casualties of the so-called war on terror was carried out by Brown University in America, which found that, directly or indirectly, more than 4.5 million people lost their lives partly because of what was voted for in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way in which this conflict can be resolved is through diplomacy, and can he assure the House that he will not follow the last Labour Government and the mantra of the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair when it comes to America’s bombing a middle eastern country—“with you, whatever” —and lead this country and the world into the abyss?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I can state again, as I have stated throughout the afternoon, that diplomacy is the way, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that our Government, and successive Governments, have learned from the Chilcot inquiry.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Why should the House of Commons, and those in the country that we represent, not be entitled to know whether their Government support or regret the American action? Does not equivocation on that issue bring succour to those who we say must be robbed, quite properly, of their nuclear potential?

[Mr Lammy]

I think that the people of Britain are entitled to know that we were not involved in this action, and that we work for diplomacy and de-escalation. That is why I was sitting in the White House last week, it is why I was in Geneva on Friday, and it is why I was at a Cobra meeting and making a round of calls to allies and partners to de-escalate at this time yesterday.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and had to refuel three times, in a highly dangerous operation, because of the deal that the Government did with the Mauritians, who would then tell the Chinese, who would then tell the Iranians?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady has to get off social media, and she has to get some help. She is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Iranian regime has long been a threat to peace, democracy and human rights, and the unilateral, illegal and dangerously provocative Israeli and, now, American attacks have made a tense situation extremely perilous and are completely outside international law. It is therefore deeply concerning to hear the Foreign Secretary echo the talking points of Netanyahu and Trump instead of standing up for those principles, clearly condemning the illegality of these bombings, and unequivocally ruling out the UK’s being dragged into any military action to support such illegal action. Why will he not do so?

[Mr Lammy]

I am focused on Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon, I am focused on the UK’s solemn obligation to stop that happening, and I am focused on the diplomacy that is required to bring that about.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I have often spoken in this Chamber about the Iranian regime and the horrific human rights abuses that take place under the IRGC. I have nothing but admiration for the steps taken to destroy Iranian nuclear armaments by our American and Israeli allies—steps that we must support. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the US and Israel as they do what needs to be done? We must send a message to Iran that retaliation in any form will not be acceptable, and that it would face the might of the best armed forces in the world—the British armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that of course we stand with our allies in the United States and Israel in facing down the repeated threats from Iran. The threat to Israel is existential, and the Iranians are destabilising the neighbourhood. Of course we will stand up to them.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Written Corrections

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This is obviously a dangerous and perilous time, and we need to do everything we can to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that no British weapons or components are being used to bomb Iran, which could be used as a pretext for saying that Britain is directly involved? What assurances has he had from the Government of Israel that they will not use or even consider using in any way the nuclear weapons that they possess?

[Mr Lammy]

We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world, and I am proud of that. That was a matter that this House voted on just a few years ago under the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we made a decision to restrict arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. I also refer him to the statements that I have made about Iran’s nuclear intent, the work of the IAEA, the huge global concern and the UN resolution that the UK did so much to secure last Thursday.

[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 72.]

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, his reassurance that Gaza will not be forgotten, and for having been really quick to come out and ask for de-escalation and a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran, not least the people of Iran, who are paying for this investment by the Iranian regime, but Netanyahu justified the bombing raids by saying that Iran was close to having a bomb and that it could be years or just months away. Was Netanyahu correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I call to mind the work of the IAEA, and refer my hon. Friend to the resolution of the UN Security Council just last week, all of which confirmed Iran’s intent and its deception.

[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 73.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):

[Mr Lammy]

We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world, and I am proud of that. That was a matter that this House voted on just a few years ago under the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we made a decision to restrict arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. I also refer him to the statements that I have made about Iran’s nuclear intent, the work of the IAEA, the huge global concern and the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors that the UK did so much to secure last Thursday.

[Mr Lammy]

I call to mind the work of the IAEA, and refer my hon. Friend to the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors just last week, all of which confirmed Iran’s intent and its deception.

Iran-Israel Conflict

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will remind the House that the Foreign Office has been responding to two crises in this past week. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will update the House on the Government’s extensive efforts to assist those whose loved ones lost their lives in Thursday’s devastating Air India plane crash. Just nine days ago, I was in Delhi, strengthening our friendship. Our nations are mourning together, and my thoughts are with those suffering such terrible loss.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to the middle east. Early last Friday morning, Israel launched extensive strikes across Iran. The targets included military sites, the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, key commanders and nuclear scientists. The last 72 hours have seen Iranian ballistic missile and drone strikes across Israel, killing at least 21 Israelis and injuring hundreds more, and Israeli strikes have continued, including on targets in Tehran, with the Iranian authorities reporting scores of civilian casualties. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that his operations will

“continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat”.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has said Israel “must expect severe punishment”.

In such a crisis, our first priority is of course the welfare of British nationals. On Friday, we swiftly stood up crisis teams in London and the region. Yesterday, I announced that we now advise against all travel to Israel; that is in addition to our long-standing travel advice not to go to Iran. Today, I can update the House: we are asking all British nationals in Israel to register their presence with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so that we can share important information on the situation and leaving the country.

I can announce today that we are further updating our travel advice to signpost border crossing points, and we are sending rapid deployment teams to Egypt and Jordan to bolster our consular presence near the border with Israel. That presence has already been supporting British nationals on the ground. Israel and Iran have closed their airspace until further notice, and our ability to provide support in Iran is therefore extremely limited. British nationals in the region should closely monitor our travel advice for further updates. The situation remains fast-moving. We expect more strikes in the days to come. This is a moment of grave danger for the region. I want to be clear: the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes against Iran. This is military action conducted by Israel.

It should come as no surprise that Israel considers the Iranian nuclear programme an existential threat. Khamenei said in 2018 that Israel was a “cancerous tumour” that should be “removed and eradicated”. We have always supported Israeli security. That is why Britain has sought to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through extensive diplomacy. We agree with President Trump when he says that negotiations are necessary and must lead to a deal. That has long been the view of the so-called E3—Britain, and France and Germany, with whom we have worked so closely on this issue. It is the view of all the G7, which has backed the efforts of President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff. For more than two decades, it has been the cross-party view in this House. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord Hague of Richmond led diplomatic efforts on this issue, as did Baroness May of Maidenhead and the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. This Government have continued to pursue negotiations, joining France and Germany in five rounds of talks with Iran this year alone. Ours is a hard-headed, realist assessment of how best to tackle this grave threat. Fundamentally, no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Just last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors passed a non-compliance resolution against Iran, the first such IAEA finding in 14 years. The director general’s comprehensive report details Iran’s failure to declare nuclear materials. Iran remains the only state without nuclear weapons accumulating uranium at such dangerously high levels. Its total enriched stockpile is now 40 times the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its nuclear programme is part of a wider pattern of destabilising activity. The Government have taken firm action in response.

When Iran transferred ballistic missiles for use in Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we imposed extensive sanctions, including against Iran Air, and we cancelled our bilateral air services agreement. In the face of unacceptable Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threats here in the UK—there have been some 20 foiled plots since 2022—the Crown Prosecution Service has for the first time charged Iranian nationals under the National Security Act 2023, and we have placed the Iranian state, including the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme.

A widening war would have grave and unpredictable consequences, including for our partners in Jordan and the Gulf: the horrors of Gaza worsening, tensions in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq rising, and the Houthi threat continuing. That is why the Government’s firm view is—as it was last October, at the time of the ballistic missile attack on Israel—that further escalation in the middle east is not in Britain’s interests, or in the interests of Israel, Iran or the region. There are hundreds of thousands of British nationals living in the region, and with Iran a major oil producer and with oil flowing through the strait of Hormuz accounting for a fifth of total world oil consumption, escalating conflict poses real risks for the global economy. As missiles rain down, Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, but our priority now is de-escalation. Our message to both Israel and Iran is clear: step back, show restraint, and do not get pulled ever deeper into a catastrophic conflict, the consequences of which no one can control.

The Prime Minister chaired Cobra to discuss the situation last Friday, and spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Prime Minister is now at the G7 summit in Canada, discussing with our closest allies how to ease tensions. The Government have deployed additional assets to the region, including jets for contingency support for UK forces and, potentially, our regional allies concerned about the escalating conflict. In the last 72 hours the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and I have been working flat out trying to carve out space for diplomacy. I have spoken to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar and Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi, underlining Britain’s focus on de-escalation. I have also met the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, and had calls with United States Secretary of State Rubio, European Union High Representative Kallas, and my counterparts from France and Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Those conversations are part of a collective drive to prevent a spiralling conflict.

This new crisis has arisen as the appalling situation in Gaza continues. This weekend, hospitals in Gaza reported that over 50 people had been killed and more than 500 had been injured while trying to access food. This Government will not take our eye off the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. We will not stop calling for aid restrictions to be lifted and for an immediate ceasefire, and we will not forget about the hostages. This morning I met Yocheved Lifschitz and her family, whose courage and dignity in the face of Hamas’s barbarism were a reminder of the plight of those still cruelly held in Gaza. We will not stop striving to free the hostages and end the war. Our vision remains unchanged: an end to Iran’s nuclear programme and destabilising regional activity, Israel secure in its borders and at peace with its neighbours, and a sovereign Palestinian state, as part of a two-state solution. Diplomacy is indispensable to each of those goals. Britain will keep pressing all sides to choose a diplomatic path out of this crisis. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

These are deeply dangerous times, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, last week’s IAEA report makes it abundantly clear that Iran’s nuclear programme has grown. Its stockpile of uranium has passed 400 kg and is enriched to 60% purity, which has been widely noted as a level unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons, and as being beyond the amount needed for any civilian use. The IAEA director general has said that Iran’s actions and its failure to co-operate have led to a significant reduction in the agency’s ability to verify whether its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. We share those concerns, and the reasons why Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons are clear. The Iranian regime is a prolific state sponsor of terrorism, with a stated intention of annihilating the world’s only Jewish state. Given the concerns, and the clear threat that Iran poses, not only to Israel, but to wider regional stability, Israel has the right to act in self-defence to degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

As well as posing a threat to Israel, Iran poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom and our interests. The Minister for the Middle East stated in a written parliamentary answer in April that

“Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced and threatens international peace and security.”

Earlier this month, the strategic defence review stated that Iran’s

“escalating nuclear programme presents a risk to international security and the global non-proliferation architecture.”

With that in mind, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what discussions he has had with the IAEA, and give us his assessment of how close Iran was to having nuclear weapon capabilities that could strike Israel and our interests in the region?

Given the report from the IAEA earlier this week, what direct bilateral discussions did Government Ministers have with their Israeli counterparts on this matter prior to the action that was undertaken last week? The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the conversations he has had since the strikes commenced on Friday, but what discussions took place in the days preceding that? Can he update us on the discussions with our partners in the region before the strikes on Friday, and since then? For example, what discussions has he had with our friends in Bahrain in the light of the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement, and with Jordan in the light of the previous airspace violations by Iran? Are those discussions purely diplomatic, or do they cover defence and military planning?

Last week, on 10 June, the Minister for the Middle East said during his statement that the Government were in contact with the Israeli Government that day. As that was after the IAEA report was published on 9 June, can the Foreign Secretary say whether the nuclear threat from Iran and the IAEA assessment were discussed, or were they discussing other matters? We also know from recent statements by the Minister for the Middle East that relations between this Government and Israel have become strained since last July. What message does the Foreign Secretary have for all those who are concerned that constructive dialogue and diplomacy with Israel is not taking place?

On British nationals in Israel and the wider region, what efforts are under way to expeditiously help those who want to return to the UK? Although the Foreign Secretary cannot give operational details to the House, can he confirm whether contingency plans for the evacuation of British personnel and assets from Iran have been updated recently? At the G7, will the Prime Minister have substantive bilateral discussions with President Trump on this matter?

Iran’s strikes on Israel are indiscriminately targeting civilians, and the whole House should condemn Iran for doing this. The UK has previously supported Israel, defending it from missile and drone attacks. Has the UK offered military intelligence and other forms of assistance to our Israeli allies to counter the attacks from Iran? The German Chancellor has offered that, and is providing assistance to Israel. Has the UK made such an offer, too? It is right that UK military capabilities increased in the region over the weekend. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he is prepared to tackle any retaliation from Iran and its proxies, including the Houthis?

Although Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been degraded, we know that it is in regular contact with China and Russia on nuclear issues, and has been for some time. Has the Foreign Secretary assessed whether Russia and China may have been involved in supporting Iran’s nuclear programme to get it to where it is today? Is he concerned that they will support Iran, with materials and expertise, so that it can rebuild its capability following Israel’s actions, and is he looking at applying new sanctions to constrain Iran’s ability to rebuild, advance and accelerate its nuclear ambitions?

I turn to the direct threats that Iran poses to the UK. The Foreign Secretary has rightly mentioned the plots foiled, the recent arrests, and putting Iran on the enhanced tier of FIRS. Can he give an assurance about the work taking place across Government—including with the Home Office, the police, counter-terrorism operations and the intelligence services—to tackle any retaliation that Iran, the IRGC and those acting on its behalf might direct towards us? Has the threat risk level been reassessed, and is extra support being provided to secure synagogues, schools and other parts of the Jewish community in the UK?

Finally, we all want to see peace and stability in the region, where Iran is responsible for so much of the bloodshed that is now taking place, so can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the ongoing steps being taken to secure the return of the hostages from Hamas captivity, on the work to get more aid into Gaza, and on the efforts to bring about a sustainable ceasefire?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks, for the cross-party support that I sensed in them, and for her questions, which I will certainly endeavour to answer.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about our contact with the IAEA. I can confirm I spoke to Director General Grossi just a few days ago—certainly before the action last week—and discussed his report. She asked what the latest is on that. She will know that the assessment was that the enriched uranium stockpile is now standing at 8,413 kg, which is more than 40 times the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action, with the total stockpile considered to be nine significant quantities of highly enriched uranium.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked what co-ordination we had done, given that information, and I want to reassure her that I have been in close touch and worked in concert with my French and German colleagues over this period—with the three of us co-ordinating our work across our political directors, but also as Foreign Ministers—in our messaging to the Iranian regime. I can also confirm to her that we will be speaking to the Iranian regime again in the coming hours to raise those concerns and heighten what I said about the need for diplomacy at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary quite properly asked about our long-standing relationship with Bahrain, and I can confirm that the Minister for the Middle East has spoken to Bahrain. She asked about our long-standing relationship with Jordan, and I can confirm that I have spoken to Foreign Minister Safadi in the last few days. We continue to co-ordinate with our Jordanian friends, and to offer them whatever support we can at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary obviously asked about our ongoing relationship with Israel. She will know that our relationship with Israel remains a complex and intense one. As she would expect, I have spoken to Foreign Minister Sa’ar on numerous occasions, and of course I spoke to him again on Saturday, when he was in a bunker and separated from his family; I offered him condolences.

As hon. Members would expect, the United Kingdom and Israel co-ordinate and work together in such times. We have disagreements, of course—we have discussed that over the Dispatch Box—particularly about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but we recognise that, as we speak, there are many Israelis in their bunkers. There have been 21 casualties over this last period and over 500 people injured. There is a sense of trauma compounding trauma in Israel, and I want to reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we recognise that.

The Prime Minister is of course discussing these issues with President Trump at this time, and the G7 meeting is going on we as speak. I also want to reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary about our contact with hostages. I met hostage families just today, and I undertook to raise that issue again in this place. They asked me to ensure that, with this crisis, we do not take our eye off the situation in Gaza. That is why I made it a part of my statement.

The shadow Foreign Secretary quite rightly asked about state threats from the Iranian regime and the IRGC. I refer her to the work of Jon Hall, who has found gaps in our legislative framework in relation to how we deal with these state threats. I am pleased about the arrests that have been made recently, but we will be coming forward with the appropriate legislation to deal with the state threats from the IRGC in the coming months.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is completely understandable that Israel feels threatened by a bellicose neighbour with uranium mines and a nuclear programme, but the rest of the world is unanimous in saying that the way to deal with Iran is through discussion, negotiation and a nuclear agreement. There once was such a deal, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Baroness Cathy Ashton among others, but that deal was derailed by President Trump, egged on by Israel. Now, belatedly, even President Trump has come to the view that the solution has to be a nuclear agreement with Iran secured through discussion and diplomacy. Yet in the middle of that, Israel has decided that the solution is a regional war. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must remain firm, with the rest of the world, in urging both Israel and Iran to step back from a conflict? Military action can predict only one thing; it will not stop the Iranian nuclear programme, but it will ensure the deaths of innocent victims on both sides.

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right to put on record our thanks to former EU High Representative Baroness Ashton for all her work to get the JCPOA agreement. The previous Government and successive leaders of the Conservative party also worked to secure that agreement. It is hugely important that we get back to diplomacy. It is right to say, though, that the assessment of the IAEA is that there has been deception from the Iranian regime. How do you account for having stockpiles that are 40 times over what they should be, if you were sticking to the agreement? That is why we must come together, yes, calling for restraint, but we do need diplomatic action. Iran cannot have nuclear capability, full stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and to him, Ministers and officials from the Department for their efforts to support British citizens in the region.

People across the UK have watched with horror as war has broken out between Israel and Iran. As we consider the UK’s response, let me begin with key principles on which I hope the House will agree. The state of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, in line with international law. We stand against Iran’s stated goal to wipe out the state of Israel, and its use of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to support global terrorism and foster regional instability.

Will the Foreign Secretary go further to protect UK residents, including Iranian and Jewish communities, from IRGC-sponsored terrorist actions on our soil and finally proscribe the IRGC? Iran’s ambition to create a nuclear weapon is a grave risk to the UK’s interests and Israel’s survival. Successive Governments have been right to seek to contain that risk through diplomatic means. However, the Netanyahu Government’s unilateral military action, which they took against the advice of allies and without forewarning, has severely undermined those efforts. It was ill-judged, reckless and not the behaviour of a responsible ally. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will press, at today’s G7 summit, for a return to negotiations, with the UK included alongside the US?

Iran has now retaliated with its own strikes and may look to respond further, including by threatening the assets of other states in the region. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the sole purpose of UK military deployments will be to protect our assets, personnel and citizens, and that he will not allow us to be drawn into the conflict between Israel and Iran?

What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that while the focus is on this crisis, we do not lose sight of the need to secure the unconditional release of the hostages held by Hamas, and to maintain scrutiny of the extreme actions of the Netanyahu Government towards Palestinians in Gaza, east Jerusalem and the west bank? And, in order to protect the possibility of a two-state solution, will the UK Government heed the call of all 72 Liberal Democrat MPs for the immediate recognition of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and the tone with which he made them, because in matters of war it is always important that this House can speak with one voice. On proscription, I refer him to the work of Jon Hall and remind him that we are dealing with state threats. To be absolutely clear, no country in the world is deploying more state threats across the world than Iran. That was why it was important to look at that issue specifically. He has found gaps in our architecture. We are looking at those gaps and we will come forward with our plans shortly.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the important work of negotiation and diplomacy, and what sits behind that. It is absolutely right that we continue to work with France and Germany. I reassure him that that work has continued and was continuing alongside—a parallel track, if you like—the work of President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff. We applauded that work and that effort to get to a negotiated diplomatic solution, but it is a solution that will require Iran giving up its nuclear capability. It will involve Iran getting serious about what those centrifuges under mountains are really for. We are very serious about that; that is what we were insistent on, and why we said there would be a snapback and we would impose very severe sanctions—that those sanctions would hit Iran once again if we did not see compliance.

The hon. Gentleman puts on record his views on Gaza. We have had those exchanges many times across the Chamber.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the work of the Foreign Secretary and the diplomatic actions that have taken place so far. Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran has opened yet another dangerous front and risks dragging the entire region into a wider war, with devastating consequences for ordinary people across the middle east—people who have already borne decades of conflict and intervention. Given that Israel’s claims have been challenged even by US intelligence assessments, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that no UK military support, whether direct or indirect, will be given without the clear and explicit consent of this House, and that the Government have learned the hard lessons of Iraq and Libya, and will not repeat them?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to my hon. Friend categorically that the UK is not involved in Israel’s strikes. We do have an important regional role. We have UK assets in Cyprus, Bahrain and Qatar, and we have an important role in Operation Shader, where we are dealing with terrible threats to us and our allies from Daesh and others. We have important relationships in the Gulf and the wider region. That is why the Defence Secretary has, as a precautionary step, sent further military aid to the area.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Until the people of Iran rise up and overthrow the dreadful mullahs’ regime, it is obviously true what the Foreign Secretary says when he says that no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, because even if its capacity was entirely destroyed, Iran could start rebuilding it. Having said that, though, it is true that it is possible to contain those ambitions by knocking back Iran’s capacity repeatedly, until such time as it no longer wishes to acquire nuclear weapons. I advise the Foreign Secretary to think carefully about the question of diplomacy alone containing those ambitions, because one day we might wake up and find that a successful nuclear test has been carried out by Iran.

[Mr Lammy]

I am always prepared to take friendly advice from the right hon. Gentleman. This is a very serious threat. We know that the JCPOA has been breached. President Trump has been pretty clear in his expectations, as I have been pretty clear with the Iranian Foreign Minister. I recognise that if Iran is to take the off-ramp, it must get serious in the coming days about its obligations to the international community and about ending that nuclear capability.

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

As always, civilians are paying the heaviest price: there were 1,195 casualties on 7 October, with at least 74 hostages since; there have been 55,000 casualties in Gaza; this weekend, 24 Israelis were killed by Iran, and 224 Iranians were killed by Israel. We need to de-escalate this conflict, and quickly. Those 55,000 people in Gaza deserved a future. I understand that the conference to be co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France on the two-state solution has now been delayed. What are we doing to get that back on track, and how will we progress that solution?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that my hon. Friend has long been a champion of these issues. He is right that the French, alongside the Saudi Arabians, took the decision to postpone the conference, which I think was the right decision. As my hon. Friend will understand, many partners—particularly Arab partners and partners in the Levant—want to be in their countries at this time. There is a lot of diplomacy; he will have heard the list of countries I have been speaking to. We must focus our efforts both on ensuring that ceasefire in Israel and Gaza and on dealing with Iran’s nuclear capability.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Does our closest ally, the United States, agree with this position on the situation? If not, what do we differ on?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made by Secretary Rubio on the outbreak of this new war and to the statements made by Donald Trump, in which he clearly indicates an off-ramp for Iran if it gets serious about diplomacy and accepts the olive branch that he extended through Steve Witkoff.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Ealing has long had a big Iranian diaspora. In 1978, when England did not qualify in the world cup and Iran did, a lot of my classmates were supporting the latter; now, they are my adult constituents, and they have been caught up in all this. Could my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is taking to ensure the safe passage of our constituents back home, including one of my constituents, who needs to resume her cancer treatment and wants urgently to come back to England?

[Mr Lammy]

Let me just put on the record the huge admiration that I am sure many across this House have for what was formerly known as Persia and the great history of the Iranian people—how remarkable they are, and how awful it is that they are suffering under this horrendous regime. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, the airspace over Iran is closed at the moment. We have advised against travel to Iran for many, many years because of our concerns. However, our embassy staff will do all they can to support British nationals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary knows that many of us have been prepared to speak up again and again on behalf of suffering Palestinians and be a critical friend of Israel, but will he agree that on this occasion we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli ally? The fact is, Iran is a death cult, and death cults like the Nazis or Iran cannot be appeased simply through diplomacy. Iran is cocking a snook at us—it is inches away from a nuclear bomb. I am sure he is going to make this absolutely clear, but will the Foreign Secretary therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our American ally in proclaiming the right of Israel to exist at all?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Thank you.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

A painful lesson of Israeli and, indeed, Jewish history is that when someone says that they want to destroy them, we must believe them. The Iranian regime has made its intentions to destroy Israel clear for decades now. We will all be familiar with the term “never again”, which came out of the concentration camps of Europe. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is one of those moments where we can say that never again is now?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked on these issues for many years—long before he came to this place. We recognise the threats that Israel is facing, and we also recognise the tremendous threat to not just Israel and the region if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, and what it would mean for all of us who have worked so hard against nuclear proliferation, as where Iran leads, others would come in its wake. We must stop that happening.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today. Although we clearly have differences with the Netanyahu regime, Israel is a close ally and friend of the United Kingdom. Iran is a terrorist-supporting state—Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Assad—that is destabilising the region, rejecting the IAEA and international proposals to prevent nuclear proliferation and limit uranium enrichment, and sponsoring terrorist actions on the streets of Britain. Does the Foreign Secretary not feel that Israel is now doing the world’s dirty work on behalf of us all?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman brings his usual eloquence to these matters. I agree with him save for his initial remark: I would not call it the Israel regime; it is a democracy, with all the ups and downs and faults of any democracy. Of course, I recognise that this is an existential threat for Israel and its people, which is why it is important that we ask for restraint at this time, because we do not want to see regional escalation. That is why it is important that diplomacy prevails.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

The Iranian regime threatens peace and security around the world: it destabilises the middle east through its terrorist proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; it supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; and it is sworn to wiping Israel off the face of the earth. It must never be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that aim should be achieved through diplomacy, and that all the world’s efforts must be placed on Tehran to back down, sign a deal and end this conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I do.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The Iranian regime is a malignant international force—who knows how many British lives have been lost to its sponsorship of international terrorism. The Iranians have explicitly stated a threat towards our assets and our people in the middle east. How much confidence does the Foreign Secretary have in our ability to mitigate those threats?

[Mr Lammy]

I have huge confidence in our force protection measures. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have important military and intelligence assets in the region and bilateral defence relationships with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and, of course, Israel.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I am concerned about my constituents Natasha, Joshua and Jemma, who are stuck in Israel after travelling there for a wedding. They sent me a desperate message saying that they are worried about their safety and are facing a daily cascade of missiles. They have registered their presence with the Foreign Office. I have heard what the Foreign Secretary has said today, but could I ask him to publicly reassure their families in my constituency that he is doing all he can to bring British nationals home to safety?

[Mr Lammy]

For Iranian dual nationals, British nationals who are in Iran—as I said, 224 casualties just over the last two days and 1,277 injuries—this is of course a terrifying time, as people hide in their homes. That is why we have embassy staff working around the clock, and we of course offer our full support, notwithstanding that the airspace is currently closed.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents who are currently stranded in Israel, unable to leave because of the lack of flights to the United Kingdom. This includes a constituent with significant medical needs. I urge the Foreign Secretary to further strengthen the Foreign Office’s offer. I do welcome the advice it is now providing on routes back to the UK, although I note that it has taken some time for that to happen. What contingency plans are the Foreign Office and wider Government undertaking for repatriation should the situation deteriorate further and that be required, and are they registering details of UK nationals in Israel to that end?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are asking all UK nationals in Israel to register their presence, so that we know that they are there and can update them in what is a very fast-moving situation. I also reassure him that we have sent a rapid force of diplomats to the border to facilitate exit. As he will understand, the airspace is closed, so there is no way of leaving by commercial flight, but there are routes, particularly out of Jordan, and we will do all we can to facilitate that.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

The Chancellor confirmed yesterday that UK military assets could potentially be used to help defend Israel. We are sending military aircraft to the middle east, and the Prime Minister has not ruled out them being used to help Israel. The Minister for the Armed Forces recently confirmed in response to a written question that the UK is training Israel Defence Forces personnel on UK-based training courses. Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that through bolstering Israel’s military in this way we are actively demonstrating our support for one side in this conflict, and does he therefore accept that this undermines our calls for a diplomatic solution and de-escalation?

[Mr Lammy]

It is important to state that the UK did not participate and is not participating in Israeli strikes, but we do have a proper role to play in regional security. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on operational defence and intelligence matters, except to pray in aid the defence bilateral relationships that we have in the region.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The reality is that there is a long history of diplomacy being used as a cover to reach the ultimate aims of what countries want to do—for example Russia signing the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty while constantly building hundreds of nuclear weapons, making that treaty worthless. I want to put it on the record that Israel has my absolute full support in the action that it is taking; it is doing the world’s dirty work. Are the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary in the middle of working out how we ensure that the strait of Hormuz stays open for vital international trade?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for putting square the economic interests that we have at this time and highlighting why diplomacy is so important against that backdrop. The price of oil has jumped to $78 a barrel, and some are predicting it going up to $125 a barrel—that would certainly be the case if the strait of Hormuz were blocked. That is why this is so delicate. Let us be under no doubt that this affects British people at the pump and that there would be massive inflationary growth if that were to happen.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The deaths of Palestinians, Iranians and Israelis this weekend show why we must all push for peace and stop this from spiralling out of control. Does the Foreign Secretary support, as I do, a nuclear-free middle east? If so, what steps are the Government taking to also address Israel’s vast nuclear arsenal, which is thought to include at least 90 nuclear bombs and which, let us not forget, one Israeli Minister said should be used against the people of Gaza? What is the Foreign Secretary doing about Israel’s refusal to sign up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say to the hon. Member, the story of Israel’s nuclear ability goes back some long way, to the 1980s—I remember studying this many years ago. We work with Israel, and we remain a country that does not want to see nuclear proliferation. We will do everything we can to ensure that others do not get nuclear capability in the region.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Let us be clear: there are no good guys in this conflict. The concept of pre-emptive self-defence does not exist in international law, and nor should it. Israel’s decision unilaterally to retaliate first has made the region—indeed the world—a much more dangerous and unstable place. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary believe that the impunity that Israel has enjoyed for previous acts of aggression and war crimes was a factor in Netanyahu’s decision to retaliate first?

[Mr Lammy]

We have had a very serious debate in this House so far that recognises the serious threat that Iran’s nuclear capability poses to the global community and the existential threat that the Israeli people are facing. I have been absolutely clear that diplomacy is the way. Donald Trump is urging a path back to diplomacy. The UK was of course not involved, but we have to be mindful about the many people in both Israel and Iran who are hiding in their bunkers, fearing the loss of their life.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House is behind the diplomatic efforts of the Prime Minister and the Government to avoid any further escalation of this conflict, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the reassurances he has given about not taking his eye off the horrors that continue to unfold in Gaza. Can he give a guarantee today that if there were to be an escalation that would drag the UK into any conflict, a vote in this House would be held first, before our armed forces were deployed?

[Mr Lammy]

As this conflict escalates, our message to both Israel and Iran is very clear: de-escalation and restraint.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

All our thoughts are of course with the British citizens caught up in this horrible and alarming exchange of ordnance. The Foreign Secretary said he was keeping his eye on Gaza, but I am not quite sure what that means. It is certainly the case that the eye of the world has been drawn to the footage that has emerged as the missiles have flown—footage of young children shot and bleeding out their lives in the sands of Gaza. As he said, 50 people were hospitalised over the weekend or shot dead while begging for food. Just this morning, 38 people were killed while queuing for food or attempting to obtain food from the new American-sponsored distribution system. What comfort should all the bereaved families in Gaza take from the fact that he is keeping his eye on this situation?

[Mr Lammy]

Today in my office I was with a hostage family. A wonderful woman who lost her husband was there with her daughter asking me to keep Gaza at the forefront of my mind and to raise it in the Chamber this afternoon. That is why there was an extensive part of my speech on it. I have spoken to all partners in the region, and I will very shortly speak again to Prime Minister Mustafa. We are absolutely clear that aid needs to get in, that hostages need to get out, and that we want to see a ceasefire. I will continue to talk and work particularly with our American partners and our partners in Qatar to bring about that ceasefire.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I have spent nearly a year in this Chamber watching our country pleading with the Israeli Government to de-escalate in Gaza. They have not. Strong words and desperate pleas have not worked. Is now the time to recognise the state of Palestine, as we promised in our manifesto? Is now the time to extend last week’s welcome sanctions to other members of Netanyahu’s regime, including the Prime Minister himself? If not now, when?

[Mr Lammy]

I understand my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling on Palestinian recognition. She will know we have always been clear that there is a role for recognition as part of a process, and we will continue to work with allies in the region and in Europe to bring about the process that will bring about recognition and the two states that we hold dear.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcome in particular the measures about bolstering our consular support. He has also made reference to our assets and the hundreds of thousands of British citizens in the wider region. What reassurance can he give us that their wellbeing is being thought about and that preparations are being made, should the conflict escalate further?

[Mr Lammy]

Let me put on record my huge gratitude and respect for our diplomatic staff in Israel and Iran and across the region, and for their families and children who provide them with such support. To be absolutely clear, on Monday last week we had a tabletop exercise in Whitehall on Iran, which I chaired. There are contingency plans. None of us could have envisaged two crises at the same time—this one and India, which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will talk about shortly—but our staff are standing ready.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I know that my right hon. Friend will be working tirelessly and using all his diplomatic skills and those of his office to resolve this new, immediate crisis, but as others have said, how will he balance that with getting aid in, a permanent ceasefire, getting hostages out and recognition?

[Mr Lammy]

Balance it we must, because those are the issues that we are currently dealing with. We remain determined to press for what we want to see in Gaza and to stand up for those we are hugely concerned about in the west bank—my hon. Friend will have seen the statement I made last week in relation to that—as well as being absolutely clear about Iran’s intent and capability at this time and what we must do to stop that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in Israel’s national security interests or in the security interests of other countries in the region—or indeed of this country, which has received direct threats from the current Iranian regime. Some 8,000 UK nationals are living on RAF Akrotiri along with 7,500 Cypriots and others also working on base—some civilian; most in uniform. What reassurance can he give those on the base that they are safe from Iranian threats?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member will know that, working with partners, we have capabilities that can ensure that our people are as safe as they need to be. He is right to reference RAF Akrotiri. The work of our colleagues in Cyprus, Bahrain and Qatar is hugely important at this time.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

When the UN’s nuclear watchdog says that Iran is closing in on the ability to develop up to nine nuclear weapons, I worry. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is in our national interests that Iran never acquires those nuclear weapons?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, 100%.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

We all watched in horror as the conflict between Israel and Iran escalated. Today, we have heard strong calls in the House for the UK to be a prevailing voice of restraint and diplomacy in this fragile and volatile time. While everyone in the Chamber recognises the brutal nature of the Iranian regime, the focus must be on de-escalation, so I am concerned to hear about RAF jets being sent to the middle east. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that the UK will play no part in any aggression? Will he explicitly rule out any further military support for the Israeli Government?

[Mr Lammy]

This is a precautionary measure. The Government would be irresponsible if we did not account for all possibilities at this time.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The failure to get transparent information from the United Nations Special Commission and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission caused untold damage 22 years ago. What discussions has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had with Director General Grossi at the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that there is real transparency and real information on which we can base any action?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I spoke to the director general at the beginning of last week, reassured him of our full support and thanked him for all his work that is ensuring a common understanding of what Iran is doing and why we have to act.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that just as Russia is run by an authoritarian regime that wants to destroy its democratic neighbour Ukraine and has carried out attacks on British soil, so Iran is run by an authoritarian regime that is out to destroy its democratic neighbour and has also carried out attacks on British soil? Is it not the case, therefore, that for the same reasons we stand with Ukraine, we need to stand with Israel now?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman puts it well. We should also mention what those in Iran are doing to destabilise neighbouring countries—Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq—with their proxies. We absolutely have to keep our guard up in relation to Iran.

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

My constituents will be extremely concerned by the developments in the region, so I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the efforts he is making to encourage de-escalation. Will he assure me that this escalating conflict will not undermine the UK’s efforts to end the war in Gaza, free the hostages and lift all restrictions to humanitarian aid in Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will do all that I can.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It was reported that the Israeli Government planned to kill the leader of Iran over the weekend. As history shows, attempts to collapse a regime with nothing to put in its place risk creating a power vacuum and state collapse. They also risk creating further waves of refugees and instability in the energy market. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports and the wider implications that such a strategy would have on the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

I remain hugely concerned about the appalling human rights record of the Iranian regime, but who runs Iran must, quite properly, be a matter for the people of Iran.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that the UK as part of the international community comes together to urge all sides to show restraint through diplomacy to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, and that it is also right that our focus is not diverted from Israel’s continued assault on Gaza and the rest of occupied Palestine and from securing the release of the hostages back to their families?

[Mr Lammy]

Every colleague I have spoken to over the last few days has emphasised diplomacy and de-escalation; I reassure my hon. Friend of that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the State of Israel has a declared policy on its nuclear weapons of no first use and that there is no evidence that it has ever misused or threatened to misuse its nuclear weapons in any irresponsible way whatsoever? Does he agree, moreover, that in international law there is the right of pre-emptive military action, and it is hard to imagine how that would not apply in this case, given Iran’s determination to destroy the State of Israel?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman brings tremendous experience to these matters, but he will understand that it is right and appropriate that I leave that to the international lawyers.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The nuclear ambitions of a bloodthirsty terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran pose a real threat to world peace, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel’s own conduct as an increasingly rogue state when it comes to international law endangers not just Israeli citizens but the Palestinian citizens of Gaza, as we have seen over the weekend, and makes the case for a Palestinian state more urgent, not less?

[Mr Lammy]

Israel has been raising its concerns about Iran for years. It is an existential threat, and one that we recognise, which is why we have been working in concert with our partners in France and Germany on this issue for so long, and it has remained a cross-party issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This is obviously a dangerous and perilous time, and we need to do everything we can to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that no British weapons or components are being used to bomb Iran, which could be used as a pretext for saying that Britain is directly involved? What assurances has he had from the Government of Israel that they will not use or even consider using in any way the nuclear weapons that they possess?

[Mr Lammy]

We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world, and I am proud of that. That was a matter that this House voted on just a few years ago under the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we made a decision to restrict arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. I also refer him to the statements that I have made about Iran’s nuclear intent, the work of the IAEA, the huge global concern and the UN resolution that the UK did so much to secure last Thursday.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for the Government’s calm leadership on these ever-changing and seriously concerning matters. Given our close maritime connections, can he update the House on his discussions with our Gulf allies and partners?

[Mr Lammy]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to partners in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel, and been in touch, of course, with our friends in Egypt over this last period, and I will continue to do so at this time of intense diplomacy.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

We knew that Iran had the ballistic missiles to hit Europe, let alone Israel or other parts of the middle east. Last week, the IAEA reported that Iran was within a whisker of producing atomic weapons. In the absence of diplomatic efforts and the failure to introduce the snapback mechanism, Israel had a right to react to protect itself. Will the Foreign Secretary now look at the diplomatic efforts to introduce the snapback mechanism and to impose sanctions on Iran to ensure that it cannot ever obtain nuclear weapons?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his commitment to de-escalation and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east, who has worked so hard over the last few days. Could the Foreign Secretary say a little more about our commitments to our long-standing friends and allies in the region, particularly countries such as Bahrain?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because this is a very tense time if you are in Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Cyprus. For that reason, it is hugely important that the UK meets its obligation, and that is why the Defence Secretary made the decision he did to deploy certain assets into the region.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Of course we should uphold the right of every state to live in peace, but in what way is the UK military involved in this? We have just heard that IDF soldiers have been trained on UK soil. Is this the same IDF that has been engaged in atrocities, including the murder of UK aid workers in Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

The UK of course provides military courses for our allies, but we always emphasise, in all those courses, the critical importance of international humanitarian law. It is important that we work with our allies to meet the amazing standards of our own armed services, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want us to depart from that.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for making so clear what the UK Government’s actions are. However, it is very clear that the suffering in Palestine will continue, if not accelerate, given the situation pertaining in the middle east, so what action can be taken to try to ensure that aid gets into that beleaguered area? Also, what efforts can be made to ensure that the recognition of Palestine is kept firmly on the diplomatic table?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will know that recognition has certainly been an issue that many colleagues around the world have been speaking about just in the last few weeks. I reassure her that I was discussing the aid issues just today with a hostage family who are worried, of course, about the aid available to those who remain under the ground in Gaza.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Israel is a democracy, a pluralistic society and an ally. In contrast, the unhappy and ignoble regime in Tehran is a theocracy that wants to wipe Israel from the map, that foments terrorism around the globe and that suppresses its own people to the extent that even dancing is a crime. Is not the best use of British military assets in the eastern Mediterranean to try to do something to stop the rain of hypersonic missiles and drones on civilian areas in Israel?

[Mr Lammy]

It is hugely important that we do all we can. I believe the best way forward is diplomatic, because attempting to do this militarily, I am afraid, cannot be achieved, and I think that is widely understood.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, his reassurance that Gaza will not be forgotten, and for having been really quick to come out and ask for de-escalation and a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran, not least the people of Iran, who are paying for this investment by the Iranian regime, but Netanyahu justified the bombing raids by saying that Iran was close to having a bomb and that it could be years or just months away. Was Netanyahu correct?

[Mr Lammy]

I call to mind the work of the IAEA, and refer my hon. Friend to the resolution of the UN Security Council just last week, all of which confirmed Iran’s intent and its deception.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Last week, this House was united in supporting the long-overdue recognition of a Palestinian state, and we urged the Minister to advocate for that at the United Nations conference in Saudi. That has now gone up in smoke. We believed that the US-Iran nuclear peace negotiations were coming close to fruition, so does the Minister share my concern that Netanyahu’s Government may be seeking to create further instability in the region, to block progression for peace and the recognition of the Palestinian state, and to distract from the genocide in Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

I do not believe that that sits behind the action that we are seeing at this time. I do believe that the way forward is de-escalation and diplomacy.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

A full-scale war between Israel and Iran is clearly in no one’s interests, but neither is a nuclear-armed Iran, so what is the Government’s realistic proposal to return to diplomatic solutions as soon as possible and to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programme? How realistic is it that Iran will engage in such an effort?

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, along with my colleagues in France and Germany, I expect to be engaged with Iran on this very issue in the coming hours.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has said, and just repeated, that no military threat can prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, but surely that is not correct. Given the danger to us all from Iran, which the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement, and its continued attempts to increase its ability to enrich uranium, will he very clearly agree with me that Israel was right to strike the nuclear sites?

[Mr Lammy]

The phrase that I have used about no military endeavour being able to achieve this without diplomacy has been used by the US and by the Israelis themselves.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

While I deplore the alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza, that should not cloud our view of the Iranian regime. As a British diplomat covering Syria, I saw how the Iranian regime was directly complicit in the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians. I was a British soldier in Iraq in 2020, and the British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by the Iranians a few months before I arrived. There have been too many catastrophic British foreign policy decisions in the middle east this century, so I commend the Foreign Secretary for his commitment to a realist and hard-headed approach. Does he agree that the first question for any policy choice should be: where does it all end?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman, though new to this House, brings so much experience. I agree with his sentiment.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My constituent Greg contacted me this afternoon. He is worried about his 24-year-old daughter who is in Tel Aviv on her own. What reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give to my constituents that we will repatriate British citizens as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

I would first urge the hon. Member’s constituent to register his daughter’s presence, to recognise that we are surging staff to the region and that the way out at the moment is through Jordan, and to reach out to staff. The hon. Member can reach out on the hotline if that is what his constituents so wish.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

May I take the Foreign Secretary back and ask that he clarifies the nature of the Israeli military personnel training on British soil and whether those involved are participating in operations in Gaza? If so, how does that align with the UK’s international legal obligations given that Israel faces proceedings standing accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, given that its leadership has arrest warrants issued against it at the International Criminal Court, and given that this Government have also moved to sanction senior Israeli officials?

[Mr Lammy]

As I said before, this is an academic course, non-combat. We have extremely high standards in this country, and it is important that we share them—although in the instance that he raises, this is fewer than ten people.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Given the UK’s long-standing friendship with Israel, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the increased risk to our military personnel in the countries in the wider region?

[Mr Lammy]

We are at the highest level of force protection at this time because of the ongoing conflict and the dangers that exist, and it is why we emphasise de-escalation and restraint.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

A despotic middle eastern dictatorship, a rogue state, a terrorist state perilously close to achieving a weapon of mass destruction so serious that it could disrupt the entire region—hon. and right hon. Members, as well as the public listening at home, may hear echoes of 2003 in that description of current events. With talk of regime change again in the air, what will the Foreign Secretary do to personally talk back the Israeli authorities in Jerusalem, because what they are doing at the moment strikes me as providing the Iranian regime with the best possible propaganda tool they could have?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member is right to emphasise in his words a degree of caution. He will have heard what I said in the House this afternoon, which forms the bedrock of the diplomacy that our officials are exercising in Israel, in Iran and across the wider region.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I support the Foreign Secretary in his call for de-escalation. In April last year, the RAF participated in the shooting down of drones that Iran fired at Israel. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on why the UK acted to defend Israel from drone attack at that time, but did not do so at the weekend?

[Mr Lammy]

Each military situation is different. There was a particular context at that time of ballistic missiles coming in and a particular request. We had the assets that could support, and we obviously make those assessments, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, with our regional allies depending on the circumstances and the context.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I concur with the Foreign Secretary’s view that this can only be resolved through diplomacy and that that is the only way we will get a resolution. I know he is a learned friend—a fellow colleague at the Bar. He will understand international law. Does he agree that the Caroline principles that would allow Israel to conduct that strike were not engaged? Does he not smell a rat with the timing of what is happening?

[Mr Lammy]

At this Dispatch Box, I speak as Foreign Secretary, not as a lapsed member of the Bar who qualified in 1995.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The role of the IRGC in life in Iran over the years has been human rights abuses, religious freedom abuses and gender abuses, with acts of global extremism and terrorism often having their roots and support in Iran. The war in Israel is a prime example of that. Anyone who pretends that Iran, with its nuclear potential, is in any way an innocent bystander is being deliberately dishonest. Will the Foreign Secretary commit again to working with allies, such as the US, to minimise bloodshed and ensure that Israel is able to remain safe and free from all attacks?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman is right to bring to mind the human rights record in Iran. I remind the House that just three years ago, Iran arrested 20,000 people, executed many, and many died, all because a young woman—Mahsa Amini—did not cover herself up. She died in prison. That is the regime we are talking about.

Gibraltar

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

My thoughts, and I am sure those of the entire House, are with those who have been affected by the tragic plane crash in India this morning. We know that British nationals were on board. I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working urgently with local authorities to support British nationals and their families, and has stood up a crisis team in both Delhi and London.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Gibraltar. Yesterday, the United Kingdom reached a political agreement with the European Union on the last major unresolved issue from our decision to leave the EU, providing much-needed certainty for people and businesses in Gibraltar. The deal removes another obstacle to closer ties with our EU friends and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.

The need for this deal is well understood. As Members across the House have often highlighted, the current situation is not sustainable. Every single day, approximately 15,000 people—half of Gibraltar’s workforce—cross the land border with Spain to do their jobs, and to buy goods and services. Without a solution, the EU’s incoming system of entry and exit controls would have introduced a hard border, at which every individual’s passport would be checked, and all British goods heading for Gibraltar’s supermarket shelves would be subject to time-consuming customs checks. That would cause chaos and backlogs, endanger the livelihoods of British citizens in Gibraltar, wreck the territory’s economy and possibly cost it hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and place pressure, ultimately, on the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.

All my predecessors since the referendum have had to wrestle with the looming threat to Gibraltar’s economy and way of life. These issues were, regrettably, left out of the EU exit negotiations. The previous Government began further talks to address them in 2021, when the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton was Foreign Secretary. The issues were taken forward by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton came close to reaching an agreement. I pay tribute to their efforts, and to them for briefing me on Privy Council terms when I was in opposition.

It fell to this Government, when we came into office last year, to get a deal over the line, and it was imperative that we did. Gibraltar is part of the British family. Its people are British citizens. Its military facilities are of the utmost importance to Britain’s security, protecting important global trade routes in volatile geopolitical times. Britain is safer thanks to the work of our armed forces on the Rock. Since coming into office, therefore, we have made it a priority to negotiate a lasting solution with the European Commission and Spain.

I acknowledge the role of the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, who, in opposition and government, has been a relentless advocate for the people of Gibraltar, and has been integral to finding a mutually beneficial way forward. I also thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the dedicated team of Foreign Office diplomats for all their efforts, led by Lindsay Appleby in Brussels and Robbie Bulloch in London; their negotiating skill and deft diplomacy have been in the finest tradition of our diplomatic service.

British Ministers and officials have worked hand in glove with the Government of Gibraltar to conclude these tricky negotiations. Chief Minister Fabian Picardo has been at the table at every single stage of the process. Yesterday, he welcomed me to Gibraltar before we travelled together to Brussels to conclude the talks—as he said, as “a united British family”.

This Government would never agree to any solution that did not have the full support of the Government of Gibraltar—nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The Chief Minister has said that what we have agreed is

“something remarkable…Something bold. Something forward-looking and hopeful.”

I pay tribute to all those whose tireless efforts have helped to get us here. We have protected Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life for the long term. Since 2021, this and previous Governments have been involved in 19 formal rounds of talks and countless technical discussions, sherpa meetings and ministerial calls—it was a massive collective effort—to ensure that Gibraltar could continue to prosper.

We have agreed a unique and practical solution to the problem facing Gibraltar, the only British overseas territory that shares a border with the EU’s visa-free Schengen area. Its people’s livelihoods depend on a fluid border. Our solution will deliver jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar, but for the entire region. British sovereignty over the whole of Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, remains sacrosanct and iron-clad. On starting talks, I immediately secured an agreement to add a clause explicitly protecting our sovereignty, and the same goes for British Forces Gibraltar, which will continue to operate without interference or interruption, exactly as it does today.

Traffic at the border between Gibraltar and Spain will be able to flow, without checks on the people crossing. Residents of Gibraltar and of nearby Spanish communities will be able to go about their daily life, as they have done. For those arriving by air at Gibraltar’s airport, there will be dual border control checks—a model similar to the one whereby French police operate in London’s St Pancras station. Ignore the fake news: Gibraltar will not be joining Schengen. That was never on the table. Immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibility of Gibraltar’s authorities.

As for products entering Gibraltar across its land border, there will be a unique goods and customs model, avoiding the need for onerous checks at the border. With this pragmatic solution, flights will be able to operate from Gibraltar airport across Europe, driving growth and jobs for the people of Gibraltar.

This Government are showing that a pragmatic, positive relationship with the European Union pays off for the British public. Just as at the UK-EU summit last month, we are solving the problems left by the previous Government and their thin Brexit deal, and are making working people across the British family safer and better off. We can now also strengthen our co-operation with Spain, our NATO ally, a place that British people know so well.

I am grateful to my counterparts in Spain and the EU for completing these negotiations in good faith, in the spirit of win-win solutions for all parties involved. This agreement paves the way for finalisation of the UK-EU treaty text on Gibraltar. All parties have committed to completing this as quickly as possible. I can reassure hon. Members that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the usual way. I hope that Members from all parts of the House take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves and back the solution that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and I have come to, guaranteeing Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life.

This is what competent government looks like: fixing problems, not creating them; standing up for our overseas territories, not leaving them exposed; and protecting Britain’s interests abroad, to ensure security and growth at home. With this agreement, Gibraltar will have easier access to the European economy. Its businesses can plan for the long-term once again, and its citizens can feel reassured about their future. Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar remains as solid as the Rock itself. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with those affected by the plane crash in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and the emergency services at the scene. I thank the Foreign Secretary for assuring us about the assistance that will be given to the families affected. As we know, British nationals are involved.

On the statement, I pay tribute to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, and his team for the constructive way they have approached this issue. They worked constructively with Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to set out the negotiating position and red lines, the UK having recognised the choices that Gibraltar made in its interests.

The Chief Minister stated in a letter to the former European Scrutiny Committee that

“the UK and Gibraltar have never worked more closely together in delivering the outcome that the People of Gibraltar want”.

As my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton said when he gave evidence to the Committee last year:

“Fabian Picardo and I are joined at the hip: we will not agree anything that we are not both comfortable with.”

The Foreign Secretary has acknowledged his predecessor’s work and taken time to reflect on it and secure this outcome. Will he also acknowledge that this negotiating process has been frustrated by Spain, which, as we know, blocked these issues from being resolved through the Brexit negotiations?

His Majesty’s Opposition will judge the deal agreed on whether it meets the aims and objectives that we outlined when in government with Gibraltar and once we see the full details. Our principles have been that nothing compromises or infringes on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar, which is to remain British. We believe that we must able to operate our base as we have done to safeguard our defence and interest, and that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and Gibraltar’s people to support their interests. It must also address the concerns about the actions of Spain to frustrate and prevent the free flow of goods.

I heard what the Foreign Secretary said in his statement and in the joint statement from the Government of Gibraltar, the UK Government and the EU Commission. I have the following questions. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm when the House will get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty? In a letter to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), commented on the benefits to scrutiny of sharing the initial treaty text in advance of its being laid formally. Given the importance of the issue, will the Foreign Secretary make a draft available to the House before signing, and will he commit to make parliamentary time available to debate the treaty?

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the red lines that the last Government set with the Government of Gibraltar have been met or whether, during the negotiations and since he took office last year, there has been any divergence from them? Can he give assurances that under this deal we will see a stop to the games that have been played by the Spanish that disrupt the border and the freedoms that Gibraltarians should enjoy? They cause disruption in the EU, so has he received commitments from Spain and the EU that this will never happen again? With in excess of 15,000 people crossing the border every day, it is vital for economic interests that a fluid border, which Gibraltar wants, is in place. That is why when we were in government we respected the choice of Gibraltar to work to achieve this.

No mention is made of the military base in the joint statement, but the Foreign Secretary has referenced it. Can he confirm that nothing will be agreed that infringes on our ability to operate the base, and will members of our armed forces be able to access Gibraltar without needing Schengen checks? On the juxtaposed border controls, can he give more details about their practical operation and explain to the House how they will work? Can Spanish officers stop a British citizen from coming to stay in Gibraltar? Will British citizens’ time staying in Gibraltar count against the 90-day Schengen limit?

Finally, the joint statement issued lists areas that the agreement will include, covering state aid, taxation, the environment, transport, the rights of frontier workers, social security co-operation and financial mechanisms on training and employment. However, there is a lack of detail. When will the details come forward, and when will we be able to scrutinise them? Does this put Gibraltar in a customs union with the EU? What does this mean for VAT? Will there be any provisions that will require Gibraltar or the United Kingdom to pass legislation, including to enact any EU law? Conservatives will always defend British sovereignty and the rights of Gibraltar, and we will continue to scrutinise the details of this deal so that nothing undermines this.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. She is absolutely right to pay tribute to Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been fantastic to work with throughout this. As I said to him, nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. He has been in the room every time that talks have been conducted. I am grateful to previous Foreign Secretaries for the briefing that they gave me in office.

May I be clear that the military base will continue to operate as it does today? There will be zero change. It is vital for UK national security, and it is protected by this agreement. That was a red line for us throughout the negotiations.

The right hon. Lady asks whether the arrangement changed with the change of government. On the red lines that were set out by the Gibraltar Government, the answer is no. The only thing that changed was that I insisted that there was a sovereignty clause, which she will see when the treaty is published.

The right hon. Lady asks how quickly we will be able to share the treaty. We hope to do so as quickly as possible. She will recognise that there is a lot of technical detail. Work is ongoing with lawyers to draft the treaty, and between the European Union and Spain to ensure that the language in it is aligned, but we will get to that point as quickly as we can.

The right hon. Lady asks about parliamentary scrutiny. I assure her that we will follow the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, as is right. Parliament will be able fully to scrutinise the treaty, and to debate the terms of the treaty if it wishes, as she would expect.

The right hon. Lady asks about Schengen. As I said in the statement, this was never on the table. I give her the assurance that immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibility of the Gibraltar authorities.

The right hon. Lady asks about VAT. I assure her that Gibraltar will not be applying VAT and will maintain its fiscal sovereignty.

The right hon. Lady asks about the 90-day rule. Because there will, in effect, now not be checks at the land border, it is right that Gibraltarians can come and stay as long as they want. But for those who are travelling into Gibraltar from Spain, or those who are arriving in Gibraltar at the airport, I can confirm that the 90-day rule will apply across both Gibraltar and Spain.

I recognise that these questions touch on the issues that dominated this House following the decision to leave the European Union, which was, of course, a decision that divided the nation. But this moment, this deal and this arrangement, for which Gibraltar was in the room, represent a conclusion to that period. I am very grateful for the tone that the Official Opposition have taken.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have to admit that when Brexit happened, I thought that the problem of Gibraltar would be so difficult that I really did not see how we would ever get over it. It is a tribute to the flair, the flexibility and the fraternity on display on all four sides of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary has been able to come to this place to announce such a great success, and I congratulate him and his team wholeheartedly.

The Foreign Secretary talks about our scrutinising this matter in the usual way under the CRaG process. I have to say that I think the CRaG process is rubbish, and I ask him to look again at, in essence, our having the right, as opposed to being given it by largesse, to debate and vote on a treaty. The requirement is that the Government lay before Parliament a treaty, which this House may resolve not to ratify during a 21-day delay. How that is done, I frankly do not know, because it has never been done, but it could, in theory, result in a delay of 21 sitting days. In many cases, it would be not so much ping-pong as hoofing the ball up the pitch again and again. The CRaG process is obscure and out of date. It is basically the Ponsonby rule, and it is unfit for the 21st century and unfit for this place. I ask the Foreign Secretary to look at it again.

[Mr Lammy]

I will begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming a dame and on her trip to Buckingham Palace yesterday. I hear what she says about the CRaG process. I recognise the importance of that to the House, so through the usual channels, we will do everything that we can to ensure that there is the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and that the House can remain united and confident that Gibraltar remains sovereign, that the base is secure and that our relationship with both Spain and the EU is appropriately intact.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians.

There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations?

The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that the people of Gibraltar have been in limbo since the Brexit decision, which is why it was important that, in coming into office and inheriting this from the last Government, we put every effort into it. Let me again pay tribute to the Minister for Europe who rolled up his sleeves and was a sherpa at a lot of those meetings, particularly over the last year.

The hon. Lady asked about business. I assure her that I was with representatives from the business sector in Gibraltar yesterday morning discussing what a deal would mean for them if it were reached later in the afternoon. There was one word that they kept coming back to: certainty. They wanted certainty, and they wanted the opportunity of a more frictionless border arrangement with Spain and the opportunity to sell into the Spanish market unhindered. That is what they said and that is what we particularly took on board.

The hon. Lady rightly asked about any ability to thwart the deal that might exist in parts of the Spanish parliamentary system. May I remind her that the deal, appropriately, is between the United Kingdom and the European Union, that we have always been a country that meets our treaty obligations seriously and that whatever one’s views about the European Union, it is also an organisation that meets its obligations seriously? When we sign up to a treaty, that is what we are doing. As with the trade and co-operation agreement, there is a review mechanism that would allow the appropriate review; indeed, the UK-EU summit that we had a few weeks ago was an appropriate review. However, we met our obligations under the TCA in opposition, standing up for the agreement that had been struck by the last Government, and we would expect the same in this instance.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and Chief Minister Fabian Picardo on getting this landmark agreement over the line? The agreement further cements Gibraltar’s place as an integral part of the British family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House what further measures he is taking to strengthen relationships with the overseas territories?

[Mr Lammy]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the overseas territories more generally. We had a good meeting of the heads of the overseas territories at the end of last year, at which I and the Prime Minister were in attendance. We have undertaken to conduct a review of our relationships to strengthen those further, and the Minister for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories is taking that forward as we speak.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know—and he will not take this personally —that for the most part I think his Government’s ability to negotiate is appalling. The only reason I have any confidence that this might be a good deal is that the Government of Gibraltar were heavily involved. At some point in the future, this House—me included—will see the detail of this agreement, and I will know what red lines I stuck to when I was negotiating. To save time and for the education of the House, will he, without going into details, let us know: did the European position, including the Spanish position, move closer to ours or did we move closer to theirs to get this deal over the line?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we strengthened the deal, and we did that by putting in a sovereignty clause to ensure that there was no question about the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its unique relationship as part of the family of the United Kingdom. We were able to reach a deal yesterday that the European Union and the UK had negotiated. We ensured that Fabian Picardo was in the room at every meeting and the European Union ensured that Spain was in the room at every meeting. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Gibraltar has been a block on our bilateral relationship with Spain. This is an opportunity for us to work with Spain and to deepen that relationship, as we have been able to do with so many other countries across Europe.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I used to live in Andalusia, close to the Gibraltar border, so this issue is very close to my heart and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the deal. The people of Spain, Gibraltar and Britain are very close, we have very deep links and, as they say in Spain, “Hacemos buenas migas.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is not only a great deal for the economy of Gibraltar, but a chance to deepen those relationships and continue those friendships that have gone on for so many years?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because her question gives me the opportunity to remind people about the many Spanish families living across the border who make their way into Gibraltar for work and to see loved ones, and who were subjected to checks. Now, those families will not have those checks and it will be much more seamless to go between both sides. This is a win-win for them as much as it is for those in Gibraltar. I am grateful to her for bringing to mind the people, and not just the businesses, who will benefit.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is encouraging that the Gibraltarians are receiving more consideration than the exiled Chagossians did. When the Foreign Secretary says that a sovereignty clause was inserted, does that mean that Spain absolutely and explicitly recognises the sovereign relationship between Britain and Gibraltar? If so, what has the reaction been of those elements that he referred to in Spanish politics that do not accept that relationship?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely, Spain does recognise the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its relationship with the United Kingdom in the agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that detail in the treaty. He will know that the subject of dispute over many, many years—long before many of us were in this House—is over the isthmus. Much of the territory that some would describe as neutral—others have different descriptions—exists between Gibraltar and Spain. Overwhelmingly, there has been support for reaching this moment on both sides. I cannot comment on the extremities of politics in Spain, but I am sure that these days that can be looked up on social media.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. I know she is disappointed not to be able to join us today and would want to be here to welcome today’s UK-Gibraltar-Spain-EU agreement. It protects Gibraltar’s sovereignty, secures the British naval base and reduces border checks from 10 million to 250,000 a year, as well as strengthening the economy through new European flight access. That is an incredibly strong outcome. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm how we will ensure its smooth and effective implementation on the ground?

[Mr Lammy]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for championing the people of Gibraltar and their issues and for ensuring that, in coming into Government, we made sure that there could not be an agreement that Gibraltar’s representatives were not content with. I should update the House that yesterday I also met the Opposition in Gibraltar, so they were fully informed of what I hoped would become a good outcome today. We will work at pace on the treaty. I cannot give my hon. Friend a timeline because of the technical legal detail that that will involve, but I will seek to update the House in the appropriate way if there are delays.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his statement and the tributes he paid to not only his predecessors, but the officials and diplomats who have been involved in the negotiations for many years. I do not think I heard an answer to the question asked by the shadow Foreign Secretary, which was: can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land? On the sovereignty clause, will he clarify whether it means that Spain has abandoned its claim altogether, or does it plan to follow the same route that Mauritius did with Diego Garcia?

[Mr Lammy]

On the first point, we have stuck to the political framework that was negotiated and agreed back in 2020 by the then Foreign Secretary, the former Member for Esher and Walton. I have a photograph from the agreement that was struck, of where we would be locating effectively a joint facility in the airport. There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line. Of course, if there was an alert at that point—not on its own, but at that point—there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they will be working alongside that Spanish team. If there was an alert, the individual would have the right to legal advice. They would be able to either return to their country of origin—let’s say the UK—or voluntarily go over to Spain to face questions. The key thing is that it is joint and alongside the work and efforts of the Gibraltar police and the Gibraltar customs and border guards.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome this political agreement and congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on achieving it. I recently met Chief Minister Picardo, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, to welcome the progress that Gibraltar has made on anti-money laundering, including through publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is the intent in the future EU-UK agreement that there will be a section on anti-money laundering? Does he agree that it sends a message to other overseas territories that tackling economic crime can be a strength in terms of business confidence and investment, and not something to be feared?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work in this area. He will recognise that Gibraltar, as an overseas territory, is at the strong end of tackling issues of illicit finance and is paving the way. There is more work to do on this issue and particularly on beneficial ownership. I intend to take this forward, working alongside our new envoy in this area, Baroness Hodge, and culminating, I hope, in an event in London next year.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Gibraltar is British and its citizens are British by choice. I was proud to represent Gibraltar for 10 years when I served in the European Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that once the full text is available, he will allow time for both this House and the Gibraltar Parliament to scrutinise the deal before it is ratified?

[Mr Lammy]

I do not want to speak for the Chief Minister, but I know that he was expecting for there to be the appropriate scrutiny of the Bill in the Gibraltar parliamentary system. Of course, as we would expect, this has garnered a lot of attention in Gibraltar. I have given my undertaking to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I recognise that this is an important last aspect of our decision to leave the European Union and that it needs the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he confirm that it is his expectation that this deal will provide new opportunities for growth in trade and for businesses in Gibraltar?

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that. There was palpable excitement, when speaking to businesses in Gibraltar yesterday morning, at the opportunities that would arise. Of course, for small and medium-sized businesses, there will be some change. It is important, and we have discussed this with the Chief Minister, that we can support those businesses on trade, on skills in particular and on the opportunities that exist on both sides of the border.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I want to probe the question of whether Spanish border officials have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar. I just want absolute clarity for everybody in this House: do Spanish officials have a veto or not? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the dispute resolution mechanism and whether there is a regular review clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has flown into Gibraltar airport, as I have, but if he flew into Gibraltar and there was an alert—I am not sure why there might be an alert in the Schengen system— I reassure him that as he is stopped by the Spanish border guards operating on behalf of the European Union, he would be handed back to the Gibraltese, where he might feel more comfortable. He would be able to access his rights and the legal system that he certainly feels comfortable with, which is ours. He would be able to return to the United Kingdom, where no doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him and many in this House would be rather pleased.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to the sovereignty clause, the question of sovereignty can only really be answered once we have the full detail of the treaty. That scrutiny is made poorer by the Government’s decision when they took office to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee, which did detailed work on this subject in the last Parliament. If I may tease out a further response, given the unique nature of Gibraltar airport, where the runway and aerodrome are owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by the Royal Air Force, will a member of the British armed forces landing in Gibraltar have to prove their British identity to anyone in order to go to work?

[Mr Lammy]

No, absolutely not. We have secured that arrangement. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Spain is a NATO ally, and it understood the importance of that requirement. As it has been raised, let me just say that, yes, there is a dispute resolution mechanism and a termination clause, as the House would appropriately expect.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

This welcome agreement has been a long time coming. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar on official delegations are aware of how loyal Gibraltarians are to Britain and the British Crown. On the talk of sovereignty, I think we have established that, other than the St Pancras-style arrangement, the Spanish police will have no authority. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that no other Spanish authority—customs officials, for example—will have any authority on the Rock?

[Mr Lammy]

Yesterday I met Joe Bossano, who, at 85, is a long-standing Member of the Gibraltar Parliament. He shared his reflections on Gibraltar and its attachment to the UK, on the war and being evacuated to the UK, and on where there have been disagreements with the UK, when the UK has not understood that Gibraltar is part of the family. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: yes is the answer.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is clearly in the best interests of Spain and Gibraltar for there to be a free flow of individuals backwards and forwards across the border. For UK citizens who fly into Spain or Gibraltar and hire a car to cross the border into Gibraltar or Spain, what checks will there be at the border? Clarity on that point would help.

[Mr Lammy]

The clarity is that there will no longer be any checks. If they fly into Spain, they are flying into the Schengen area. If they fly into Málaga, they are free to drive to Gibraltar without checks—they would already have had those checks. The same applies in the other direction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I must ask a question given the similarities between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. The sovereignty issues faced by Northern Ireland in terms of European overreach on borders mean that Northern Irish people will feel anxiety about this agreement. Will the Secretary of State outline what consideration has been given to the views of Gibraltarians, and what consultation was held regarding the policy of a foreign nation on their soil?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that our position of “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar” gave those guarantees, and no meetings were held—certainly not under this Government or, I am quite sure, under the previous Government either—without the Chief Minister in the room, so that they were happy. We would not have had a deal were they not happy; there would not have been a deal were the Chief Minister not able to stand up and say, “I am happy with this deal.” That was the guarantee we gave. Of course we reflected on the issues that arose in relation to Northern Ireland.

UK-Morocco Partnership and Regional Stability

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

I should like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s deepening partnership with the Kingdom of Morocco, and our new position towards Western Sahara.

The UK and Morocco are long-standing partners, working together across a range of shared priorities. Our bilateral trade relationship is worth over £4 billion annually. We are strengthening this partnership to advance mutual goals in security, prosperity and sustainable development—delivering tangible benefits for British businesses and supporting the Government’s plan for change to boost economic growth.

On 1 June, during my visit to Morocco, I announced a series of partnership agreements that unlock opportunities for UK businesses across a range of sectors, including access to public procurement markets in Morocco, where opportunities are estimated to be worth approximately £33 billion over the next three years. On behalf of the Department for Business and Trade, I signed a Government-to-Government partnership that strategically positions British businesses to compete for contracts to develop Moroccan infrastructure for the 2030 FIFA world cup. In addition, I announced closer UK-Morocco co-operation on migration and counter-terrorism, and joint action to tackle water scarcity and climate change.

In parallel, the Government are advancing regional security, stability and prosperity by supporting efforts to resolve the long-standing Western Sahara conflict, which has persisted for nearly five decades. The conflict has undermined regional stability and hindered economic development, and particularly affects Sahrawi refugees residing in the Tindouf camps.

Approaching the 50th year of the conflict in November, and with renewed international engagement, there is a window of opportunity to shift the dial on this intractable conflict, and to support the parties and the UN to reach a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution, based on compromise, which conforms with the purposes and principles of the UN charter, including the principle of respect for self-determination. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is redoubling its efforts to help realise this opportunity.

To this end, while in Morocco, I announced the UK’s endorsement of Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the most credible, viable, and pragmatic basis for a solution to the conflict. In parallel, I welcomed Morocco’s willingness, detailed in our joint communiqué, to engage in good faith with all relevant parties to provide further details on what autonomy could entail, with a view to restarting serious negotiations.

[HCWS675]