Iran: Protests

David Taylor Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out our position on the future of Iran, which is clearly a matter for the Iranian people. What we are pressing for and focused on is the Iranian authorities ensuring that their people can exercise their right to peaceful protest. What happens next is clearly a question not for London or Washington, but for the Iranian people themselves. That is a message we have delivered consistently to the Iranian regime, which is saying otherwise—publicly, particularly—so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set that out from the Dispatch Box so clearly.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

The Trump Administration initially indicated that they would protect protesters when they came out, which they have done in droves, but, as many Members have indicated, thousands upon thousands of them have now been killed. We worry about outside interference, but if we listen to a lot of the protesters, they are actually demanding help from outside. I do not, and I am sure other Members do not, want to be standing here in a few years’ time, looking back and thinking, “What if?” Given that half a million people died in the recent Syrian civil war when a straightforward no-fly zone could have protected them, I urge Ministers to keep everything on the table and to talk to partners about how we might be able to degrade the IRGC’s ability to kill thousands of protesters, because I do not think it is going to stop.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued commitment to these issues, and to those in Syria, which he has been engaged in for some time. As I said, we are deeply concerned about the use of violence against protesters and we strongly condemn the killings of protesters. People must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest without fear of reprisal.

Ukraine

David Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I shall try to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me begin by paying tribute to what Members have said already, and also to the fact that a number of Members in all parties have contributed in many different ways in trying to stand up for the Ukrainian people, not only in speeches in the House but through the initiatives that they are taking.

I want to talk briefly about my own motivation, which starts in Syria. Here I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a reference to my role in that regard. As Members will know, I have a deep-seated passion for seeing that the Syrian people have a proper free and inclusive future after years of brutal dictatorship from Assad, and, of course, Putin was central to that. Half a million people died in Syria because of the actions of Assad and Putin, and I question whether Putin would have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine—Crimea—in 2014 if our country and the United States had taken a stronger role back in 2013, when that red line was set.

I want to take a moment to reflect on what the Minister said about parties not being present, because another party is absent too: Your Party. Members of that party and of the hard left look at this conflict in Ukraine and blame the west. Hon. Members may remember the ridiculous statement that blamed NATO expansion for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: there was no excuse, and there never will be any excuse, for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if anybody has any doubt about Putin’s motives or morality, they should look at who his partners are in this war? Iran is a country that is killing its own people on the streets and is now executing them. Is it not the case that Putin is an absolute disgrace, and anybody who shows any sympathy for him really should look at who his friends are?

[David Taylor]

I think we know who Putin’s friends are, and that is a matter of public record. I completely agree, and if I had had time during my question on the Iran statement yesterday, I would have spoken about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones, which all of us who have been to Ukraine have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime, so the sooner it falls the better.

I want to praise Conservative Members for the role they played, alongside my own, in the lead-up to the conflict. In particular, I praise Ben Wallace for his role, especially in putting in place the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall. Much as we may praise the actions of our Government or any other Government, we must of course praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping the tanks rolling into Kyiv.

I am very grateful for the work that Ministers and the Prime Minister are doing to support the Ukrainian people, and we have heard some of the figures about the billions going on defence spending. I am particularly grateful for the £3.5 billion that will be spent on hardware under the defence industry support treaty, and the continued support for Operation Interflex training and for the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has over 50 partners, as well as for the British built octopus drones that will be so crucial.

I absolutely welcome the talks towards a ceasefire. Who would not want a ceasefire? I also welcome the commitment with France to deploy peacekeepers at some point in the future. However, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people, because I fear that the Russians will use any pause in fighting as an opportunity to re-group and go again. We cannot be under any illusion about the threat from Russia. Many of us have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to visit our fantastic troops in the Tapa base in Estonia just before Christmas, which really brought home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be.

I have made a couple of trips to Ukraine since the conflict started. The most recent one, almost a year ago, focused on drone technology and the imperative of supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves. I had some absolutely amazing meetings while I was there, including with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, as well as with Ukrainian MPs who many hon. Members will know, such as Dmytro Natalukha and Oleksander Marikovskyi, who are members of the Economic Affairs Committee. Dmytro referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called the Kalashnikovs of the sky. A Kalashnikov is of course a very durable weapon, and if it does break in any way it is very easy to repair. As well as the most important high tech, the Ukrainians continue to need the everyday drones that can help on the frontline to do reconnaissance, so that they know the Russian positions, and help them as they try to advance. Yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the Kalashnikovs of the sky—weapons for which parts are easy to come by and that are easy to repair.

On drones, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones. If we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that may exist, that would be a worthwhile venture, because we need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies, as well as our own, to build drones. The Octopus drone scheme is a brilliant example of our trying to work with the Ukrainians. There is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have the data, and the lived experience that can help us to build drones together. That will help us, and will help them in this war. I hope that, in the wind-ups, the Minister can talk about how we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital that will go into the country.

I want to talk briefly about a second trip I made, way back in 2024, when I was but a humble candidate. There are a number of organisations up and down the UK involving ordinary people who are trying to help in a grassroots way, in any way that they can. At a time when there is so much talk about charity beginning at home, and about problems here, it is remarkable that so many ordinary people have stepped up to help people they will probably never meet. Some have gone to Ukraine, and I want to pay tribute to them. I went there with an organisation called Help99. It delivers pick-up trucks that farmers do not need any more. Soldiers use them on the frontline to get from A to B. To go back to an earlier point, long-range missiles and expensive technology are really important, but we also need the things that will help soldiers on the ground. I pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event on this subject in Parliament last year, at which over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together.

I encourage the Government to look at ways that any excess vehicles on the Government estate, be they at the Home Office or at Network Rail, can be donated cheaply. Let us get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It would not cost that much money, and it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on the frontline.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has taken too long to see that Chelsea money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) talked about the aid convoys. Imagine what they could do to support Ukraine, the generators we could buy and the energy infrastructure we could build with the billions from the Chelsea sale.

[David Taylor]

I hope that if that money is unlocked, we look at ways to compensate for the money that is going into Ukraine by freeing up money that might be able to go to other conflicts around the world, where we have sadly made some reductions due to the cut to the aid budget.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on our official development assistance cuts, on which we probably share the same opinion. There is a principle here about reparations, whether they are from the Russian state, from individuals who have benefited from this war or from the gangster kleptocracy that runs Russia. We need to do both those things. There is a wider discussion to be had about how we can support Ukraine and retrench some of the money for other areas, particularly Syria and, hopefully, Iran, that need ODA money from the UK now and in the near future.

As my time is nearly up, I will ask a couple of questions that the Minister can answer at the end of the debate. On the much-vexed question of our deployment of troops to Ukraine, it is very early. I want to counsel some Members that when they are talking about this, their language and approach is very reminiscent of the run-up to the second world war and Lord Halifax’s approach. There was an agreement in Munich, Chamberlain said that it would be a peace in our time, and then the war started—it came to us. Russia’s territorial ambitions are not limited; they are unlimited. We need to be cognisant of that. We need to be on the front foot, not on the back foot. I understand all the concerns about our ability to deploy troops. What planning are we doing at this stage? What is the process? What can we do to reassure MPs and the public that we are making the right planning steps towards that?

On what we can do now, the plans announced to develop new tactical ballistic missiles with Ukraine to strengthen its ability to defend itself against Russia are welcome. I am sure the Defence Minister will be able to answer this question: can the Government talk more about how and when we will do that and what the timelines are? Our own air defences are insufficient. We need to think about the future. If this war is protracted—if Putin does not settle and we do not get to a ceasefire—we ourselves could be threatened by drones, missiles and all the things we hear about every day in Ukraine. We need to be ready for our own defence, as well as the defence of Ukraine.

Iran

David Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is telling that, in the past few weeks, we have heard absolutely nothing from Your Party, the Greens, the Socialist Campaign Group or the “stop some wars” coalition. Where have been the marches in solidarity with the Iranian people? You cannot claim to be a progressive and to care about social justice if you do not want to see the total and immediate fall of this despotic, theocratic regime. Will the Foreign Secretary listen to the advice of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who I think the whole House would agree is a fantastic advocate for the Iranian people, by talking with other partners and—I hope—with Iranian activists here in the UK, about what we can do, if the regime falls, to support the Iranian people immediately to build a better future, as we are trying to do in Syria?

[Yvette Cooper]

We want to see a better future for Iran and the Iranian people. We must be clear: it is the Iranian people who are expressing that urgent desire for a better future. The future of Iran must be in their hands. We will continue to work with international allies in support of action against the brutality we have seen. That is exactly why we are considering further sanctions measures.

Gaza and Sudan

David Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member has been a champion of the people of Sudan in the face of the most intense suffering for a long time. I agree that there is simply not yet the kind of urgent plan for Sudan that we desperately need. Bluntly, for far too long, the international community has failed and turned its back. The UK put forward the resolution, which has now been fully agreed at the Human Rights Council; when we sought to put a resolution on similar issues to the Security Council a year ago, it was vetoed by Russia. We have sought to increase aid, but that is simply not sufficient if aid cannot get in because of the continuing conflict. When it comes to Sudan, we need the same sustained, intense effort across the international community that rightly went into securing peace in Gaza. It can at least start with a humanitarian truce. That is urgently needed. I can assure the right hon. Member that this is a topic in every phone call that I am having, not just with those in the Quad, but more widely.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the Select Committee—of which I am a member—and the remarks of others who have spoken about the horrors unfolding in front of our eyes. We have heard reports that Tawila is next. There are 650,000 people there, including desperate civilians, and probably also aid workers who are British citizens. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the former International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). What more can we do to help protect civilians from harm right now? I hope that the ceasefire negotiations that the Foreign Secretary is doing so much to try to bring about include us looking seriously at some kind of peacekeeping force to protect civilians from harm.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend has championed this issue for a long time, and I thank him for his continuing work on the Select Committee. Like him, I am deeply worried that Tawila will be next if there is not concerted action to pull the warring parties back from the brink, halt the RSF advances, and ensure a humanitarian truce that is at least long enough to get humanitarian aid in and civilians out. Frankly, though, we need an end to this horrendous conflict. As we have seen in Gaza, it is only when a huge international effort comes together that we can make progress. We urgently need to ensure that happens.

Conflict in Sudan

David Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. I am sure that he will be aware that six months ago, we did host a conference—I think it was in Lancaster House—for the whole world, in order to try to make progress on this question. We did so mostly privately, given the sensitivities for all involved. We will continue to do all we can diplomatically, both publicly at the UN and behind closed doors, as part of a concerted effort to bring this violence to an end.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) yesterday. He noted that in previous conflicts, concerted efforts had been made to bring in some form of UN peacekeeping force, but unfortunately, that does not seem very popular in today’s world. I will forgive the Minister if he thinks this is a naive question, but in addition to the humanitarian aid we are providing and the diplomacy we are undertaking, what can we do to stop civilians from being killed right now? Are we looking at any form of peacekeeping force, be it UN, African Union or a coalition of the willing, to stop civilians being killed right now?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks the right set of questions. Of course, the first priority must be a ceasefire. As he knows, there have been peacekeeping forces in Darfur previously, and they have faced very considerable difficulties in exercising their mandate when the conflict parties are not prepared to take the vital first step, which is to hold a ceasefire.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

David Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

I will go through how we will take some of the priorities forward and some of the changes that we are seeing through our strategy. I hope that helps answer my hon. Friend’s question. I want to make a point about our investment in Gavi, of which we were a founding member under the last Labour Government. It has generated £250 billion in economic benefits through reduced death and disability. It is a partnership based on the UK’s world-leading expertise in not just funding but research.

From grants to expertise, that partnership comes up in conversations that I have with countries that I work with as Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific. It is important in terms of how we are working to increase the expertise of partners, including the Bank of England, the City of London and the University of Cambridge. We are helping to train financial regulators across countries, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ partnership with the Ghana Revenue Authority used the UK’s expertise to increase Ghana’s tax revenue collection by £100 million last year—revenues that will help fund Ghana’s transition from aid.

I am conscious of time, but I will make a few further remarks. Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work that we do. But we are sharpening our focus on three priorities, which match partner needs and the long-term needs of people in the UK, and are also in areas where we can drive real change. These priorities have been highlighted in this debate—humanitarian, health, and climate and nature—and they are underpinned by economic development. They will help maximise our impact and focus our efforts where they matter most.

I reassure the House that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, including responding to the most significant conflicts of our era, in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. We will not let Sudan be forgotten. We are the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Sudan, and in April we announced £120 million to deliver lifesaving services to over 650,000 people affected by the conflict.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Middle East

David Taylor Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

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

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

USAID Funding Pause

David Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing the debate. The International Development Committee is due in a couple of weeks—if our visas are approved—to go to the US and have some of these discussions. It will be interesting to see what is said. I do not know whether I need to declare this as an interest, but I am the Labour party representative on the Progressive Alliance; our sister party is the Democratic party, and I campaigned for it in the 2012 election. I think it is obvious that my view is that we should not have the current US Administration, and their decision to slash the US aid budget was profound and devastating.

Turning to the UK context, as someone who has spent their entire career in the charity sector, I was heartbroken by the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, but it is important for the record to lay out some of the context for that decision. We inherited a horrific economy, the majority of the aid budget—a huge amount of that money—was going on asylum spend in hotels, and we faced a world in which Ukraine had been invaded by Putin and his forces. While I regret the decision to cut aid, it was taken in that terrible context, and because of the vital need to increase defence spending to 2.5%.

Why was the economy in such a state? It was because of the devastating Truss mini-Budget. Aid had already been reduced to 0.5% because of the decision that Sunak had taken, and Boris Johnson had abolished a world-leading Government Department. In addition, why did Russia invade? It was because—I should say that I do not mean this as a criticism of the last Government—the west collectively failed to stand up to Putin. We allowed him and Assad to do what they wanted in Syria; we took no action when Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people. Putin invaded Crimea with near impunity in 2014, and of course we had attacks on UK soil, including the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will not, because I want to make a point; I find the moralising tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a bit much. The reason the last Government were able to do what they did—slashing the aid budget, abolishing the Department for International Development and wrecking the economy—was that we have never had a weaker Opposition than we did when the hard left was sadly in charge of my party. Putin was emboldened, in part, by the hard left’s constant appeasement and apologism for the things he was doing, their downplaying of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and their suggestion that we send the sample from Salisbury back to Putin to test whether or not he was responsible.

[Brian Leishman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor]

No, I will not, because I find the moralising tone completely infuriating. Having put that on record, I turn to the matter at hand: the horrible situation that we are in. I note with respect that other hon. Members have mentioned causes that they deeply care about, and I care about those causes—

[Mike Martin]

On geopolitics, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Taylor]

I will.

[Mike Martin]

If we put aside the internecine warfare of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about a retreat from the world. Retreating from the world as the west, the UK or the US, opens the door to creating more problems, and then we retreat further. Would he argue that that is what we are doing—vacating the field to our opponents?

[David Taylor]

I do not believe that is the case, because I believe the Minister is going to set out the ways in which we are still taking our place on the world stage, but I hear the hon. Member’s concern.

Hon. Members in this Chamber have passionately advocated for causes that they care deeply about. I respect that, especially the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes and his passionate plea for WASH. I could talk about a number of causes important to me, but what is most important is that we increase the size of the pie. For that reason, I have been working constructively with other Members of the House to put suggestions to the Government for how, given the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, we could look at other forms of development finance.

In the interests of time, I will not go over the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made about asylum seekers, remittances, special drawing rights, the exchange equalisation account and debt relief, but I will add to that list the need to release the Chelsea money as soon as possible. The Government announced recently that they are looking to take further action against Roman Abramovich. If that money is released into Ukraine, given that we have essentially said that we will protect aid spending in Ukraine, I hope that additional money can replace official development assistance going in, so that that ODA money can then support programmes in other countries.

We also have an issue with British International Investment. To be clear, BII does good things, but there is no need for additional capitalisation out of the 0.3% that we have, given that investments in assets can be realised. Finally, I highlight the international finance facility for immunisation, which is a way to leverage extra funding. We are urging the Government to look at other ways to do that in other contexts. There is already an international finance facility for education, and by using such facilities we can leverage funds times 10. Given the various summits that are coming up, including the financing for development conference that my hon. Friend mentioned, I urge the Government to look at those options, and to think innovatively about the additional finance that we can leverage to help to support the poorest people in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I think the hon. Lady may have a good debating point in this Chamber, but the result of the 2015 election says it all.

[David Taylor]

I want to add to what the Minister is saying. The point is that, yes, the coalition Government did protect the aid budget, but by cutting public services in this country to the core, they undermined public trust in Government. That meant that lots of people faced need, and it led to increasing calls of, “Charity begins at home; why are we spending this money abroad?” If we had kept the settlement that we had under the last Labour Government, whereby we invested in public services at home and abroad, we would not have ended up in this mess.

[Catherine West]

I think we are all making the important point that since the 2008 global crash, our economy has never really been the same and we have struggled to make progress, whether on wages and living conditions at home or on completely fulfilling our responsibilities abroad. As one says, we are where we are. General reductions in public spending are part of a broader set of pressures facing the international development system.

Support for multilateralism has been wavering for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said, amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Many of our partners feel that the current system no longer responds to their needs. The combined impact of these two factors is significant, and let me briefly expand on them.

First, on the disbanding of USAID, it is inevitable that significant cuts will have lasting implications for how we tackle global development challenges. I cannot say how pleased I am that the International Development Committee will go to the USA to have face-to-face dialogue with friends about how we can save the most important elements of our programmes. Given the knowledge base of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is well known for his work on global health, HIV/AIDS, Gavi, Unitaid and the Global Fund, he will be able to make pertinent arguments with friends there. I would also ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his connections in the faith sector, to impress on all the different faith-based charities the need to continue their important work where they can and to have many people doubling their tithe.

Gavi and the Global Fund

David Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I recall that during the last replenishment, there were many conversations going on to encourage other countries and partners to step up to the plate. The UK’s leadership had a real impact at that time. In a similar vein, what is the potential impact on other countries’ pledges? Is the Minister thinking about making a reduced commitment or no pledge at all? Rather than ongoing uncertainty, it would help other donors and NGOs to know what the UK is doing, so that they can plan.

The Minister will be aware that there is a range of financial instruments available to him. One is the international finance facility for immunisation, through which £590 million of our £1.65 billion pledge in 2020 was distributed. IFFIm accelerates the delivery of vaccines by making the money from long-term Government donor pledges available immediately, allowing Gavi to vaccinate more individuals, faster. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on any discussions he has had with Gavi and with IFFIm about its potential use to front-load any UK commitments.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I agree what a good model that is. Does the right hon. Member agree it is a model the Government could consider using for other things? An international finance facility for education has been released in the last few years. Does she agree that the Government could consider adopting this model across a range of different issues as we look to find alternative methods of development finance?

[Wendy Morton]

That is a really interesting point, because IFFIm has proved what can be achieved by working with other instruments. I hope that the Government will examine the options. The Minister may be able to share that information; it is not for me to say what the Government should do, but perhaps the Minister can do so in his response to the debate.

The global landscape of development is changing; we can see that across the rest of the world. For example, the US, which for so long has been an important anchor donor to a number of global health initiatives, has made dramatic reductions to USAID, so it would be helpful to know what discussions the Minister has had with his US counterparts and with other donor countries about co-ordinating our efforts, so we can maximise value for money in global health spend.

I will conclude as I started, by saying that global health is everybody’s health. I pay enormous tribute to the Global Fund and Gavi, which harness the power of donations from taxpayers in countries like the UK to end preventable deaths from treatable diseases in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. Global health may sometimes seem like an abstract concept, but we only have to look back at recent history to see that infectious diseases do not respect borders and that global solutions are needed to keep us all safe.

Syria

David Taylor Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and my constituency neighbour, that we do, of course, call on the interim Administration to ensure the full representation of every one of the minorities in Syria—Christians, Druze, Kurds, Alawites and many others.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and thank the Government for the support they have given to the people of Syria. The terrible events of this weekend bring home the vital importance of an inclusive process for all people in Syria. I am aware of the Minister’s response to a previous question about our diplomatic presence in Syria, but are the Government also looking at ways we can increase our engagement with civil society in Syria? It is not just the Administration with which it is important to engage, but civil society. Civil society groups want to carry out a number of peaceful initiatives to build a more inclusive society, but they are struggling to get governmental and non-governmental funding and to have the right conversations. Is that something the UK Government could look at, as we build a more peaceful and inclusive society in Syria?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has worked on these issues for many years, and he is right about the vital role of civil society. I was pleased to meet Syrian civil society organisations with him, and indeed separately. I am pleased to confirm to the House that we have been talking to a range of Syrians in Syria, including Alawites, after the events of the weekend.