UK-German Relations

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing the debate and for the contributions from other hon. Friends, hon. and gallant Friends and hon. Members. I am grateful to see the German ambassador and so many friends from Germany here to see the debate.

I am not the Minister for Germany. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is on his feet in the Chamber at the moment and would have been only too glad to have attended this debate. I am pleased that it gives me the opportunity to reflect, as many others have with great warmth, on my personal and constituency relationship with Germany.

As someone who has done a fair bit of Parliament over the course of the day, I reflect that this debate reflects that warmth in which Germany is held across the House, regardless of political party. I know that the proceedings of this House are not always easily understandable to our foreign friends, but I hope all those watching in Germany can see the deep affection with which they are held here. I personally feel that affection. Throughout my time at university I lived with a young man called Johannes from Frankfurt. I am incredibly proud to represent a city that has a deep twinning relationship and is home to Siemens Energy and Siemens Mobility. If their representatives are watching, they are welcome to keep the full extent of their investments in Lincoln. They employ more than 2,100 people locally and have invested around £100 million in sites across Lincoln since 2010. Lincoln’s experience is obviously matched by many constituencies across the country.

My city, along with many places in the UK, has benefited from shared British-German industrial expertise in a deep partnership. As MP for a city that considers itself the home of the Royal Air Force, I agree very much with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) about the depth of the industrial partnership we have had over a range of areas, not least aviation. The Royal Air Force has particularly enjoyed that deep partnership on Eurofighter Typhoons.

I will not recap in great detail the important points colleagues have made. It is unusual as a Minister to be reminded so often of the many contributions that the Government have already made on these questions. I agree, unusually, with the shadow Minister that we built on foundations of deep friendship from the previous Government. The Kensington treaty is a landmark in an unpredictable time for world politics. The British-German partnership is ever more important and is key to advancing our shared values and interests. We were so pleased to take relations to a new level with the Kensington treaty signed last July. We consider it a modern and ambitious framework for the decades ahead. It touches on things that matter to both countries: keeping people safe, growing our economies, managing migration, backing education and clean energy, and building links between our communities.

I would say a little more about Lincoln’s twinning arrangements, but I suspect that the enthusiasm for twinning arrangements has been well heard. I would also like to touch on the science and technology partnership elements. I am so pleased that we have enabled visa-free school trips. I hear from hon. Members across the House of the value that they have taken in their visits and those we continue to enjoy.

There is an important expansion of our work in the North sea, the strengthened defence ties touched on in this debate. A direct rail link is much desired and I am pleased that planning has begun. Those are practical, tangible steps that show the real-world impact of this partnership. We will continue to build on those foundations. The state visit in December was a hugely important and welcome moment; I was grateful to hear so many hon. Members touch on the significance of it for them and their constituencies.

The situation in Europe today, particularly given the war in Ukraine—which is being debated in the other Chamber as we speak—underlines the importance of the partnership. Growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and coercive pressure on our allies are issues that the UK and Germany face equally. We were pleased that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were able to lead the UK delegation to the Munich security conference last week. They met their German counterparts to discuss those issues and we stand united in our efforts to tackle them. Together with Germany and France, as driving forces behind the coalition of the willing, we are committed to supporting Ukraine. We will provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance for as long as necessary. We have worked together to impose sweeping sanctions, ban Russian oil, cut Moscow off from key technologies and co-ordinate the most comprehensive package of economic and punitive measures that Russia has ever faced.

There is much more to be done, but we will do it together. The Trinity House agreement referenced in the debate was signed by the Secretary of State for Defence and increases our defence and security co-operation with Germany. Chancellor Merz recently confirmed that Germany is on a path to building the strongest army in Europe. Our partnership means the UK plays a central role in equipping Germany’s military, and supporting European security and British businesses. I am pleased that, thanks to the Trinity House agreement, the German company Rheinmetall is already investing in a new artillery gun barrel factory, which will create 400 jobs in Telford.

There is much else I could touch on across the full range of contributions that have been made. I hope all those watching overseas will see the depth of partnership right across all of the key agendas that face this Government and our partners in Germany. I will return briefly to the shadow Minister’s questions about the defence investment plan. It is a priority; it will strengthen our security and grow the economy, and Defence Ministers will be returning to Parliament in due course.

In conclusion, in an era of instability we must look to our friends. The United Kingdom and Germany will continue to work together to tackle the global challenges we face. We will keep building on the Kensington treaty and strengthening the bonds between our countries and our people. It is a partnership that keeps us safe and delivers for our friends and people on both sides.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

(Urgent Question): To ask His Majesty’s Government to give us an update on the situation with regard to the Diego Garcia American military base and the British Indian Ocean Territory, especially in light of the recent comments of the American President.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

His Majesty’s Government’s objective has been, and continues to be, to secure the long-term effective operation of the military base on Diego Garcia. It is a base that is critical for our national security and helping to keep the British people safe. It is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has enabled our shared security for nearly 60 years.

When we came into government, it was clear that our ability to maintain our interest and control in the base was under threat, so this Government had to take action to protect our military advantage and to stop our adversaries gaining a hold in such a strategically important part of the world. Refusing to act could have exposed one of our most valuable military assets to China, so, as any responsible Government would, we negotiated a deal to protect our interests.

This Government inherited a situation where the operation of the base was in immediate jeopardy, and negotiations on a transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius were well advanced by the previous Government. The deal delivers on our objective of maintaining the secure, effective operation of this vital military base. It would allow us to operate this joint UK-US base as we have always done.

This House knows that the Government worked tirelessly with the United States in developing and testing the treaty to ensure that it met our shared security needs. That is why it was supported by two Administrations and why Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth, and indeed President Trump himself, came out so strongly in favour when the treaty was signed in May last year. I can assure this House that nothing in the treaty has changed since the US Administration gave their original endorsement of the deal, and we continue to work with Mauritius and the United States.

The UK Government have great sympathy for the Chagossian community. They feel a deep emotional connection with these islands. We have been clear in our regrets for the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed from the islands in the ’60s and ’70s. We are working to resume a programme of heritage visits for members of the community.

We will continue to work with both Mauritius and the United States on the agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, we have very close relations with the United States. That relationship matters profoundly not just to our security, but to the prosperity and stability on which people here at home depend.

[Nigel Farage]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the situation in America has changed, as you know. The British Government went around America and said a whole load of things, such as that it was legally necessary to give away the Chagos Islands, which of course was not true.

“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

Capital letters from the American President—he likes capital letters in his posts. All the other arguments have been well rehearsed: the fact that it could cost us up to £50 billion; and the fact that the Chagossians were not just badly treated then, but are being badly treated now. They have resettled Île du Coin and have eviction notices from this Government.

But I can tell the House this from my trip to the Maldives at the weekend—something I had not realised, and I do not know whether the Government know it either. It is the Maldives that has the historical links with the Chagos Islands, in terms of trade and archaeology. In fact, all the French did was rename the islands from the Maldivian language. There is no basis—historically or culturally, in any way—for Mauritius to have a claim on the islands.

The Maldives is upset for two reasons. There has been great stability in the region for decades. If the treaty goes through, we will finish up with a turf war in the region between India and China. Indeed, that has already started. I wish to inform the Government that, in my opinion, we are just a few days away from the Maldives issuing a counterclaim in the International Court of Justice to say that if anybody has the right to the sovereignty of those islands, it is the Maldives and not Mauritius. I urge the Government to pause all of this.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member suggests that we have gone around the American Government. I have set out already in my response the extensive talks that we have had on this question with both Secretaries and, indeed, the President of the United States in recent months. There is no question of us going around the US Government.

The hon. Member says, “Well, what has changed?” Clearly, the view of the US President may well have changed, but the treaty has not. We have discussed the treaty in great detail in this House. The treaty emerges from talks initiated by the previous Government and completed—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I might find the chuntering on the Conservative Benches more plausible had I not been a Foreign Office diplomat during the period when, for 11 rounds, they were negotiating this deal. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches now wish to distance themselves from the 11 rounds they conducted, but let us at least—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us is sitting down, Minister, and it is not going to be me. An urgent question has been granted and other Members want to hear it. I want to hear it, I expect them to hear it, and I expect them to hear it in silence.

[Mr Falconer]

Returning to the substance of the hon. Member’s question, I would just like to remind him that if he turned up with a selfie stick to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, which is a similarly sensitive military base, he would be turned away. I do not understand his surprise, or that of those who travelled with him, that when you sought over the weekend to film a video on a sensitive military site under the control of the UK—[Interruption.] It is part of the British Indian Overseas Territory, as you know. I encourage the hon. Member, and indeed every member of the public, to check British travel advice—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Minister, you keep saying “you”. I am absolutely not responsible for, or was involved in, that filming. Please, I am being drawn into something that I do not wish to be drawn into at this stage.

[Mr Falconer]

Mr Speaker, I can only apologise. I would not seek to draw you into such a flagrant incident of ignoring travel advice.

The treaty is as it was signed. It is going through both Houses of Parliament. We are discussing it with our American colleagues. The fact that the hon. Member sought to take a selfie video on the islands does not change any of those facts.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Labour’s Chagos surrender is a shameful, unnecessary and reckless deal that will leave Britain weaker, poorer and less secure. This is not a legal necessity but a political choice made by a floundering Prime Minister, and it is British taxpayers who will be left to pay the price. No other Government would pay £35 billion to hand over their own sovereign territory and make their country less secure in the process. At a time when families are being squeezed, Ministers are asking them to subsidise another country’s budget, potentially funding tax cuts in Mauritius while taxes rise here at home. That is indefensible. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no payments will be made under the treaty of the so-called strategic partnership unless and until ratification is fully complete?

This is also a national security crisis. Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically vital military bases in the world, yet Ministers are pressing ahead before resolving the binding 1966 UK-US treaty, before addressing concerns raised by President Trump, and without guaranteeing that the lease can never collapse or be legally challenged. On the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, will the Minister confirm that article 298 provides an opt-out from compulsory dispute settlement for military activities, meaning that this is a political choice, not an unavoidable legal trap?

Will the Government suspend the Bill until the legal position with the US is settled and any amendments have been scrutinised under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Will the Minister confirm whether the Pelindaba treaty would apply if Mauritius were to take sovereignty, and if so, what iron-clad safeguards protect our nuclear deterrent?

Finally, what of the British Chagossians, some of whom are now on the islands? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no forced removal and that their rights will be protected in full? British sovereignty is not for sale, and this House should not be bounced into surrendering it.

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, I would find the Conservatives’ position more plausible had they not held 11 rounds of these negotiations. The attempt by Conservative and Reform Members to act as though there was no issue to be addressed, and as though the reason they started 11 rounds of negotiations was some sort of lack of focus—[Interruption.] If there was no issue to address, I am not sure why right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Government began the negotiations. I can assure the House that the treaty will go through the full parliamentary process in the usual way, and we are discussing these questions with the Americans in the usual way.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Risking the accusation of creeping, Mr Speaker, may I say that it is a great pity that you are not in charge of these negotiations? The deal we have come to, or are coming to, is inexplicable both in principle and in relation to the costs to my constituents. I very much doubt that at the time of the next general election, most Labour candidates, or indeed our manifesto, will point to the yearly cost of £100 million and us giving up ownership of these islands.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows it off by heart, but I will just remind him of page 120 of the Labour manifesto, which states:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

We have not even consulted the Chagossians. Will my hon. Friend not reconsider?

[Mr Falconer]

I would not like to accept the connection being made between the British Indian Ocean Territory and Gibraltar and the Falklands. We are four-square behind the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have chosen repeatedly to remain British, and long may that continue. We are abiding by our manifesto commitments. The issues around the continued operation of the base have been discussed many times in this Chamber, and they are being scrutinised in both Chambers as the treaty goes through the full process that Parliament would expect, and that will continue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.

However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.

What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I know that the hon. Member for Clacton has a number of additional jobs in combination with his responsibilities as an MP, but I had not realised, until his recent adventure, that small boat captain was among them. Maybe, as a former Royal Marine, I could help him with his navigation. Could my hon. Friend the Minister remind the hon. Member for Clacton what the penalty is for taking a trip to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend paints the hon. Member for Clacton as a captain, but I will decline the opportunity to be the sheriff on this occasion.

[Nigel Farage]

Stop the boats!

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman says “Stop the boats”, but he did take a private jet to get there, which is not quite consistent with the small boat rhetoric we usually hear from his party.

I want to be clear that there has been an attempt to land—indeed, a successful one—on part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and it was not an area fit for human habitation. British travel advice is very clear that one should not travel to that area. This House has discussed the sensitivity of this base and these islands on many occasions. I encourage everybody listening at home to attend to our travel advice, which is there for a reason.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As always, this argument depends not on gimmicks but on a detailed examination of the law. On 22 May, the Government made it clear in an answer that they were bound by the international law of the sea. However, in answer to a written question on 12 February, they said that article 298 of UNCLOS—an opt-out—still applies, so the law remains the same as in 2003 and 2020. This specific question was asked by the Opposition spokesperson, and we now want an answer. This is desperately important, because this opt-out is vital for the Falklands and for Gibraltar.

[Mr Falconer]

The Father of the House will appreciate that I am probably not in a position to give him the full detail that he would like on the provision of UNCLOS 298. I am sure that this issue can be dealt with in the passage of the Bill, outside of the context of an urgent question.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Can I ask the Minister to engage in a short thought experiment? If senior members of the Labour party, at the time they were in opposition, had gone to lobby a foreign Government against the best interests of the British security services, what would have been the reaction of the right-wing media and Opposition parties who have made this their pet project?

[Mr Falconer]

It is very good question. When I was a diplomat, we usually understood that British politicians would not seek to undermine the British Government overseas—we could argue in this place but, broadly, we would try to keep our disputes on our own islands rather than going elsewhere to prosecute them—so I am surprised to see the vigour with which those on the Opposition Benches are seeking to undermine the process we have been engaged in.

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

Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?

[Mr Falconer]

I am endeavouring to answer the urgent elements of the question and leave the questions about the treaty and its passage through the two Houses to that process, as that is my understanding of how best to deal with urgent questions. I will leave the question about the judicial review, which I understand is not urgent but is related to the passage of the treaty through the two Houses, to the Minister responsible to respond in the usual way. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I will leave the questions about how the hon. Member for Clacton spends his time to him. It was not a serious contribution to the debate on Diego Garcia and the British Indian Ocean Territory for him to travel there at the weekend. I am sure that I and many of my colleagues will be in Gorton and Denton in the coming days.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is slightly bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Clacton appear to make the argument that the Maldives should own Diego Garcia.

On the question from my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, putting aside the wider Bill, as the Minister does not wish to discuss it, does article 298 of UNCLOS exempt military bases—very simply, yes or no? The Minister is a diplomat, so he knows the answer.

[Mr Falconer]

The reason why I do not really want to talk about the Bill is that it is not my Bill, it is quite detailed and it is going through both Chambers of Parliament. I am very happy to ensure that the relevant Minister writes and provides the answer to the issue.

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Clacton about the need for proper scrutiny of the vast sums of taxpayers’ money that the Government propose to send to Mauritius, yet I am puzzled that he would travel all the way to the British Indian Ocean Territory without a permit, given that Diego Garcia is a military base. The former leader of Reform UK in Wales is spending time staring at a security fence after pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery; does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Clacton must be curious to know what it is to stare at a security fence?

[Mr Falconer]

I suspect that is a question for the hon. Member for Clacton. The record of the former Reform leader in Wales is well known and understood but, having declined to comment on the Bill, I will have to decline to comment on the goings on of the Reform party.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Reports suggest that Foreign Office officials have been instructed to act as if the treaty is in full operation. That is important, because we may be days, or even hours, away from military action against Iran. The key question is whether the US has to inform the UK and then Mauritius about wanting to use the base as a site for military operations. If it does, have the American Government approached the UK about such use?

[Mr Falconer]

For a reason that is long and well established in this House, I will not be drawn on hypotheticals or ongoing military operations, but I reassure the House and the hon. Member that the treaty is in force only once it has passed Parliament in the usual way.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The surrender of British sovereign territory began under my former party and has been made only worse by this Labour Government. It is a damning indictment of the two old parties. The Minister represents the neighbouring town to mine and, when he is not jet-setting, he presumably walks the same streets and talks to the same people. How can he, hand on heart, say that his constituents should spend up to £50 billion on this policy at a time when taxes and bills are rising and everyone in this country feels hard up?

[Mr Falconer]

I am appalled by the right hon. Member: Newark may well be a market town but Lincoln is a city, and has been for a very long time, so I invite him to withdraw that remark. [Laughter.] I do not receive a great deal of correspondence from constituents in Lincoln on this question. Mostly, my constituents prioritise Britain’s national security. They understand, through our extensive history in Scampton, Waddington and Cranwell, the important part that Lincolnshire plays in the UK’s national security, and they would expect me and the rest of the Government’s Ministers to prioritise that at all times.

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

I think the vast majority of Members of this House can agree that the arguments for giving away our Chagos islands have been threadbare at best, which leads one to believe that there must be sensitive elements to the deal. It was, then, interesting to read what the former FCDO special adviser Ben Judah wrote:

“Once you’ve been briefed, even partially, on what it”—

that is, the base on Diego Garcia—

“does the information gives you vertigo. Both now, and in government, communicating the details to the public would be violating the Official Secrets Acts.”

Given that this deal is going to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, does the Minister not believe that it should be incumbent on the Government to declassify some of the information so that we here in Parliament and the British public know what we are paying for?

[Mr Falconer]

No. We will not declassify what we do at RAF Waddington, and we will not declassify what we do in defence of the realm. It is not a serious proposition. There are obviously mechanisms, through Parliament, by which secret material can be considered through the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to use those mechanisms.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I think we are getting to the crux of this issue. The Minister was in the Foreign Office when the negotiations were taking place. He should know that the Île du Coin in the Peros Banhos atoll, where Misley Mandarin, the first minister appointed by the Chagossian people, is currently situated, is nowhere near Diego Garcia. It is over 120 miles away from the military base. It poses no threat. The people on those islands pose no threat to security or to the military base at Diego Garcia. This is a sham. This Government and the last Government have been denying the truth, which is that the Chagossian people are British and should be given the same rights of self-determination that the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians and all British overseas territories rightly deserve.

[Mr Falconer]

I am rather old-fashioned. The territory to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the British Indian Ocean Territory. The law that applies there applies to the whole of the territory. The travel advice—I am not sure the hon. Member for Clacton acquainted himself with it before he travelled—is clear on all the islands. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was making a point about geographic distance, but the sovereignty and the law applies none the less.

On the question of Chagossian representation, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is considerable disagreement within that community, and that the prime minister to whom he refers is not internationally recognised.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I genuinely have respect for the Minister, as he knows, but I am very confused as to the Government’s position. He will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the principal issues to which he refers is the fact that the previous US Administration was not comfortable with the disputed status of this territory under international law, but it is now clear that the current President of the United States has no such concerns or qualms. Given those circumstances, why are we continuing to burn capital with the current Administration, rather than saying, “Let’s put this whole thing on hold and look for a solution that might work better for both the United States Government and the interests of the United Kingdom”?

[Mr Falconer]

To be clear about the current position, there was support from the US Administration for this treaty, which has not changed. There clearly has been a statement from the President of the United States more recently that is very significant, and, as I told the House, we are now discussing those concerns with the United States directly. We have a process going through Parliament in relation to the treaty. We will bring that back to Parliament at the appropriate time. We are pausing for discussions with our American counterparts.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Whatever Members across this House might say, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has done a service to us in raising this matter today, because this is a dodgy deal founded on a bogus basis, as I shall explain. When this was introduced to the House, we were told that the Government were doing so on the basis that they would be sanctioned internationally, and, in particular, they described the most proximate and potentially serious as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In the answer to a subsequent written question, I discovered that, far from that, the stance on article 298 remains unchanged from prior declarations of 2003 and 2020. That means we can opt out. There was no obligation and no necessity.

I use these words cautiously because I know and like the Minister and I know and like the Secretary of State for Defence, but it seems to me that this House was inadvertently misled in the original statement, as is proven by subsequent answers to written questions. Will the Minister clarify that urgently, because it is a very serious parliamentary matter and a matter of national significance?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Member is a Lincolnshire colleague, so I do not like to disagree with him, including on the value of the weekend trip taken by the hon. Member for Clacton. On the question of article 298, I can hear the strength of views across the House. As I understand it, this is a particularly complex and contentious area of law. I hear the House’s desire for further clarification from the Government, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to write—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

You are the relevant Minister!

[Mr Falconer]

I am not the relevant Minister. I am the Minister for the Middle East, as hon. Member knows.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

To continue on this theme, it was only a few months ago that this House was told that if we did not approve this treaty, there would within weeks be binding international judgments against us. What international tribunal was ever capable of ruling on a military base? What tribunal were the Government talking about? We know that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction on military bases or sovereignty, so what on earth were the Government trying to persuade this House about?

[Mr Falconer]

Again, there is this desire to suggest that there was no issue, that the 11 rounds of negotiation started by the previous Government were done for no reason and that there was no substance behind our concerns. I quote from US Secretary Hegseth:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests… We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

We were engaged with a real problem, and we were seeking a real solution. If Members would like more on the particulars around article 298, which I have heard the concerns about and committed to write on, we are very happy to provide it, but this is not a new argument about this treaty.

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

How much political capital are this Government prepared to burn through with a highly transactional White House in order to secure more helpful language on the Chagos islands?

[Mr Falconer]

This Government will seek to pursue Britain’s national interests. As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are sometimes going to disagree with our friends and allies in public, but we will seek to resolve those issues in private. The principles driving the decisions of the Ministers of this Government will be Britain’s interests and our national security.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I would suggest that in future the appropriate Minister, who can actually respond to our questions, is sent to the House. Here is another straightforward question for him: have the Government declined to give the US permission to use Diego Garcia and other UK bases, including Fairford, to launch strikes on Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

If those were disparaging comments about my preparedness, I would encourage the hon. Member to listen to my previous answers, in which I said that I will not be drawn on operational questions for reasons—[Interruption.] The question was about whether a specific RAF base is being used. Would Conservative Members have been drawn on that? I think not.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

We have been saying for months that to give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege is complete and utter madness. Having rammed this through, we are now told that the Government are taking a “pause for thought”. Can the Minister explain why the Government signed off this disastrous and disastrously expensive handover agreement without having thought about it first?

[Mr Falconer]

It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.

[Mr Falconer]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.

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

I will push back slightly on what the Minister is saying. As we know, the discussion between the UK and the Government of Mauritius around the sovereignty of the Chagos islands started in January 2009 under the previous Labour Government. That was confirmed to me by the Minister for the Overseas Territories, so he might want to bear that in mind.

The question I want to ask is about Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser who, prior to being National Security Adviser was the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territories—and still is today. Prior to being appointed on 6 September, he conducted meetings with the FCDO. He confirmed that he had already seen the deal prior to being in post and was then given a hard copy of the deal when he reached Port Louis. When did he attend Port Louis? Was it prior to his appointment as the PM’s special envoy? What security clearance did he have when he saw the Chagos deal for the first time?

[Mr Falconer]

On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.

The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member usually thanks me for my tone; I will reflect on that afterwards. He asked me about sensitive security discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom; I am not really in a position to be drawn. We do discuss questions of middle east security with the United States. The Foreign Secretary set out clearly at the Security Council the malign influence that Iran—I think that is what the hon. Member was referring to—has played in the region and our efforts to ensure that it does not get a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic solution is the most desirable one, and that is what we are working towards.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.

[Mr Falconer]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.

As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.

Gaza Healthcare System

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister referenced the aid that—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

He is the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Champion]

The shadow Minister—thanks. Is the shadow Minister aware that the aid that is getting in includes things such as chocolate bars, and not items that are so desperately required to address the medical needs? He speaks about volume, but we are talking about the substance of what is getting in—the lifesaving aid, not the peripheries that people are making money from.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate. I will not initially take interventions, as there have been many questions asked of me. I will endeavour to make some progress through them before I do.

Before I start my speech, I would like to say that, given the prominent reference that has been made throughout the debate to the work of British doctors and MSF overseas, I should declare that a close family member is one of those doctors working with MSF overseas. For transparency, I want to make that clear.

I would also like to take the opportunity in setting the context—as this is the first opportunity I have had since recess—to make a brief comment about events in the west bank. I want to condemn in the strongest terms the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that have introduced sweeping extensions to Israel’s control over the west bank and accelerated illegal settlement activity. The UK is clear that Israel’s illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. We will take concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter settlement expansion and to challenge policies and threats of forcible displacements and annexation. That is important context for today’s discussion.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the importance of the inextricable link between Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. The UK has recognised a Palestinian state; all three of those territories are part of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, it is right to treat the children of Gaza in Palestine when they can be, but there are three major restrictions on their ability to be treated where they live: equipment, supplies and personnel.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who referred to her time as an aid worker in Gaza, knows well, there are many talented Palestinian doctors. I was asked about our advocacy on behalf of those doctors. I will not reiterate, having provided an account to the Chamber of our work in that regard. Palestinian doctors alone are not sufficient, given the healthcare demands on Gaza. It is vital that doctors from outside Palestine are able to access Gaza to provide support. They can do so effectively only, first, if the Israelis allow them and, secondly, if they have the hospitals and equipment to provide healthcare. There has been insufficient progress in that regard and we continue to make those points clearly.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will not.

In response to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about our advocacy on these questions with the Israeli ambassador, I am keen to be grounded in up-to-date facts. Although the Israeli ambassador is no longer in place, having left her post last year, I did, of course, summon her in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza. The Israeli Government are currently represented by a chargé to be followed by the appointment of a future ambassador.

I will return to the tangible questions. I am grateful for the recognition from many contributors of the work the Government have done, including the medical evacuation of Gazan children to the UK. I have met some of those children, as I know many others have. It is so moving to see the change to their lives as a result of them and their families being here. They are, of course, a tiny subsection of the children in Gaza who need care and I have already discussed the restrictions on providing that care in Gaza.

It is obviously right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, that, where we cannot provide care in Palestine, care is provided in the region. We have provided that care and I have seen it with my own eyes in Egypt, particularly in the Sinai in al-Arish. There are welcome improvements for Gazans requiring medical assistance to cross into Egypt via the Rafah crossing and be provided with aid, but restrictions remain. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the significant risks for those leaving to seek medical aid elsewhere, fearing that they will not be able to return home. We continue to advocate on those questions.

To respond to the shadow Minister’s questions about the numbers, we have provided £40 million of aid for health. That most recently included a £4 million Disasters Emergency Committee appeal over Christmas. I was very moved by the generosity of the British people to match the Government’s contribution. I am grateful for the continued efforts of many of our constituents across the country and Members here today to raise these issues. We provided £3 million to the WHO to support the Egyptian healthcare system to provide the assistance I just described.

Let me turn to the questions about deregistration. As many Members noted, there is a deadline of 1 March. The shadow Minister sought to provide some clarity about the limited number of NGOs affected, but I would point out that many of them are reputable British organisations. We opposed that legislation when it was first proposed and oppose it now. We need to see a solution to the issue. Many NGOs, including MSF, which has been the subject of a lot of commentary to this morning, have sought to engage with the requests of the Israeli Government. There have been many genuine efforts to engage with the Israeli Government on that question, including by the British Government. It is vital, for all of the reasons that others have put so articulately, that those aid agencies can operate and continue their vital work.

I was asked a range of other questions that went slightly beyond healthcare. When colleagues ask me to make more than statements, I remind them that we have made more than statements: I am the first middle east Minister since the Balfour declaration who can say in this place that we recognise a Palestinian state. I have already described some of the concrete actions taken to truly transform the lives of Gazan children.

[Apsana Begum]

The Minister mentioned the deadline for the deregistration of NGOs. If that deadline passes and there has not been a change of direction from the Israeli authorities and Government, what concrete steps will the UK Government take?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure my colleagues are tired of me refusing to be drawn on concrete steps in advance of taking them, but we treat this question with the utmost seriousness, as we have done all through these discussions. We will of course respond should the already significant restrictions on NGOs, including well-respected British NGOs, further tighten in the days ahead.

I will return to some of the other questions put to me. There is a UK contribution to the CMCC, and we are seeking through that work to ensure that the aid access increases into Gaza, and that some of the vital governance questions for the future are addressed. I am pleased to reassure the shadow Minister that we raise those points on a regular basis; I raised them with Palestinian counter- parts just last week.

There has been some important progress on a whole range of Palestinian governance questions. I think the shadow Minister referred to some of the so-called “pay for slay” arrangements; there has been an important announcement from the Palestinian Authority ending that practice. There were important announcements, including on a commitment to a demilitarised Palestinian state, in July during the two-state solution conference, which I was proud to be a part of. We will continue to raise those questions.

Nobody is under any illusions about the scale of the threat that Hamas poses. We continue to be committed to, and to discuss with our counterparts, fully decommissioning Hamas’s weapons and ensuring that there is Palestinian leadership, including through the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which has been implemented in recent weeks. We will continue our efforts in those areas.

[Melanie Ward]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I cannot, because I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud two minutes to wind up at the end.

I am sure that we will return to these questions over the coming weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) pointed out, there are pressing deadlines ahead. Given the importance of the issues we are discussing, in recent days the Foreign Secretary travelled to chair the most recent session of the UN Security Council on the middle east as its president. We will continue to give these questions our full attention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the opportunity to speak to them.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on opening this debate and on his contribution as the chair of the APPG. I thank every Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction. These are incredibly important questions at a moment when questions of international justice are very much discussed, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I really do insist on accuracy in these questions.

To answer the question straightforwardly, as I did at length on 15 September in front of the Business and Trade Committee, the British Government have conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with our international legal obligations. As I said yesterday, or the day before, from this Dispatch Box, we consider our international legal obligations to be of the utmost priority. Many hon. Members have asked me to attend to my conscience over the course of the last 90 minutes. I am confident that I, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are serious about our international legal obligations and serious about the process and rigour that underpin them. I have confidence in that judgment not only because of the extensive scrutiny that it has received from the House, but because these questions have been tested by our own courts—most recently by the Court of Appeal in November and before that in September, when it considered the process of assessment explicitly.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

The problem that we have is this question of accountability and transparency. Our domestic courts do not have the right footing to test whether the Government have truly got this right. It therefore falls to this House—to us as Members of Parliament—to assess whether the Government are right. The problem is that we do not have the details. We do not have the methodology. Who assesses it? At what time and date was it done? Will the Minister commit to at least disclosing that information?

[Mr Falconer]

I think I answered something like 105 questions related to these issues in front of the Select Committee in September. I am always grateful for the opportunity to describe matters in the House in greater detail, but, given the shortness of time, I might just turn to a few other questions of accuracy.

First, the International Court of Justice as not yet made a finding of genocide. It has made provisional orders. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the scourge of antisemitism, but I do not agree with the question that he raises about the independence and impartiality of the ICJ. It is a vital international institution. We need to see it do its work. We undermine it if we seek to jump to the end of that process. It will be for the Court to make a judgment. It is, of course, for the Government to consider our obligations and to make an assessment of risks, which we have already done.

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

Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has paid close attention to these matters both over the past 18 months and before. I will answer his question, but we are under the pressure of time.

Let me also be clear, for the sake of accuracy, that it is simply not credible to suggest that the policy of this Government in relation to these issues is the same as the policy of the last Government. That, I am sure, was obvious from some of the remarks of the shadow Foreign Minister. I have stood at this Dispatch Box to recognise the Palestinian state and to announce sanctions three times, including against Israeli Ministers. Does that mean that the obligation on this Government to do everything that we can to address the horrors of Gaza is discharged? No, it does not, but we do the House no service if we pretend that the policy that I have been responsible for as the Middle East Minister was the same as the policy under the Conservative Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) asks a good question about the ICJ advisory opinion. Over the course of the last 18 months, the British Government have clearly made a fundamental change on their view of the legal position in relation to Israel and Palestine. We now recognise Palestine. It is in the context of Britain having changed its policy very significantly that we want to ensure that we respond to what is a far-reaching advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness that it deserves. I know that I am testing my hon. Friend’s patience and the patience of the House with that answer, and I am sure that I will return soon to this Chamber, but I would not want to give the House or the public the impression that we have not taken significant steps in the course of that 18 months.

I would also like to bring to the attention of this House some of the recent developments in Gaza. These legal questions are incredibly important, and they have been considered by both the courts and the relevant Select Committees.

[Fleur Anderson]

On recent developments, my grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed a cemetery in Gaza containing graves of allied troops from both world wars. Would the Minister condemn that?

[Mr Falconer]

I would. From my own constituency, there are two privates—Private William Jordan and Private Wilfred Ogden—both in that cemetery who have now had their graves defaced.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier on in the debate I referred to several organisations and individuals. Due to time constraints, I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interests of clarity and to keep the record of this House correct, I now seek to set the record straight.

I referred to the International Court of Justice. I clarified that it has found a plausible risk of genocide, triggering the clearest legal duty on all states to prevent it. I then referred to UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, and the UN commission of inquiry. They have all warned of genocidal acts and catastrophic intent. I referred to the 600 lawyers—

Armed Conflict: Children

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I hope Members will bear with me; a lot has been raised. I will make progress covering Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, and make some general remarks on children in armed conflicts before taking interventions, which I will endeavour to do before the end of the debate.

We are clearly witnessing a deeply troubling trend. Not only is conflict spreading but, as many Members have said, it is becoming more dangerous for children. We must keep their welfare in the spotlight as we respond to these crises. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) would have been glad to participate today, but he is unavoidably travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, and will try to respond to them in the order that they spoke.

According to the United Nations Secretary-General, grave violations against children surged by 25% in 2024. Children are being killed, maimed, abducted and abused at staggering levels. That is, clearly, absolutely indefensible. We will keep pushing, loudly and consistently, to protect children wherever we can. We are focused on preventing these crimes, stopping them when they happen and pushing armed groups to follow international law. We are a party to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and we take our responsibility seriously. We play an active role in the UN Security Council working group on children and armed conflict, calling out abuses and pushing for accountability. We will keep championing the UN children and armed conflict mandate as well as UN monitoring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) pointed out that, this year, we are spending £450,000 on UNICEF’s monitoring and reporting mechanism. That is on top of £250,000 spent last year. We are working to boost global efforts and, on the question raised by many hon. Members about the Government’s strategy, we are looking closely at whether a dedicated children in conflict strategy is the right next step. I can confirm to the House that that work is well underway. We are also considering how we can strengthen our expertise on children in armed conflict through developing a new practical toolkit for officials.

I will turn to the specific conflict zones that have been raised. I must, I am afraid, repudiate almost everything said by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan). We have been many things, but silent is not one of them. We have not looked away; we have taken tangible action in relation to the crisis in Gaza from the very moment that I became a Minister and we became the Government. I have seen for myself the horrific impact of that conflict on children in Gaza; I have seen it in the region, and on the faces of the children who I am proud we have assisted here in the UK.

I was asked an important question by one of my hon. Friends about the partial opening of the Rafah crossing. At the moment, that is being prioritised for those most medically vulnerable. There are still small numbers crossing on foot—mostly into Egypt, although there is some two-way traffic. It is absolutely vital that that crossing opens to the scale that it operated at before June 2024, and we need to see all the crossings opened so that medical assistance and vital reconstruction materials are in place to provide children in Gaza with the support that they need.

We cannot shy away from the scale of devastation in Gaza. Our assessment is that, since October 2023, at least 20,000 children have been killed. That includes 100 children who have been killed since the ceasefire was announced nearly four months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) pointed out, thousands more children are now living with life-changing injuries. It is a grim statistic that Gaza now has more child amputees than anywhere in the world.

Unexploded ordnance will continue to threaten lives even after the ceasefire, and it also prevents access to humanitarian assistance. That is why the Foreign Secretary has announced £4 million for the UN Mine Action Service in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian early recovery support for Palestine as part of our £116 million package, but clearly the questions of access that so many hon. Members touched on are absolutely vital. About £10 million of that will go straight to UNICEF for infant formula, clean water, sanitation, mental health support, and assistance for families.

To date, UK-Med teams have supported more than 950,000 patients with consultations. We have provided nearly £30 million to UNRWA to try to keep education and healthcare moving. I will not provide too much commentary on the status of UNRWA, but I recognise the points that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), made about the education curriculum. We are engaged with UNRWA on those questions, which we have discussed with it and indeed with the Palestinian Authority.

I want to address the deeply concerning reports of mistreatment of Palestinian children in detention. We continue to raise the matter repeatedly with Israel. Due process must be followed when children are detained, in line with international justice standards. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which has extensive experience of these issues, must have full access to all detention facilities.

As so many Members rightly pointed out, the crisis in Sudan is destroying the lives of children. We are showing the UK leadership that the Conservative shadow Minister asked for. This morning, after visiting the Chad-Sudan border, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £20 million in new support for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence and for women and girls facing violence. Our humanitarian support should help more than 2.5 million people to access food, clean water, medicine and shelter. UNICEF has grimly assessed that nearly 90% of Sudan’s school-aged children are no longer in school due to the conflict. Some 200,000 children in Sudan and neighbouring countries have received help to stay in school, but knowing the region as I do, I know the extent of the trauma that those children will be suffering.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has unleashed some of the most shocking abuses that we have seen. Reports show that around 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory. Another 1.7 million children live under occupation, and many are subject to efforts to erase their identity. The shadow Foreign Office Minister asked about who our primary partners are. We have committed nearly £3 million to help Ukraine to return these children home and support their recovery. Our primary partner is the Ukrainian Government, but we work internationally with our partners. The Minister for Europe is chairing such a meeting this afternoon to ensure there is continued attention on these issues.

I want to touch briefly on wider issues, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—

[Jim Shannon]

What about Nigeria?

[Mr Falconer]

I will come to the matter of Nigeria in a second.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale touched on the importance of explosive weapons and de-mining, particularly in relation to children. I want to be clear that we stand firmly behind the agreements that will reduce these threats: the mine ban treaty, the convention on cluster munitions and the convention on certain conventional weapons. We also back the explosive weapons in populated areas declaration and the safe schools declaration. We are funding de-mining and education on the risks of explosives in 12 countries including Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan. Since 2024, we have helped clear 26 million square metres of land, helping to make life safer for more than 94,000 children.

Where we can, including in Nigeria, we seek to help children injured by war to ensure that that aid reaches all children affected by conflict across lines, including in Nigeria and the conflicts that I have referenced. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn for bringing us together for this debate. I know the degree of her personal commitment to these issues, and indeed the commitment of my other Labour colleagues who have worked on these issues both in this place and in their previous lives. This work could not matter more. We will continue to push for action to protect children caught up in warzones, because no child should have their young life wrecked by conflict.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered children and armed conflict.

Iran

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Iran’s horrific attacks on protesters have shocked the world. In recent days, the scale of the violence and brutality has become clearer. Reports suggest that many thousands of people across Iran have been killed, and many more arrested, in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There has been a range of estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we have also condemned and which has only recently started to relax, makes it impossible at the moment to reach a reliable figure. As one young Iranian woman chillingly told the BBC:

“We all know someone who was killed”.

What is clear from the reports is the scale of the killing, the brutality of the crackdown and the bravery of the protesters. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Iranian people have shown extreme courage in the face of brutality and repression.

We condemn these horrific attacks on those exercising the right to peaceful protest in the strongest possible terms. This Government committed to the House that we would hold the Iranian authorities accountable, and that is exactly what we are doing. Yesterday, we announced a sweeping package of sanctions against the Iranian authorities for a number of serious human rights violations; this includes the designations of the Minister of the Interior, police chiefs and prolific Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members for their role in the recent brutality against protesters. We continue to work with our international partners to tackle the threat posed by Iran and to hold the Iranian regime to account by a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on 23 January. We are pleased that the council has voted to extend the independent fact-finding mission to collect the evidence of the authorities’ human rights violations, and we will continue to support those efforts.

We continue to monitor developments closely and will not cease in our demands to Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. We are also continuing to take robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats. Those threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to improve regional stability and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.

[Priti Patel]

The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks?

The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise?

This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.

Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.

The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.

The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,

“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.

We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?

[Mr Falconer]

I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable.

The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Falconer]

I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary some of the steps we are taking. I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for the sanctions package that we announced yesterday. I can confirm that we continue to be in very urgent talks with a whole range of our partners about developments in Iran. We must see the fundamental rights of Iranians respected.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for coming to the House, and for his excellent work and that of his officials in bringing forward further sanctions yesterday and last week. I also welcome the current position in the very, very sensitive discussions and talks, and commend our European partners, Canadians and all others involved. Could the Minister speak with Home Office officials or his ministerial counterparts about the sophistication required for certain asylum applications that might come forward in the coming months, so that we can ensure that we send the loud message that there will be no asylum for those who have been part of the recent crackdown?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House would expect, my hon. Friend asks an important question. I will take it up with my ministerial colleagues.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Within hours of the Hamas massacres, protesters and marchers were organising against Israel. Yet here we are, weeks later, when the Iranian regime is murdering and torturing its citizens by the tens of thousands—still no marches, still no protests. What does the Minister think that says about the prejudices of such activists?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman—a former Deputy Prime Minister—pays great attention to developments in the region. As such, he will know that there have been protests outside the Iranian embassy and very disturbing counter-protests in support of the regime’s crackdown. I find it absolutely staggering that anyone is expressing that view on the streets of Britain in the face of the horrors we are seeing.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

This is an evil regime that is murdering and torturing tens of thousands of its own people. I am pleased that the Chamber is giving this matter regular attention. President Trump promised that help was on the way to the protesters. I want to add my voice to those asking that the British Government hear the calls of the protesters and think very carefully about how we can give genuine support to these remarkable, brave people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protesters are incredibly courageous. One can hardly bear to hear the accounts from within Iran from those who have been able to circumvent the internet ban. Our thoughts are with the people there, and the actions we are taking, including those we announced yesterday, are a demonstration of Britain’s continued commitment to them.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsibility of ISIS-style terrorists. Will the Minister continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists, and all those who are seeking to uncover the evidence to demonstrate who in the Iranian regime is truly responsible for this and potentially to refer them to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?

[Mr Falconer]

It was so important for us to ensure that the independent fact-finding mission was voted through by the United Nations. That means it can continue its work, and then we will see who really was responsible for the deaths.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this matter and for his statement. I want to raise the testimony of a constituent, a British-Iranian woman who fled Iran after being arrested three times for campaigning for the rights of women and children. She was raped and tortured in detention. Following the latest events, she received only brief calls from family before all communications were cut. Her relatives report people being shot in the streets, women and children being killed, bodies being withheld unless families pay large sums—sums based on the amount of bullets that are being used to kill—and almost no access to food, water, medicine, power or cash for those living in fear. What are the Government doing to document and preserve that evidence and testimony; is the status of the Iranian embassy and regime-linked assets in the UK under active review; and how are we supporting British-Iranian families who fear the worst for those they love back home?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the testimony of his constituent, and I know that there are others across the country with similar experiences. We are aware of a range of reports along the lines that he describes. I have set out some of the steps that we will be taking in relation to the evidence collection that he described. We view the role of the independent fact-finding mission as vital in providing a United Nations-backed method by which the evidence can be preserved and accountability can be seen.

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

In response to the unilateral US action in Venezuela, the Government merely said that they were waiting to establish all the facts. Meanwhile President Trump said that he does not need international law, and that he is constrained only by his own morality or conscience. In advance of any US unilateral action against Iran, will the Minister reassure the House that this time the Government will speak up for the use of force when it is in compliance with international law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As the House knows, the Government are a strong supporter of international law. Everything we do is consistent with that principle, but for the reasons that I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I will not be commenting on hypothetical scenarios.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the sanctions that have been announced, including those on prolific IRGC members. At the weekend, residents in Huddersfield took part in demonstrations to highlight the brutal repression in the region, particularly that of the Kurdish community in Iran and Syria. As my constituents have said to me, many of the UK-Iranian community are concerned for their safety and the safety of their families in Iran. What assurances can the Minister provide for my residents, and what else can he say about making sure that we proscribe the IRGC?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents in Huddersfield. She referred to her Kurdish community in Huddersfield, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among the Kurdish communities across the region. As we have discussed events in north-east Syria recently in this House, I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me if I pass just brief comment on that. I am glad that, since that discussion, there has been a ceasefire in relation to north-east Syria, which is a source of considerable reassurance to those living there. On my hon. Friend’s important question about the proscription of the IRGC, we are committed to the findings of the Hall review, which set out the need to have a state-analogous process for proscription, and we are committed to bringing forward legislation to achieve that.

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

Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.

[Mr Falconer]

I want the House to be in absolutely no doubt that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety in the UK. The sanctions that we announced on Monday included one on the Interior Minister. There is no pulling of punches by the British Government in response to the sanctions. I say gently to the right hon. Member and to those on the Conservative Benches that we are moving with considerably more alacrity on these questions than they did during their period in government.

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

The Minister is right when he says that our constituents who have relatives in Iran—relatives who are also British-Iranians themselves—are looking to us for clear action. I must press him on this point about proscription. He is aware, as has already been said, that the European Union has added the IRGC to its terrorist list, as has Australia, Canada and America. When I raised this with the Foreign Secretary three weeks ago, she talked about the importance of our taking action in concert with our allies. Given that our allies have already proscribed the IRGC, can he at least give us some comfort that that legislation will come forward forthwith and that this is an urgent priority for the Government?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I want to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. It is Home Office legislation, and it will need to go through the House in the usual way, but we are treating it as a matter of urgency. As the House has heard, the reason that the Jonathan Hall review is important is that it addresses itself precisely to the question of the difference between a state actor and a terrorist. I was the head of the terrorism response team in the Foreign Office and I know the difference in threat profile between an actor that is state-based and one that is not. That it is why it is important that we get this legislation right.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

There is a very real human cost to the violence used by the Iranian authorities. As many as 6,000 protesters—people like me and you, Mr Speaker—have been killed and murdered and more than 10,000 have been arrested. There is a real risk of extrajudicial execution. Political prisoners, including children, are being tortured in prison. Will the Government reassure us that they are having conversations with the US authorities ahead of the US-Iran talks, and making it clear to them that the lives and safety of those protesters, particularly the ones who are currently in prison, is of immense importance in the negotiations as they go forward?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm that we are in regular contact with our US counterparts and others on all of those questions.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by a number of Members, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). I continue to advocate for ways in which the west can degrade the ability of the IRGC to kill protesters, such as targeted strikes on arms depots. I wish though to turn my remarks to the matter of proscription.

I am grateful for the Government moving forward with ways to look at proscribing the IRGC, but there is also the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which is linked to the Iranian regime, according to The Times and others. Just this weekend, it was seen on the streets of London with placards and chants in support of the Ayatollah. Even more depressing than that, I have heard reports that Iranian freedom protesters, including women, have been beaten up when they have attempted to hold these people to account outside their own centre. When Ministers are considering this question of proscription, I ask them to look at other groups such as the HRC, which operates under the guise of standing up for human rights when they are doing anything but that.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on Iran and for his question. We are aware of the reports of pro-regime protests in the UK. I cannot comment, as he would expect, on the process of sanction or proscription review, but I have taken his remarks to heart.

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

I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I do not want to be drawn into speculating about regime change in Iran. The question at the moment is the rights of the Iranian protesters, which we want to see protected. We are horrified to see those rights violated in the way reports suggest, and that is where I want to focus my remarks today.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

In the past few weeks I have had heartbreaking conversations with Iranian and British-Iranian constituents, and letters from many more. They have fragments of information about what is coming out of Iran, and those fragments include many first-hand examples of horrific violence, killing and relatives unaccounted for. I am glad to hear about the step-up in sanctions and the commitment regarding the IRGC.

I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister could give on what we are doing with our allies to break the internet blackout so that we can get information out of Iran about what is really happening, not only for evidence purposes in future but to help the families who I represent find out what has happened to their loved ones.

[Mr Falconer]

I know that there is a large British-Iranian community in Kensington, and I join my hon. Friend in sharing in its anguish. The most important step needed is for the Iranian authorities to take the decision to lift the internet blockade to allow the Iranian people access to information, which is their right. I will not comment any further on some of the operational elements that my hon. Friend touches on, but that access is vital. I will repeat today, from the Dispatch Box, the call that I made when last we discussed this: the Iranians must allow their people access to the internet.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

In answer to questions from Members on both sides of the House in relation to the proscription of the IRGC, the Minister has rightly said that he wants to see that legislation come forward, but we still do not have a fixed timetable. Given that the EU, the United States, Canada and Australia have proscribed the IRGC, does he not think that it shows Iran incredible weakness from the United Kingdom for us not to be following suit? Furthermore, given that Hezbollah were part of the Government of Lebanon when the previous UK Government proscribed them, does he not think that there is plenty of precedent to just get on and do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I do not think that the Iranian Government’s interpretation of the actions of the British Government in recent weeks is one of weakness. The sanctions package announced on Monday was far-ranging and follows a whole range of actions, some of which I described in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary.

The fair point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, given the urgency of the situation, are we taking all of the steps that we need to take? We think that the Hall review is a substantial contribution to the question about the risks of the IRGC; we want to follow it carefully and make sure that we do this properly. That does not mean that we cannot act swiftly through our sanctions regime in the way that we announced yesterday.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in recent weeks. However, it is also important that those who do Iran’s bidding on the streets of the UK—particularly in targeting peaceful protesters—are held to account. I welcomed, last year, the UK’s decision to put Iran on the foreign influence registration scheme. Will the Minister update us on the impact that that is having on the crackdown that Iran is trying to carry out on our own streets?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the question. Hostile states have sought to take advantage of the freedoms in this country by failing to register agents on our soil who are seeking to act on their behalf in whatever way. The foreign influence registration scheme means that it is now an offence for someone not to declare that they are acting as an agent for another country. It may well be that those seeking to act for Iran do not register under FIRS. If they do not, they are committing an offence, and I have every confidence in our services and police force that such people will be found.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I share the huge concern and outrage expressed across the House at the brave Iranian citizens who have been so brutally repressed by the regime. It is essential that the UK does everything possible, within the framework of international law, to support their struggle for freedom. I welcome the new sanctions that the Minister has announced on the Iranian leadership. On those principles of international law, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not support or enable in any way, including through intelligence sharing, any violation of international law by the United States or any other power in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our commitments to international law, and I will not provide hypotheticals.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcements about new sanctions on individuals responsible for the brutal treatment of protesters and the vile murder of 30,000 people, but human rights abuses on this scale are never the responsibility of a handful of individuals. They are systemic; they are state-wide actions. That is why I would like to press the Minister again about the decision to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I know that the legislation would need to be drawn up carefully, but this House rapidly passed emergency legislation to save British Steel and, more recently, to update medical training regulations. Can the Minister confirm that we are moving at pace to introduce emergency legislation that fully proscribes the IRGC? Can he also update us about the UK’s efforts to bring this matter to the UN Security Council?

[Mr Falconer]

As I set out in my statement, we brought this matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we will continue to raise it with the United Nations, in the way that Members would expect. I want to reassure the House that I understand the points that hon. Members from across the House are making, but we have already sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC. The sanctions that we have announced are far-reaching, as indeed are the foreign influence registration scheme steps. We will bring forward legislation, but I would not wish to get ahead of the Leader of the House when it comes to setting out the timetable.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The IRGC and the so-called morality police have murdered 30,000 people on the streets of Iran. They pursued the wounded to their home, or to hospital, and murdered them. Given the length of time we have had to consider the proscription of the IRGC in its entirety, and given that we now have clear evidence of our own allies proscribing the IRGC in its entirety, why are the Government are not bringing forward such a proscription? Just before the weekend, I contributed to a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, in which Members offered to support the fast-tracking of legislation through both Houses. The will is there on both sides of the House. Obviously the Minister cannot answer this at the Dispatch Box now, but will he go back to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and ensure that this gets done?

[Mr Falconer]

I hear the passion in the hon. Gentleman’s voice. We are taking this issue incredibly seriously. This is a far-reaching sanctions package, and we will come back to the House once the Leader of the House is in a position to set out the timetable for the legislation.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the brutal, violent and illegal repression of Iranian civilians by this regime shows just how difficult it is for civilian populations to rise up against their oppressors, as is so often demanded by people around the world? Would he pay tribute to the young women who have been protesting on the streets with great courage at this incredibly difficult time for their country?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure many Members of the House have seen the pictures of female protesters on the streets of Iran, not just in Tehran but across the country. It is impossible not to be moved by their bravery, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to reflect on that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Thankfully, Iranian influence is in decline in the south Caucasus and central Asia, but one country in which it seems to be in the ascendancy is Georgia. Does the Minister share my concern about allegations that there are up to 13,000 Iranian companies registered in Georgia, with 700 registered to one small building in one small village? There is potential sanctions-busting and sanctions-evasion activity going on there. That money feeds into the Iranian regime and funds its malign and malevolent activity across the world. Will the Minister take that up with the Foreign Secretary, and investigate whether Iran is funding its regime by using Georgia as a back door to the Black sea?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable expertise. He will know that I will not comment on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but I will say that Iran’s influence in its near abroad and beyond has usually proven to be malign. We can see the long scars of Iran’s influence in Lebanon, in Gaza and in a whole range of contexts, so I warn all our allies to be very careful about their relationships with Iran.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister will be aware of my trip to Jordan last year, as part of a parliamentary delegation of colleagues from across this House. It was clear from speaking to members of the Jordanian legislature that Iran’s malign impact on the region’s security and stability is of great concern to Jordan. Can he provide me with reassurance that the Government are working with regional partners, such as Jordan, to ensure that Iran’s malign and malevolent influence on the region is withstood and held back?

[Mr Falconer]

I was interested to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit to Oman. The Kingdom of Jordan is one of our closest allies in the region. We discuss these issues regularly with the Jordanians, and other regional powers that are affected, and I was conducting that business this morning.

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

The IRGC navy is busy practising the rapid deployment of sea mines, presumably with a view to closing the strait of Hormuz, as it did between 1980 and 1988. What assessment have the Government made of the threat that that poses to our critical national interests? Has he considered the prepositioning of our autonomous mine-hunting capability, which entered service at the beginning of last year?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who was my predecessor, for his questions, but for reasons that he will understand, I will not give the precise low-down on our defence assets. I think he refers to the regular exercises that Iran has conducted in the strait. We are a maritime nation, as are many of the Gulf nations, and we take questions about the free passage of trade with the seriousness that they require.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

As well as funding and fuelling violence across the world, the Iranian regime is once again showing its brutality on the streets. Like many hon. Members, I have had constituents in my surgery in tears; they are living in constant distress and fear about what might have happened to their families. Will the Minister outline how this Government are truly doing all that they can to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian regime, including with regards to embassy arrangements? Does he agree that a united and co-ordinated message must go out from us and our allies, saying that the regime will pay a price for this horrendous violence?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend reflects the feelings of the whole House about the issues that we are describing. He asks me to comment on embassy arrangements. I can confirm to the House that while we did withdraw staff from our embassy in Tehran temporarily, they have now returned, and our embassy is functioning. Our embassy operates under the same restrictions that the rest of Iran currently operates under. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it is a source of real anguish to British-Iranians that we cannot provide consular assistance in Iran in the way that we can in other nations, particularly at a moment of such acute restrictions. However, our ambassador is back in Tehran, alongside his team, and we will do everything that we can.

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

China has no regard for human rights whatsoever, and it is known to be trading with Iran, which is enabling Iran to slaughter its own citizens. What assessment is the Foreign Office making of the details of that trade, and what action is it taking?

[Mr Falconer]

I will not speculate on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we have kept a close eye on Iran’s interactions with other states, including both China and Russia. This Government imposed sanctions on Iran for supplying weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine. Given that Iran is conducting such a brutal crackdown on its own people, all members of the Security Council will wish to consider the nature of their relationships with it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his tone in speaking about this incredibly grave situation. Some 6,500 people have been killed by headshots—they have been blinded and murdered—and thousands have been injured. It is estimated that some 60,000 people have been imprisoned. While it is positive news that there may be talks between our closest ally, the USA, and the despotic regime in Iran, we can never be complacent about the situation. Will the Minister press to secure the release of political prisoners and detained protesters? Will he further ensure that access is granted to the prisons, so that they can be assessed, and to the victims of the protest response?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern about these issues. As he would expect, when it comes to the Iranian authorities, we have been focused on ensuring consular access for our nationals who have been detained, but he raises important questions about basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, access to a lawyer and access for families. We call on the Iranians to show those basic courtesies to their own people.

Syria

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Recent events in Syria have been deeply concerning, with violent clashes in Aleppo and across north-east Syria, mass displacement of civilians, and a deteriorating humanitarian situation. I wanted to update the House on the latest developments, and the action the UK is taking alongside our international partners.

On 6 January, clashes broke out between Syrian Government forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Aleppo. The violence quickly spread into the north-east, with Government forces taking control of swathes of former SDF territory. This escalation led to an estimated 146,000 people being displaced from their homes and a severe deterioration in the humanitarian situation across north-east Syria, including Kobane. It also threatened the security of facilities holding Daesh detainees.

UK actions

The UK has been actively engaging with the Syrian Government and the SDF, calling for both sides to stop the violence, resume dialogue, protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian access. The Foreign Secretary has relayed these messages directly to Syria’s Foreign Minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, and highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of Kurdish and other minority communities.

At the UN Security Council, on 22 January, we reiterated this position and the need for a permanent ceasefire, whilst pressing council members to offer their collective support to ensure that Syria continues to work towards a more stable and peaceful future. Following a number of US brokered ceasefires between the Syrian Government and the SDF, the latest ceasefire has now been extended to 8 February.

Humanitarian corridors have also been established to the Kurdish towns of Kobane and Hasakah which means that lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including UK supplies, can now get in. Through our humanitarian partners, we have so far provided £2.74 million of aid to those affected by violence and displacement in both Aleppo and north-east Syria, which is supporting the deployment of medical teams and the delivery of shelter and relief items, fuel, winter supplies and cash transfers.

We have been in regular contact with our international partners to discuss the situation, and agree plans to mitigate shared security risks, support ongoing dialogue and respond to the humanitarian crisis. The Foreign Secretary spoke to her American, French and German partners on 26 January, and agreed a joint statement, which is reproduced in full below:

“We welcome the 15-day extension of the ceasefire between the Syrian Government Forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces announced on 24 January. We call upon all parties to strictly adhere to the ceasefire and to exercise their utmost restraint. We urge all external parties to join us in pursuit of peace and de-escalation of violence.

We reiterate the obligation of all parties to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. We welcome the establishment of humanitarian corridors to ensure the safe and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance. We emphasise that these corridors must be maintained, and basic services resumed in the city of Kobane.

We also welcome the vital role played by partners, including Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, in addressing the challenges posed by ISIS.

We urge all parties to swiftly agree to a permanent ceasefire, and to resume as soon as possible negotiations aiming at the peaceful and sustainable integration of North-East Syria into a unitary and sovereign state that effectively respects and protects the rights of all its citizens, based on the 18 January 2026 agreement, as the most effective path to stability in Syria.

We reiterate the need to maintain and focus collective efforts on the fight against ISIS. We call upon all parties to avoid any security vacuum in and around ISIS detention centres. To address these concerns, we agreed to promptly convene a meeting of the international coalition against ISIS.

We reaffirm our support for an inclusive political transition in Syria, which protects the rights of all Syrians, and emphasise that the stabilisation of North-East Syria through peaceful means constitutes a central priority for preventing a resurgence of terrorism and for regional security.

We underline readiness to support and monitor, together with regional and international partners, the implementation of agreements between the parties which aim at a peaceful and sustainable integration of North-East Syria into a unitary, inclusive and sovereign state, effectively protecting the rights of all its citizens.”

Conclusion

This is a significant moment for the future stability of Syria, and we are using every diplomatic lever to press both parties to agree to a permanent ceasefire and resume formal negotiations to integrate north-east Syria into a unified sovereign state. In our engagement with the Syrian Government, we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition, and we will continue to do so, underlining the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians, including the Kurdish community.

We always knew that Syria would face significant challenges as it sought to transition to a new path after almost 14 years of conflict. However, as I said in my statement to the House more than 10 months ago, stability in Syria is still firmly in the UK’s interests, and we remain committed to standing with the Syrian people as they seek to build a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[HCWS1284]

Oral Answers to Questions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the situation in Yemen.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

In November I made the first ministerial visit to Yemen in six years. I met the President and the Prime Minister to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s unwavering support for a unified and stable Yemen. We support their commitment to reform, and we continue to focus on delivering humanitarian assistance to all those in need in Yemen and, alongside our international partners, using every diplomatic lever to advance peace. The recent escalation of tensions in southern Yemen threatens to undermine those goals. We therefore welcome the calls by Yemen’s President for a dialogue addressing these issues, and Saudi Arabia’s offer to host a conference. We will continue to support efforts to achieve a swift diplomatic resolution.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

In the context of what the United Nations special envoy has described as a rapidly worsening humanitarian and economic crisis in Yemen, does the Minister welcome the forthcoming southern dialogue conference, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council? How is the UK, as penholder on Yemen, supporting that process to deliver a tangible road map for a way forward that addresses the aspirations of southern communities?

[Mr Falconer]

I do welcome Saudi Arabia’s southern dialogue conference. As my hon. Friend has said, it is supported by the Arab League and the GCC, and it is a vital step amid a worsening humanitarian and economic crisis. As UN penholder, the UK is actively supporting the process, through sustained engagement with Saudi leaders, the UN special envoy and regional partners, to help shape a credible road map that reflects southern communities’ aspirations.

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

In his statement on 5 January, the Minister referred to the United Arab Emirates’ call then for a ceasefire. What discussions have since taken place with the United Arab Emirates, and is that still its position?

[Mr Falconer]

We have been in regular dialogue with our allies in the United Arab Emirates, and I understand that its position remains to support a ceasefire. I know that it is taking part in extensive dialogue on these questions, not just with us but with some of its other Gulf partners.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support UK citizens arbitrarily detained abroad.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

One of the Foreign Office’s most serious and important duties is standing up for British nationals who have been wrongly detained overseas, and supporting the families here at home who are working desperately for their release. We are committed to strengthening our efforts, including through the appointment of a dedicated envoy for complex detention cases. We expect to confirm that appointment in the near future.

[Douglas McAllister]

Exactly 3,000 days ago, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal was imprisoned in India, and 3,000 days later, he remains arbitrarily detained. He faces the death penalty on trumped-up charges, having been brutally tortured to make a confession. While in opposition, our Prime Minister rightly recognised my constituent’s detention as arbitrary. We need to do more than just raise his case with Indian counterparts. My constituent was acquitted in March last year of all charges, but now faces essentially eight duplicate cases based on the same evidence. Does the Foreign Secretary or the Minister agree that this is clearly double jeopardy, as recognised under Indian, international and UK law, and will the Government make that clear to Indian counterparts?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his persistence, and for the force of his advocacy for his constituents. Despite progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding, as my hon. Friend said. We continue to raise concerns about Mr Johal’s prolonged detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, and to emphasise the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of Mr Johal’s cases in India’s independent legal system.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Sadly, Jagtar Singh Johal’s case is not the only instance in the world of human rights violations against British citizens, and one of our biggest allies has just said that peace is no longer a priority for it. Given that the world is such a dangerous place, and given the threat to the human rights of British citizens abroad, does the Minister agree that the time has come to make consular assistance a legal right for British citizens across the globe?

[Mr Falconer]

We are committed to introducing a right to consular assistance. We will return to this House with more detail about what form that will take.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

9. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

We have consistently called on all parties in Palestine to comply with their international humanitarian law obligations. Where this Government have had concerns about Israel’s commitment to those obligations, we have taken decisive action. That has included stopping exports to the Israel Defence Forces that might be used in Gaza, suspending negotiations with Israel on a new free trade agreement, and last month voting in favour of the UN resolution that welcomed the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s obligation to allow lifesaving humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians.

[Ian Lavery]

In July 2024, the ICJ ruled that the Israeli occupation and settlements were illegal, and must be ended and dismantled. Then, in September 2024, the UN General Assembly gave Israel 12 months to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—a deadline that has now lapsed by more than four months. Why, after a year and a half, have the Government still not published their response to the ICJ advisory opinion? Is there something that we do not know, but perhaps should?

[Mr Falconer]

In that period, the UK has made a range of significant determinations in relation to our policy in the middle east. Of course, we continue to consider the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation carefully. There is lots in that advisory opinion with which we agree, and which is, indeed, already Government policy. We agree that settlements are illegal, and we have already taken strong action against them. Since this Government came into office, we have introduced three packages of sanctions related to violence against communities in the west bank, and we continue to keep these matters under review.

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

Since the recent ceasefire came into effect, over 450 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. UNICEF reports that over 100 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since 10 October. Israeli airstrikes are ongoing, and the mental and physical torture and violence continue unabated. Will the Minister tell the children still alive in Gaza what action the UK Government will take to force Israel to comply with international law and allow essential humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to make the ceasefire a real one and stop the killing?

[Mr Falconer]

I know how deeply so many of our constituents and, indeed, Members of this House feel about these issues, and how often they raise them. We will continue to take action in the way that the Foreign Secretary set out this morning. It is vital that the ceasefire holds, and that we make progress in the three areas set out already, and that is the priority for Ministers.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

10. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on planned levels of spending on official development assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T3. I recently visited the Lodge community centre in West Bromwich to meet five of the 25 young people who had arrived in the UK from Gaza to receive specialist medical attention—they were with their families at a fun day put on by the Yemeni Community Association. I spoke with them about their community in Gaza and their journey here to the UK. Can the Minister tell the House what learning the Department has taken from the programme so far, in particular about the support required by the young people and their families while they are in the UK, and whether it is the intention to expand the project further?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

As the House will be aware, we have supported a number of sick and injured children to leave Gaza. I am very proud of our work in this area. We work closely across Government, including with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with local authorities, to ensure that children and families arriving in the UK receive the help and support they need. In relation to future plans, I am sure I will return to the House in due course.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

T2. President Trump’s new version of the board of peace will apparently cost $1 billion to join, Trump will chair it for life and Putin will be invited to join and offer his views on peace making. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is still having conversations about it, but has she managed to identify a single good reason for the UK to join?

[Mr Falconer]

As the Foreign Secretary set out earlier, the board of peace was part of the 20-point plan, which we welcomed, and there was a UN Security Council resolution, which also enshrines the progress made in the talks. Of course we want to see the ceasefire hold in Gaza. We are fully engaged with our American and other counterparts on these questions, but as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are discussing the way ahead with our allies.

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

T4. Settler violence and expansion in the occupied west bank is a daily threat to Palestinian communities. In the face of persistent violence, entire villages have been forcibly displaced. This is ethnic cleansing, enabled by the Israeli state. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a ban on trade with Israeli settlements would show Israel that we are serious in opposing this disgraceful activity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

T7. It will be impossible to get the necessary aid into Gaza until the Rafah crossing is fully open. Will the Minister update us on progress in trying to persuade the Netanyahu Government to do the right thing and open the Rafah crossing?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his continued advocacy on these issues. The 20-point plan clearly outlined the need to open the Rafah crossing, and indeed other crossings. There have been discussions between various partners, but we continue to press the Israelis to open all the crossings now.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

T6. An opinion poll in the Sunday Herald at the weekend showed that three quarters of Scots would vote to join the European Union. They get that leaving the EU was a disaster a decade ago, and it is even more of a disaster given the international situation now, so why do this Government continue to pursue yesterday’s policies, backed up by yesterday’s men and women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T9. My constituent Pelin Omar has asked me about the ceasefire that was announced on Sunday between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has already unravelled, with fighting resuming in less than 24 hours. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to promote humanitarian access, international monitoring and a long-term reconciliation between the Kurdish people in Aleppo and northern Syria and the Syrian Government? Do the Government support more devolved government as a solution to bring about lasting peace for the Kurdish people?

[Mr Falconer]

Many across the House will be aware of the fast-moving situation in north-east Syria, which is of concern to the British Government. We are calling for de-escalation, and we want a halt to the advance into the north-east. We continue to focus on the humanitarian situation in Syria. Over 16.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, and we are delivering up to £104 million of assistance this year.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T10. What action are the UK Government taking to support Tamils in seeking justice for past and current injustices?

[Mr Falconer]

The UK is active in seeking justice and accountability for Sri Lanka’s Tamil community. Indeed, we lead in the UN Human Rights Council on the resolution on Sri Lanka. Last year, we sanctioned Sri Lankans for human rights violations in the civil war, and we have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government the importance of improved human rights for all in Sri Lanka, as well as reconciliation. Let me take the opportunity to wish the Tamil community a happy Thai Pongal.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Despite the Minister’s assertion that the Government are holding the Israeli Government to account, I would like to remind them that a tender has just been issued by the Israeli Government for a further illegal construction of more than 3,000 homes in the E1 project in the west bank, which will completely cut the west bank in half. Will the Government now comply with the ICJ’s opinion that third states like ours have a duty to bring Israel’s illegal occupation to an end by imposing sanctions on Israeli Ministers in their professional capacity and to prohibit UK companies from involvement with illegal settlements?

[Mr Falconer]

The Foreign Secretary and I have set out the position in relation to settlements over the course of this session, but I want to be clear: we have been the strongest that we can in condemning the increase in both violence by settlers and settlements themselves. I have from this Dispatch Box announced sanctions on Israeli Ministers, including Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir.

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

I proudly declare that I will be visiting the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Government next month. What can the UK Government do to alleviate EU tariffs of between 6% and 18% on their fishing exports, so that the Falklands Government have more money to spend on health, education and their treasured environment?

[Mr Falconer]

We remain strong defenders of the Falkland Islands as part of our global great British family. I was pleased to speak with the new Legislative Assembly just the other day. It was, of course, the Brexit deal that the previous Government negotiated that left the Falklands out when it comes to tariffs, but we continue to work closely with them on a range of trade and tariff issues and have done so successfully in relation to the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Israeli occupation of the west bank has resulted in almost 1,000 deaths over the past year and a half. We have seen the loss of villages, the loss of life and the continued enabling of settler violence against ordinary Palestinian people in their villages, and this morning there are reports that the Israel Defence Forces are now demolishing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Jerusalem. When are the British Government going to do something serious, with sanctions against Israel for its continued illegal occupation of the west bank?

[Mr Falconer]

I answered the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question when I replied to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We are aware of the reports in relation to the UNRWA headquarters in east Jerusalem and, as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are taking them very seriously indeed.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Over 900 doctors have been killed by the Iranian regime since 1979. A leading medical union warns that Iran’s state health system is near collapse and medicines are increasingly scarce, leaving children vulnerable for lack of basic care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that urgent international action is needed to hold the regime to account, particularly for the devastating impact on paediatric care?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Iranian regime is killing protesters in their thousands, and the communication blackout is enabling abuses to happen away from public view. The Minister said yesterday:

“They must restore internet access.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 48.]

What are the Government doing with partners, so that we can hear the voices of those freedom fighters?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said to the House yesterday, we treat the internet blackout in Iran as a breach of the human rights of the Iranian people. We continue to work on this issue with our partners for the reasons that my ministerial colleagues have set out, but I will not give further commentary on operational business.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Israel is the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts, trying between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in that way each year. According to Save the Children, those children are at serious risk of contagious disease, hunger and abuse. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are doing all that they can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to end this practice?

[Mr Falconer]

We are deeply concerned about the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli military and by the allegations that my hon. Friend refers to. The UK calls for all reports to be fully investigated. The arrest and detention of children must follow due process, in line with international juvenile justice standards, and we call on all parties to the conflict to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate and unfettered access.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

Last week, I met a mother from my constituency who told me a terrible story. In October, her daughters were taken by their father, supposedly for a day out at the fair, but they never came home. It seems he has abducted them and taken them out of the country, either to Afghanistan or to Pakistan. Can the Minister set out what the Government can do about these kinds of abductions, and will he meet me to discuss how we get these little girls home?

[Mr Falconer]

Of course I will.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

According to Open Doors’ world watch list, which was released last week, Yemen is now the third most dangerous country in the world to be a Christian. Since January, over 50 Yemeni Christians have been arrested and imprisoned, facing intimidation, interrogation and the risk of torture. Will the Minister explain why freedom of religion and belief has not been made a clear prerequisite for continued UK aid, with robust monitoring on the ground?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for an opportunity to comment on aid into Yemen. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are significant restrictions on aid into the north of Yemen, where the Houthis are in control. It is rather easier to get aid into the south of Yemen, but given the events referred to earlier, doing so remains complex. We continue to prioritise freedom of religious belief, including through our excellent envoy, who is a Member of this House. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss these issues further.

Iran: Protests

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on the British Government’s response to the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on protests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest of terms the horrendous killing of Iranian protesters and the most brutal and bloody repression against public protest in Iran for at least 13 years. The Iranian authorities must immediately end the abhorrent killings and uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Iran’s citizens, including the right to freedom of expression, to seek, receive and impart information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, without fear of reprisal. The Iranian security forces must be held accountable for the deliberate use of violence that has claimed thousands of lives.

On 13 January, the Foreign Secretary was clear in her statement to the House and delivered that message directly to the Iranian Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister has issued a joint statement alongside the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. On 15 January, alongside our G7 partners, we strongly condemned Iran and announced our readiness to impose additional restrictive measures if Iran continues to crack down on protests and dissent in violation of its international human rights obligations. We publicly called out Iran’s crackdown at the UN Security Council meeting on 15 January, and we have now secured a special session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January. On 13 January, I summoned the Iranian ambassador to underline the gravity of this moment and to call on Iran to answer for the horrific reports that we have heard.

On 1 October, alongside our E3 partners, France and Germany, the UK implemented snapback in full by reinstating the six previously terminated United Nations sanctions resolutions on Iran. We are going further by bringing forward legislation to implement more sectoral measures. We have already designated key players in Iran’s oil, energy, nuclear and financial systems, and further measures will target finance, energy, transport and other significant industries. We will continue to work with the European Union and our other partners to explore what additional measures might be needed in response to these most recent developments.

[Priti Patel]

Since last week’s statement, we have seen more information about the horrific brutality that the despotic regime in Tehran has inflicted and the bloodshed it is responsible for against its own citizens. Reports from medics in country say that the figure could be as high as 18,000 men, women and children dead, slaughtered in cold blood. Reports also suggest that up to 360,000 people could be injured, with those wounded left dying due to shortages of blood in hospitals. This is an affront to humanity, and there must be accountability, including for the use of execution show trials.

The regime is one of the most consistently vile and brutal in the world. The UK Government cannot stand by, and we need to understand what more they are doing in response to the latest barbaric revelations and actions. What is the Government’s assessment of the numbers killed and injured and the brutal tactics used by the regime? What do they make of reports that the regime may have used chemical weapons in the recent attacks on its own civilians? What assessment has been undertaken of those imprisoned and being tortured? The principle victims of this vile regime are the Iranian people themselves. What did their ambassador say when he was summoned last week to the Foreign Office, and what did the Iranian Foreign Minister say when he was called by the Foreign Secretary?

Once again, protesters in Iran seek freedom from tyranny, and the response from the west has been shameful as Iranians have been slaughtered. Iran continues to pose a threat to us all and to our interests with its sponsoring of terrorism and its nuclear programme. The US State Department remarked on Saturday that it had

“heard reports that the Islamic Republic is preparing options to target American bases”.

Given that Britain has many joint military bases with the US in the region, what is being done to secure those assets? What is the latest assessment of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and ballistic missile capability, and what is being done to strip Iran of those weapons?

With phase two of the Gaza peace plan being implemented, what is being done to stop Iranian sponsorship of Hamas and other terrorist groups undermining efforts to secure peace in the region? This is not a time to be timid as the response to these continued atrocities continues to be shamefully muted.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Lady asks important questions. Let me turn first to the question of numbers. I do not want to give the House an artificial sense of precision when the internet has remained restricted since 8 January. There clearly have been many deaths; we believe in the thousands. We will not put a more precise figure on it at this time because to do so would be at risk of misleading the House that we have a more precise picture than we do. That does not in any way take away from the strength of our condemnation.

The Iranian regime has provided a variety of rationales, both in private and in public. It has claimed that it was responding to armed protesters, and it has complained that others are seeking to interfere in its internal affairs. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the scale of bloodshed that we have seen in relation to those protests. It is not to seek to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs to say that the protesters have rights—rights of assembly, rights to protest and rights to have their internet turned back on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

We will not. As I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Iranian people have rights—rights that we hold dear in this place and this country—and we will continue to press those points with the Iranian regime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Since the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, Ayatollah Khamenei has confirmed the death of thousands of protesters, but he has again deflected responsibility for the brutal crackdown by his regime. The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that sanctions against the leaders of the regime, and the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, relied upon new legislation or instruments. We have waited too long for that. Will the Minister give the House a date by which those measures will be introduced?

Will the Minister update the House on internet connectivity? What is the UK doing, with our partners, to restore internet access so that people in Iran can communicate and evidence can be gathered to hold the regime to account? What dialogue have Ministers and officials had since last week about the Liberal Democrat proposal to pursue, through the United Nations, an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity perpetrated by the regime?

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure that my Liberal Democrat colleague knows that the processes of the ICC are independent of the decisions of Ministers here—rightly so.

To turn to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, I will not presume to dictate dates on which the House might pass legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can confirm that we are progressing that legislation at pace.

Let me say a little about the impact of the sanctions that we have introduced. The House is aware that we now have over 550 sanctions on Iran. Most recently, in October, we sanctioned IRGC financier Ali Ansari. As an indication of the scale and efficacy of our sanctions regime, I am pleased to confirm to the House that that has led to the freezing of over £100 million-worth in UK property. There is exposure from Iran to the UK, and we will take every step required.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

We must not be indifferent to the pleas of the Iranian people—what we are seeing is absolutely horrific. I welcome sanctions, but we must be honest: the people of Iran are fighting for their freedom. It is still possible that the US will intervene. Will the Minister reassure me that the UK Government are thinking about how they can offer meaningful support to the people in Iran who are fighting for their freedom?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our position in relation to these issues. I would not wish to give the House the impression that the protesters are not at risk; clearly, they are, and we have seen the devastating consequences of the regime’s behaviour in the most recent days. We will do everything we can to ensure that the protesters’ rights are protected. We are discussing closely with our allies what steps we can take.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

This despicable regime goes in for state terrorism at home and abroad, and its principal instrument for terrorism abroad is the IRGC. This is now the sixth time that I have called on Prime Ministers and Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. The excuse given historically is that we want to keep our embassy open, but the embassy is now shut, demonstrating how futile that argument is. When will we proscribe that terrorist organisation?

[Mr Falconer]

I just want to be clear about the status of our embassy in Tehran. While it is true that we have withdrawn our staff, we have not closed our embassy. I expect that the embassy will be fully functional again soon—I hope with some of this behind us.

On the IRGC, which the right hon. Gentleman has asked about on several occasions, as have others in the House, we conducted the Jonathan Hall review and he found that it is important that we have a tool that is focused on the particularities of the threats from Iran and the IRGC. That is a different threat from that which emanates from a simple terrorist group, if I may use that language, and we are committed to taking forward those recommendations through the creation of a state threats proscription-like tool, and we will be coming back for the parliamentary time to do that.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Chillingly, the head of the Iranian judiciary has publicly called for the acceleration of executions of protesters. The killing in Iran is not stopping. Last week, when the Foreign Secretary talked of further sanctions and sectoral measures, she linked those to the nuclear industry. Will the Minister now confirm that the UK will be seeking to go further than sanctions applied in relation to nuclear issues, to also seek to impose them on human rights grounds for those who have been linked with this brutal Iranian regime?

[Mr Falconer]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend who has considerable experience in these matters. She is right to differentiate: there are the snapback-related sanctions, which are in progress and which the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have corresponded on recently; and I can confirm that we are also separately considering human rights sanctions in relation to the abuses that we see.

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

Many of us will have read the reports in The Sunday Times yesterday detailing how IRGC forces burnt alive and machine-gunned down so many, and that this is not happening in just one town or one city, but right across Iran. We have very few levers in this country to make a difference, but one of them is to proscribe the IRGC. Please, Minister, just do it and make some small difference to send a clear message and make the Iranian people understand that we stand with them.

[Mr Falconer]

I do not have a great deal to add to the answer I have already given to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), but I would say that we are under no illusions about the threat posed by the IRGC. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) talks about what they are doing in Iran; nobody on this side of the House has lost track of the fact that there have also been more than 20 plots in this country linked to Iran and to the IRGC. That is why it is so important to us that we have a tool focused on the particularities of a state-based threat, rather than treating them just as terrorists.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The world has been appalled by the scenes of bloodshed. Will the Minister outline what discussions the Government are having with our G7 colleagues and European colleagues to make sure we send out a united message of condemnation and a common demand for the rights of the Iranian people to be respected?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to the House that both the Foreign Secretary and I have been in extensive discussions over the last few days, and I expect those to continue this week, including at Davos.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The Iranian Government are massacring civilians, and brave young protesters are risking their lives for freedom and dignity against a violent and corrupt regime. The Minister has spoken about the thousands of people who we fear have lost their lives, and The Times is reporting that up to 16,000 people may have died—and in an age when we can see news as it happens in the palm of our hands, we see nothing because of the darkness of the internet crackdown. What are the Government doing to support internet access across Iran so that we can collect evidence to hold the perpetrators to account for this brutality?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Lady asks important questions. We are working with our allies and continue to press the Iranians, both in public and in private. They must restore internet access.

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

The brutal regime in Iran has destroyed so many lives, and as a woman and a feminist I want to pay particular tribute to the brave women of Iran fighting for their freedom against such odds. They were promised support by President Trump. Can the Minister say what form that support may take, and what involvement the UK may or may not have, and whether it is dependent on executions taking place? On the technical front, will he write to me in my role as Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee explaining exactly how the Iranian regime was able to turn off access to the internet? Do they have some switch somewhere? With our unique technical expertise, what is the UK doing to address that?

[Mr Falconer]

I join my hon. Friend in her comments about the bravery of protesters. I am sure we have all seen pictures of incredibly courageous protesters, often young women, showing defiance against a regime that is, clearly, deeply intent on not only stopping the protests but silencing the voices of protesters and ensuring that nobody can see them. Those protesters are admirable people asserting their rights. It is clearly an inalienable right of the Iranian people to be able to protest, and that is what we want to see. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend but, for reasons she will understand, I will not be able to delve too deeply into technical questions when they are sensitive.

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

Does the Minister’s Department assess that the Iranian regime can come back from this and move into a position of strength? If so, does he assess that the sanctions packages being put forward are enough to limit that happening?

[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.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

There are reports that the US is planning airstrikes or action in Iran. Following the previous US airstrikes there, Iran fired rockets at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in response. That base, which has recently been partly evacuated, is co-located with the prison where Matthew Pascoe is being detained. Will the Government advise the House on what they are doing to make sure that he, and any British nationals in the nearby area, will be safe? What is being done to ensure the safety of the Foremans, who continue to be held in Evin prison? We know that, in the past, Iranians have often rightly sought to overthrow the prisons, because of all those who are being held unjustly there.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Lady asks a series of important questions. On our general posture in the region, I do not want to comment in great detail about force protection questions in relation to our bases, although I am sure she will be aware of reports. We are working closely with our American counterparts on those questions.

On those detained—the Foremans and others—I can confirm that I have been in touch with the families, who are at the forefront of our minds. I must draw the House’s and the public’s attention to our travel advice, however: with the embassy withdrawn, there is a limit to what can be done. We cannot offer a full consular package of assistance in Iran. This is a fast-moving situation and we try to keep our travel advice as up-to-date as possible to reflect the very latest developments.

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

For almost 50 years, Iranians have found refuge in the UK, and many have made their homes in west London. One of them wrote to me saying that even after 20 years, Iran still runs through his veins. Will the Minister outline how the Government are working with the Iranian diaspora in the UK to provide support and reassurance to them and to their families still in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I know how many families in the UK will feel very personally affected by developments in Iran. Where there are consular-related questions, they are very much on our minds for both dual nationals and mono-nationals. I am afraid that wider community concerns are a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

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

My British-Iranian residents are deeply worried about their families. The Minister has said that he hopes the embassy will reopen soon, but time is not on the side of the Iranian people. When is “soon” likely to be? How quickly should we expect the proscription of the IRGC?

[Mr Falconer]

I do not want to sound evasive, either about the delicate decisions we need to make about posture across the region or about parliamentary time, but I am afraid I am not able to be drawn any further on either.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the last few weeks I have been inundated with communication from constituents who are part of the Iranian diaspora. It is very difficult to convey the extent of their agony about the lack of contact with their families and the fear they feel for their loved ones. They have said to me that they want to see the strongest possible action on sanctions and the fastest possible progress on proscribing the IRGC. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say about the particularities of state-backed terror; will he set out in more detail why he believes it will take further time for us to tackle the vile state-backed terror that is affecting us all so much?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care that she puts into these issues in her constituency. The Jonathan Hall review sets out some of the reasons why, in his view, a state-focused proscription-like tool is necessary. We accept his recommendations and we intend to legislate.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

There is a shared horror across the Chamber at the killing of protesters in Iran, just as there is a shared condemnation of the brutal regime and, it appears, a shared view that the IRGC should be proscribed. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, but I gently suggest that he has a consensus, which he should use to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible to send a clear message to the Iranian people that we stand with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points are well noted. For the clarity of the House, let me say that the legislation will be Home Office legislation, rather than Foreign Office legislation, but I will certainly pass on the strength of his feeling to the Security Minister.

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

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is undertaking and leading the brutal repression and murder of so many Iranians fighting for their freedom. We know that the IRGC has used two registered cryptocurrency exchanges to move approximately $1 billion since 2023, evading international sanctions. Zedcex and Zedxion routed funds through IRGC-controlled wallets, offshore intermediaries and Iranian crypto companies. What are the Government doing to ensure that the IRGC cannot fund this brutal crackdown through British-based companies?

[Mr Falconer]

If my hon. Friend writes to me, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer in writing. Clearly, our sanctions regime is wide-ranging, and any British companies need to give very careful attention to it. On the face of it, it sounds like what my hon. Friend has outlined would not be consistent with our arrangements, but if he writes to me, I will respond.

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

The Minister and I share the dubious distinction of having summoned Iranian ambassadors. Does he agree that whether it is Ambassador Mousavi, Baeidinejad or Abbas Araghchi, it does not really matter, because they are not the problem? The problem is the IRGC and its constituent parts. Does the Minister accept that Jonathan Hall KC’s review is not particularly controversial? He has made recommendations that would effectively get around the Minister’s problem with the proscription of state actors. There is cross-party agreement right across the House that would get such a measure through in a day. It is not as if we do not have enough time, as today’s cancellation of business has shown.

[Mr Falconer]

I am wounded that the comparison is a dubious one. On the question of time, I gently say to my predecessor—and I am glad to see the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), in his place—that there was rather a lot of time over the past 14 years to pass these things. We have done the Hall review and we are committed to implementing it.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The brutal regime in Iran is well known to be attacking its own people at home, but it also poses one of the largest credible threats to Jewish people here in the UK. As the regime is currently blaming Israelis, Jews and Zionists for being responsible for the protests, will the Minister set out what discussions are happening across Government to ensure that the proxies and agents that we know are in the UK are being monitored, to make sure that the Jewish population of the UK do not feel a backlash as a result of the protests in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I have said repeatedly and in no uncertain terms to our Iranian counterparts, as has the Foreign Secretary, that any threats in the UK to British people of any faith or denomination in any building and, indeed, any other diplomatic premises in the UK will be treated with the utmost seriousness. I have reiterated that strength of feeling to a range of representatives from the Jewish community in the UK, and I am happy to reiterate it again from the Dispatch Box.

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

Last Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took a short break from attacking America’s NATO allies to write on Truth Social the following:

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”

He added:

“HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

Have the Government the faintest idea of what he was talking about?

[Mr Falconer]

US posture and policy towards Iran is, I am afraid, a matter for the US Government.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Many in this House are concerned about the malign influence of the ayatollahs in our own country. There has been dreadful slaughter on the streets of Iran, but curiously little protest on the streets of Britain. What a contrast that is to the regular protests—sometimes intimidatory to local Jewish people—about the terrible war in Israel and Palestine. Could the aforementioned malign influence explain this?

[Mr Falconer]

As the Home Secretary has said, we are aware of the very considerable concern that the ongoing protests have caused, particularly in places of real sensitivity such as outside synagogues, and we are taking measures to address it.

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

At the weekend, I visited several Iranian-owned businesses in my community to show my support and solidarity. The business owners told me that they have relatives inside Iran who, due to the internet shutdowns, are going to increasingly extreme lengths to pick up information from the outside world, including travelling close to the border with Iraq to pick up a mobile phone signal or across towns to connect to the community-owned Starlink network. They expressed their frustration at the lack of activity from the British Government, as they see it, but they also expressed their fears that the US Government have marched protesters up to the top of the hill and left them abandoned there. What co-ordination has the Minister had with our American allies—if I can still call them that—on their approach? Are we aligned with them on what we are doing in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I understand the degree of anxiety within Iran. The restriction of the internet since 8 January is obviously a source of real concern, both to Iranians in Iran and to those with family links there, and to those few, but none the less profoundly affected, British families who have loved ones detained there, who are also suffering from the restrictions. As I said, US policy and posture towards Iran is clearly a matter for the US Government, but we are in close consultations and discussions with our American counterparts and, indeed, others.

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

I share the Minister’s horror at the brutal repression we have seen in Iran. Hendon is home to a large and vibrant Iranian community, and we are all horrified beyond words to see the savage, murderous violence being meted out by the Iranian regime to protesters. Is it not the reality that even when there are not protests in the street, the regime is engaged in industrial levels of violence against its own people? Executions in Iran more than doubled in the last year alone. Does the Minister agree that we must keep up the pressure on the Iranian regime to end this barbarity once and for all, and to let the Iranian people exercise their fundamental rights?

[Mr Falconer]

I do. We have spoken in some detail about current events in relation to the protesters, but I can confirm to the House that we oppose any and all executions in Iran, and across the world.

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

As thousands of brave Iranian protesters are slaughtered on the streets of Iran, I was humbled yesterday to speak in front of thousands of wonderful Iranians here in Whitehall. They asked me to ask the Government a simple question: how much more will it take for this Government to do the right thing and proscribe that terror group, the IRGC—and, while they are at it, the Muslim Brotherhood?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my Lincolnshire colleague for the question. I do not have a great deal more to add to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon on the IRGC. “Muslim Brotherhood” is a term that covers a whole range of groups, including, depending on how we consider it, Hamas. Where there is a violent threat to the UK, we will of course take proscription action as necessary.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I condemn the violent oppression of the Iranian people. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC World Service and BBC Persian, not only in getting free journalism and the truth into that country, but in getting stories of bravery, courage and suffering out to the wider world?

[Mr Falconer]

I will. The BBC World Service and BBC Persian are a lifeline, as are so many of the other World Service channels. I pay tribute to the vital work that they do in reporting, even in the most difficult circumstances.

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

If I may, I will return to the topic of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. The Minister will be aware that they have been imprisoned for more than a year and are in Evin prison, regarded as the harshest in Iran. Can the Minister update the House on their medical condition since the outbreak of violence in Iran in recent weeks? Can he say when he was last informed of their medical condition, and whether they are still safe?

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not want to provide too much personal information to the House, but I can confirm that we have had consular access relatively recently. I have spoken to the families twice, I think, since the protests began. Those people are very much at the forefront of my mind.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The scenes from Iran are barbaric, and those executions that we are aware of are an affront to human dignity. Wherever we look around the world, we can see the malign influence of Iran, including here. Our national security strategy, published in June last year, highlighted that. Can the Minister assure me that our law enforcement is taking every step possible to manage the risk? Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger), will the Minister make a contribution to the BBC charter review consultation in respect of the positive work that the BBC is doing in that troubled part of the world?

[Mr Falconer]

The Foreign Office has a special relationship with the BBC, given our role in the World Service, which we have talked about already this session. I can confirm to the House that law enforcement is making full use of the powers afforded to it, including under the National Security Act 2023. It is under that Act that those associated with potential violence were arrested in May last year.

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

My constituents have contacted me sick with worry. They have not heard from their loved ones for over a week. There are reports of tens of thousands of citizens being killed, but the number could be higher because of the deliberate communication blackout. This is now an international human rights emergency. Will the Government act faster on the proscription of the IRGC, and will the Minister support stronger diplomatic consequences for this brutal regime?

[Mr Falconer]

We have discussed the IRGC proscription process, and I do not have much further to add on the more detailed timing questions on which the hon. Lady has sought to press me. As for diplomatic consequences, I have described some of the actions that we have taken in recent days, and I imagine that we will have more to tell the House shortly—for instance, during Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions tomorrow.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The scenes in Iran that we are seeing are obviously absolutely terrible, but I am also concerned about the impact that the ongoing situation will have on safety in this country. May I ask the Minister to pass on my thanks to the Foreign Secretary for her decision, in her previous role, to list Iran under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and may I also ask him to be specific about what difference that will make?

[Mr Falconer]

Putting Iran on the FIRS regime means that there is a new offence of seeking to act on behalf of the Iranian regime in the UK without properly so declaring, so it is harder for people to do that in this country without being exposed to the force of law enforcement. As I said just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), UK law enforcement has proved itself capable of finding these people and ensuring that they are prosecuted.

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

There have been many calls across the Chamber for sanctions and the proscription of the IRGC, which I fully support. I think we need to be honest and admit that those measures are unlikely to save the lives of protesters who are under a regime fearing for its survival, but I point out that the drone strike in 2020 against Soleiman, the head of the IRGC, did influence Iranian behaviour.

These protests follow on from western military intervention. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the United States President has explicitly called on the protesters to overthrow the regime. That reminds me of the 1991 Shi’a uprisings in Iraq; President Bush did exactly the same in the aftermath of the Gulf war, and left those people to be massacred by Saddam Hussein’s helicopter gunships. Is the Minister considering that legacy in his deliberations?

[Mr Falconer]

When it comes to events across the middle east, I am reluctant to focus on a particular incident in the long and, I am afraid, fraught history of interventions and the violence that follows them, but we are of course considering the broader history of the wider region as we consider our response.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I share the horror expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House at the brutal, repressive crackdown on protesters in Iran, and pay particular tribute to the bravery of women protesters who are fighting for their rights. Among the many concerning stories that are now emerging is testimony on the use of sexual assault as a weapon of repression. Did the Minister and the Foreign Secretary raise that specifically during their recent interactions with representatives of the Iranian regime, and can the Minister set out in more detail the timetable for next steps, including implementation of the additional sanctions to which the Foreign Secretary referred last week?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to the House that the Iranian representatives were left in no doubt about the strength of our views, but because these were not terribly long conversations, we were not able to get into the full detail of our concerns, and there is not much more that I can add on the timing of further sanctions.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

For me, this is personal. It reminds me of what I saw when I was in Tehran nearly 50 years ago, at the beginning of the revolution. My father was appointed naval attaché to the British embassy in Tehran before and during that revolution, and we saw some awful things. What kept us going when the nights were cold, the power was off, the phones were cut, the guns were going off outside and people were demonstrating on rooftops nearby was the British World Service broadcasting; we could rely on that information. What extra support is the Minister giving the BBC to ensure that the World Service and BBC Persian are boosted in that area, so that we can get information through, and give people the lifeline that I had as I took the last flight out before Khomeini arrived back?

[Mr Falconer]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his question, and I pay tribute to him. I hope he will not mind my saying that he was a diplomat brat. I know from my own service—many Members will be familiar with this—that when diplomats are in difficult positions, their family face the same worries and the same hardships. That was obviously very much in our minds as we considered the position of the embassy in Tehran last week, and it continues to be in our minds as our brave diplomats face perilous situations across the world. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s generous words about the World Service. I can confirm that we are thinking about how its future can be ensured, so that it can continue to perform its vital functions.

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

Given the horrific scenes of pro-democracy protesters being attacked by the police in London over the weekend, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that peaceful protest can take place in this country?

[Mr Falconer]

We completely support peaceful protest, but it is true that diplomatic premises are subject to particular protections under the law. That applies in London, as it does in Tehran. There is a balance to be struck, and I was in discussions with the Security Minister throughout the weekend to ensure that we get it right.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

“There were so many people killed, they were hosing the blood down the street using fire engines.” That was the message coming out of my constituent’s home town. She has no idea if her mum and dad are safe in Iran during the communications blackout. When she asks me, as she no doubt will, “Why won’t the Government do everything they can to proscribe the IRGC?”, what would the Minister have me tell her?

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituent is suffering great anguish, as are so many constituents who will be in correspondence with MPs from across the House. I cannot imagine how I would feel if my loved ones were in a situation in which communications were not certain. I feel it in relation to our consular cases, and I know that it is felt by people right across the country. We will do everything we can to ensure that the protesters are able to enjoy their rights and, indeed, that the communications restrictions are lifted. Iran was plunged into darkness on 8 January, just as Afghanistan plunged into darkness last year. This is a malign trend, which we oppose completely. We will do everything we can to see that the situation is temporary in Iran, as it proved to be in Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be under no illusions about the barbaric tactics that are being employed in Iran; indeed, last week’s statement made it very clear that the Government are fully aware of them. The strongly worded condemnation has not brought about any change, and we have British citizens incarcerated and in danger. The IRGC’s forces have killed thousands. They have shot them in the head, neck and face, and the IRGC has had a “shoot to kill” policy. What discussions has the Minister had with the United States of America, which promised physical action, about ensuring the safety of our citizens and nation, protecting Iranian citizens from sustained terrorism, and showing Iran that its recent abhorrent actions will no longer be tolerated? Physical action against the IRGC, on the ground, is what is needed.

[Mr Falconer]

We have already discussed our attitude towards the protests. We are not threatening physical action against the IRGC in Tehran. We want the whole Iranian regime to respect the rights of their people, in accordance with international norms; to ensure that the protesters can exercise their rights; and to lift internet restrictions.

UK-France Relations

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) for securing the debate. It is a particular pleasure, as always, to hear about different constituencies’ histories; my own constituency’s history with France involves fighting a moderately successful battle to prevent France’s invasion of England—defended by the suspiciously French-named Nicola de la Haye, who was then the constable of Lincoln castle. It was a successful but bloody affair, so I am glad that my hon. Friend and so many others have carried off their commentary about their historical links with our neighbour over the channel with rather more élan than Lincoln can manage. I am grateful for the contributions of hon. Members and will endeavour to respond to the points they have raised. The Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would have been very glad to be here, but he is conducting a general debate about Ukraine in the main Chamber today.

We have a deep shared history with France, not just in combat but in many other things: values, trade, cultural links and partnerships on the international stage—in NATO, the G7, the United Nations and beyond. Our relationship remains vibrant, ambitious and essential. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said so graciously, since this Government came to power, we have prioritised resetting and deepening relations with our European partners to deliver tangible benefits for our security, people and economy. France is central to that—even in Lincoln.

As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Europe’s leading defence and only nuclear powers, our countries share responsibility for international peace and security. We are at the forefront of efforts to support Ukraine and uphold European security. Our deep defence relationship under the Lancaster House treaties has enabled us to convene the coalition of the willing, sustaining long-term support for Ukraine and preparing conditions for a just and lasting peace.

Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister co-chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing with President Macron in Paris. Alongside President Zelensky, they signed a declaration of intent on deploying forces to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, paving the way for a legal framework of British, French and partner forces to operate on Ukrainian soil to secure Ukraine’s skies and seas, and regenerate its armed forces. The Paris declaration, agreed with the US and others, sets out guarantees to be activated once the ceasefire comes into force.

My colleague the Minister for Europe is in regular contact with his counterpart: they met last month in Vienna, and in London last October ahead of the Berlin process summit. The Foreign Secretary visited her counterpart in Paris last October, and they are in regular touch. Last July’s state visit by President Macron marked the renewal of our shared bonds at every level of Government. As part of that visit, at the 37th UK-France summit President Macron and the Prime Minister strengthened our partnership with groundbreaking agreements covering migration, defence, growth and culture.

The Lancaster House 2.0 declaration will accelerate our bilateral defence and security co-operation to new levels and strengthen Europe’s contribution to NATO. We agreed to overhaul the combined joint expeditionary force to refocus it on the Euro-Atlantic area and to address evolving security threats. We reaffirmed our commitment to nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration, an important declaration that states that our nuclear forces are independent but can be co-ordinated. The new UK-France nuclear steering group met in December to co-ordinate work across nuclear policy, capabilities and operations. At the summit, the Prime Minster and the President also committed to strengthening co-operation on illegal migration, and tackling the criminal gangs responsible for the small boat crossings that have cost so many lives. This has been an important part of the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh in Parliament.

France is also a key part of our growth and energy security. I will not dwell on the important and vital investments that EDF has made in Sizewell C; they were covered effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh—he is also a former colleague in the Foreign Office. He also covered the important cultural and educational co-operation opportunities between our two countries. The exchange of the Bayeux tapestry and the Sutton Hoo treasures is a real celebration of our joint history. Our re-association to Erasmus+ in 2027 will create new opportunities for young people in exactly the way my hon. Friend described.

Across Government, we will continue to strengthen the bonds between our countries and our people in our many areas of shared ambition and co-operation. Through our co-leadership of the coalition of the willing, the UK and France will continue to provide global leadership in an era of renewed instability.

Question put and agreed to.