Ukraine: 1,000 Days
David Lammy Excerpts(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine. It has been 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion stunned the world—1,000 days in which Ukrainian bravery has inspired the world, and 1,000 days whose horror and bloodshed has dismayed the world. This war matters greatly for Britain and the global order, but first and foremost we must reflect on what it means for Ukrainians. Today, children mourn lost parents, parents mourn lost children, families live with constant fear, and individuals bear scars that will never truly heal, so I say to His Excellency the Ukrainian ambassador in London and to the Ukrainian people: today, as on every one of the last 1,000 days, you are in our thoughts and prayers.
Of course, Ukrainians need not just words but actions, and this Government have not wavered. We have stepped up support to Ukraine, we have ramped up the pressure on Russia, and we have made it clear to the world just what is at stake. In our first week in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that we would provide £3 billion a year in military aid this year, next year and every year that it is needed. That includes what my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has announced today. There is more funding for Ukraine’s navy and for drones, and the extension of Operation Interflex, which has trained more than 50,000 Ukrainian troops to date.
I have also increased non-military support. This financial year, we will give at least £250 million in bilateral assistance, including for work to protect the Ukrainian power grid, which just this weekend suffered another Russian onslaught. Crucially, our bilateral support, both military and non-military, will be greater this financial year than in any previous financial year since the war began. Let me pay tribute to the Opposition for their leadership on these issues when they were in office, because the truth is that this House has been able to speak on Ukraine with one voice, and long may that continue.
That is not all that we have done. We have also been finding creative ways to bolster the Ukrainian economy further. We have brought the UK-Ukraine digital trade deal into force, so that Ukraine benefits from cheaper and quicker trade. UK Export Finance has provided over £500 million in loan guarantees, including for Ukraine’s own defence industry. British International Investment is working with the Ukrainian Bank of Reconstruction and Development to support Ukrainian trade. By the end of this year, we will have deployed a further $484 million in World Bank loan guarantees. Tomorrow, this House will debate a Bill confirming a new £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine as part of a G7 package of $50 billion. This extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme will sustain Ukraine in the fight, and is all paid for by the profits from frozen Russian assets.
I have made it my personal mission to do all that I can to constrain the Kremlin. Since July, we have sanctioned almost 40 vessels in Putin’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to our maritime services. We have sanctioned firms that supply Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese firms sending critical components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals from the aptly named Evil Corp, Russian troops who have used chemical weapons on the battlefield, and mercenaries responsible for destabilising Africa.
We have taken further action this week. Yesterday, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia, I imposed more sanctions, including on Iran Air. Today, I am announcing measures against those monsters who have forcibly deported Ukrainian children for attempted indoctrination by the Kremlin. I am proud of all that this Government have done to support Ukraine, proud of the unity that the House has shown on this issue, and proud that we have shown that Britain will remain Ukraine’s staunchest friend, both throughout this war and in the peace that follows, but we are always stronger when we work with others. I am also proud of what we have done to rally international support for Ukraine. I visited Ukraine with US Secretary of State Tony Blinken—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade. I discussed Ukraine with the EU Foreign Affairs Council, marking the first appearance by a UK Foreign Secretary at a regular council meeting since our EU exit. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Ukraine, and just this morning, I joined a meeting of close European allies to discuss how we can bolster our support for Ukraine in the coming months.
We are stressing three fundamental truths about the war in all our discussions with allies and partners across the globe. First, Ukraine’s cause is just. It is Putin who chose to invade a sovereign country that posed no threat to Russia; it is Putin who disregarded the UN charter; it is Putin who tried to turn back the clock to an age of empire building, when might made right and ordinary people suffered the consequences; and it is Putin and his allies who are recklessly escalating this war, with Iranian ballistic missiles being used to strike Ukrainian cities, and North Korean troops being sent to attack Ukrainian soldiers. When we support Ukraine, we are not just aiding its fight for freedom; we are also contributing to our fight for our freedom—the freedom of all states, all over the world, to choose their own destiny and future.
The second truth is that Putin’s war is not, in fact, going that well. Russia is almost 1,000 days into a war that it thought would end in days, and we should never forget that. Russia has suffered record casualties in the past two months, with the number killed or injured due to exceed 1 million next year. Russia is slashing welfare payments and raising interest rates to levels not seen in decades, all to fund more arms, and it has had to turn to Tehran and Pyongyang, as reserves of Soviet-era equipment and targets for Kremlin press gangs run low. That is not sustainable. The war is costing Putin dearly—all in a fight for land to which Russia has absolutely no right, a fight for which the Russian people are paying an enormous price.
The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace. It is 1,000 days since his full-scale invasion, over 10 years since he first seized Crimea and sponsored insurrection in Donbas, and even longer since he has sought to meddle in Ukrainian affairs, all to further his own interests. He has a track record of violating past agreements. He shows no sign of wanting peace. He would seek to exploit any pause in fighting to win his troops a respite before resuming hostilities, as he did after the failed Minsk talks.
I underline these truths because they must inform our strategy. If we want to see peace restored in Europe, we need Putin to see that there is no route to military victory. We need to make the price that he pays for his senseless war even higher. We need to remember that the price that we would pay for his victory would be higher still. We need Ukraine to stay strong, so Ukraine needs us to stay strong by its side. That is what this House wants us to do; that is what this Government will do; and that is what we call on our allies to do. Slava Ukraini! I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and, importantly, to the Government for making time to acknowledge and mark this tragic and terrible anniversary.
Like so many in this House, I remember the early morning of that dark day in February 2022, 1,000 days ago. As Home Secretary at the time, I recall the early-morning call notifying me of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was a day we had all feared, having seen Russian troops gathering close to the border for several weeks beforehand, and indeed over the previous decade, since the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s support for the separatists in Donbas.
The sovereign territory of a European nation has been violated, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we have all watched the horrors unfold over the last 1,000 days. In those early days, we saw the Russian military machine advance deep into Ukrainian territory. I pay tribute to the heroism, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people, who have proudly defended their sovereign territory.
Let us be in no doubt that Putin expected Ukraine to capitulate and for its Government to fall. He thought he could bully his way into Ukraine’s territory. Instead, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have bravely stood tall. They have fought on, and they are fighting every day. The cost to Russia has been catastrophic. Ukrainians are not just fighting for their country; they are fighting for our shared values of freedom, democracy, sovereignty and fundamental rights.
We should be proud that ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and before, this Parliament has stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Mr Speaker, you will recall that, in 2022, the entire machinery of government mobilised to support Ukraine. To this day, that cross-party support has been pivotal. We created safer routes to enable 20,000-plus Ukrainians to come to our country, and the Ministry of Defence, under Ben Wallace, was one of the first to supply weapons and key capabilities. We trained Ukrainian troops in this country, and we signed the security co-operation agreement that the Foreign Secretary mentioned. We announced a multibillion-pound funding package, too. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, flew the flag for Ukraine across the world, making the case, imposing sanctions on Russia, persuading others and fighting the cause of freedom. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in every single effort. The commitment has been solid as we have worked unstintingly with all our partners.
I saw the devastation when I met Ukrainians on the Polish border who were fleeing the conflict, and I know that many Members have visited Ukraine and met families over the last 1,000 days. We have all been touched by the personal horror stories of loss and grief from people, including children, whose lives have been shattered. Our thoughts are with them. It is a sobering and stark reminder that, although the modern world has delivered so much progress for humankind, unreconstructed tyrants are inflicting misery beyond comprehension with their contempt for human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. We saw that so clearly over the weekend, with the devastating waves of attacks unleashed by Putin.
I have a few questions for the Foreign Secretary. Will he confirm that we will continue to provide all the resources we can from our own stocks, and that we will work with our NATO allies to ensure that equivalent equipment is available for Ukraine if we do not progress with specific capabilities ourselves? NATO countries, as we know, are able to leverage a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a combined defence inventory many times larger than the Kremlin’s, so Russia’s victory in this war is not inevitable.
The Defence Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench, and he will have views on this, but I would welcome an indication on what steps the Government will take to replenish our stocks. Does the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, agree that this shows why it is important that we have a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030? Beyond the provision of lethal aid and capability, can he give an update on his diplomatic activity to further isolate Russia and to address the influx of North Korean troops?
We welcome this week’s announcement on sanctioning Iran for supporting the Russian war effort, and we must pursue those sanctions with vigour. We seek assurances that the Government will continue to review the measures on people and entities within the scope of sanctions, so that we can do more to prosecute Russia’s role in this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the approach that will be taken to engage with the new US Administration more widely, with our allies, to back Ukraine?
It is vital that this House stands united. As we mark 1,000 days of this war, we must ensure we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the side of freedom. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Lady on taking up her post as shadow Foreign Secretary. We will probably disagree occasionally across the Dispatch Box about a few things, but I hope that we will never disagree on the support that we have to give to Ukraine. Her response to my statement underlines the unity of the House.
The right hon. Lady is right to recall the mobilisation of the last Government back in 2022. I am glad she reminded the House about the way British people have been prepared to open their homes in record numbers to so many Ukrainians, and about her leadership of the Home Office at that time. She is also right to raise our military-industrial capacity. I assure her that since coming into office, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made it his business to get underneath the bonnet of how we procure, contract and ensure innovation. British support is driving immense innovation in Ukraine, which the Defence Secretary and I have been able to see close up. It is something like a Blitz spirit, which is quite incredible; it is a whole-nation effort. Working in partnership can also drive innovation in our own system.
The right hon. Lady raises, quite rightly, defence spending. She will know that there are still countries in Europe and beyond that are not spending the 2% that is necessary. We urge them to do that. Successive US Presidents, long before Donald Trump, have been raising that as an issue. It is our intention to get back to 2.5% of GDP—that was the figure when we left office and we want to get back there. I remind her that this country has now committed £7.8 billion to military support, and the Prime Minister has committed to provide £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
She is right to raise the huge concerns about the DPRK. Some 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia as we speak, which is a major escalation. That has been noted deeply in the Republic of Korea, because it links the Indo-Pacific to the Euro-Atlantic. As she knows, our system has been concerned about that subject for many years, but this is a major escalation in relation to those concerns.
The right hon. Lady is right to raise sanctions. The UK has now sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, as I have set out. I have gone after the Russian shadow fleet particularly. There is more to come. We will bear down heavily over the coming months and work with partners, both in the United States and Europe, to achieve that. She will have read about my dinner with the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. We discussed Ukraine and he was seized of the important issues. Donald Trump is a winner, not a loser, and I am sure he wants to ensure that the west is on the winning side.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Members of my Committee and I have been meeting large numbers of European friends and neighbours, not just Ukrainians. Last week we met the Foreign Minister from Estonia, who told us that North Koreans were fighting on European soil only a few hundred kilometres from his country. Yesterday, we met Moldovan Members of Parliament, who pointed out that Russian rockets had been in their airspace the night before. We are hearing mounting concern from everyone that the change in leadership in the United States and potential elections in Germany might mean there is a challenge to the united support that we, in the west, have had for Ukraine over the last 1,000 days. What strategy does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that we remain strong, and that we all understand that a defeated Ukraine and an emboldened Putin is a defeat for all of us?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is right that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine poses a serious risk to the UK and Euro-Atlantic prosperity and security, but it is also a direct threat to the international rules-based system, including international principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. When we think about our joint intelligence and military capabilities with the United States, remembering that many US troops are stationed in our own country and tens of thousands are stationed across Europe, in the end, with the developments we have seen with Korea, I am quite sure that we will continue to stand with Ukraine.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I join Members from all parts of the House to mark 1,000 days since Putin’s forces commenced their illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I pay tribute to the brave people of Ukraine, including those fighting on the frontline in defence of the democratic ideals that we share; those fighting the nightly terror of Russian missiles and drones, which continue their assault on innocent civilians; and all the Ukrainians who have sought safety here in the UK. I am hugely proud of British families who opened their doors to Ukrainians in their moment of need.
A few days ago, I visited the charity Surrey Stands with Ukraine, in my constituency in Epsom. I met the volunteers who were preparing winter survival kits that will be sent to help Ukrainian families who face a winter with limited power supplies, at best. The work of such community groups, up and down the country, is inspirational. We stood with Ukraine from the beginning, and we stand with Ukraine now.
I am afraid to say that 1,000 days on, Ukraine needs our support more than ever. The Liberal Democrats welcome the US’s decision on long-range missiles, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to shed a little more light on the UK’s stance. However, we must go further. The clock is ticking: on 20 January, President Trump will be inaugurated for the second time. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that with the wavering US, it is incumbent on the UK to lead within Europe now? Will he commit to bolstering support for our Ukrainian allies, should it waver elsewhere? Will the Government begin the process of seizing Russian assets—the assets themselves, not just the interest—so that we can give Ukraine what is needed to liberate its territory and win the war? Let us lead the way and liberate Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
I thank Liberal Democrat Members for their continued support. The hon. Lady is right to evoke the huge volunteer spirit across our country. I think of the thousands of people driving trucks to Ukraine, and the faith groups, non-governmental organisations and others gathering heaters and goods, and ensuring they get to Ukraine. They are doing that month after month. They do not need encouragement and sometimes their work is not in the news, but they know the importance of their endeavours.
This morning I met Foreign Ministers from France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain. There is no wavering in our support for Ukraine. If anything, there was a commitment to double down on that support, a determination to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position in 2025, and a renewed effort to ensure that we co-ordinate even better, particularly over the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On this grim milestone of 1,000 days since the full-scale invasion by Russia, we mourn the hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and injured because of Putin’s decision to invade a democratic nation.
I recently met the Ukrainian ambassador, General Zaluzhnyi, and separately a delegation of Ukrainian MPs, who are very grateful for our solidarity but also have some concerns. The Government have rightly provided strong support to our allies, but after the escalatory deployment of North Korean troops on European soil and the constant bombardment of Ukrainian communities by Putin, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence about lifting restrictions on the usage of long-range Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming Chair of the Defence Committee. He asks a question that is in the news at this time. We continue to discuss with Ukraine and international partners how best to support it going into winter. However, I know he will understand that I have nothing new to say on this, because I will not get into operational decisions, which would, frankly, be a gift to Putin. We have gifted military aid to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks in accordance, as my hon. Friend would expect, with international humanitarian law.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It has been a thousand days of Ukraine fighting for Europe’s future, but more than 3,900 days that Ukraine has been under attack and under invasion—3,900 days of bravery, terror and loss. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for all she did to create the Homes for Ukraine programme when many thought it was impossible. Consistently, though, Ukraine has been underestimated and Russia overestimated—militarily, economically and beyond.
We all know here that personalities matter, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we know that Trump likes winners. The US Government’s new leader needs to see success and victory for Ukraine as a personal victory for him. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to make sure that Trump sees it in those terms and no other?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work previously on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were able to work together quite well when I was in my shadow role.
The hon. Lady is right to say that we have a job to do now. The mantra is: one American President at a time. We have another eight weeks first, and Ukraine is going into winter—it may well be a bitter winter. The good news is that we are now getting the money out of the door. Where there have been gaps between pledging and getting the kit and the equipment into Ukraine, there is now a doubling down across Europe and among the international G7 partners to ensure the kit gets there and puts Ukraine in a strong position going into 2025.
I am confident that on 20 January, Ukraine will be in an even stronger position than it is today. That will be because of that combined allied effort and because of the work in the United Kingdom by the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself to ensure that we are Ukraine’s strongest partner and that we are doing everything we can to support it military, economically and on a humanitarian level.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Indeed, I thank him and our right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary for their joint leadership on this matter.
The key issue, as far as I can see, is the shipment of oil. Oil is the lifeblood for Putin financing his illegal activities, and sanctions are the way we have to stop that. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that there are now no British individuals or companies engaged in the illegal shipment of oil or its financing? If he cannot give that assurance today, what further action will he take so he can come to the House in the relatively near future and do so?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question allows me to say that sanctions have deprived Russia of more than $400 billion since February 2022, which is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. He is also right, however, that there is a shadow fleet, and over the past few months, I have issued more sanctions on those behind that. He is also right to single out the enablers, who might exist in our own country. He can trust me: I keep this under close scrutiny and there is more to come, I suspect, over the coming days. He is absolutely right to make it crystal clear that we cannot have UK businesses and enterprising individuals supporting Russia in its war effort.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but I will push him on the issue highlighted by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Britain has continuously led the way, right from the start, whether on the provision of Javelin or main battle tanks, or on the arguments about fast jets. Reading the newspapers, I would have believed that the Foreign Secretary had been leading the way in pushing for Storm Shadow to be used in Russia. He dismisses that and says that the matter is not to be discussed, but when will we hear from the Government that the Ukrainians will have the ability to use Storm Shadow on targets in Russia? Will it be next week, next month, next year? The Americans are shaming us. We should not be shamed; we should be leading.
Mr Lammy
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling and why, as a Back Bencher, he is doubling down on the issue. I think he will see that this Government have led and continue to lead in the debates right across our allies. He will also understand, however, that we need communication discipline on these issues. That is what we see with our opponents in Russia, the DPRK and Iran. I therefore lament a little some of the debate that we read across the newspapers. Members are not going to get those sorts of leaks or suggestions from me at the Dispatch Box.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for all their staunch work in support of Ukraine.
We have heard a lot of talk about escalation. Last week, we had a group of Ukrainian MPs in Parliament talking about the continued and escalating attacks on the country and particularly on Kharkiv, a city of 2 million people. Today, we have a Moldovan group here talking about an attempt by Russia, using dirty cash brought in suitcases from Moscow, to buy their elections. We are seeing a hybrid war against the whole of Europe, including us in the United Kingdom.
The threats of escalation by the Kremlin are happening irrespective of the action of the United Kingdom or any other country. North Korean troops are in Ukraine now, fighting on European soil. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that whatever the threats from the Kremlin, our support will be unstinting and we will not stand back from supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for all he does in the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine to champion the country’s cause in this Parliament and beyond, with the visits he has made and his updates to me over the past few years. He raises a number of issues and I want to assure him that we are alongside him and we continue to be alongside the Ukrainian people.
My hon. Friend raises an issue that I think is important and which has not come up so far: the malign activity of Russia and the hybrid threats it is engaged in right across the region. One country in particular—Moldova—is on the front line of Russian hybrid threats, and the interference in its elections has been entirely unacceptable. We stand in solidarity with the people of Moldova and continue to support them against the threats to journalists and the disinformation from the Russian regime, and the other extreme examples being received.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. As has been acknowledged, this war has been going on not just for 1,000 days, but for more than a decade, with Ukrainians fighting for our freedom as well as for their own country’s independence. I wish to put on record my party’s support for the action that we have taken so far, and in particular our support for Ukraine.
I have a number of questions for the Foreign Secretary. On drone technology, we are seeing delays in releasing some of the licences. Will he mention that to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade? Can we get some more in-country co-operation, given how far Ukrainian technology has advanced? Does he agree that we can no longer continue to allow the Russian Federation to able to strike Ukraine with impunity? Finally, $300 billion-worth of Russian assets have been forfeited. Will he at least make a commitment to look into releasing that so that we can fund Ukraine properly? Slava Ukraini.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member asked me a number of questions. He raised the issue of licences, which I have also seen mentioned in the papers. I can assure him that we have looked at that matter thoroughly. There is no sense of our holding anything up. We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world. We stand by that regime, which was actually put in place by the previous Government, and there is no sense at all of it holding things up unnecessarily.
The hon. Member is right to raise the issue of technology. Drone technology in particular has enabled both the UK and Ukraine to target Russian attacks with precision. I can reassure him that we will continue to lead on the matter of seized Russian assets, and, over the coming months, I intend to redouble my efforts with our allies who are not as advanced as we are on this issue.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the details that he has outlined today. Will he provide a little more detail on the discussions that we have had with our friends and allies across the west? Can he also reassure residents in Britain about the part that they can play? He has spoken very eloquently on that. Indeed, my local Ukrainian community centre has played a very important role in our area.
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I say to the British people that they should take heart from the fact that this Parliament is speaking with one voice. If we as a country do all that we can to ensure that, militarily and economically, Ukraine can get through 2025, and if we are able to push and nudge our allies to ensure that we are in that place, then things will get a hell of a lot tougher for our Russian opponents, and we should take heart from that. In thinking about the winter, we should continue to do all that we can to send equipment over to Ukraine and to support Ukrainians in this country. It is tough for the people in Ukraine at this time. Some are still leaving the country, for obvious reasons. All of our efforts are not in vain—they are hugely, hugely important, and I am hugely, hugely grateful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Despite the Foreign Secretary’s congratulatory assessment, the fact remains that Russia is running rings around western sanctions and that it is using black and grey fleets to threaten the global maritime order. I have heard nothing from the Foreign Secretary about what he intends to do about that. Can he enlighten us?
Mr Lammy
I do not take issue with the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are still gaps and holes, and that Putin has been very clever in attempting to get around the sanctions that I put in place. But on 17 October we sanctioned a further 18 oil tankers in the Russian shadow fleet, bringing the total number to 43, and in the margins of the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace, we led the call for action on tackling the shadow fleet, which has now been endorsed by 46 countries in the European Union. Therefore, the suggestion that we are doing nothing does not hold. We will also continue to address the circumvention of sanctions, which includes highlighting the risk to partners such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates and supporting their efforts to continue to tackle the problem.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Huddersfield Ukrainian Club, which continues to support families who have had to flee Ukraine, including many children? It is really important—probably now more than ever—that we work closely with our European allies, so can he set out how we will strengthen that co-operation? As Ukraine faces a long and challenging winter, how will we help it cope with the relentless attacks on its energy infrastructure?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As I outlined, this morning I spoke to a meeting of the Weimar group of nations across Europe. It is not a forum in which the UK traditionally participates, but I was very grateful to the Polish Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, for reaching out at this time and ensuring that the UK, Italy and Spain were part of that group, along with France and Germany. That is an indication of how united we are attempting to be at this time.
My hon. Friend rightly raises the big issues around energy over the next period. She calls to mind the pernicious attacks by Russia over the past 48 hours, which have been driven at those energy supplies and are basically trying to turn the lights out in Ukraine. We must do all that we can in a co-ordinated effort to repel that activity and to help Ukraine repel that activity over the coming months.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My question for the Foreign Secretary is about security guarantees. As we mark 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion, we should remember that Ukraine’s allies failed to deter Russia in advance of the invasion. I do understand why a country at war cannot be admitted to NATO, but we must never again offer some meaningless paper pledge like the Budapest memorandum. What is the Government’s latest thinking about a meaningful security guarantee by Ukraine’s allies, from the point when the fighting stops?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question, but it is easy to look back in hindsight. Personally, I was critical that the UK did not play a part in the Minsk agreement. We were absent and we could have played a far greater role. Our belief is that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Allies agreed in Washington that there is to be an irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership, and that is the right thing to do. In the meantime, the UK and our allies are stepping up support for Ukraine’s immediate and long-term self-defence. The hon. Member is right: we must ensure that when this war ends—and it will end one day—it cannot start again, and that will mean very serious security guarantees for Ukraine.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary and Members across the House for the very strong cross-party support for Ukraine that has been shown over recent years and no doubt will continue to be shown? On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending an annual art exhibition run by the Helping Our Ukrainian Friends organisation in North West Cambridgeshire. Although it is a small organisation that takes in a number of rural villages, it has raised more than £300,000 in financial support for Ukraine, as well as collecting over 100 tonnes of humanitarian aid, which it has delivered over the course of 20 trips. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in congratulating this group and thanking people across our country for making these personal efforts to support Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend. I was once the baby of the House—I was much thinner and much better looking then. I remember sitting in his place 25 years ago. He is absolutely right: the volunteer spirit across this country has been extraordinary. People are making so many missions to Ukraine. They are facing danger as they go into Poland to provide support on the borders. It is quite incredible. Of course, I congratulate all those in his constituency on the work that they have done.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I cannot hide my disappointment that he has nothing to say about freeing the hands of the Ukrainians to use our long-range missiles. How can he lament the attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure when he will not allow the Ukrainians to use our weapons to strike back and retaliate? He says all the time, “We’re doing all we can,” but we are not, and we are now foot-dragging. We used to lead; now the Americans are in the lead. Can I invite him to change the paradigm of this war and lead from the front by setting an example—as the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), described—as we did in the past? Otherwise he is foot-dragging, not leading.
Mr Lammy
I am not foot-dragging. We are leading, but we must be careful not to discuss these plans in detail in the House. I gently say to the hon. Member that we must not abuse the fact that this is a democratic Chamber that Putin and others pore over. Trust me, we are leading in that debate. We want to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. I was discussing that with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister just yesterday in New York, and I will meet the Ukrainian ambassador after this statement. We will ensure that they are in the strongest possible position.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal and relentless leadership on sanctions against those aiding and abetting Russia’s illegal invasion. He will agree that it is vital that those sanctions are well enforced. In his review, will he include the credible allegations of sanctions evasion via Hong Kong? Closer to home, will he do his utmost to end the continued delay to the release of the £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club, which remains untapped at a time when the humanitarian need is so high?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his continued work. We are committed to strengthening sanctions enforcement. Through the October launch of the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, we have introduced new civil monetary penalties for certain trade sanctions breaches and the ability to make details of breaches public. Yes, we will look at the situation in relation to those entities in Hong Kong. I saw that he raised the issue of Chelsea football club during questions to the Defence Secretary just a few weeks ago. Again, I confirm that that definitely remains in view.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. He said that we would provide £3 billion a year in military aid this year, next year and every year that it is needed. That is very much welcome, not least in Ukraine. Equally, eight weeks from today there will be a new Administration in Washington, so Ukraine needs assistance now. Putin will probably not pay a price in eight weeks’ time because of all the soundings coming out of Washington. Ukraine needs help now to hit back at Putin now.
Mr Lammy
The point the hon. Gentleman makes is precisely the point I made to European allies this morning. I did not have the Northern Ireland accent, but— believe me—I made the point as forcefully as he has just done.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my thanks to the hundreds of Exeter and Devon families who have played host to over 500 Ukrainian families over the past 1,000 days. I also thank those Ukrainian families for bringing such life and vitality to the city and for readily sharing their culture with us. What are the Government doing to strengthen European co-operation in support of Ukraine as it heads into this bitter winter?
Mr Lammy
It was important for me to be at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg. It was important for me to go back—the first time for a UK Foreign Secretary—and the meeting I was in this morning was also important. We are serious about that reset with the European Union and our European partners. This is a time for more multilateralism, not less.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I host a Ukrainian refugee in my home, as do many other residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I want to publicly thank those residents for opening up their homes and to thank the families who joined them for their contribution. Those families told me this weekend over a cup of tea that they are afraid they will never be able to go back home, and they are terrified for their parents and grandparents stuck in a living hell in Kherson. They do not think they will ever leave and that they will be forever living under occupation. What assurance can the Foreign Secretary give to those people living here that we will extend their visas for as long as needed and that, if necessary, we will allow their families to join them?
Mr Lammy
I thank the hon. Lady for all she is doing and for championing these issues. The United Kingdom is preparing to sign a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. That is the nature and depth of the relationship we are setting out with the Ukrainians for the years to come. That partnership, that support, that standing with them, will survive all parliamentarians—even the baby of the House—in the Chamber today. That is the reassurance. This is a great country. It is a great privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary with the awareness that others have stood here and stood up to tyranny. We will continue to do that, and the hon. Lady must reassure those families that they will prevail.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. I am sure the House will agree that 1,000 days of a full-scale war are 1,000 days too many. My condolences and thoughts are with all the innocent civilians, on both sides, tragically killed or affected by the conflict. They did not ask for war. Notwithstanding Ukraine’s right to full self-defence, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK military aid provided to date has not been, and will not be, used against civilians or civilian infrastructure? Will he assure the House that any decision to permit the use of Storm Shadow missiles will ensure the safety of civilians and be in compliance with international law?
Mr Lammy
This is the second or third occasion on which I have been able to answer a question from the hon. Gentleman. He has a humility and gentleness that I am sure will serve him well in the House. I reassure him that all that we do in this country is always in compliance with international humanitarian law. The modern architects of this country, on both sides of the House, gave us the rules-based system. We are one of the champions of it across the world, and so we will always behave in accordance with international humanitarian law.
European Political Community: Budapest Summit
David Lammy Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
On Thursday 7 November, the Prime Minister attended the European Political Community summit in Budapest, Hungary. Four months after the UK hosted the EPC at Blenheim Palace, 48 leaders from across the continent gathered to discuss our shared challenges, and how better to work together to respond to them, with a focus on European security and support to Ukraine; tackling organised immigration crime; and bolstering European economic security and connectivity. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) accompanied the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister called for increased international co-operation in tackling the gangs who profit from organised immigration crime, and highlighted £75 million of recently announced additional funding for the UK’s border security command. He chaired the leaders’ roundtable discussion on migration, attended by Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the President of the European Council. To advance our collaboration with key European partners in the fight against organised immigration crime, the Prime Minister agreed new bilateral initiatives with Serbia, Kosovo and North Macedonia, which will further intelligence sharing and operational co-operation.
In a meeting with President Zelensky, the Prime Minister reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine, highlighting the UK’s new package of 56 sanctions targeting Russia’s military-industrial complex and Russian-backed mercenary groups. The sanctions directly target the supply of Russian military equipment crucial to carrying out Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. The Prime Minister condemned in the strongest possible terms the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s direct support for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, emphasising this was proof of Putin’s growing desperation.
Attending the second leader-level meeting of European Friends of Moldova, chaired by re-elected Moldovan President Sandu, the Prime Minister underlined the UK’s continued support to Moldova in the face of significant disruption from Russia during its recent elections. Leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania and the Presidents of the EU Commission and European Council also attended.
The Prime Minister also met a range of European leaders, including those from Albania, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Kosovo, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Serbia, as well as EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. With Polish Prime Minister Tusk, he discussed the mutual desire to step up co-operation on defence, and agreed to work more closely to tackle organised immigration crime. With Czech Prime Minister Fiala, he welcomed the recently announced investment by Czech company CEZ into Rolls-Royce SMR, which will boost our shared nuclear power ambition and support British industry. With President von der Leyen, he discussed the UK/EU partnership and the need to work together to tackle shared challenges.
The EPC will next meet in Albania in the first half of 2025.
[HCWS230]
Sudan Funding Uplift
David Lammy Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I would like to update the House on UK action to respond to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, including our support to the Sudanese people affected by violence.
The conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and Rapid Support Forces in Sudan has created one of the world’s most pressing humanitarian emergencies. By 2025, 30 million people are expected to need humanitarian assistance. The war has now also caused the worst displacement crisis in the world, with over 11 million people displaced. The conflict is having a disproportionate impact on woman and girls, who are worst affected by a surge in conflict-related sexual violence and over-represented among the displaced.
In August, the Minister for Development, the right hon. Anneliese Dodds MP, visited South Sudan and Ethiopia, seeing at first hand the regional impact of the conflict. She heard from people who had been forced to flee violence in Sudan, as well as pro-democracy Sudanese civil society groups to hear how the UK can push forward efforts to secure unrestricted humanitarian access and support a sustained, meaningful and inclusive peace process with the African Union.
The UK remains committed to supporting the people of Sudan, including those forced to flee across borders to neighbouring countries. That is why, yesterday, I announced a £113 million package of support to over a million people affected by violence in Sudan, South Sudan, Chad and Uganda. With this announcement, the UK has doubled our aid in response to the conflict in Sudan this year to £227 million.
The new funding will support UN and NGO partners, providing food, cash, shelter, medical assistance, water and sanitation. Education Cannot Wait will also receive a £10 million boost, to provide safe learning spaces and psychosocial support for education and safe learning spaces for 200,000 vulnerable children in refugee and host communities in Chad, Ethiopia, Libya, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Uganda.
However, increased funding alone will not prevent millions from starving in the coming months. Last week, the SAF decided to keep the Adré border crossing open for three more months. This is a welcome move, but since Adré reopened in August, a combination of bureaucratic impediments heavy rain and flooding have prevented the scale up of aid entering Sudan and reaching those in most need. We estimate that just 1.8% of the food needed reached the millions of food insecure people in Darfur.
The UK is using all the diplomatic levers at its disposal to galvanise international pressure on the warring parties to improve humanitarian access and the protection of civilians—including through our role as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan.
Today, as part of the UK’s presidency of the UN Security Council, I will convene international partners in New York to discuss the humanitarian situation in Sudan, with the aim of agreeing concerted and collective action to pressure the warring parties to remove obstacles to humanitarian operations. The Sudanese armed forces must urgently reopen the Adré border crossing and the Rapid Support Forces must stop blocking aid from moving freely throughout Sudan.
In a further development, today, on 18 November, despite 14 votes in favour and zero abstentions, the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution led by the UK and Sierra Leone on the protection of civilians in Sudan due to a Russian veto. This resolution called for the development of a compliance mechanism for the Jeddah declaration, practical options to support mediation efforts, and the establishment of humanitarian pauses. It also aimed to galvanise action towards agreement on a comprehensive, nationwide ceasefire which is the most effective way to enhance the protection of civilians.
It was designed to build upon the UN Security Council open meeting chaired by the Minister for Africa, Lord Collins, which stressed the urgent need to protect civilians in the absence of a national ceasefire and increase support for the UN Secretary-General’s recommendations.
Yet Russia decided to block this critical resolution. Russia’s veto risks sending a message to the warring parties that they can act with impunity.
But the UK’s response to this historic crisis remains consistent and unwavering. We will not let Sudan become a forgotten conflict.
[HCWS231]
China: Human Rights and Sanctions
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to China, on China’s reported human rights abuses in Xinjiang, on the case of Jimmy Lai and on sanctions on British parliamentarians.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. On China, this Government are clear that the UK’s national interests will always come first. Pragmatic engagement matters, not only to co-operate on shared challenges but to make progress in areas where we disagree. On my visit I made it clear that Chinese companies must stop supplying equipment to Russia that is being used in Ukraine. I also highlighted North Korean recklessness in stepping up its support for Putin—a threat to European security and stability in the Korean peninsula. I was robust on human rights, including in Xinjiang. I raised our serious concerns—which the right hon. Gentleman has also raised on many occasions—about the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of British national Jimmy Lai. I called on Beijing to lift its unwarranted sanctions against parliamentarians, including the right hon. Gentleman. This was a matter that I raised with you, Mr Speaker, before attending. I raised Taiwan, and warned that cyber-activity or interference in our democracy is unacceptable and will always be met by a strong response.
I also covered areas of mutual interest. China is the world’s biggest emitter, so we need to co-operate on the global green transition. It is also the world’s second-largest economy, and our trade with China is worth almost £100 billion. China has the second- largest number of AI unicorns of any country worldwide. Like the last Government, we will work with China to create rules to keep the public safe. This is grown-up diplomacy. After 14 years of inconsistency under the Conservatives, this Government will set a long-term, consistent and strategic approach to China. With Foreign Minister Wang Yi, I agreed to maintain channels of communication at ministerial level. This brings us up to speed with the United States, whose Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary have both made two visits in the past 18 months, as well as with partners including Australia, France and Germany. This Government are currently carrying out a China audit to improve our response to the challenges and opportunities that China presents to the UK. Once it is completed, I will gladly update the House again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. China is even now carrying out military exercises threatening Taiwan and threatening to blockade it, which would damage all our economies, yet I see in the Foreign Office’s readout after the visit to China that there was absolutely no discussion of that issue. Why not? On human rights in Xinjiang, the House of Commons, including the Labour party in opposition, voted that genocide was taking place in Xinjiang, yet the Foreign Office readout simply said: “Human rights were discussed”. This is a genocide taking place, with slave labour. Why is there not more robust condemnation from the Government to China?
In Jimmy Lai’s case, he is a British citizen and a prisoner in Hong Kong for committing no crime whatever. Did the Foreign Secretary not only call for his release, as he just said, but demand full consular rights of access? On sanctions on British parliamentarians, the week before last, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Secretary would tell the Chinese Government to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians. The Prime Minister said that he would. However, I see from the Foreign Office read-out that the Foreign Secretary did not even raise that, let alone call on the Chinese Government to lift those sanctions. Given your brave support, Mr Speaker, for those of us who are sanctioned, I simply ask why the Government cannot follow suit and demand that from the Chinese?
I have just heard—this is my final point—that there is a move in the Foreign Office to lift British sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the brutal genocide in Xinjiang as a deal to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians here. I must tell the Foreign Secretary that I, for one, would never accept such a shameful deal at any price, and I hope that he will stamp on that straightaway. Will he make it clear what our real position is on what is becoming a clear and massive threat to our freedoms?
Mr Lammy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his interest in my travels, but I have to correct him on a few points. I did, of course, raise Xinjiang in the context of human rights. I absolutely raised, as I assured you, Mr Speaker, that I would, the position of parliamentarians—of course I did—not just with the Foreign Minister but with the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Chinese Communist party. I raised that as a matter of huge concern. I also raised the threats and aggression that we are now seeing in the South China sea. Jimmy Lai, I raised; Members of this House, I raised; Xinjiang, I raised; Hong Kong, I raised. It would be totally unacceptable for any UK Foreign Minister to go to China and not raise those issues of tremendous concern.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Government bounced around on China. They had a golden era—he was part of the Government who had that golden era and were drinking pints with President Xi. A former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were found to be lobbying on behalf of Chinese belt-and-road initiatives, so I am not going to take any lessons from the Opposition on how to handle China.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has rightly outlined the complex nature of our relationship with China. May I add to the long list the tension in the strait of Taiwan and the effect that that is likely to have on international trade if it goes wrong? The fact that the relationship is complicated, however, does not mean that we should not get clarity. That is important not just for Members of the House but for others, whether they are promoting British exports overseas or are human rights campaigners such as Sebastien Lai, whom I met last week, or are British representatives in Mongolia. We need clarity in our approach to China, so we urgently need to know when the China audit will be completed. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when that is likely to happen, and will he also commit to appearing before my Committee to answer questions about it?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, I will appear before my right hon. Friend’s Committee, whenever she commands, to answer questions. She is absolutely right—the issues in the Taiwan strait are very serious. I raised those issues in China, and also in Indonesia and in Korea. We need a consistent approach to China, which is why we are doing the audit. It is my hope that it will be complete early next year.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to update the House following his visit to China. I want to press him on what the visit achieved because, comparing the read-outs, I would be forgiven for thinking that two very separate visits took place. The Opposition understand the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the Foreign Secretary inherited from our Government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this Government had concluded their so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further?
On the Conservative Benches, it looks as if the Foreign Secretary rushed into engagement without a plan. Concerningly, in a fundamental breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign, he was willing to pressure parliamentarians into cancelling the visit of former President Tsai of Taiwan the week before his trip. Unlike in an autocratic state, the Government do not tell Members of Parliament who they can or cannot meet. Indeed, the Conservative Government told the CCP on multiple occasions that, no, it could not shut me and other Members up, despite its requests.
We are told that the Foreign Secretary raised British citizen Jimmy Lai’s sham detention. Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary still has not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting. Will the Foreign Secretary now meet Sebastien to update him on his father’s prospects? And will he share with us the outcomes of his visit?
Will Jimmy Lai now be released? Will the Chinese Communist party now step back from its human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet? Will sanctions on MPs now be lifted? Will the Chinese Communist party now refrain from actions to support Russia’s war machine and the intimidation of Taiwan? Will the transnational oppression of Hongkongers and Uyghurs now end? Which of those objectives did the Foreign Secretary achieve thanks to his visit?
It is easy to say that the visit was a reset in relations but, as we all know, in every relationship there are givers and takers. Has the Foreign Secretary not simply proved that he gave and they took?
Mr Lammy
Really? That was quite bad.
The leader and the Foreign Minister of the United States have had eight engagements with China, France has had six, Germany has had four, Japan has had three, and Canada has had two. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) went once. And the hon. Lady asks me what I have achieved! I will go again and again to get outcomes in the UK’s national interest. The hon. Lady would expect nothing less.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the various global challenges we face, I fully appreciate that strategic dialogue with China is in our national interest. In the light of the persecution and diabolical treatment of Uyghur Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Falun Gong followers and pro-democracy Hongkongers, to name but a few, it is, however, important that human rights concerns are raised. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he raised those human rights concerns forthrightly with his Chinese counterparts?
Mr Lammy
I assure my hon. Friend that I raised those issues robustly. There was disagreement across the table on what the Chinese Government maintain that they are doing, particularly in Xinjiang and in relation to minorities—Mr Wang Yi suggested that I was “confused” in my account of the treatment of minorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will, however, continue to raise these issues robustly and to hold the Chinese Government to account.
Mr Lammy
I do not recognise what was suggested in relation to Taiwan.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government and will remain so. We continue to press for consular access to Jimmy Lai and for his release. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong attended his court proceedings on a regular basis, to keep abreast of what is taking place.
On Taiwan, our position remains the same. In all our engagements with the Chinese Government, we will continue to challenge them robustly on all these issues. He suggests that the last Government put trade first. We will not be putting trade first, but there are clearly areas where we can and should co-operate with China, as well as areas where we will challenge China, as we must.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am honoured to have met Sebastien Lai and his legal team, who are fighting for the release of his father, Jimmy Lai. Jimmy is 76 and a diabetic, and there are serious concerns about his ill health in solitary confinement. Jimmy is a man of faith. He is a Roman Catholic who is being denied Holy Communion—how very cruel that is at his stage of life and in his condition. His crime is standing up for freedom and democracy. Sebastien has been doing all he can, but he needs assistance and respectfully requests that senior figures in Government get his father, a British citizen, released. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to meeting Jimmy Lai’s family and will he ask the Chancellor to do the same, ahead of her visit to China next year?
Mr Lammy
Of course I will commit to meeting Sebastien and his family. When I raised the issue of Jimmy Lai, I pointed to his age and the fact that it would be an abomination if he died in prison. I assure my hon. Friend that that issue was raised.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Mr Speaker, as one of the parliamentarians who has been sanctioned by the Chinese regime, I thank you for your ongoing advocacy on our behalf. Let us never forget that the Chinese regime were literally spying on us as Members of this House. In Opposition, the Labour party said there was “clear and compelling evidence” of a genocide in Xinjiang. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is the Foreign Secretary, is he prepared to repeat that statement? Does he still believe there is “clear and compelling evidence” of a genocide in Xinjiang or has he changed his mind?
Mr Lammy
I remain hugely concerned about the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it must always rightfully be a matter for the International Criminal Court and others to make a determination of “genocide”, not for national government.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Following his recent visit to China, the Foreign Secretary also met with our partners in South Korea. Does he share my concern about reports of North Korean troops taking part in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and did he raise that?
Mr Lammy
I went up to the demilitarised zone to see for myself some of the harassment that South Korea receives on a daily basis from North Korea, and of course I raised the issue in China and with the South Korean President himself. There is huge concern about this development, which is escalatory in nature and must command a response in the coming days.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
Given the unprecedented threat that China poses to UK national security, and indeed global security, and the “clear and compelling evidence”, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), of genocide in Xinjiang, which the Foreign Secretary is strangely shy about condemning these days, why have the Government delayed the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme, a vital transparency measure that the Conservative party introduced when in government?
Mr Lammy
That scheme is important. It is hugely important that countries of concern do not have undue influence, in relation to our national security, on business and industry. We will come forward with our plans in due course.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Much like Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, British-Egyptian writer and pro-democracy activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah remains unlawfully detained in Egypt, and still has not been granted access to British consular officials, despite the British Government raising the case at the highest levels. His mother Laila is now on hunger strike against his continued imprisonment. In November 2022, the Foreign Secretary called on the then British Government to take more direct action to bring Alaa home, recognising the UK Government’s responsibility to protect citizens from arbitrary detention and human rights abuses abroad. Since coming to office, what have the Foreign Secretary and the Government done to follow through on what he once promised and to bring Alaa home?
Mr Speaker
Yes, but I judge the similarity, not your good self. If the Foreign Secretary wishes to take it, fine. If he does not, I understand.
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Lady that I met with Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family just a few weeks ago, and I raised the issue once again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in a subsequent call.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like every Member, in my constituency I receive hundreds of representations from Hongkongers in this country who are concerned about their own safety—I have experience of it myself: I was filmed by a drone while speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh—but they are also concerned about their families at home. What assurances can the Foreign Secretary give us about the safety of Hongkongers in this country, and more importantly about plugging the gaps in the British national overseas scheme?
Mr Lammy
The national security law is of great concern, which is why I raised it with the Foreign Minister. Of course Hong Kong nationals should be assured of their safety in this country. Our police and security services keep these things under close scrutiny.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that on his recent visit to the Indo-Pacific he raised the UK’s continued commitment to AUKUS and to general engagement on security in the region?
Mr Lammy
Absolutely. We are 100% committed to AUKUS, and the development of pillar 2 particularly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As I believe the Foreign Secretary is an honest man, I am perfectly prepared to accept that he raised these matters of human rights as forcefully as he says he did, so there must be something wrong with the Foreign Office’s reporting, because that forcefulness does not find its way into its account of the visit. Is one reason why his officials are reluctant to relay what really happened the fact that we are overdependent on China, and has he made an assessment of what would happen in terms of our dependence on China were, heaven forbid, a conflict to break out over Taiwan?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise dependency. One thing that the China audit will look at is that very issue, and the assessment that he refers to is being made not just by us, but by our closest allies.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the sanctions imposed on democratically elected Members of this House are wholly unacceptable, and what discussions did he have with Chinese counterparts to that effect?
Mr Lammy
I told Wang Yi, the Foreign Minister, that it was not just unacceptable but counterproductive and that it needed to end. Those were my exact words.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Of course we were all pleased to hear both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister describe the release of Jimmy Lai as a priority. In the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart, what priority was given to the release of Jimmy Lai, and given its priority status when does the Foreign Secretary expect us to see measurable progress being made on Jimmy Lai’s release, and what will that progress look like?
Mr Lammy
“Progress” is Jimmy Lai’s release; that is the position of the UK Government. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that will be, because we are not holding him; the Chinese are holding him. We continue to say that he should be released—that is our position.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is a travesty that Jimmy Lai remains detained, and that he should be released immediately to return to his family?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for actually coming to the House on this occasion, but does that not underline the fact that he should have volunteered a statement, rather than being forced to the Dispatch Box by an urgent question? Having listened to these exchanges, are Members of the House not still entitled to ask what exactly the Government’s overall strategic policy is towards China—given, for example, the huge build-up of nuclear weapons that China is funding, developing and building? Will he bring to the House a proper and full statement, or even a White Paper, that sets out that strategy once and for all? Let me just reassure him that I am one of the many Conservative colleagues who were open-mouthed in astonishment when we announced that we were going to have a golden era with that communist dictatorship, and I never had anything to do with it.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right: we must have a consistent, sustained position on China. That is why we are undertaking a China audit, and I will of course update the House when it is complete.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his update, his constructive tone and his defence of human rights in the region. Is the audit Government-wide, and will it only consider the situation now or look into future scenarios as well?
Mr Lammy
It was important, when we came into government, given the bouncing around that we saw in the last Government’s policy towards China, that we did a complete audit, right across Whitehall, of our interests and the opportunities, as well as of the challenges and security concerns, so that we could maintain a consistent position. Before that audit is complete, we are being guided, as I have said, by the three Cs: there are areas in which we co-operate, areas in which we compete, and there must be areas, as has come up this afternoon, in which we challenge.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
In the Foreign Secretary’s self-declaredly “robust” conversations with the Chinese Government, did he give a time limit for lifting sanctions on British politicians, including Members of this House, and did he outline the consequences if that were not met? Or were his talks just chat, and not robust?
Mr Lammy
I did not give a timeline. I simply said that the sanctions should be lifted, and explained why it was just wrong and counterproductive to sanction Members of a democratic Chamber like this. That was my position, and I defend it; I think that was the right thing to say. I raised the issue with Mr Speaker before leaving, just to be absolutely clear on the current status. Although one cannot be entirely sure that what one is conveying is going in and is properly understood, I did detect that Wang Yi recognised that this was a big issue between our two countries.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the Foreign Secretary coming here to make much clearer our views on China, and particularly human rights abuses there. People from Hong Kong living in Milton Keynes are still fearful of intimidation and concerned about China’s influence on some of our universities. What assessment has he made of that, and how will he proceed with the Chinese Government to ensure that those influences stop?
Mr Lammy
Coercion and threats are unacceptable; we have made that clear to the Chinese Government, and I made it clear again. My hon. Friend’s constituents should be reassured that the police and security services monitor these issues very closely, but I hope that in time, I might be able to meet some of her constituents to fully understand their concerns.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Over the last few weeks, I have met a number of Hong Kong advocacy groups, who have outlined how withholding BNO visa holders’ access to mandatory provident fund accounts and the launch of a volunteer recruitment scheme by the Chinese embassy are spreading fear of creeping Chinese influence on our streets. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Chinese Government on ending transnational repression of Hongkongers in my constituency and across the country?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, I raised the issue of the national security law and our long-standing concerns about Hong Kong—concerns that will not go away, because of the UK’s unique relationship with that part of the world and many businesses and communities there. That was the way in which I raised those issues, and I think our concerns were understood.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that he will meet the family of Jimmy Lai, but does he agree that as China is the world’s largest emitter, we need to engage with China pragmatically as we work to tackle the climate crisis?
Mr Lammy
Yes. There is no way to reduce global temperatures without working with China to achieve that, so that was a big topic of discussion between our two countries in our meeting. As I said, I will go back, because it is important that we engage with China, just as our allies do. We cannot influence China if we step back and do not go there at all; that makes no sense.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Another topic that did not seem to make it into the Foreign Office read-out on the Foreign Secretary’s meeting is Taiwan, but I think he confirmed in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that that topic was discussed. Could he specify a little more clearly what he said, and was he clearer about the UK’s red lines on Taiwan?
Mr Lammy
I specifically discussed the aggression that we are seeing in the Taiwan straits, and I maintained our long-standing position on Taiwan. We are very concerned about an escalatory pattern of behaviour, and of course I raised those concerns in a robust manner.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
York Outer has a vibrant community of Hongkongers who want to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will raise the issue of Jimmy Lai every single time he meets Chinese officials, until he is safely released?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that that is the case. He can sense the strength of feeling on the issue in the Chamber; so many Members from across the House have spoken of Jimmy Lai today. That is why every UK Minister who engages with China will raise Jimmy Lai’s case.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic about giving trillions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money in reparations for slavery that occurred hundreds of years ago. However, when it comes to modern-day slavery in China, despite what he states was said privately, all we get publicly is a mealy-mouthed press release—a read-out from the Foreign Office that does not even mention the issue specifically. Why is that? Is it because the Government realise that we are now dependent on China for many things, including the delivery of the net zero policy? China controls 70% of the rare earth metals that we will need to deliver renewable energy. We have left ourselves open to that kind of blackmail, and now we cannot speak up against human rights abuses.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has a point. This Government have been in power for three months, and we have a lot to clear up, given the mess that was left to us—he is right about that. That work begins with the China audit.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that when it comes to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is vital to co-ordinate rules globally, including with China, to protect British people and our technological infrastructure?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The obstruction of the supply of Taiwanese semiconductors poses an existential threat to the UK economy and our whole way of life. Did the Foreign Secretary come away from his visit reassured that our supply chains are likely to be safe for the foreseeable future? If not, what will he do to mitigate that threat by growing our indigenous capacity?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that Members should look at me when they are asking questions, not at the Foreign Secretary, as tempting as that is? I want questions to be done in the third person, to keep things calm.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. That point is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is engaged on an industrial policy as we speak, and why the debate must go on about friendshoring and how we work with partners—to make sure that we have access to not just semiconductors, but rare earth minerals, and can work on issues that are critical to our security. We must do far more than was achieved under the last Government.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Foreign Secretary for making it clear that Jimmy Lai’s release is a priority, and I join hon. Members in saying that the issue is urgent, not just because of his failing health, but because once the trial restarts on 20 November, it will be more difficult to bring the situation to a positive conclusion. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the need for a consistent strategy towards China—consistent not just from him, but from the whole of Government. China reacts to naked economic self-interest, so can he make sure that the matter is raised across Government—by the Business Secretary on issues of trade, by the Net Zero Secretary on issues of green energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) mentioned, and by the Education Secretary when it comes to education, so that we appeal to that self-interest?
Mr Lammy
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—there has to be a cross-Government approach. It is not just for the Foreign Secretary to engage; other Ministers have to engage with their counterparts, mindful of the three Cs: there will be many areas in which we will co-operate, but there are areas where we compete and areas where we have to challenge. We can do that only if we go there and engage, which is why the United States, France, Australia, Japan, Italy and Canada have made so many more visits than us.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary gave a comprehensive list of the matters that he raised, and he hinted at the reaction when he raised them, but he has not told us that anything will change as a result of the discussions. I will give him a chance to do that: what will happen to the plight of the Uyghur Muslims as a result of his visit?
Mr Lammy
The Uyghur Muslims were being horrendously treated, persecuted and pursued during the 14 years of the last Government, so it is crass to suggest that after three months, we could simply achieve a different result. Diplomacy is about constantly engaging to bring about a result, and that is what I will continue to do.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
In May, the director of GCHQ said:
“We want to engage with China where it’s mutually beneficial”,
but that
“China poses a genuine and increasing”
risk to the UK’s cyber-security. Does the Foreign Secretary think that GCHQ has the resources it needs to protect us from Chinese cyber-attacks?
Mr Lammy
One of the most impressive parts of Government that I have seen in my three months in this job is the work of GCHQ. A fiscal event is about to happen, so I hesitate to talk about the finances available to GCHQ, but my hon. Friend can be absolutely sure that I have made the case for it, because it deserves the funds and does a great job to keep us all safe.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Ambiguity can sometimes be helpful in diplomacy, but it is less helpful when answering a direct question about the actions of the Government here at home. The Foreign Secretary has been somewhat evasive in answering some of the questions today, so let me ask just one of them again. Did any of his officials play any part in the decision to stop the visit by President Tsai, the former President of Taiwan—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
I do not recognise the caricature being put about on this at all. I really do not.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I have met many Ukrainian refugees who are being generously housed in my constituency, and they are extremely concerned about countries such as Iran and North Korea providing matériel support to Putin’s war machine. Can the Foreign Secretary agree with me that China and Chinese companies should not provide any support to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I can. This was a very serious issue that I put to the Foreign Minister. We have evidence that Chinese parts with dual use capability are turning up in Russia, and they are taking lives in Ukraine, which is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that the Chinese denied this, but we have the evidence and we put it on the table.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK will not seek to resume the economic and financial dialogue that was paused after the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, given that more than 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine come from China?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member again raises this serious issue in the House. It is entirely unacceptable and we will continue to engage on it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned how he raised with the Government in Beijing the Russian human rights abuses in Ukraine carried out during Russia’s aggression. A Chinese delegation was absent from the peace conference in Switzerland, yet President Xi was present in Russia at the BRICS summit last week. When the Foreign Secretary raised with Chinese counterparts these Russian human rights abuses, what was the response?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that the Chinese denied it, but we were able to supply some evidence to back up our claims for them to reflect on, and we will re-engage to see what conclusions they come to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can I emphasise to the Secretary of State how important it is to have the right answers to these questions? As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I have raised the issue of human rights abuses repeatedly in this House, including at business questions every Thursday, with the former Government, so I welcome this new Government and, with them, a new approach to our international obligations. How will the Secretary of State use any and every weapon in our arsenal to secure help for the Uyghur Muslims, for Jimmy Lai—he is a practising Roman Catholic, and he is being denied the eucharist, but it is his right to have his own religious belief —and for the Christians, Falun Gong and other ethnic groups in China, and when will this begin in earnest?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to combine those issues, and also to encourage me to mention not just our bilateral engagement with China, but our co-ordinated work with our allies to engage with China. It is the case, I think, particularly with our G7 allies, that there is more we can do.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, I would just say that we did have a meeting—he is absolutely correct—about the situation facing some Members of this House. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sanctions are lifted, and that was part of the conversation.
Middle East
David Lammy Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. After over a year of horrifying violence, civilian suffering has increased, the conflict has widened, the risks of a yet wider regional war have risen. Today, I want to address three elements of this crisis and outline the urgent steps that the Government are taking in response.
I will first consider events over the weekend. Targeted Israeli strikes hit military sites inside Iran, including a missile manufacturer and an air defence base. This was in response to Iran’s escalatory ballistic missile attacks on Israel, which have been condemned across the House. These attacks were the latest in a long history of malign Iranian activity, including its nuclear programme, with its total enriched uranium stockpile now reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be 30 times the joint comprehensive plan of action limit, and political, financial and military support for militias, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Let me be clear: the Government unequivocally condemn Iranian attacks on Israel. This Government have imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and organisations responsible for malign activity, most recently on 14 October, and we have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian attacks and attacks by Iranian-backed terrorists, whose goal is the complete eradication of the Israeli state. We do not mourn the deaths of the heads of proscribed terrorist organisations.
The priority now is immediate de-escalation. Iran should not respond. All sides must exercise restraint. We do not wish to see the cycle of violence intensifying, dragging the whole region into a war with severe consequences. Escalation is in no one’s interest, as it risks spreading the regional conflict further. We and our partners have been passing this message clearly and consistently. Yesterday, I spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and Israeli Foreign Minister Katz and urged both countries to show restraint and avoid further regional escalation.
Let me turn to the devastating situation in northern Gaza, where the United Nations estimates that over 400,000 Palestinian civilians remain. Access to essential services worsens by the day, yet still very little aid is being allowed in. Israel’s evacuation order in the north has displaced tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, driven from destruction, disease, and despair to destruction, disease and despair. Nine in 10 Gazans have been displaced since the war began. Some have had to flee more than 10 times in the past year. What must parents say to their children? How can they explain this living nightmare? How can they reassure that it will end?
There is no excuse for the Israeli Government’s ongoing restrictions on humanitarian assistance; they must let more aid in now. Aid is backed up at Gaza’s borders, in many cases funded by the UK and our partners but now stuck out of reach of those who need it so desperately. These restrictions fly in the face of Israel’s public commitments. They risk violating international humanit-arian law. They are a rebuke to every friend of Israel, who month after month have demanded action to address the catastrophic conditions facing Palestinian civilians. So let me be clear once again: this Government condemn these restrictions in the strongest terms.
Since our first day in office, the Government have led efforts to bring this nightmare to an end. We have announced funding for UK-Med’s efforts to provide medical treatment in Gaza, for UNICEF’s work to support vulnerable families in Gaza, and for Egyptian health facilities treating medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. We are matching donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal. Together with France and Algeria, we called an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address the dire situation. We have sanctioned extremist settlers, making it clear that their actions do not serve the real interests of either Israel or the region.
We have moved quickly to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, over- turning the position of the last Government. We did that to support UNRWA’s indispensable role in assisting Palestinians, and to enable it to implement the recommendations of the independent Colonna report. All over the world, in every war zone, in every refugee camp, the United Nations is a beacon of hope, so it is a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. The allegations against UNRWA staff earlier this year were fully investigated and offer no jurisdiction for cutting off ties with UNRWA. This weekend, we therefore joined partners in expressing concern at the Knesset’s legislation and urging Israel to ensure that UNRWA’s lifesaving work continues. We call on UNRWA to continue its path to reform, demonstrating its commitment to the principle of neutrality.
Finally, I will cover the conflict in Lebanon, a country that has endured so much in my lifetime and now sees fighting escalate once again, killing many civilians and forcing hundreds of thousands from their homes, while in northern Israel, communities live in fear of Hezbollah attacks and are unable to return home. Here, too, the Government have led efforts to respond. Our swift call for an immediate ceasefire was taken up by our partners in the United Nations Security Council. The Defence Secretary and I have visited Lebanon, where Britain’s ongoing support for the Lebanese armed forces is widely recognised as an investment in a sovereign and effective Lebanese state. At the start of October, I announced £10 million for the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. Last week, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced further funding for the most vulnerable among those fleeing from Lebanon into Syria, while the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), joined the Lebanon support conference in Paris. Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet Prime Minister Mikati to reassure him of our support.
Across the region, our priorities are clear: de-escalation, humanitarian assistance, immediate ceasefires, upholding international law, and political solutions. This is how we save lives, how we liberate hostages, such as British national Emily Damari, and how we pull the region back from the brink. The Government have stepped up our diplomatic engagement to that end. The Prime Minister has spoken directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to President Pezeshkian, while I have made five visits to the region in just four months and held around 50 calls and meetings with Ministers and leaders in the region. I spoke this weekend to US Secretary Blinken, just back from the region.
It is a source of deep frustration that those efforts have not yet succeeded. We have no illusions about the deep-seated divisions in this region—a region scarred by fighting and false dawns in the past—but it is never too late for peace, and never too late for hope. This Government will not give up on the people of the region. We will keep playing our part in achieving a lasting solution, so that one day they might all live side-by-side in peace and security. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and may I also thank the Foreign Office for its significant help with my visit to Ukraine at the end of last week?
Israel’s response to the attack launched by Iran earlier this month has rightly been described as proportionate. Israel has the right to defend itself, and it has done so in a precise and targeted way. The statement by the Israel Defence Forces that it was “mission accomplished” offers hope that the operation might mark the end of the latest trading of hostilities. Whether and how the Iranians respond remains to be seen, but the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that the
“bitter consequences will be unimaginable”
for Israel.
The situation remains dangerously uncertain. We join the Government in urging restraint. The onus must surely now be on Iran to desist from any retaliatory action that will pull the region further up the ladder of escalation. Above all, we must now use Britain’s undoubted international connections, experience, responsibility and clout to lift people’s eyes to the day after, in the hope that we can build on the Abraham accords and move towards the two-state solution that Palestinians and Israelis deserve. That must be the immutable end of these appalling circumstances and events.
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his other counterparts in the region to encourage cool heads to prevail? That also applies to Lebanon. Iran’s direct missile attacks on Israel are but one front in its campaign against the Jewish state, which we know it is intent on wiping off the face of the earth. Iran’s continuing funding for and support of its Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon and Hamas proxies in Gaza show what a scourge the IRGC is and how far its tentacles have spread. Hezbollah and Hamas are a cancer in the areas where they operate. Israel has every right to defend itself against evil terrorists, who are not interested in compromise or in political solutions and who use the legitimate plight of Palestinians to justify barbarism.
In the face of such murderous assaults as the incessant rocket bombardment of northern Israel by Hezbollah, no country in the world—not a single one—would be expected to sit quietly. It is for that reason that, in respect of Lebanon, in particular, calls for a ceasefire are most unlikely to be heeded. Not only is Hezbollah violating every international law by lobbing rockets and missiles at Israeli towns and displacing tens of thousands of Israeli civilians; it is doing so in flagrant breach of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which clearly called for the withdrawal of Hezbollah and other forces from Lebanon south of the Litani, and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the retreat and dismantling of Hezbollah, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1701, must be a necessary precondition to end the war? What discussions has he had with our partners in the UN to achieve that?
Turning to Gaza, some 100 hostages remain in captivity, with the prospect of their release diminishing with every day that passes. The civilians in Gaza continue to pay a heavy price as a result of Hamas’s using them as human shields and total disregard for the safety and security of the civilian population. Over the weekend, in Kamal Adwan hospital in Jabalia, northern Gaza, Israel found stashes of weapons and money. A Gazan ambulance driver has confirmed that Hamas operatives embed themselves among civilians and even use ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons. In other words, Hamas use the infrastructure that is supposed to help civilians to advance the group’s terrorist agenda, leaving innocent people neglected and dangerously exposed.
We support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and hope that shortly we will see a similar appeal launched for Sudan, where people are in desperate danger of starvation this winter.
Surely it is time to face facts. Hamas must lay down their arms. Hamas must release the hostages. Once this happens, the war will end, aid can flood into Gaza unfettered, the Palestinian people can begin the long and difficult path to recovery, and we can start to lift the eyes of Israelis and Palestinians to the possibilities of political horizons, of two states, of peace.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of his remarks and for the cross-party support he gives to the Government in urging restraint and de-escalation in the region. I reassure him that I spoke with Secretary Blinken just two days ago about the context of the day after, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it; about the necessary security guarantees that Israel would rightly expect; and about how we work with Arab partners—Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others—to ensure that this ceasefire can hold and that the security guarantees and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza can properly begin.
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly talks about the DEC appeal for Gaza, which is now up, and I support what he said about Sudan, which must not be overlooked at this time.
I spoke to Foreign Minister Katz about the situation in Lebanon yesterday. He sought to reassure me that the targeted operation by the Israelis that is under way would come to an end shortly, as he put it. I confirmed, as I know the right hon. Gentleman would have, that we understand that it is important that Israelis who cannot be in their homes in northern Israel are able to move back. That can be the case only when Hezbollah has moved back beyond the Litani river, and resolution 1701 is properly implemented. We want to see that happen, and it is for that reason that we continue to support the Lebanese armed forces and the work of UNIFIL. We were very concerned to see UNIFIL workers attacked in the way that they were a few days ago. I also raised that with Foreign Minister Katz.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but thousands of my constituents in Battersea want an end to this violence and to Israel’s siege in northern Gaza, not to mention the violence in the west bank. Tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, no aid is getting in and hospitals are being targeted. Is it not time to move away from condemning and to take stronger action: suspend any trade negotiations with Israel, implement a complete arms sale ban and ensure that goods produced in settlements in the west bank are also banned? Israel is ignoring all the condemnation by this Government. We need strong action.
Mr Lammy
I understand the strength of feeling that my dear friend expresses in relation to this matter, and the way that she has championed these issues on behalf of her constituents. The humanitarian situation is dire. As we head to the winter, the prospect of it getting worse is hard to fathom. But I do not agree with her on a full arms embargo, and the reason was exemplified by the attacks from Iran that Israel suffered on 1 October. It would be quite wrong for us not to be prepared to support Israel in theatres of conflict beyond Gaza, notwithstanding our concerns on international humanitarian law. I am afraid I cannot agree with her on that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He has our full support in his efforts to engage with Iran and Israel to urge an end to the cycle of retaliatory violence. We continue to urge him to proscribe the IRGC. Can he confirm whether UK military assets and personnel played any part in Israel’s attack on Iran on Friday night?
The relationship between Israel and Palestine remains the key to reducing tensions and creating the conditions for peace. We support the Government’s stance on UNRWA, but as the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza continues to deteriorate and the level of violence in the west bank worsens, the Liberal Democrats hope that the Foreign Secretary might go further, offering more than words of condemnation. Following the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion this summer that the occupation is illegal, does he agree that introducing legislation to cease UK trade with illegal Israeli settlements is a practical way of upholding that judgment? Can he update the House on whether the letter to the Israeli Government, co-signed by the Chancellor, has resulted in a commitment to maintain financial correspondence between Israeli and Palestinian banks?
To signal commitment to a two-state solution, will the Government support the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) (No. 3) Bill tabled last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what recent update he has had from the Israeli Government on the prospect of the return of the hostages? They have been held in captivity by Hamas for more than a year. I know the whole House will agree that their return remains a priority.
Mr Lammy
No UK troops were involved in the action by Israel a few nights ago. The hon. Gentleman raises the IRGC. I reassure him that the Home Secretary is conducting a state threats review at this time and that the IRGC is kept in mind in relation to those concerns.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have sanctioned settlers since coming into office. I was on the west bank. I remain hugely concerned at the loss of life this year, the scale of the violence and the scale of the expansion, of which there has been more in this last year than we have seen in the last 20.
I am not able to support the Bill on recognition, but the hon. Gentleman will know that recognition was in the Labour manifesto and we are committed to it at the right time. I do not think that during the conflict is the right time, but we must work with partners to achieve it. It is not the end in itself. The end we want to see is a two-state solution. That is what we must all hold out for.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Members from across the House condemned and mourned the deaths of more than 1,200 Israelis as a result of the 7 October attacks, and we all demand the immediate release of all—almost 100—hostages still in Gaza. However, over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Tragically, that includes well over 10,000 children. Thousands more are feared dead under the rubble, given that more than 60% of Gazan structures have been bombed to rubble. How is that in any way proportionate? I appreciate that the incoming Labour Government have stopped the sale of all offensive weapons that could be used in the Gaza conflict. However, what further tangible steps can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government take to publicly condemn and call out the Netanyahu regime, and help bring these horrors to an end?
Mr Lammy
There is a lot that we are doing and trying to do to alleviate the humanitarian suffering. We provided additional funding for UK-Med, which I did within the first weeks in office. We match funded the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—that is £10 million to date. We are supporting Jordan, which wants to do airdrops, with its planning. We are doing everything we can to alleviate the suffering, but as my hon. Friend knows, the trucks are backed up. There is food sitting on the border that comes from the British taxpayer. It is that that is unacceptable. It is that that I raised again with Foreign Minister Katz and that we will continue to press on. The aid needs to get in now. He reassured me this weekend that it will. That was his reassurance. As we head into winter and the Knesset voting today on UNRWA, the urgency of the debate we are having in this House could not be more necessary.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office share my view that none of this dreadful cycle, which began on 7 October, would have happened but for Iran’s determination to derail the prospect of peace and recognition between Saudi Arabia and Israel? What assessment has the Department made of the possibility that one day the Iranian people will be able to free themselves of the terrible regime under which they suffer?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right: this story began on 7 October, and it is important for us to keep it in mind that Hamas is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, that Hezbollah is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, and that the Houthis, who are currently causing huge disruption in the Red sea, are also funded and supported by Iran. We should also keep it in mind that Iran is a regime that perpetrates all sort of atrocities on its own people. It suppresses freedom of speech, it suppresses women—the list goes on. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to place Iran at the centre, as the major threat to the region.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
On Saturday, the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator said:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
She also said:
“ What Israeli forces are doing in besieged North Gaza cannot be allowed to continue.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and what representations has he made to the Israeli Government to that effect?
Mr Lammy
I reminded the Israeli Government that 42,000 people have now been killed; that more than 90% of the population have been displaced, many of them repeatedly since 2023; that as we head towards winter we have been unable to ensure effective and safe distribution of aid across Gaza; that we need to increase the volumes of the types of goods that are reaching Gaza, and we must stop restricting the aid flows; and that there is a responsibility under international humanitarian law to protect a civilian population, to minimise harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, and to ensure that aid workers can go about their business free and unfettered.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the specific issue of Iran? We used to agree with each other on this matter a great deal when he was in opposition, so, if he does not mind, I will probe him a bit further.
Back in 2023, the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition rightly called for Iran not just to be sanctioned but to be ruled out legally when it came to any actions at all, with all actions and involvement with Iran made illegal: proscribed. I supported him at that time, and was not supportive of my own Government. Given all the billions that Iran has spent that could have gone towards health, building and quality of life but instead went towards tunnels, missiles and violence all over the region, is it not time, in the right hon. Gentleman’s mind, to follow through and, along with our allies, proscribe Iran completely, and to say that this must never happen again?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a serious issue. This is why the Home Secretary and I are looking far more closely at what it means to bear down on a state that is causing the activity that he has described, rather than a terrorist cell that is causing it. Most often when we are discussing these issues in the Chamber, we are talking about Hamas, Hezbollah or some terrorist cell, but in this instance we are talking about a state, which means that more complex issues come to bear, including, of course, our own presence in that state, and for those reasons we engaging in a more thorough examination.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will no doubt agree that third states, such as the UK, are obliged not to assist Israel in its annihilation of the Gazan people. Israel continues to target the cynically named “safe zones”—schools and hospitals—in its war of extermination. Although the UK has suspended 30 of 90 licences for the export of arms to the Israeli military, our continued participation in the F-35 global supply chain means that devastating 2,000-lb bombs continue to destroy human beings. The Foreign Secretary rightly asks what must parents say to their children, and how do they explain this living nightmare. Are they not right also to ask where were the international community when they needed them and why were all the levers available not used—to ban arms sales, to use the leverage of recognition of Palestine and to impose sanctions to concentrate minds?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will understand that we sell relatively few arms to Israel—I think they represent 1% of the total amount—and that much of what we send is defensive in nature. It is not what we describe routinely as arms, because the licensing regime is about controlled equipment, which is not always arms. However, we have suspended arms that could be used in Israel in contravention of humanitarian law. I made that decision, and I think it was the right decision. As I have said, we continue to do all we can to support the people of Gaza, and I am deeply sad that I and my predecessors have not been able to bring this crisis and war to an end. It saddens me greatly. My hon. Friend evokes my conscience; I believe that I am doing all I can, according to my conscience.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
If, as everybody expects, the Israeli Government ignore the pleadings of the Foreign Secretary and our allies, and proceed with the dismantling of UNRWA, making its job impossible, what will he do next? Will there be any consequence whatsoever for the Israeli Government?
Mr Lammy
When I raised this issue with Foreign Minister Katz yesterday, he was at pains to explain that, although the Knesset could pass its Bill today, that does not mean that it has to be implemented. We must hope that the Israeli Government do not implement this legislation, because it is not in their interests. It cannot be in their interests to prevent the only aid organisation in the region from working, because UNRWA provides not just healthcare but schools for young people, and it works not just in Gaza but in the occupied territories. It simply cannot be in the Israeli Government’s interests to do that, because they would then have to provide help themselves.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, and I strongly support the Government’s efforts to achieve a ceasefire, secure the release of the remaining hostages, and restart the negotiations for a two-state solution. I also welcome the Government’s decision several weeks ago to suspend a number of arms export licences to Israel where there was a risk that they would be used to violate international law. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is working hard to persuade our allies, particularly the United States, to adopt our position on arms exports to Israel, to ensure that no weapons are being exported from any country where there is a risk that they could be used to commit war crimes in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
We have one of the most robust export licensing regimes in the world. It is our legislation, so it is not the case that I have been proselytising to other countries to do what we have done. I did it because I believed that there was a clear risk that international humanitarian law was being breached in relation to our legislation. That is why I made the decision. It must be for others to reflect on their own laws and rules.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
After a weekend of relentless Israeli attacks on a besieged population in northern Gaza, the United Nations has demanded that
“such blatant disregard for basic humanity and for the laws of war must stop”,
adding that the “entire population” of northern Gaza is “at risk of dying”. Unless the Foreign Secretary believes that the UN is lying, exaggerating or embellishing the situation in northern Gaza, there can be no basis whatsoever for the UK to continue arms sales to Israel. Is the UN lying, exaggerating or embellishing the truth of what is going on in northern Gaza right now?
Mr Lammy
The UN is absolutely not embellishing what is, very sadly, going on in Gaza right now, and that is why the United Kingdom has suspended arms sales for use in Gaza.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Despite all the pleading, the Israeli Government ignore requests to allow aid into Gaza, ignore requests to stop the destruction of Gaza and ignore requests to stop settler violence in the west bank? I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the sanctions against the settlers and settler organisations engaged in that violence. Will he now extend the sanctions to members of the Israeli Government who have been promoting violence in the west bank? Also, does he agree that, if the Israeli Government carry out their restrictions on UNRWA in a formalised way, members of that Government who agree to that should be sanctioned for it? Otherwise, are we not just issuing empty threats and empty words that the Israelis ignore?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that I have condemned in no uncertain terms, both as shadow Foreign Secretary and as Foreign Secretary, some of the vile language that has been used by extremist elements within the Israeli Government. I heard the former Foreign Secretary on the radio talking about sanctions which could have been implemented that he chose not to implement. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am keeping those sanctions under review.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It has been a held belief across all Governments that a two-state solution is the only way to break the cycle of violence, but of course after Israel withdrew from Gaza, that pretty much led to what happened on 7 October. Can the Foreign Secretary use his office and the UK Government to lead discussions proactively, as a friend to Israel and a key member of the United Nations, on what security can be put in place in a two-state solution, using allies around, to ensure that Israel can have the confidence such a development will not be used as an attack platform to murder so many people once more?
Mr Lammy
We continue to hold out for that two-state solution, and it is definitely the case that Arab partners want to see that two-state solution. Among them, at this stage, Saudi Arabia is very important. I know that Israel would like to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is unlikely unless there is a road map to two states. We continue to work with all partners to keep two states alive, and of course, on the security concerns that Israel would need to be satisfied to bring that about.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The current situation in northern Gaza is dreadful. I welcome the leading role the Government have played in providing essential humanitarian relief to Gaza, including through support packages for UNRWA, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and others. Following discussions I had last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israeli restrictions on the flow of essential aid are completely unacceptable and should be lifted immediately?
Mr Lammy
Yes, 100%, and I made that point to Foreign Minister Katz yesterday. They are unacceptable and I condemn them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Over the past year, Israeli occupying forces have destroyed every facet of Palestinian life, targeting lives, homes, schools, universities, hospitals, mosques and even churches—in fact, enacting the exact words of Israel’s Defence Secretary’s to “eliminate everything”. Will the Foreign Secretary now look beyond his conscience and immediately cease the provision of military support to Israel, suspend all export licences and impose a two-way arms embargo so that no more children die?
Mr Lammy
I really accept the heartfelt way in which the hon. Gentleman put his question, but we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza in the way he described. That is what we have done. I stand by that decision.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The situation in northern Gaza is beyond desperate, with many reports of actions that have every appearance of aiming to empty the territory of its entire population. The UN humanitarian chief, Joyce Msuya, has warned that the entire population is at risk of dying. The strategy of the Israeli Government is intolerable, and has failed on its own terms, because the hostages have not been released, as we all want to see. Can the Foreign Secretary say what happens next? What further meaningful action are the Government planning to take to safeguard lives in northern Gaza and secure an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend evokes the hostages, which allows me to put on record our desire to see the UK hostage, Emily Damari, freed. I reassure my hon. Friend that last week at the UN Security Council we convened a meeting on humanitarian access. We issued a statement only yesterday with some colleagues from the G7, including Japan, Germany and South Korea, urging Israel to step back on the UNRWA decision.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is important to acknowledge that Israel is often first on the scene when there is a humanitarian crisis internationally, and is generous, even in countries that do not recognise it. However, it must do more to ensure that aid gets into Gaza. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is not good enough for a country such as ours simply to be generous, which it is? It must also ensure that its generosity is not diverted into the hands of proxies, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah?
Mr Lammy
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right about that. We make every effort to ensure that that is not the case. In this circumstance, for a war that has gone on for a year, for the human suffering that is visible in Gaza, for the many children who are out of school and walking around in squalor, it has always been the case that military effort alone would not bring this to an end—only politics can do that. I worry greatly about those young people growing up in the years ahead with vengeance in their heart and, very sadly, a repetition of what we have seen.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The United Nations acting Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator has released a statement in which she says:
“Hospitals have been hit and health workers have been detained. Shelters have been emptied and burned down. First responders have been prevented from saving people from under the rubble.”
Tens of thousands of people have been killed. That is a shocking and terrifying statement. Her statement goes on to say:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will use its role as chair of the UN Security Council in November to push for urgent progress on humanitarian access, the protection of civilians, freeing the hostages, and bringing to an end this terrible conflict?
Mr Lammy
I wish it were the case that this war would come to an end and that we would have a ceasefire before we chair the UN Security Council next month, but I fear that that may not be the case. I reassure my hon. Friend that I will go to New York myself to press the issues as she puts them.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Yair Golan is an Israeli politician who, only last month, attended the Labour party conference and had meetings with MPs, including photo opportunities with the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer).
Yair Golan is the same Israeli politician who, late last year, said in the Israeli press that starving people to death is “completely legitimate.” Given that the entire population of northern Gaza is on the brink of dying from famine, as repeatedly described both by Members here today and by the under-secretary-general of the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary sanction Yair Golan, in addition to his already stated aim of considering sanctions against Bezalel Smotrich for justifying the use of starvation against Palestinians as a weapon of war?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point effectively, and those issues are being kept under review.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Given that the Government have suspended only 30 of the 350 arms export licences, including for components critical to offensive F-35 fighter jets, without which Israel would be unable to conduct its genocidal assaults in Gaza and Lebanon, can the Foreign Secretary tell me how this exemption of offensive weaponry is consistent with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, including under the arms trade treaty? Have the Government engaged in discussions with the United States Government, Lockheed Martin and other F-35 partner countries on implementing the tracking and tracing of UK- manufactured F-35 components or spare parts that are destined for Israel but licensed for export to third countries?
Mr Lammy
I stand by our carve-out for F-35s, because there are other important theatres of conflict around the world that this House has discussed and will continue to discuss at length. I am not prepared to ground planes that are saving lives in other theatres, which is why we made this decision, and I stand by it. It was the right decision.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Today, as on other recent occasions, we have heard Labour Members suggest that Israel is somehow conducting a war of annihilation, extermination and genocide. Although we all accept that there is obviously much suffering in Gaza, this terminology is completely inappropriate and inaccurate, and it is repeated by the protesters and lawbreakers who are intimidating British Jews, as we saw again this weekend. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to say that there is not a genocide occurring in the middle east?
Mr Lammy
These are legal terms, and they must be determined by international courts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those terms were largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war. The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is very welcome. Given how we expect the Knesset to vote today to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for UNRWA to operate, with the consequence that humanitarian aid will not get into Gaza, is that not the point at which we have to consider serious sanctions against the proponents of such action?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks a very serious question. As I said earlier, Foreign Minister Katz was at pains to tell me that the Knesset enacting this decision does not necessarily mean that it will be implemented by the Israeli Government. Yes, the truth is that UNRWA being brought to its knees would be a very serious event indeed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Emily Damari was shot, abducted and is still in captivity. She is the last British hostage held in Gaza—she is literally on her own. I am sure the Foreign Secretary will join me in commending Mandy and her family for all their efforts to get Emily released. One positive move we could make would be during the visit by the high-level Qatari delegation that is due to arrive in a few weeks’ time. When we have such delegations, normally things are arranged in advance, so will the Foreign Secretary prevail on Qatari officials to do all they can to get Hamas to release the last British hostage and all the hostages who are held in captivity in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising Mandy and Emily Damari, who I keep in the front of my mind in everything I do in this arena to bring about a ceasefire. Mandy is an amazing woman. I am meeting with the Qataris again tomorrow, and of course I will raise the issue.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House. We have been calling for a ceasefire for some time, but innocent civilians continue to die and to be maimed in Gaza. The situation has got worse, not better. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that now is the time for us to do more and go further?
Mr Lammy
We continue to do more. The best way to do that is by working with our major allies. That is why we put out a statement just yesterday with our allies on the humanitarian situation, and on UNRWA particularly. When we chair the UN Security Council next month, I will continue to do as much as I can.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Naturally, the Foreign Secretary says that we need to prevent escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran but, as he says, that conflict is being driven by Iran, using a network of proxies in the Arab world. I have a genuine question for the Foreign Secretary: does he understand why Israel is increasingly thinking that it needs to go after the head of the octopus, rather than defending itself against the tentacles, or does he think that Israel should never take steps to deter Iran directly?
Mr Lammy
I say, with all seriousness, that I am pleased to have urged restraint on Israel in the last few weeks, and to have seen its measured response to Iran. On the scale of attacks it could have made on Iran, it rightly stuck to stockpiles and military sites, and did not progress to oil, gas and nuclear sites, which I believe would have been escalatory in nature.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
More than 400,000 people, over half of whom are women and children, are estimated by the UN to have been displaced from Lebanon into Syria since September, the majority of those having initially been displaced by the Syrian civil war. In 2013, I witnessed the dignified resilience of civilians fleeing the Syrian conflict in the Domiz refugee camp in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I recall that they were assisted by aid from the British Government and British NGOs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is providing additional support to women and girls fleeing the conflict in Lebanon, who are, as ever, paying the price of war?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that we are supporting those fleeing Lebanon into Syria at this time, and we recognise the fragile position that Syria is in, let alone what is now happening in Lebanon. My hon. Friend can definitely have that reassurance.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Earlier, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) quoted Joyce Msuya, the humanitarian chief of the UN, who says:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
This is on top of the 1,000 who died last week, on top of all those living in the most desperate situation in southern Gaza, and on top of the occupation of southern Lebanon, the bombing of southern Beirut, and now the dangers of a hot war between Iran and Israel. Is it not time that, instead of expressing concern about the humanitarian catastrophe in the region, we stop supplying Israel with the weapons that caused the humanitarian catastrophe in the first place, and suspend arms supplies in total to Israel in order to bring about a ceasefire and a cessation of this, frankly, murder of an innocent civilian population?
Mr Lammy
I know the strength of feeling that my neighbour in north London has on these issues, and his long-standing campaigning on them. I assure him that we are not just wringing our hands. The work of UK-Med in hospitals is hugely important, and I was very pleased to make further funds available to UK-Med upon coming into office. The work of the Disasters Emergency Committee in raising further funds, and the way in which the Government have match-funded that to the tune of £10 million, is hugely important. It was great to be in Jordan a few weeks ago, discussing with King Abdullah his airlifts into Jordan and the planning that he is getting from UK armed forces in organising those airlifts, and the air bridge that he has been keen to take forward.
These are actions—real things that we are doing, not just wringing of hands. When the right hon. Member describes the situation in Gaza, he largely describes much that I said in my statement. As I have said before, and will say again, we have suspended arms that could be used in contravention of international humanitarian law, where there is a clear risk according to our export licensing regime. He should be reassured that we have done that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Words are simply not enough to describe the devastation of Gaza, and the words of my right hon. Friend are not enough to open the borders to allow humanitarian aid to flow, or enough to stop the Israeli Government acting with impunity across Gaza. We think particularly of the north at this time, and the struggles that we hear about there. What is he doing to expedite the work of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and ensure that they have all the resources needed to speed up their work to call these criminals, who are exercising such devastation over Gaza, to account?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that I met with the chief prosecutor a few weeks ago. We continue to support the ICC. As she knows, we have been very clear on our support for the rule of law, and international humanitarian law particularly. Both the ICC and the ICJ should be able to go about their work unfettered by political intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and his tone, which should be admired. He rightly stated the precarious situation that the middle east teeters upon. While Iran has seemingly dialled back the rhetoric for now, how will he encourage the Iranians and, importantly, the IRGC to dial back on their actions, not simply against Israel but against their own people, who are on their knees, subject to brutal human rights abuses and persecution? In the face of this horrific regime, how can we help ordinary Iranians, and Israelis, to live a life free from war?
Mr Lammy
I have emphasised my conversation with the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday, but I should also emphasise my conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday. I talked to him about restraint, and our concerns in relation to the support for proxies, and I raised the nuclear question, and the snapback clause that comes into play next year if we are not able to progress, with E3 partners, our further conversations with Iran.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary knows, this is a critical time for the middle east. I think the House speaks as one with a message of ending the violence, releasing the hostages and getting aid in. The humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinian people will only be made worse if the Israeli Government carry out their threat to effectively shut down UNRWA. Although I welcome the Government’s utter condemnation and rejection of those plans, what reassurances can he give my constituents and the House that the Government will not only talk tough in the region but take action to protect lives if the Israeli Government persist with those plans?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise UNRWA. That is why the Government restored funding to UNRWA, it is why we gave it a further £21 million, and it is why £1 million of that funding was used to help it to implement Madame Colonna’s reforms. It would be a catastrophe to see the end of UNRWA—and it would be wholly counterproductive for Israel, by the way. The situation in the occupied territories is fragile as it is. To take away UNRWA would be catastrophic. For all those reasons, I have urged the Israeli Government to step back and not implement what has passed through the Knesset.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
A year ago, despite the undoubted challenges, there were early signs of improved relations between Israel, the Gulf states and others that were pressing Israel to move towards the two-state solution that we in this House would all like to see. The Iranian regime, however, through its own actions and those of its proxies, has succeeded in engulfing the region in chaos and conflict, causing many of the disasters we have heard about this afternoon. What is being done, in partnership with our Gulf state allies, to counter that activity and bring stability and the prospect of regional peace back to the area?
Mr Lammy
I was in Jordan a few weeks ago speaking with King Abdullah and my Jordanian counterpart about their air bridge proposal and the planning we have helped them with to ensure they can at least drop aid into Gaza. On the efforts to bring about a hostage and ceasefire deal, I have been speaking to the Qataris and the Egyptians, particularly given their relations with —or routes into—Hamas. We continue to speak to the Saudis and others in the region to try to bring about that peace. I have no doubt that Arab partners want to play a role in that peace, but they will be able to do so only if there is a proper path towards a two-state solution.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing concern, including among organisations such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and Action For Humanity, that Israel may attempt to illegally annex northern Gaza. Have the UK Government raised those concerns with the Israeli Government, and what action will the UK Government take should those concerns become reality?
Mr Lammy
I have raised those concerns. Such action would be illegal and wrong, and the UK Government would view it with the seriousness that it deserves.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents who are increasingly distressed about the scenes in Gaza, and there is growing concern about the rapidly deteriorating and utterly appalling situation in the north of Gaza. I urge the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the Government are using every measure available, including work with our international partners, to get a resolution to the situation and prioritise getting humanitarian aid and medical relief into Gaza, particularly the north?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of our international partners, which is so important. That is why a few weeks ago, I joined the Canadian Foreign Minister, Mélanie Joly, in speaking to the Israelis, and it is also why I went to Israel with my French colleague to speak to the Israelis. Time and again, working in a co-ordinated way with allies produces a greater effect.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Iran’s monstrous state sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis is a fundamental driver of the conflict we see in Gaza, Lebanon and the Red sea respectively. Can my right hon. Friend confirm what steps the Government are taking to undermine Iran’s financial, military and logistical support for those terrorist proxies?
Mr Lammy
I can assure my hon. Friend that since coming into office, we have introduced three batches of sanctions against Iran. Over 450 nationals are now under UK sanctions.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic, so can he please update the House on the work that the Government are doing to provide more aid and to ensure that it gets to those who need it?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: the humanitarian situation is dire. That is why I was at pains to emphasise what we are doing. It was important that we led the way on getting the pause so that children could be vaccinated against polio. I was very distressed to see that pause broken just a few days ago, and we are urging for it to be resumed once more so that those children can get their second vaccination dose. That is why the work of UK-Med is very important; it is why the current DEC appeal is also very important; and it is why we will continue to support people who are sick and injured to be evacuated from the area.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The suffering of the people of Palestine and northern Gaza is truly horrific. Every day, children are not just being bombed: they are being starved. That is not the kind of treatment we would expect for our children, let alone any other country’s children, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is time Israel ceased using food, hunger and siege as weapons of war—all contrary to international law—and for it to be given that message loud and clear by this House?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that when I suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza, the criterion under our regime was a clear risk that there could be a breach of international humanitarian law. When I was looking at the assessments, I kept coming back to humanitarian access as the clear risk, so my hon. Friend is right: we have tremendous concerns about the inability to get aid in, the restrictions that Israel is putting in place, and the man-made starvation that is now coming about as a result.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings that statement to an end. We will take a few moments while the Front Benchers swap over.
I remind Members that if they wish to contribute during a statement or urgent question, they need to be in the Chamber for the opening statement.
EU Foreign Affairs Council
David Lammy Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I attended the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 October. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also attended via video teleconferencing.
This was the first time a UK Foreign Secretary has attended this meeting in over two years—and the first attendance at a regular FAC since Brexit. My visit, following that of the Prime Minister to Brussels on 2 October, marks a significant moment in our reset with Europe and has established a course towards a new UK-EU security partnership to address common threats and challenges.
Ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, I met with the EU High Representative to take stock of the shared challenges facing Europe, including Russia’s war against Ukraine and the situation in the middle east. The High Representative and I agreed to establish a regular, six monthly strategic dialogue, with the first meeting in early 2025 to reaffirm the importance of the relationship between the UK and the EU and strengthen our co-operation in this difficult geopolitical context. In addition, we agreed to launch four new regular working groups on Russia/Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, the western Balkans and hybrid threats.
At the Foreign Affairs Council itself, I described the common challenges facing our continent. I reiterated the UK’s ironclad commitment to Ukraine, and pushed for bold action, including accelerated financial and military support, ratcheting economic pressure on Russia, and tackling third-country support to Russia’s military industrial complex. I emphasised that investment in Ukraine’s security today was critical to ensuring Europe’s security for generations to come.
On the middle east, I called for an immediate ceasefire across the Israel-Lebanon border and stressed the UK’s unwavering support for UNIFIL’s role in South Lebanon, as mandated in UN resolution 1701. On Gaza, I called for the immediate release of hostages, unhindered access for humanitarian aid and renewed focus on a two-state solution. I condemned recent attacks on Israel and Iran’s ballistic missile supply to Russia, committing to sanctioning Iran’s regime in response. In the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, I held a series of bilateral engagements with European counterparts from Germany, France, Romania, Spain, and Luxembourg.
This meeting marked a significant step forward in our reset of the UK’s relationship with our European neighbours and friends, in which we will deepen ties, grow our economies, and enhance our shared security against shared challenges. Together with my ministerial colleagues, this Government will continue to progress this work.
[HCWS154]
Implementation of International Humanitarian Law
David Lammy Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I am delighted to inform the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) have jointly published the United Kingdom Government’s second “Voluntary Report on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law at Domestic Level”.
The publication of this report reflects the UK Government’s determined commitment to international law and the proper implementation of, and compliance with, international humanitarian law (IHL). This is a vital responsibility of all states. IHL is the manifestation of the long-standing determination of the international community to limit the effects of armed conflict. In an age where IHL continues to be violated by both states and non-state parties to conflict, it is critical to reinforce these fundamental humanitarian rules that form an integral part of the international legal order in times of conflict. We are proud of our strong record of IHL implementation and compliance.
The voluntary report aims to explain in a single document the key steps that the United Kingdom has taken at a domestic level to implement IHL. Publishing specific examples of our practice to implement IHL is intended to help improve understanding of IHL, and encourage and inform dialogue on IHL issues both at home and abroad. We hope it will encourage other states to publish details of their activities to implement IHL at the domestic level, to better identify best practice and ultimately to improve implementation and compliance with IHL.
I am grateful to the United Kingdom National Committee on International Humanitarian Law for leading the compilation of this voluntary report. The British Red Cross, in its capacity as an auxiliary to the UK Government, deserve special thanks for assisting the FCDO and MOD with the production of this voluntary report.
The voluntary report is available on the www.gov.uk website. I will also place a copy in the Library of the House.
[HCWS140]
British Indian Ocean Territory
David Lammy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
On 3 October the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius reached an historic agreement on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos archipelago. The agreement secures the strategically important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.
The base on Diego Garcia is critical to national and international security. It has enabled the UK, the US, and our allies and partners to combat some of the most challenging threats to global peace and security, including those from terrorism, organised crime, and instability.
However, since its creation, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has had a contested existence. It has been challenged through various international courts and tribunals, threatening the long-term, secure operation of the base. In recent years, this threat had risen significantly. A legally binding decision against the UK seemed inevitable. It was only a matter of time before the UK would have had to choose between breaking international law or negotiating from a position of weakness and risking national security. The situation was also impacting our relationship with the US, which did not want the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal.
In recognition of this, two years ago, the previous Government began sovereignty negotiations. Despite 11 rounds of negotiations, substantive and difficult issues remained.
This Government inherited unfinished business. We were not prepared to put the security interests of this country or our partners at risk. We therefore prioritised an agreement that fundamentally protected UK national interests, respected the interests of our partners, and upheld the international rule of law. The resulting agreement fulfils these objectives.
It is strongly supported by our partners, including the United States. President Biden issued a statement “applauding” this historic agreement within minutes of its announcement. Secretary Blinken and Defence Secretary Austin have also voiced clear public support. India and the African Union have also hailed the agreement. The agreement strengthens our arguments when it comes to issues like Ukraine or the South China sea.
Under the terms of the agreement, the United Kingdom will agree that the Republic of Mauritius has sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos archipelago. In return, Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights needed for the long-term, secure and effective operation of the joint military base. The agreement covers an initial period of 99 years, with the UK having the right to extend.
For the first time in over 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure, able to operate to its full strategic capability without risk of challenge. The agreement will mean that the UK and US will continue to operate the base well into the next century.
We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including preventing foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is more secure under this agreement than without it.
The agreement also addresses the wrongs of the past. This Government deeply regret the way Chagossians were removed from the islands, and the way they were treated thereafter. Chagossian interests were at the heart of the agreement. For the first time since the establishment of the base, the Republic of Mauritius will be able to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands other than Diego Garcia. The UK and the Republic of Mauritius have also committed to support the welfare of Chagossians. The UK will finance a new trust fund for the Republic of Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community and remains committed to supporting Chagossians in the UK.
Recognising that relations with our overseas territories are of great interest to this House, Members can be assured that this is a unique agreement that has absolutely no bearing on wider UK Government policy regarding our other overseas territories. Our sovereignty of the Cyprus sovereign base areas, Gibraltar, the Falklands or any OT is not up for negotiation. Each overseas territory has a very different history and they cannot be compared. The UK remains committed to our overseas territories family.
This agreement will be underpinned by a financial package which will be proportionate to the importance of ensuring international security.
This agreement ushers in a new era in relations between the UK and the Republic of Mauritius, two close partners with deep and enduring ties. We intend to intensify co-operation on a wide range of shared priorities, including security, the environment, and economic growth. This will include co-operation to protect the archipelago’s unique environment.
The agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty which the Government intend to complete over the coming months. Further details will remain confidential until the final version of the treaty has been signed by both sides. Following signature, the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to make the necessary amendments to current legislation to implement the agreement. Parliament will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CraG). Both processes are required to take place before ratification.
[HCWS109]
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
David Lammy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for your instructions at the beginning of this statement. With permission, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have done the bidding. I do not need others to come in on the back of it.
Mr Lammy
On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.
Mr Speaker
You have been here long enough to know that points of order do not come at this stage. Good try, but it is not working.
Mr Lammy
If Members oppose the deal, which of the alternatives do they prefer? Doing this deal on our terms was the sole way to maintain the full and effective operation of the base into the future. That is why, in November 2022, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), initiated sovereignty negotiations. It is also why my predecessor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, ultimately continued with those negotiations. Under the previous Government, there were 11 rounds of negotiations, the last one held just weeks before the general election was called. In July, this Government inherited unfinished business. The threat was real, and inaction was not a strategy.
Inaction posed several acute risks to the United Kingdom. First, it threatened the UK-US base. From countering malign Iranian activity in the middle east to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, the base is critical for our national security. Without surety of tenure, no base can operate effectively or truly deter our enemies. Critical investment decisions were already being delayed. Secondly, inaction impacted on our relationship with the United States, which neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal. I am a transatlanticist, and we had to protect that important relationship. Thirdly, inaction undermined our international standing. We are showing that what we mean is what we say, when it comes to international law and our desire for partnerships with the global south. That strengthens our arguments on issues such as Ukraine or the South China sea.
Further legal wrangling served nobody’s interests but our adversaries’. In a more volatile world, a deal benefited us all—the UK, the United States and Mauritius. This Government therefore made striking the best possible deal a priority. We appointed Jonathan Powell as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for these negotiations, and he has worked closely with a brilliant team of civil servants and lawyers. Their goal was a way forward that serves UK national interests, respects the interests of our partners, and upholds the international rule of law. The agreement fulfils these objectives. It is strongly supported by partners, with Present Biden going so far as to “applaud” our achievement within minutes of the announcement. Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have also backed this “successful outcome” which “reaffirms” our “special defence relationship”. The agreement has also been welcomed by the Indian Government and commended by the United Nations Secretary-General.
In return for our agreeing to Mauritian sovereignty over the entire islands, including Diego Garcia, the UK-US base has an uncontested long-term future. Base operations will remain under full UK control well into the next century. Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights and authorities in respect of Diego Garcia. This is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that. We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including to prevent foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is therefore more secure under this agreement than without it. If that were not the case, I doubt the White House, State Department or Pentagon would have praised the deal so effusively.
The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Members will be aware that the Government do not normally reveal payments for our military bases overseas, so it would be inappropriate to publicise further details of those arrangements at this stage.
The agreement also recognises and rights the wrongs of the past. The whole House would agree that the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed in the 1960s was deeply wrong and regrettable. Mauritius is now free to implement a resettlement programme to islands other than Diego Garcia. The United Kingdom and Mauritius have also committed to supporting Chagossians’ welfare, establishing a new trust fund capitalised by the UK, and providing additional Government support to Chagossians in the UK. The UK will maintain the pathway for Chagossians to obtain British citizenship. Furthermore, Mauritius and the UK will establish a new programme of visits to the archipelago for Chagossians.
The agreement also ushers in a new era in our relations with Mauritius—a Commonwealth nation and Africa’s leading democracy. We have agreed to intensify co-operation on our shared priorities, including security, growth and the environment. The agreement ensures continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, which is home to over 200 species of coral and over 800 species of fish.
Finally, I reassure the House and all members of the UK family worldwide that the agreement does not signal any change in policy on Britain’s other overseas territories. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas is not up for negotiation. The situations are not comparable. That has been acknowledged across our overseas territories. Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, vocally supported the agreement, stating that there is “no possible read across” to Gibraltar on the issue of sovereignty. Similarly, the Governor of the Falklands has confirmed that the historical contexts of the Chagos islands and the Falklands are “very different”.
The Government remain firmly committed to modern partnerships with our overseas territories based on mutual consent. After the Mauritian elections, the Government will move towards treaty signature, and it is our intention to pursue ratification in 2025 by submitting the treaty and a Bill to this House for scrutiny. This is a historic moment, a victory for diplomacy. We have saved the base and secured Britain’s national interests for the long term. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for sharing his statement with me in advance. At a time when the world is more dangerous than at any point in our lifetimes, when the middle east is on the edge of serious conflict, when there is war in Europe, and when British military forces are engaged in protecting an ally from Iranian missiles, the Government propose giving away a key strategic military asset to a state that has never controlled it, and to which the Chagossian people feel little affinity, if any. It is frankly astonishing that this announcement was slipped out at the end of last week, a few days before Parliament returned, to advantage the election timetable of the governing party in Mauritius, rather than in a statement to the House. The Times put it well:
“In a dangerous world Britain’s security is being risked by ministers and departmental lawyers who believe appeasing faux anti-colonialist sentiment in the UN matters more than the national interest.”
UK sovereignty has applied to the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than 200 years. Its strategic location, right in the centre of the Indian ocean, is unmatchable, and it houses our one and only military base in the Indo-Pacific. I can tell the House that this is a deal that the former Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Cameron, would never have done. Nor for that matter would my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly). Had they been willing to do it, the deal would have been concluded long ago. The Conservative Government declined to enter into a deal with Mauritius for reasons that I think are now clear for the House to see. The Labour Government have not published the draft treaty—they have published only a non-legally binding joint statement—so we are somewhat in the dark about exactly what has been agreed. Crucially, can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that there will be a vote on this treaty?
The noble Lord West of Spithead, the most senior military figure ever to hold office in a Labour Government, said that there is
“an irrefutable case that ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests…in danger, while also recklessly undermining fundamental principles of international law.”
I would therefore be most grateful if the Foreign Secretary could answer the following five questions. First, never mind what the Chief Minister said; what steps have the Foreign Secretary and the Government taken to reassure the people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this ill-advised decision will have no effect on their sovereignty? Secondly, and yet more importantly, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to make it clear that this decision will have no read-across for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—Episkopi, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Thirdly, what assurances has he received that no Chinese military assets will be placed on any of the nearby islands in the archipelago? While his words are welcome, the House needs to see the wording clearly set out.
Fourthly, precisely how much money are we planning that British taxpayers should pay to Mauritius for each year under this deal, as well as in total? We want full transparency on all payments that the Government intend to make, and on what the money is for. What are the payments for the privilege of giving the territory away? Fifthly, what consultations has the Foreign Secretary undertaken with the Chagossian community in this country and elsewhere? We note that his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) has, with courage and integrity, opposed this deal. It remains to be seen whether others on the Government Benches will have the good sense, courage and integrity so to do. Jonathan Powell has only just been appointed special envoy for these negotiations; can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government have ensured that there is time for us to draw on his expertise?
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary propose giving away Britain’s key strategic assets in the Indian ocean. Little or no attention has been paid to the position of those with direct heritage and family links to Chagos. We have no clear details of any safeguards that will guard against China, a close ally of Mauritius, setting up military facilities and surveillance capacity not far away. Through this statement, the Government give succour to our enemies in a dangerous world, and undermine the strategic web of Britain’s defence interests. Our country is the poorer and the lesser for it.
Mr Lammy
It takes some brass neck to criticise this Government for delivering what the last Government tried and failed to do. It was the last Government that opened these negotiations in the first place, because they understood what was at risk. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations and resolved nothing. Instead, as with much that we found across Government, they left it for us to inherit and to fix.
The shadow Foreign Secretary prays in aid the previous Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who is now auditioning for the Tory leadership. The right hon. Member for Braintree seems to have suffered short-term memory loss in the past few years, because he told the Commons that, in negotiations with Mauritius,
“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
That is exactly what we delivered. Do not take my word for it: ask President Biden, Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin. If this can win the approval of the White House and the Pentagon on the protection of security interests, I think the shadow Foreign Secretary can rest easy and put down some of the bombast.
The reality is that those who do not support the agreement support either abandoning the base or breaking international law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which is it? Our agreement secures the base, stops a potentially dangerous illegal migration route, protects the marine areas, provides new support for the Chagossians and ensures that the UK is compliant with international law. There was a time when the Tories believed in international law; they now seem to have given up, and are telling other people basically to go ahead and break it.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was a serious negotiation, which the last Government began and left to us to conclude. It secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean. The Conservatives posture; we lead. Parliament will, of course, get the scrutiny that it deserves in the coming months. He knows, too, that this was a negotiation between two Governments, and of course we kept the Chagossians informed all along the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
In a parallel reality, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about a particular aspect of the treaty that I do not believe will get a great deal of attention in all the heat and fury, but that is very important? At a time when our oceans have never been under such stress, the British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the last ocean wildernesses in the world, and tuna trawlers are lining up on the boundary of the no-take zone, trying to entice fish across into their nets. Artisanal fishing by Chagossians who have come home is quite possible in this ecosystem, but licensed fishing is not, and any break in environmental protection will lead to a huge spike in illegal fishing. Will the Foreign Security inform the House what provision has been made to ensure the ongoing protection of this unique part of the world once the administration of the islands is handed over to Mauritius, and what involvement the Chagossians have had in that process?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will of course do everything we can, and have done everything we can—including combating illegal fishing—to better secure the environment. A new marine protected area will be established and managed as part of the deal. We will continue to work with the Mauritians on that marine protected area, and the United States will play its part as well. I am grateful for the question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Lammy
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the plight of the Chagossians. The way in which they were treated in the 1960s was wrong and is a matter of immense regret, and he is absolutely right to raise those issues. He will know that this negotiation was between two state parties, as is the way with such matters, and we sought to keep the Chagossians informed along the way. My belief is that the previous Government also sought to do that. I reassure him that a trust fund has been set up to ensure that Chagossians are able to get support. They are also able to apply for citizenship of this country. Although there is not one view among Chagossian groups—he will recognise that there are Chagossians in the Seychelles, in Mauritius and in the United Kingdom, so it is hard to get one view—we will continue to do all we can to support them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I acknowledge the Foreign Secretary’s words on trying to right an historic wrong, and on how that will help to improve relations with the global south. I also note the words of support from our closest ally, the US President. However, what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the strategic defence importance of the US-UK base remains after the expiration of the deal? How will we ensure that the voice of the Chagossians, who have never been under Mauritian Government control, will be central to any future arrangement?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. In relation to the global south, he will have seen that the Government of India welcomed the agreement, and that India committed to continued work with Mauritius and like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom—that was important. The agreement that has been struck can be extended upon completion of the lease. As I said before, we are committed to working with the Chagossians —that is why we have a trust fund set up. Of course, now that Mauritius will effectively be in charge upon completion of the treaty, it is saying that it will work with the Chagossians on resettlements—not on Diego Garcia, but on some of the other islands in the surrounds.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
This is a shameful day for British democracy and a dark moment for human rights in the United Kingdom. Already, the people of the Chagos islands have been forcibly removed from their homeland; today, this Government are handing their home over to a foreign country that is in cahoots with a hostile nation. The Foreign Secretary must commit to allowing the British Chagossian people the right of self-determination—the same right we afford to every other British overseas territory. Are the people of the Chagos islands of less worth than the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians or the people of any other British overseas territory? Will he commit to allowing the people of the Chagos islands to decide their own destiny?
Mr Lammy
I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mauritius. He knows that these discussions began under the last Government; he will also have read the ICJ judgment and will know it is important that this deal was struck. The last Government left it to us to do it; we did it, and we are proud of it.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Words that are said in this House bear a huge amount of weight, particularly for citizens in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary clearly set out that nothing in this agreement or in his statement today affects their settled status and their self-determination?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and of course I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman that even when I was on the Government Benches, I was opposed to what my Government were doing, even when they were only going to go halfway? He supported my position then; why has he now turned around?
The one point I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench is that the Mauritian Government are guilty of vast human rights abuses, locking up other politicians who are independent, and that the black Creole Mauritians were traduced by that Government. We have handed that Government rights that the Chagossians have never agreed to, so my question is this: why was this done in a rush, just before their election? The Mauritian Government will now use this agreement to benefit themselves in the re-election process. Why are we doing that to support a disgusting Government who are in league with the Chinese?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has immense experience in this House. As Members of this House know, sometimes one is able to strike up friendships across the Floor—we are fellow Spurs supporters—but Mauritius is a country that is part of our Commonwealth, so I cannot possibly associate myself with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
Let us be clear: what was done to the Chagossians back in the 1960s is a matter of regret. It is a sore that has run through our relations with Mauritius, but also with substantial parts of the global south. That is why we continued the negotiations and struck this agreement—the right hon. Gentleman may well have disagreed with the last Government, but I remind him that they undertook 11 rounds of negotiations.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
On the penultimate day of the last Labour Government, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, created the marine protected area around the British Indian Ocean Territory. At that time, it was the largest protected area anywhere in the world. As my right hon. Friend knows, the last time a prosecution was brought for illegal fishing in that area was in 2020, four and a half years ago, and the way in which that prosecution was conducted meant that a £10,000 fine—a mere slap on the wrist—was levied against the vessel. Such vessels take hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish out of that marine protected area. Who is going to pay? How committed are the Government to ensuring that that marine protected area continues to exist, and how will they ensure that the minimal level of protection that is currently in place is increased?
Mr Lammy
I know how my hon. Friend has championed these issues for many years, and I reassure him that this was an issue of intense discussion under the last Government and under this Government. We recognise the importance of that marine protected area, and when he sees the provisions of the treaty come forward, we can of course have a further discussion on that surety.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
It would appear that the judgment—the potential next judgment—of a spurious, rather political foreign Court matters more than the issue of national sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary boasts that President Biden likes this deal. The Speaker said earlier that this House should not be affected by elections that take place in foreign countries, but how confident is the Foreign Secretary that Donald Trump, if he becomes the 47th President of the USA, will approve of this deal, given the importance of our relationship with America?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me reassure him that we have sought to take views across the US political establishment, but I do say to him that to get a US President, a US Secretary of State for foreign affairs and a US Secretary of Defence to applaud this agreement should reassure him that the US would do nothing that helped our enemies, particularly the Chinese, in this regard.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, despite others trying to score cheap political points and recklessly scaremonger among the residents of our other overseas territories, this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar and of the Falklands?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Can I begin by congratulating Conservative Members on their sudden interest in national security? They must have forgotten all about the millions and millions of Russian roubles swilling about in the party’s bank accounts.
I do have a question for the Foreign Secretary, and I want to ask a question on behalf of my constituents in Plymouth and of the constituency of the Royal Marines community in the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar represent something really personal and special to anyone who has served in the Navy or the Royal Marines. These are places that hold a real emotional weight: not only does it say “Gibraltar” across the Royal Marines cap badge, but it is written across our hearts. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure that constituency about what this Government’s plans are for the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his service and the seriousness with which he puts his remarks. I can give him that unequivocal assurance for the Falklands, for Gibraltar, for Cyprus and the rights that exist. The situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory is completely different and not comparable, and I regret that in a way this decision has been made against the backdrop of a Conservative leadership contest, and that colleagues who know a lot better have sought to make partisan points with something so important.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?
Mr Lammy
This deal secures the future of the base beyond the lifetime of anyone currently in this Parliament, and it can be extended. That is why the US Secretary of Defence has welcomed it. I would have thought that a former head of NATO of course welcomes this deal, because it secures the base and our national security, and the national security of the global community.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the vital operations on the base on Diego Garcia will remain completely unaltered and without disruption thanks to this agreement?
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Over the past 210 years Chagossians have been traded, deprived of their liberty and of their dignity. They have been displaced from their homeland and now, thanks to this process, they face the prospect of being dispossessed from their islands and from their future hope of self-determination. Chagossians are not children, and they do not require or ask for a trust fund. They are a proud community of many thousands of people who have been wronged time after time, and who today are looking to the Foreign Secretary, to the UK, and to Members of this House to ensure that their right to self-determination is understood and respected. Many of those Chagossians are outside right now. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer them that reassurance and think again on this negotiation?
Mr Lammy
The way that the Chagossians were treated was wrong, and this deal secures a right to settlement for them to the outer islands. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a range of opinions among them, but he is absolutely right to put on record the manner in which they were treated, which I hope the whole House would accept is a matter of immense regret.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of illegal migration on to Diego Garcia carried the threat of creating a further smuggling route into the UK, and has that threat now been shut down?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?
Mr Lammy
I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Some would argue that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was only advisory and that the UN General Assembly resolution of 22 May 2019 was not binding, but he will recognise that many of our closest allies voted against us on that occasion. It is important that we are a country that upholds the rule of law. I am called to come to this Dispatch Box to make the case for standing with Ukraine and for international humanitarian law. For all those reasons, we must be a country that upholds the rules-based order.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
We have just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation that is an ally of China, and we are paying for the privilege, all so the Foreign Secretary can feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party. In whose interests does he think he serves: those of the global diplomatic elite or those of the British people and our national interest?
Mr Lammy
Well, I hope that question may have garnered the right hon. Gentleman a few more votes, but if that is his position, he is unlikely to lead the Conservative party to victory. This deal secures the base and it is in our national interests. That is why it is a good deal and it is why the President and the Defence Secretary of the United States applaud and welcome this deal. What do they know about global national security that he does not?
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
It is fairly unseemly, seeing a leadership race being conducted in the middle of a foreign policy debate—that is what is happening—but does the Secretary of State agree that clarity over the legal status of Diego Garcia, achieved through diplomacy with a Commonwealth partner, cements our influence in the Indo-Pacific?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Commonwealth matters to those on the Government Benches. It used to matter to those on the Opposition Benches. As we head to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, it is hugely important that we are a country that plays by the rules. That is why this agreement is so important.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, this deal will mean that, for the first time, Chagossians will be able to resettle on the outer islands. This was a negotiation between the United Kingdom Government and Mauritius; that was the nature of the state agreement. Of course, we sought to keep Chagossians informed, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that there are a range of Chagossian groups, with some in the Seychelles, some in Mauritius and some in this country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
When the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), was leading negotiations with Mauritius, he said:
“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
This Government have now delivered that. On that basis, should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is completely right, but she knows that the Conservatives have got a leadership contest on, and this is a bit of a beauty parade. That is why they are stepping away from a negotiation that they began, had 11 rounds on and failed to deliver on.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Having heard the Foreign Secretary’s performance this afternoon, we now know why the Government did not dare announce this in the House of Commons. This abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing—that is what it is—risks a Chinese veto over a vital military facility. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how much in rent this country will now pay Mauritius for the right to lease back what is already ours? Which Government Department—the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will pay the landlord?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a Chinese veto. The Chinese do not have a veto in this House. The treaty will be scrutinised by this House. All Members will be able to look at it, debate it and reflect on it. Of course, at the time of publishing the treaty, there will be a discussion of the costs, but no basing agreements ever discuss costs, because that would damage our national security, and the Government are not prepared to do that.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Given that the previous Government began these negotiations, does the Foreign Secretary agree that while Opposition Members may now be more interested in the views of Tory party members, this Government will always act in Britain’s national interests?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party used to claim to be a party of defence. This is an agreement that secures our national defence and security interests in an important part of the globe, so it is shameful to see Opposition Members behaving as they are.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just describe the right hon. Gentleman as hopelessly naive? Has he not seen how the rule of international law across the world is collapsing under the challenge from Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? Given a few flimsy pieces of paper, how much does he think that China or any of those other countries will respect it after we have given up the principle that this is British sovereign territory?
Mr Lammy
Up against a tough geopolitical environment in which Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are far from playing by the global rules, it is hugely important that this country is one that supports the rules-based order, and it is hugely important that this facility has been secured for longer than anybody else in this Parliament was able to do. That is what we have secured. I trust the judgment of our closest ally, not that of the hon. Gentleman.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached over the Chagos islands that helps to right a historic wrong and guarantees the security that we need. Among the confected outrage from the Opposition Benches we have heard the expected scaremongering over the future of other territories, including Gibraltar. Both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) have in recent months reaffirmed the double lock on Gibraltar’s sovereignty, meaning not only that Gibraltarian sovereignty will never be altered without its people’s consent but that the UK Government will never enter into a process of negotiation with which the Gibraltarian people are not content. Does that remain the case?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Minister of State communicated that with a letter to the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago. What we have seen in the last few days from the Opposition has been wholly irresponsible.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said he is establishing a trust fund and that Chagossians will be able to apply for British citizenship. What discussions did he have with the Chagossian people about that? Can he confirm that the Home Office is ready to deal with the applications?
Mr Lammy
They already can apply for UK citizenship. Of course we have been in dialogue and discussions with the Chagossians. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met them regularly.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement has no bearing on the Government’s relationship with the other overseas territories and that the UK Government’s policy towards the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and other territories remains unchanged, with support for their right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
Self-determination is the key word, and we absolutely support the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in that regard.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Coming from Northern Ireland, I am not surprised that this Government have surrendered British interests against the wishes of the people who live there, because, after all, they supported the previous Government’s deal in relation to EU demands on Northern Ireland. The Government have given away a strategic interest. They have not published the deal. They will not reveal the cost. They will not guarantee that there will be no Chinese influence in this strategic area. They have handed this strategic interest to a country that has no historical claim. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the impact that this has on other people who are eyeing British territory—the EU in respect of Gibraltar and Argentina in respect of the Falklands? This is a dirty, dangerous and desperate deal. It is a shameful surrender of British interests. Is the Foreign Secretary relying on the fact that the Government have a huge, sledgehammer majority that can drive this through the House, despite its impact on long-term British interests?
Mr Lammy
I think the right hon. Gentleman lost much of the House when he said that the people live there—they do not; that is the whole point. This is a deal that will give them the right to resettlement on the outer islands. I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s caricature.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
President Biden, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have welcomed the agreement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tory critics do not know more about US national security than the White House and the Pentagon?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows, as the whole House knows, that it does not matter who is in the White House or who is in No. 10: for generations, the US and the UK have acted in concert, and the future of Diego Garcia has been central to that. It has been central to the security of the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific, and central to global security. The capabilities across our nations are essential. That is why it is so sad to see the Conservative party not living up to where it should be on these crucial issues of national security, which ought not to be partisan.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My old boss, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, won his Distinguished Service Cross in the Falklands in 1982. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Lord West is a former Labour security Minister. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that Lord West is of the view that what he is doing poses a grave security risk to this country and is likely to undermine our position in the Falkland Islands? Will he give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who asked whether Lord Robertson had been consulted in any way over the decision that the Foreign Secretary has made?
Mr Lammy
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the remarks of the Chief Minister of the Falkland Islands, and I urge him to consult more widely the defence establishment in this country, which is pleased that an issue that was looking as though it might become very contentious between us and the United States in terms of global national security has now been settled.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and particularly for the reassurances given to our brothers and sisters in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The scaremongering in respect of those two areas has been absolutely shameful. However, in the spirit of trying to achieve cross-party consensus, it is really important to acknowledge the work of the previous Government on this subject and how that has provided the foundation for what we have today. Before then, progress was all too slow, and it shamed our country. None the less, I want to give the Secretary the opportunity again to reassure us that this deal is in our strategic interest and also the interest of our partners.
Mr Lammy
There is seriousness behind my hon. Friend’s question. I reassure him that the Defence Secretary and I have sought to secure a deal that secures the future of the base long after any of us in this Chamber are left. In particular, it ensures that China cannot locate on any of the other islands, as well as Diego Garcia. In truth, that is why the President, Defence Secretary and Secretary of State of the United States have welcomed this deal. It is also important to recognise that India has welcomed this deal—it does not want China in its backyard.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How does the cost of leasing compare with the savings that the Government are making on the winter fuel allowance?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman will be able to return to these issues when the treaty is before the House. He must wait, as I do, for the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary will have a go at answering a direct question. How much will the UK have to pay for the privilege of ceding our sovereignty?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, these are issues that we can discuss when we have the treaty. It is not routine for any Government to comment on basing arrangements. The hon. Lady would not expect us to do that and put our national interests at stake.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Government’s commitment to our populated British overseas territories is fundamental, unshakeable and unbreakable. I am glad to hear him make his statement, and I think this is a good thing for Britain.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. There is an important distinction between the Indian ocean overseas territories and Diego Garcia, and Gibraltar and the Falklands, which are, of course, populated. The self-determination of those people is essential to their future, which is why the remarks that have been made over the past few days are wholly unacceptable and shameful.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to recognise that what happened to the Chagossian people in the 1960s and 1970s was abominable, abusive, illegal and disgraceful? Many of them lived in poverty for many years after in the Seychelles and Mauritius. They have long demanded their right to return to Diego Garcia and to the archipelago, which has been denied until now. It is right for the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute to those Chagossians who led that campaign for the right of return and resettlement on their home islands. An apology is due to the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.
Could I also ask the Foreign Secretary about the situation in Diego Garcia? It is unclear to me whether Chagossian people can visit, reside, stay or remain there, or whether they will be denied going there for another 140 years because of the deal done with the USA. Finally, why have the Americans been offered a 140-year lease as part of this deal? That is a very long time in recorded history of any sort, and longer than many countries have even existed. Can he explain that?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has championed the Chagossians in their plight for many years in this House. He makes his remarks with tremendous passion and strength, and he is right to do so. The way they were treated was wrong. I will have more to say on that when I bring forward the treaty in the months ahead. On whether they will now have a right to visit Diego Garcia, I must tell him that they will not under this treaty. Any resettlement or visits will be to the outer islands. This is an important US-UK security base, so I am unable to give him that assurance—they do not have that right under this treaty.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the islands being contested and this agreement putting them beyond contestation. That makes us all more secure as a result, as he knows because of his service. I think that most of the general public who have paid attention recognise that this is a deal that we in the United Kingdom can be proud of.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?
Mr Lammy
Yes to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will come forward with plans in due course.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
In the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement he said:
“A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable”.
That seems misleading verbal baby food at best. So far, there has been a non-binding advisory opinion and nothing to suggest that we will breach any form of international law. At a time of increasing global conflict, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why there is such urgency to do what he is proposing? It seems to be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.
Mr Lammy
It was precisely to put the base on a secure footing, because of that global uncertainty, that this deal was the right deal.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I must say that I am surprised by Labour’s conversion to the merits of leasehold rather than the security of freehold ownership—I did not think that was its position. In addition to being an unsinkable aircraft carrier, the British Indian Ocean Territory is host to unique space observation capabilities. It is the only remote monitoring place in the southern hemisphere that is able to see parts of the sky to which we would otherwise be blind. Space is a heavily contested military domain, so did the Foreign Secretary even know about these space monitoring capabilities? What are his plans to secure alternatives to save our freedom and security?
Mr Lammy
Foreign Secretaries do not comment on such capabilities, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?
Mr Lammy
As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is not new to this House. We will follow the usual processes, as he would expect.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We saw a previous Labour Government sell off this country’s gold. We now have a Labour Government who are surrendering our sovereignty and giving away our territory. Has the Foreign Secretary had any specific discussions with the Chagossian people as part of the negotiations?
Mr Lammy
I will not take lectures from a party that left a £22 billion black hole and our public services in a state. The chutzpah of the Opposition is unbelievable.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting some of the overseas territories or meeting their representatives here in Westminster are very much aware of their strong loyalty to and admiration for the United Kingdom. Even if they have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, perhaps they are right to have a nagging doubt that that loyalty will not be returned, are they not?
Mr Lammy
Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman, because there is seriousness behind his question, that all of us believe in the right to self-determination. I am unequivocally, absolutely clear that the overseas territories remain an important part of our national story and nothing we have done in this deal puts them in any jeopardy.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?
Mr Lammy
We will always defend the Falkland Islands. I raised that point with Argentina’s Foreign Secretary just last week in New York.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.
Mr Lammy
Because we have done a deal that secures the security of the global community. I cannot recall if the hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but I have to tell him that we found ourselves with no one supporting our claim in the family of the UN and the rules-based order. For that reason, the previous Government began the negotiations and it is absolutely right that we conclude them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary has made a very clear point. In 1982 Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories. Some 42 years later, it is important that that legacy is carried on. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that this decision has no bearing on other overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar? I have many friends who live in the Falklands and Gibraltar. What steps will be taken to protect and preserve them?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I can. In that regard, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the former Prime Minister and state once again that the right to self-determination governs our relationship with the overseas territories. They remain a very important part of our national story and nothing in this deal undermines that important relationship. That is why the Governor of the Falklands and Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar have been very clear about that in the past few days.
Hong Kong: Six-monthly Report
David Lammy Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is attached. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2024. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-january-to-june-2024.
I commend the report to the House.
The attachment can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-09-12/HCWS94.
[HCWS94]