Syria
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(3 days, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I wanted to update the House on the situation in north-east Syria and the visit of the Syrian President to the UK on 31 March, given the interest expressed by Members of both Houses.
Presidential Visit
This was President Al-Sharaa’s first visit to the UK, the first visit of any Syrian President since 2002, and his meetings with the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King cement a new era for the UK-Syria relationship. Given the breadth of UK interests in Syria, the President met a wide range of interlocuters including the Home Secretary, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Attorney General and leaders of UK businesses keen to invest in Syria. He and his delegation were also taken on a historic visit around the Houses of Parliament by myself and the Attorney General, to demonstrate the importance the UK places on democratic systems and the rule of law. Discussions focused on deepening co-operation across our shared priorities, including counter-terrorism, migration and growth, and on the importance of inclusion and transitional justice for peace and stability in Syria. In my meeting with the President and Foreign Minister I pressed our concerns on human rights and securing justice for all Syrians. The Attorney General also offered UK support on transitional justice and accountability for crimes committed during Syria’s civil war and the actions of the brutal Assad regime.
It is right that the UK Government engage with Syria at the highest level, given the breadth of interests there from terrorism and migration, to regional security and human rights. Our overarching objective for Syria is stability, which is in the best interests of not only the UK, but the Syrian people and the wider region. We believe that supporting Syria’s Government to achieve inclusive governance, political transition, and economic recovery is the only way to deliver that stability for the people of Syria and the wider region.
Situation in NES
Escalations at the start of the year in north-east Syria were cause for concern. Two days after my last written ministerial statement on Syria—[Official Report, 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 39WS.]—the Syrian Government and Syrian Democratic Forces reached an agreement establishing a phased integration of north-east Syria into a single governance framework, including integrating military and civilian institutions. The UK welcomes this agreement and the initial progress made, including the agreed entry of Ministry of Interior Forces into SDF areas, the issuing of decrees by the Government enshrining protections for Kurdish rights, and the appointment of SDF-nominees into Government Ministry positions. During President Al-Sharaa’s visit the Government pressed the importance of implementing the agreement in full and keeping momentum and progress alive, particularly in working through outstanding issues, including the management of internally displaced people camps and detention facilities, prisoner exchanges, the integration of women’s units into the army and further Government appointments.
UK’s approach to NES
The UK is interested in questions relating to the 30 January agreement and the integration of the north-east into Syria. I want to restate that in all of our engagement with Syrian Government, we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians, including the Kurdish community.
During the escalations, we continued to support the Kurdish communities, by acting rapidly to lead a swift and robust humanitarian response. Thanks to the strength of our relationships and aid partners in the north-east, the UK was the only international donor able to provide humanitarian support during the initial week of escalations. We immediately accessed our crisis reserves to provide critical medical care, protection services to vulnerable displaced women and girls, direct support and vital supplies for people affected by displacement, insecurity and freezing conditions. At the height of the violence, our medical partner International Medical Corps enabled the Kobane hospital to continue operating, providing care to critically injured people. So far we have provided over £9 million in support, one of the largest humanitarian responses in 2026. The UK was a leading advocate for the establishment of humanitarian corridors and we successfully lobbied the Syrian Government and SDF to open corridors which led to the successful delivery of much needed humanitarian assistance and supplies into Kobane, at a time when all access routes were closed.
Diplomatically, the UK played a role in containing the crisis, engaging leaders of both the SDF and the Syrian Government, alongside key international partners, to press for a ceasefire and a return to discussions. Since the fall of Assad, in conversations with the SDF, we were clear that a longer-term political agreement which protected Kurdish rights, while integrating civilian and military institutions, was in the best interests of the Kurdish community.
The UK also played an important role in multilateral forums, most recently on 18 March at the UN Security Council. I also attended the Global Coalition Against Daesh meeting in Riyadh in February, where members of the Coalition reaffirmed our shared commitment to defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria. We remain concerned about the remaining IDP camps in north-east Syria, and the closure of Al-Hol camp. We continue to advocate for a role for the UN and other humanitarian actors in all camps, and provide funding to these partners to ensure their important work can continue. Since the conference, we have continued to engage the Syrian Government and international partners to address our shared national security risks, and look at areas for deeper co-operation on counter-terrorism and to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh.
And finally, we have demonstrated our commitment to Kurdish communities through our UK engagement. I have regularly met parliamentary colleagues and Kurdish communities, both overseas and in the UK. Most recently, on 3 March, I hosted Kurdish community leaders, activists and academics to discuss the situation in north-east Syria, the 30 January agreement and their hopes for the future of Syria.
Conclusion
We have always been clear that Syria would face significant challenges during its political transition, but that a post-Assad Syria is in the UK’s interests. I want to reassure the House that the UK will continue its long-standing commitment to support the Syrian people as the country seeks to rebuild and recover. We will continue to work with the Syrian Government, in support of Syria’s stability and to protect UK national interests.
[HCWS1552]
International Parental Child Abduction
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(4 days, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who have represented their constituents’ perspectives.
As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), rightly said, this is a deeply distressing topic, and I am conscious that I am addressing it in front of two colleagues who have been Foreign Office Ministers. I am sure that they share our thoughts for all families affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children who are going through such upheaval and uncertainty. I will respond to the points made today while being careful not to comment on individual cases or disclose personal details; I hope that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), will understand why I do not wish to comment in detail on her case.
Wendy Morton
Perhaps, if it is in order, the Minister could provide a written update to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Falconer
I would be happy to. Hon. Members are welcome to contact me directly to discuss specific cases further. For those watching in the Public Gallery or at home, I am the Minister for consular affairs, though, for the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, these cases will often be dealt with by the Minister responsible for that region—the Minister for Europe in the case of Poland, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific in the case of Australia.
The Government take the issue of international parental child abduction extremely seriously. We are proud to be a party to the 1980 Hague convention. We work with more than 80 countries to support the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. That is an important principle that has been supported across the House this afternoon.
Where parents raise persistent problems with how the convention is applied, we raise those concerns directly with foreign Governments and will continue to do so whenever appropriate. At the same time, decisions on return ultimately rest with courts, often in the country where the child is located. Those courts must consider where the child is habitually resident, the child’s best interests and the child’s own views. Decisions about a child’s long-term future should be taken by the court that determines the child’s habitual residence.
We have put in place clear measures to try to prevent international parental child abduction and have published guidance on the practical steps a parent can take when they think there is a risk. I will focus on what happens in England and Wales because, as Members have pointed out, the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under a different law; for the purposes of clarity and time, it is probably better to focus on England and Wales, but if any hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or his colleagues, would like to write to me with questions on Northern Ireland or Scotland, I am very happy to take them up.
In England and Wales, concerned parents can get a specific issue or prohibited steps order to prevent a child from being taken out of the country. Our courts can order the Passport Office to withhold a British passport temporarily from a child at risk of abduction. The police can also issue a port alert if a parent is concerned that their child is likely to be taken abroad without their consent within the next 48 hours.
We continue to support our charity partner, Reunite International, which provides online prevention guides—not just for England and Wales, but for Scotland and Northern Ireland—to help parents understand and navigate the options of support available to them. When a child is abducted and taken abroad, our consulate staff provide compassionate support to the family. That can include practical guidance on travel, local systems and procedures and help making contact with the local authorities.
At the request of either parent, the Foreign Office can also formally express an interest in the case with the courts or authorities involved. We can also help families access specialist support, including through Reunite International, which should be able to provide expert advice. In relation to the 1980 Hague convention, the UK works closely with authorities seeking a return for parents. Our central authorities remain engaged throughout the process until the courts have reached a final decision.
It is important to be clear on roles. Decisions on enforcement rest with the authorities and courts of the country where the child is located. Our consular responsibilities mean that we cannot interfere in foreign legal systems, just as we would not accept foreign powers interfering in ours. We cannot compel enforcement, influence court outcomes or take part in any illegal efforts to return a child.
I have not seen the film that the hon. Member for Strangford describes, but I am not sure that I can use a credit card in the way he outlined to secure returns, however frustrating that may be. I recognise the deep frustration that many parents experience, especially when cases face long delays or return orders are not enforced. In those circumstances, the Government raise concerns with foreign partners at senior levels and press them to meet their obligations under the convention.
I turn to Poland, a country raised by a number of hon. Members. It is a close European partner. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about the shared history between our two countries—a history that includes my constituency of Lincoln, where many of those pilots set up as permanent residents. As she says, it is also one of the countries where we have the highest number of outstanding Hague return orders affecting British parents. We recognise the serious impact that Poland’s failure to enforce a number of return orders has had. That concern is reflected in rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and action by the European Commission.
That is why we raise international parental child abduction with the Polish authorities consistently and at senior levels. I can confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister raised it with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Sikorski in January, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Polish counterparts in October and, earlier this month, the British ambassador in Warsaw, alongside eight other diplomatic missions, wrote to the Polish Minister of Justice to seek a meeting and press for progress on these cases. I can assure hon. Members that the UK continues to play a full role. Some of those eight countries are members of the EU, and some are not.
Our officials continue to engage regularly with Polish authorities on enforcement. In April 2025, the UK Ministry of Justice hosted a joint workshop, alongside my Department, for Polish and UK authorities. We shared UK best practice on enforcement and discussed closer co-operation. We will continue to work with Poland and other partners to improve enforcement and outcomes for children and families.
I recognise the sensitivity and delicacy of the issues raised in relation to violence against women and girls and the very sensitive questions around domestic abuse. We recognise concerns raised in some contexts about how the 1980 Hague convention operates in cases involving domestic abuse. That is why we have sought to take a leading international role, serving on the steering committee of two Hague conference forums examining how the conventions operate where domestic abuse is present. Both those forums took place in the past two years. This is an active and ongoing effort on our part.
At home, we are working closely with victims’ organisations, the devolved Governments and the senior family judiciary in England and Wales. I am grateful for the kind recognition by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of the progress made recently in tightening the law in that area. We are also commissioning research into how the convention operates in domestic abuse cases so that future policy is grounded in evidence and focused on improving outcomes for children and survivors.
For countries that have not yet joined the 1980 convention, we actively encourage accession through both bilateral and multilateral engagement, while seeking solutions to existing cases in exactly the way the shadow Minister describes. Those efforts include the Malta process, which aims to improve co-operation in cross-border family law disputes involving children. We also work with Reunite International to support mediation as an alternative to court proceedings. Last month, in Lagos, our deputy high commissioner hosted a workshop with Nigerian partners focused on international parental child abduction and family mediation.
Members have reasonably asked me for figures. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead will permit me, I might ask the Minister for Europe to write to her specifically on cases involving Poland, but the Foreign Office are aware of 177 cases in 2024 and 167 in 2025.
We recognise the profound distress caused by international parental child abduction and take these cases extremely seriously. We work with partners through the 1980 Hague convention, raise concerns about enforcement and non-compliance at the highest level and press for improvement where systems fall short. We recognise that decisions on return ultimately rest with the courts and the authorities in the country where the child is located, so we must work with our partners abroad to build up their capacity where we are concerned about it.
On a personal note, supporting British nationals overseas remains a core public service performed by my Department and it is a key priority for me personally. We remain committed to prevention, stronger international co-operation and supporting affected children and families throughout what I know is often a long and painful process. I join the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead in paying tribute to the family members in the Public Gallery.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK is a strong advocate for Interpol, recognising its critical function in supporting international law enforcement co-operation. We also support its ongoing reform programme to ensure there is no space for states to wilfully misuse its systems. The UK is represented at Interpol meetings, where the adequacy of its systems are discussed, and where we work with like-minded partners to enhance safeguards against abuse.
Richard Quigley
My constituent Ollie Bennett is wanted by Interpol for an alleged crime in Morocco three decades ago. Ollie has always maintained his innocence, and following a debate in this place, his crewmate was granted a full royal pardon for the same charges. Ollie, however, was not. In December, he was arrested and detained in a French police cell. Although he is now safely home, Ollie remains at risk of arrest each and every time he goes abroad. The irony is that the Moroccan authorities have never filed to extradite Ollie, yet a Moroccan-sponsored Interpol red notice for Ollie remains active. Will the Minister commit to meeting me, to ensure that Ollie can access the support that he needs to successfully appeal this red notice and finally end this 30-year-long groundhog day?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents. I would be very happy to meet him. As he will know, it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that the UK can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an Interpol alert in a public forum, to protect legitimate criminal justice inquiries, but I would be delighted to meet him.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Government recently informed me that they have received 64 category 2 type B extradition notices under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, of which 56 have been certified. Fewer than five of those come from Bangladesh. Can the Minister confirm how many of those relate to Members of this House, and whether there are any Interpol red notices that apply to Members of this House?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member will have heard the point I just made: it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that we do not confirm Interpol notices in public.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have long been clear that the human rights situation in Iran is totally abhorrent. As I speak, the regime continues its repression, whether through executions, including of political prisoners and protesters, or through its ongoing internet blackout. January’s crackdown was an appalling reminder of this regime’s brutality. That is why we have sanctioned senior Iranian decision makers and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for their rights violations, and led the call for an urgent fact-finding mission at the Human Rights Council.
Mr Barros-Curtis
As was referenced, in January, the Islamic Republic unleashed hell on its own citizens, with a brutal crackdown on civilian protests that reportedly saw more than 30,000 people killed and thousands arrested. The subsequent UN Human Rights Council report found that many of Iran’s actions may amount to crimes against humanity. As these abuses continue with impunity, what steps are my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office taking to hold Iran to account and ensure that any negotiated settlement includes clear, enforceable commitments to end such atrocities?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I described our work on an Iran human rights resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, and on 12 January the Foreign Secretary spoke to her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Araghchi, setting out the UK’s total abhorrence of the killings, violence and repression, and urging the Iranian authorities to change course urgently. We continue to support negotiations between the US and Iran for a lasting resolution to this conflict.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Lindsay and Craig Foreman are incarcerated in Iran in brutal circumstances, and are being tortured in many ways. They are not my constituents, but their family approached me. May I be clear to the Government, and have them be clear to us in their response? Are the Government saying publicly that they are not spies, but innocent tourists? Will they formally declare the detention to be arbitrary? What else can they do to try to draw attention to the plight of these two innocent tourists?
Mr Falconer
I have been in regular contact with the family of the Foremans. This is a terrible case, and it is absolutely obvious that they are innocent tourists—that is clear to all concerned. We have made that point repeatedly to the Iranian regime, and I have raised it countless times with Iranian representatives, as the Foreign Secretary has done with her counterparts. We will continue to pursue this case; it is an injustice.
Mr Falconer
As I understand it, the United Nations appointment to which the right hon. Lady refers was a decision of the Asia-Pacific committee—it was not a decision in which His Majesty’s Government had any role—and was subject to an automaticity process, rather than a vote. We did not have an option to block that appointment, although the Foreign Secretary did raise her concerns about it at the United Nations.
The right hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the malign role that Iran plays, not just domestically—as I described to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis)—but internationally. As has been said in this House before, Iran has continued to try to threaten communities in the UK, particularly British Jews. I have said to the Iranian ambassador here, in no uncertain terms, that if British Jews are ever found to have been harmed because of the actions of the Iranian regime, we would treat that with the utmost seriousness, as it deserves. We have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC, we have imposed more than 550 sanctions, and we have very capable security services in this country. When the Iranians seek to act in the UK, we do find them.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues and of the concern in Burnley. I raised exactly those concerns about the west bank with counterparts from the United States—with high representatives from the board of peace—and most importantly with the Palestinian Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to ensure that people on the west bank are protected from settlement violence. Settlements have expanded at an historic rate and are a subject of deep controversy both in Israel and in this House. We will continue to raise these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Mr Falconer
I want to reassure this House that the Government have not taken our eye off events in Lebanon or indeed in Israel and Palestine. That is why I was in Beirut last week with the Lebanese Prime Minister, President and various others and in Brussels yesterday with the Palestinian Prime Minister and a range of other key actors. Clearly, what the European Union does is a matter for itself. We have taken a series of steps in the way that the Foreign Secretary has already set out, and we will keep those under close review.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In my constituency, I recently met a young woman from Somaliland who in recent years has lost 14 members of her family to fighting in the region. She and other campaigners from Somaliland are understandably reticent to use the new e-visa system introduced by the Somalian Government due to fears about privacy and data protection. Will the Minister raise those questions with his counterparts in the Somalian Government to ensure that Somalilanders can travel to their country without fear?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member may know, I have repeatedly summoned the Iranian ambassador on concerns about what goes on in the UK. Some elements of the alleged attacks in the UK are still sub judice, but I want to leave him in no doubt about how forcefully we have raised these points with the Iranian ambassador, and indeed with the Iranian regime.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Constituents involved in my local Rotary club have contacted me about the global polio eradication programme. I am reliably advised that Ministers want to concentrate resources for the best impact. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the UK remains determined to protect the important gains made in polio eradication for the future?
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
On 1 January, Israel revoked the licences of 37 international non-governmental organisations working in the occupied west bank and Gaza. The United Nations human rights chief called the suspensions “outrageous” and said that they made
“an already intolerable situation even worse for the people of Gaza”.
What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Israeli Government allow lifesaving aid to enter Gaza, reverse the suspensions of the licences and do not politicise or weaponise aid and humanitarian relief?
Mr Falconer
We have continued to raise the importance of all the necessary aid getting into Gaza. It is welcome that over the last week the amount of aid that has gone in has increased, but it is still not adequate to the needs. We have raised the question of restrictions directly and repeatedly with the Israeli Government and we will continue to do so. It is vital that aid gets to the people who need it.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Would the UK consider a state to be a democracy and would it continue normal diplomatic relations with that state were it to introduce a differential death penalty based on ethnicity?
Mr Falconer
I think the hon. Member refers to the legislation passed in the Israeli Knesset. We oppose the death penalty everywhere. On 29 March, we joined many of our friends across the world to condemn that specific measure, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it specifically with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I can leave the House in no doubt about our opposition to the measures.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?
Mr Falconer
I was discussing precisely these issues yesterday. Hamas must disarm; there must be a process by which their weapons are decommissioned. There are ongoing discussions on those questions. Hamas must agree, voluntarily, to disarm. That is vital and it is a key component of the 20-point plan. Without agreement on that point, it will be difficult to make progress. I was discussing that with a range of our international counterparts yesterday and we will continue to remain very focused.
Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity quickly to correct—
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
March was one of the deadliest months on record for settler violence in the occupied west bank. For communities such as Jayyous, life is becoming intolerable. Will the Government go further than the diplomatic pressure currently being exerted and expand sanctions on the many Israeli officials explicitly and brazenly empowering settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As I said earlier, it remains uppermost in our minds, and we discussed it with our partners yesterday. He will have heard Ministers say before from this Dispatch Box that we will not speculate on further sanctions, but we treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a ceasefire in Sudan is a key priority. In the light of the Berlin conference’s shortcomings, can she detail the diplomatic, economic and political levers she is using to bring an end to the violence, particularly with the UK’s allies, including the UAE, with direct stakes in the war?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In the UK, we pride ourselves on allowing people to practise their religion freely. Can the Minister update the House on what he is doing with any new regime in Iran to protect the rights of Christians to worship openly there?
Mr Falconer
Freedom of religious belief continues to be an important issue that the Foreign Office pursues with vigour. I am glad that we are joined in the Chamber by our envoy on that question, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). We have raised questions of freedom of religious belief with the Iranian Government on countless occasions. It is clear, given the scale of restrictions that they have put on their own people, that they are not listening to the United Kingdom’s advocacy on these questions, but we will continue to raise these questions and pursue the matter with our partners.
Mr Falconer
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer I gave the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in relation to the Iranian appointment. While it is true that our diplomats have raised concerns about human rights issues in general, the Foreign Secretary has not herself raised within the United Nations the question of this appointment. There has been no opportunity for her to do so.
Commonwealth Day 2026
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. All in this House recognise his tireless work in support of the Commonwealth as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group and as a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I also welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth demonstrated in the Chamber this evening, and the good spirit that obviously suffuses the Chamber when talking about the Commonwealth—it makes a nice change for me from many of the more controversial questions on which I am often engaged. I hope that there are some watching us in the Commonwealth, and I hope they can see the true spirit of friendship and goodwill that emanates from this place to all corners of the globe.
I will try to address the points that have been raised by hon. Members. I feel personally very connected to the Commonwealth. As a young man, I joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now the FCDO. The first posting that I served properly in was in Pakistan—obviously, an important member of the Commonwealth. Pakistan and many other parts of the Commonwealth face challenging times, and I know that the Commonwealth is a much-needed source of strength and stability. As His Majesty the King reflected this week, it is often in such testing moments that the enduring spirit of this family of nations is most clearly revealed. The Commonwealth spans every continent and ocean, and it represents about a third of the world’s population. Now in its 77th year, it continues, as my hon. Friend said so articulately, to show its relevance as a family of nations bound by shared values, co-operation and genuinely deep appreciation.
The Commonwealth charter, from which my hon. Friend quoted, expresses the commitment of member states to the development of free and democratic societies and to the promotion of peace and prosperity. Commonwealth Week is an opportune moment to reflect on our shared values of freedom, peace and democracy. We were very pleased to join the 26th Commonwealth foreign affairs meeting here in London on Sunday. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary joined counterparts to discuss the most pressing challenges facing our societies and the international system. On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth joined His Majesty the King, Her Majesty the Queen and Commonwealth representatives at Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day and to reflect on the deep strength of the partnership. We are looking forward to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow this summer, which should bring us together in a spirit of friendly competition. Later this year, leaders will meet in Saint John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, for the Heads of Government meeting, which is an important opportunity for the Commonwealth to show leadership in our changing world.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this is a time of profound international challenge—from rising security threats and economic volatility, to climate pressures and democratic backsliding. These times demand contemporary partnerships that work. The Commonwealth, with its reach and diversity, is well placed to respond. Under the leadership of secretary-general Shirley Botchwey, we are seeing important steps being taken. The new strategic plan of September 2025 is focused on economic, environmental and democratic resilience. It reflects the realities of our age, and the priorities of member states.
The UK supports that direction; we continue to stand fully behind the Commonwealth. We remain the largest financial contributor to its institutions, including its secretariat, its foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning. Through its networks, including vital accredited organisations, the Commonwealth helps teachers, universities, parliamentarians and businesses to work directly with their counterparts across member states. That co-operation turns the shared values about which my hon. Friend spoke so meaningfully into practical results—be it from teachers sharing curricula, parliamentarians strengthening scrutiny or businesses navigating new markets. That is one of the Commonwealth’s real strengths.
At a time when global institutions are under strain, that network of nations is a powerful example of multilateral co-operation that delivers. That approach will be reflected in the global partnerships conference in London in May. We look forward to co-hosting that conference with South Africa, bringing together Governments, civil society and the private sector to help shape the international development system for a new era.
There is much more I could say about the work that we are doing through the Commonwealth on economic growth, democracy, good governance and indeed the vital climate challenges that we face, but in summary I turn once again to the importance of the Commonwealth, which has been demonstrated once again this evening, and to why it remains so vital in today’s world: the combination of its shared values, its global reach and its relevance at a time of growing instability. This is a significant year for the Commonwealth, with ministerial meetings, major events and leaders coming together.
Adam Jogee
I know that it is naughty to intervene on the Minister in my own Adjournment debate, but since we have five minutes left—four minutes, excuse me —I wonder whether he might touch on a couple of those economic benefits to which he just referred.
Mr Falconer
I would be delighted to do so. Growth is clearly a central mission for the Government, and the Commonwealth truly can play a valuable role in delivering it. The Commonwealth has a significant share of the world’s markets, critical mineral reserves and trading potential. The combined GDP is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2027. Shared language, legal systems and institutions make it easier to trade and invest with one another.
As we know, however, many members face real constraints, from debt pressures and volatile trade to limited access to affordable finance, all against a backdrop of global uncertainty. That is why the UK will work with Commonwealth partners to put economic growth at the very top of the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting later this year. The focus will be on reducing barriers to trade, making it easier to do business across borders, deepening digital trade, improving alignment of standards, strengthening supply chains and expanding the Commonwealth investment network, with which I know my hon. Friend is familiar.
We believe that that work is already making a difference, supporting small businesses from agritourism projects in the Caribbean to recycling and land restoration initiatives in the Pacific, helping them attract investment and build resilience. As a group of countries committed to free trade and the rule of law, we will also work together to support World Trade Organisation reform and a more stable and predictable global trading environment, including for small states.
Those are some of the steps that we will take on economic growth. It is also right to say that some of the climate pressures facing the Commonwealth impact very heavily on the growth prospects of some Commonwealth members. We have been glad to support some financial measures in that regard, including the climate finance access hub and the disaster risk finance portal, which help states to build resilience and respond more effectively to climate risk. We are taking action to try to ensure that Commonwealth countries particularly exposed to the vicissitudes of climate change do not face financing burdens in their ability to respond.
Before I conclude, I want to agree very sincerely with the points made by hon. Members and friends about the Commonwealth war graves. I remember visiting the pristinely maintained Commonwealth war graves in South Sudan. So much else has changed in South Sudan since those graveyards were put in place, and they have been maintained pristinely. One of the functions that often falls to British diplomats is to inspect those graves, which are the most moving and visible demonstration of the deep commitments that Commonwealth members feel to each other.
As I said, it is a significant year for the Commonwealth. Together, we will work to support growth, strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and back vulnerable states as they respond to climate change. We are determined to enhance co-operation in the months and years to come to ensure that the Commonwealth continues to deliver for all its citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Consular Assistance
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on developments in the middle east.
Everyone in this House, and across this country, will be horrified by what is unfolding—by the wave after wave of reckless Iranian missile strikes, by the loss of life, and by the fact that many thousands of British citizens are caught up in this crisis. Let me begin by offering my condolences to the families of civilian casualties from across the region. We stand in solidarity with allies and partners targeted by Iran. I condemn in the strongest terms these appalling strikes.
Yesterday, I summoned Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, in response to his country’s reckless actions. Iran must be held accountable. The safety of British nationals remains my top priority. There are around 300,000 of them in the region that is being targeted by Iranian strikes. The numbers reflect the deep ties between Britain and our friends in the Gulf. These countries did not attack Iran, and were not involved in the initial hostilities, yet they are being subjected to thousands of ballistic missile and drone attacks. Continued airspace closures and restrictions are making it extremely hard for many people to get home. Families on holiday and business travellers are having to shelter from attacks. I understand the anxiety and the frustration that this is causing.
I thank the almost 140,000 British nationals who have signed up to register their presence across Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. That is helping us to know exactly where people are, so that we can provide timely updates and support. If anyone watching this statement has a vulnerable family member, or particular concerns, please contact our helpline, which is manned by Foreign Office staff 24/7. The number is: 0207 008 5000.
I pay tribute to the United Arab Emirates Government and all our regional allies for their efforts and generosity to our nationals stuck in the region. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working round the clock to support British nationals. We are working intensively with airlines, travel companies and regional Governments to find safe routes home on commercial flights. The Foreign Secretary had productive discussions yesterday with the Emirates president, Sir Tim Clark, on ways forward, and also with the British Airways chief executive officer, Sean Doyle.
Airlines have been able to reinstate some commercial flights from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and are working to support passengers. As the House will be aware, some flights are now operating out of the United Arab Emirates. More than 2,000 people arrived in the UK on eight flights from the UAE yesterday. That included transit passengers and vulnerable people identified through our consular system. We are expecting a further 10 flights today.
Let me turn to Oman. Following close engagement with the Government, British Airways has laid on new flights to Muscat, which we anticipate flying every day. We are grateful to British Airways for its efforts. We are also providing UK-supported charter flights out of Muscat, the first of which was delayed yesterday evening due to technical issues at the airport, but it is scheduled to depart imminently, with further flights planned in the coming days. British nationals in Oman will be contacted about those as they become available.
In addition, we have deployed rapid deployment teams on the ground to help facilitate onward travel for British nationals. I can confirm to the House that a further RDT has been deployed in the last 24 hours. We will continue to provide the latest information and will be constantly reviewing and updating our travel advice. I encourage everybody watching this statement who is affected to sign up to our travel advice.
I must be clear that we are tackling a consular challenge on a scale not seen since covid. There are no instant solutions for moving such numbers of people, especially while airspace restrictions remain in place, but I am determined that people should get home as safely and as swiftly as possible. In total, over 4,000 people arrived in the UK from five different countries in the region yesterday.
Turning briefly to the wider situation, the Prime Minister has been clear that we are not engaged in any military action against Iran, but we are supporting our allies and our partners, particularly in the Gulf, to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks on their territory. Since Saturday morning, multiple F-35s and Typhoons have been operating on a defensive mission to identify and shoot down cruise missiles and drones, not just in the middle east but in the eastern Mediterranean, joining the extra forces deployed to the region prior to this crisis.
Further missions were flown overnight, with Typhoons defending Qatar in particular and F-35s defending our other regional partners. We are resupplying our air defence missiles today. Wildcat helicopters with anti-drone capabilities will be in the eastern Mediterranean this week. HMS Dragon will shortly be deployed to the Mediterranean.
As the Prime Minister has set out, RAF Akrotiri is not being used by US bombers. The Defence Secretary is in Cyprus today, where he has just met Cypriot Defence Minister Vasilis Palmas. They discussed what the UK is doing to reinforce our defences to support our shared security. The House is aware that the Prime Minister has also agreed that US aircraft may fly out of UK bases for the specific and limited purposes linked to defending against Iran’s reckless attacks—attacks that are threatening our partners, our interests and our allies, including our friends in the Gulf.
Strong allies are honest with each other, and we were clear with the United States that the UK would not be involved in the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran. As the Prime Minister has said to the House, we stand by both decisions, taken squarely in the UK’s national interest and in line with international law. That is the action we are taking. That is the agreement we have reached with the United States to protect our nationals and our allies.
The situation is evolving, and there are indications that this is a crisis not of days but of weeks and possibly months. We are focused not just on the immediate term. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will shortly address the House regarding the impact of this crisis on energy costs and the cost of living.
We are under no illusion about the nature of the Iranian regime. As the Foreign Secretary has said, its leaders have for decades terrorised and murdered their own people, destabilised the region and exported threats and instability around the world, including here on UK soil. Iranian people took to the streets just last month demanding change. They were met instead with bloody and brutal repression. We assess that at least 7,000 were murdered, with bodies lining the streets—the deadliest unrest in Iran’s modern history.
We must guard against the country sliding into chaos, exploited by extremists, and against a protracted regional conflict spiralling further. We continue to call on Iran to end these reckless strikes. We will work tirelessly for the swiftest possible resolution to this crisis, in line with Britain’s interests and with lasting regional security and stability. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I put on record the Opposition’s thanks to officials working to get British nationals home and to our partners in the region for their exceptional support and the assistance they are giving to British nationals who are stuck in Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Iran is a world-leading state sponsor of terrorism. It plots lethal attacks on British soil and has murdered a generation of its own citizens. It poses an intolerable threat from its nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and hostile interference. Now, it is targeting British nationals. It has attacked RAF Akrotiri, putting hundreds of lives at risk, and it is attacking our allies in the region with unprovoked aggression. Britain cannot sit on the fence. Our adversaries must know that we will not stand back when our allies are under such attack.
I pay tribute to our incredible armed forces on British bases; their families are in our thoughts. Hundreds of thousands of British nationals are stuck in the region. Following the failed repatriation flight last night, they want to know what the Government are doing to bring them back home. They are trapped in the region, and getting them back is an enormous exercise. Ministers must be honest about all their actions. How many British nationals do the Government have the capacity to repatriate through charter flights?
Our Gulf friends have negotiated an air corridor, which both Emirates and Etihad Airways are maximising to repatriate foreign nationals. What plans are in place to secure the use of airspace to facilitate flights for our nationals? What are the Government doing to try to protect British nationals in the region, including Craig and Lindsay Foreman who are detained in Iran? Was that case raised when the murderous Iranian terror regime’s representative in London was eventually summoned yesterday? Given Iran’s actions, why was he not expelled?
The fallout from the conflict requires Britain to stand up for our country and for our national interests. If ever there was a time for UK leadership, it is now. That leads me to ask, why is the Foreign Secretary not here today? She should be here giving the statement. Instead, we see reports of the Prime Minister being forced by his Cabinet into sitting on the fence—including by Britain’s weak and feeble Foreign Secretary. She has failed in her duty to stand up for Britain’s place in the world, failed to work with our allies to promote our national interests in the region, and failed to provide the leadership needed to protect our military personnel, our bases and British nationals.
Where is Britain in the region? What do the provisions of the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement with Bahrain mean for the response to this situation? It was meant to build long-term security and stability across the middle east.
Why was Britain so woefully unprepared? Ten days ago, the Foreign Secretary was in Washington claiming to have held successful meetings with her counterpart. What was her response when Iran was discussed? Did she just wave the white flag of surrender and tell her Department not to engage with the United States as it made these plans, and on the action that followed?
Britain’s allies are raging against the UK’s feebleness. Bahrain, the UAE and Cyprus, as well as the United States, are reported to be angered and disappointed by this Labour Government’s shameful weakness to stand up to aggressors. Within hours of the attack on Cyprus, Greece sent two frigates and four F-16 planes, while Britain is still working out when HMS Dragon will depart the UK. The situation is shameful and embarrassing. Never in the history of this great nation have a Government been so feeble at a time when our people and our allies are under assault. This is no time to sit on the sidelines as the Iranian regime and its proxies target everyone.
When will the Government get British nationals home? What will be done to strengthen our defences in the region and work with our allies? What are the Government doing with our allies to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? When will Ministers act over the regime’s illegal funding source? The fact is that senior figures in that despotic regime have been parking their wealth and assets in London while repressing their own people. When will Ministers ensure that the UK’s financial system and institutions are not facilitating and hosting funds? By the way, I say to Ministers that I have repeatedly asked these questions before.
Finally, when will the Government ban the murderous revolutionary guards and bring forward the emergency legislation that we are all calling for? This is not a time for Britain to be silent. Britain must work with our allies to defend our national security and confront this vile and despotic regime with strength and resolve.
Mr Falconer
I remind the House that there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. As the House will be aware, I have been in many crises that have affected British nationals overseas; the House will know that this is a very significant one. I confirm to the House, and particularly to those on the Opposition Benches given the language they have chosen to use in the past 24 hours—both personally about the Foreign Secretary, as the shadow Foreign Secretary just did, and as the Leader of the Opposition did about “orcs and goons” yesterday—that the Ministers of this country have been in the Foreign Office crisis centre since Saturday. I will not reflect on my time as an official in previous crises, when the same was not said about Foreign Ministers during such times.
I want to be clear for British nationals in the region—
Mr Falconer
I would be grateful if Members on the Opposition Front Bench could keep their volume slightly down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that we listen with respect in this Chamber, especially when the situation is so serious.
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear to British nationals in the region that the commercial routes that are opening up are by far the most likely and most rapid routes back to the UK. I recognise the terrible uncertainty and anxiety faced by so many British nationals in the region. Given the scale of the disruption to airspace and the global aviation system, this is likely to take some time. We have put on charter flights, and we are working with our commercial partners to ensure that vulnerable British nationals are prioritised.
I say to people at home who are concerned for their loved ones, please do call the Foreign Office hotline. If right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about their constituents, I encourage them either to contact the Foreign Office—we have had officials in the House today to assist people directly—or to be in touch with me, as so many have been already.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Having spent some 10 years on the shadow Front Bench, I know that it is frustrating and that it can be difficult, but there is a responsibility, in my view, to always put the country’s interests first and to not use an opportunity for narrow political advantage and play party politics. As for throwing personal abuse across the Dispatch Box at a time like this, I have to say that I am profoundly shocked.
May I move on to my question? Given that the Minister called in the Iranian ambassador to see him, I would be interested to hear what on earth the ambassador had to say and how he excused what Iran is doing at the moment by attacking many countries in the region, some of which have worked night and day to try to find a peaceful way through this.
May I also pass on a message from one of my constituents, who is caught in Muscat at the moment? They moved from the UAE on the basis of Foreign Office advice. They went to the airport in Oman and all they say is this. When they got to the airport, they could see some representatives, particularly of Italy, who were wearing high-vis jackets. There may well be people from Britain there, but they were not as clearly identifiable as some from other countries. I am sure that there is a presence in the airports, but perhaps there could be high-vis jackets or some form of clearer identification, because there will be a lot of people at Muscat airport looking for help.
Mr Falconer
We will take that feedback into account. I confirm that our ambassador to Oman is in the airport as we speak, to ensure the successful departure of the flight. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right about the scale of the crisis. We will provide further updates on those questions as rapidly as possible. That is why it is so important that people watching at home register their presence and sign up for our travel advice.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The illegal war started by Trump and Netanyahu has now engulfed the entire middle east, and Iran’s reckless retaliation against our partners in the region is putting British lives at risk. There are 300,000 Britons still in the region, yet only 140,000—less than half—have registered with the Government.
For families in my constituency of Esher and Walton and across the country who have relatives in the region, the uncertainty is agonising. One of my constituents from Walton is stranded in Abu Dhabi and is six months pregnant. Her flight home has been cancelled and her only option is to book a taxi to Oman and then walk up to 4 km in the heat, in the hope of catching a flight. More of my constituents are stranded in Dubai in the Fairmont hotel, which was struck last week. They have registered, as instructed, but have said that the comms are poor and that they cannot get information on how to register for the Government flights.
Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to encourage more Britons to register their location? Will he also update the House on what contact the Government have had with Lindsay and Craig Foreman, who remain imprisoned in Iran? What steps are being taken to confirm their safety and wellbeing? Even as the Government’s immediate focus must be on protecting and repatriating UK citizens in the region, I pay tribute to the officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who are working so hard on this.
We cannot, however, ignore what appear to be catastrophic errors in the Government’s readiness for this crisis. The Minister says that this is a consular challenge on the scale of covid, but the Government knew it was coming. Reporting by The Spectator and The Telegraph overnight suggests that the Government were asked for use of British bases on 11 February. There has been a huge deployment of US assets over the last month, and I also assume that the Government were not oblivious to the USS Gerald R. Ford steaming towards the eastern Mediterranean in late February. With so many signals suggesting that war was potentially imminent, why did the Government not move sooner on preparing repatriation plans for our citizens, or prepare for the defence of our base in Cyprus, with HMS Dragon still sat in Portsmouth?
Mr Falconer
Let me deal with a few of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s questions in turn. She is right to say that the Foreign Office is much more able to assist those who have registered their presence, and we encourage British nationals to do so in those countries where have called for this. There is also considerable uncertainty in other countries where there is disruption to flights. In countries where we are not calling on British nationals to register their presence, they should still feel free to be in touch with the Foreign Office crisis line. We are providing consular assistance right across the region, and we will continue to do so.
I want to correct, for the record, the precise nature of our advice about the United Arab Emirates and Oman. We are not encouraging British nationals resident in the United Arab Emirates to travel to Oman by land. We are conducting charter flights from Oman. We are not inviting people to put themselves forward for those flights; we are seeking to select people based on vulnerability. We will provide further update on the charters as they become available. British nationals should not move forward to Muscat airport in the hope of a flight. It is clearly a significantly congested area at the moment; they should wait to hear from the Foreign Office.
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokes- people both asked me about the Foremans. I confirm that this has been raised with the Iranian regime in the strongest possible terms, including during my summoning yesterday. They are still in Iran, and our thoughts go out to their families, who are currently receiving consular assistance.
In relation to the repatriation flights in general and the suggestion that it would be possible to, in advance, prevent this degree of disruption, I say gently to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that this is a significant disruption, not just to the region but to the global aviation system. I know that many hon. and right hon. Members will have constituents stuck in places not in the immediately affected area. We hope that the disruption to global aviation can be addressed soon, but clearly, while there remains so much uncertainty about the airspace, there is likely to be a degree of mess and a great number of bugs in the system.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I came here for this statement on consular assistance to raise issues on behalf of my constituents. Clearly, the Conservatives have nothing to say on behalf of people who are really concerned about the situation in the middle east.
During covid, when flights were cancelled, I remember airlines saying nice things, but the reality for our constituents was different. Cathay Pacific stole money from students, despite their having booked through the student travel association acting as its agent, and refused to honour the tickets or pay any compensation. It was absolutely disgraceful. I have constituents who are concerned about getting back now, so may I ask my hon. Friend to keep the pressure on the airlines? They will be as nice as pie to him, but when it comes to our constituents—face to face—they will get away with whatever they can. I urge him to keep the pressure on the airlines to deliver for our constituents.
Mr Falconer
I know that many MPs, myself included, will have constituents in the region who are concerned. We are in regular dialogue with the airlines directly as I described in my statement, and we will continue in that way.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the last Conservative Government rather bizarrely chose to appoint David Cameron as Foreign Secretary in the upper House, the then Opposition—quite rightly in my view—complained about the fact that this House could not directly question the Foreign Secretary. I simply say to the Ministers, who are very hard-working, that they should make representations to their boss that she should appear here more often.
The Minister said that we wish to avoid the situation of Iran
“sliding into chaos, exploited by extremists”.
Does he accept that the problem with Iran is that extremists are in control of the country and have been for 47 years? Does its reaction in attacking more than half a dozen neighbouring countries, none of which had attacked it, not show what it would do if it could get its hands on nuclear weapons? Is he satisfied that when our destroyer eventually gets out there, it will have enough munitions to put up a reliable defensive screen for more than a relatively short period of time?
Mr Falconer
British forces have been in action across the region shooting down missiles and drones. They are being resupplied today. I have every confidence in them, including the Royal Navy. I have been clear about our view of the Iranian regime, our utter opposition to its achieving a nuclear weapon and our total condemnation of its attacks on our friends and partners, which are reckless in the extreme. I could set out our position on Iran in greater detail, but I wish to focus more on consular questions today.
On the Foreign Secretary, she was in this House throughout the week, including for Foreign Office orals on Tuesday. We covered these issues in some detail with the Prime Minister yesterday. The Foreign Secretary is currently in the ministerial Cobra discussing these issues. She will, of course, make herself available to the House as much as she possibly can. I hope that colleagues across the House recognise that I speak a great deal in this House because of their interest in these issues, and I will continue to return when the Foreign Secretary is unable to do so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister will agree that it is wrong for companies to profit out of this crisis. I have been hearing from constituents in the region who say exorbitant prices are being charged for airfares, which they cannot afford, and for hotels, which they cannot afford to stay in any longer. Can he put pressure on the industry to enable those constituents to come back, particularly as some of their travel insurance has run out?
Mr Falconer
I recognise that there are a very large number of British nationals in a wide range of circumstances. To be clear on our approach, we rightly have to focus on our most vulnerable nationals at the moment. There will be a considerable number of British nationals who are understandably frustrated, anxious and worried about the costs they are accruing, both in the region and the opportunity cost of their not being back in the UK as they expected. We will do everything we can to get people back as swiftly and safely as possible, and I am happy to take up any particular cases.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I appreciate everything the Minister has said and thank him for the information on this, but in his statement, he did not mention the many thousands of British citizens affected in places outwith the Gulf. I have constituents in Sri Lanka who cannot get home, and they have said that they cannot get any consular assistance at the moment because they are not vulnerable and are not in any danger. For people in other parts of the world who will now incur massive costs because this is an act of war and insurance companies may not cover them, will he tell us how the Government will support them through consular assistance and help them get home?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will appreciate that we will continue to discharge our consular responsibilities right across the country, but my Department is understandably focused on the vulnerable and those in harm’s way. We will ensure that everybody who is stuck gets home. The hon. Member should encourage her constituents to be in direct contact, and I am sure that the relevant embassies and high commissions will assist where they can. But I am afraid that many of our friends and countrymen across the world who face disruption are likely to do so for some days. The global aviation system is responsive and fast, but given the scale of disruption, it may yet take a little while longer.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My constituent Lisa is stuck in Dubai. She is three months pregnant. She has her 18-month-old son with her. She has medical needs and is running out of vital medication from the UK. Can I have some reassurance from the Dispatch Box for Lisa’s family that she will be prioritised for a flight back home as she is medically vulnerable?
Mr Falconer
If Members in this House or constituents are worried that they are vulnerable, please be in touch with the Foreign Office. Even if there are British nationals in the region who are vulnerable but, for whatever reason, are unable to get on a flight shortly, we will ensure that they get our full support to access the medication or any other assistance they require to continue to stay in the Gulf as safely and securely as possible. We will take up the individual case. I want to encourage colleagues and those listening that if there is any question of vulnerability, contact us directly; do not simply wait because you have registered your presence.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have a constituent who has a 16-year-old daughter in Dubai seeking repatriation to the UK. May I put on the record my thanks to the officials for all the work they are doing? I have heard the Minister today say that the advice now is not to travel by land from Dubai to Oman, but my constituent, as of this morning, is very concerned for the safety of her daughter, who has been told to travel the 400 km to Oman to catch a repatriation flight without consular assistance. It sounds like the advice may have changed recently. Please can the Minister look into this, particularly to ensure that UK minors who are trapped in the region are provided with the right consular support, so that they can transit safely to Oman to catch those repatriation flights?
Mr Falconer
The situation we face is very complex, so let me try to set out the advice on this point in particular because it is so important—indeed, I discussed it with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), just yesterday. Our advice is advice; British nationals will want to make their own best judgments. In the United Arab Emirates, the continued advice of the UAE is to shelter in place. That advice is changing very regularly. We are providing updates very regularly. For vulnerable British nationals, where they contact us, we will seek to try to provide them options. In the end, choices will need to be made about whether people wish to move forward to Oman or wait in the United Arab Emirates, which is where the majority of British nationals are currently stuck. I recognise that it is a complicated picture, and that is why I encourage so many to talk directly to my teams so that they can give the best possible advice. Not everybody will follow Foreign Office advice, but we want to give British nationals the full and best facts and advice that we can, so that they can make their best judgments.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and the advice he has given my constituents and everybody else. I want to raise two issues with him. We asked the FCDO yesterday about vulnerable travellers. It said, “People who identify as vulnerable should highlight this to the FCDO”, but it was not able to give guidance on what would be classed as vulnerable. I feel that that would be helpful. What steps has he taken to identify other countries, such as Egypt, where travellers are still going out for holidays and there is a danger that they may get stuck should the situation escalate? What advice would he give them?
Mr Falconer
We are providing travel advice for every country relevant. It is changing quite quickly. I encourage people to look at the specific travel advice. After much painful experience of complex crises, I do not intend to provide a detailed definition of vulnerability. In a crisis of this nature, I would prefer that people speak directly to my officials to explain why they feel vulnerable so that we can give the best possible advice. People should err on the side of caution and call the Foreign Office hotline if they are worried about vulnerability.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Our thoughts are with those stranded in the region, and we wish them safe passage as soon as possible. I fear that this is the moment when the hollowing out of the UK’s consular support service has real-life consequences for many UK nationals. Of course, there is no consular support presence in Tehran at the moment. I know that the Minister is aware of the dire situation faced by Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are being arbitrarily detained in Evin prison. Before leaving Tehran, did embassy staff make contact with Craig and Lindsay directly to advise them on what to do in the event they were released or managed to escape from Evin prison, and if not, why not?
Mr Falconer
For reasons the House will understand, I will not provide a detailed commentary on direct contact with Craig and Lindsay Foreman. The hon. Member is right that we cannot offer consular assistance in Iran—we have withdrawn our embassy—but I encourage anybody concerned about their family in Iran to be in direct contact with the Foreign Office. This is clearly an extremely sensitive moment. We will take the same approach this year as we did in the conflict last year. We will provide all the help that we can, but we must manage expectations in the absence of our embassy. In the long-standing absence of our ability to provide consular support in Iran, what we can do will be limited, but people who are worried about family members in Iran should not hesitate to contact us.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Like many Members, I have been supporting constituents who are seeking to return to the UK. Although it has not been simple, Janet and Hugh are due to be on one of those extra flights that the Minister has helped to secure with British Airways, which will get them back today. Will the Minister reiterate the importance of any individuals with vulnerabilities using the consular helpline to ensure that they are prioritised for evacuation flights?
Mr Falconer
I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are heading home. As we saw with our own charter flight, for which there was still a great deal of complexity, there will likely be bumps in the road, but we will get everyone home. We will ensure that we attend to their safety and security at every step. Anyone who is worried about their loved ones getting home, or about particular vulnerabilities, should please be in touch in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for his statement, and express a certain amount of sympathy? Like him, I ran evacuations under fire, and it is pretty chaotic. He and his officials will inevitably attract some criticism—that is the nature of the beast, as he knows.
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a number of pre-emptive measures that he took prior to the conflict starting. It was quite a long list, and included surface-to-air missiles and the radar early warning system. The one obvious gap in that list was sending a ship to the Mediterranean, which is now obviously the first thing that the Government have done as a result of events. Was the decision not to send the ship as part of that pre-emptory package a question of capability or intent? Was it that the Government could not send a ship, or that they did not want to?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the constructive and reasonable tone of his question—and not just because he has the finest first name in Parliament. Let me provide some additional commentary on HMS Dragon, given that it has been a subject of such interest. As he will know, decisions are based on operational factors. Force protection is at its highest level in the eastern Mediterranean. The decision about HMS Dragon was brought to the Chief of the Defence Staff and Ministers in the light of the increasingly reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran across the region, and it was signed off immediately.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all his work on this ever-changing situation. The Samuels and their two children, who are constituents of mine, are in Dubai at the moment. They are not able to get proper advice from the airlines about the options available to them. Will the Minister elaborate on the work he has been doing with the airlines, where commercial flights are going ahead, and tell us whether they are prioritising based on need and vulnerability?
Mr Falconer
My Department would be very happy to take up the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case. Airlines are seeking to manage very complex caseloads, and we are grateful for their work with us. The British Government are obviously prioritising our most vulnerable nationals, and we are encouraging commercial partners to do the same.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the Minister, Government officials and all our casework teams dealing with our constituents on this matter. Many of my constituents have been affected, and I too have encouraged them to register for the scheme. I am particularly concerned about vulnerable people with health conditions. I understand that they will be prioritised for repatriation flights. One of my constituents, who hopes to be on a flight tomorrow morning, has a heart condition and will run out of medication at some point. The Minister said that the Government hope to get medication into those countries. Will he elaborate on that to give reassurance to constituents like mine, who are understandably concerned about the management of their health conditions while this situation continues?
Mr Falconer
I understand that British nationals abroad with medical conditions will be worried about whether they can get access to the medicines that they require. The vast majority of British nationals are in the United Arab Emirates, where there are good supplies of all reasonable medicines that people would want access to. However, those with particular concerns should get in touch with my officials. We will work to ensure that British nationals who need medicine but cannot get access to it on their own are supported. Some of my officials have helped to take British nationals to pharmacies, for example.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work that he and the Government are doing to help UK citizens get home if they wish to. One of my constituents is in Dubai with friends. She is a type 1 diabetic but is running out of insulin and is anxious to return home. Can he offer any guidance on whether she might be prioritised for a flight home, and on what medical support she can access in the interim?
Will the Minister also offer advice to other constituents of mine, including Krystal Whyment, who are unable to leave Dubai because flights have been cancelled on more than one occasion? They are finding it difficult to access support when they contact the UK consulate in Dubai, because of the heavy workload that the consulate is clearly experiencing.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the care that he shows his constituents. I think I covered the medical question in my previous answer. Of course, as he generously acknowledged, the teams on the ground are under considerable pressure. I recognise that British nationals will be frustrated when there are delays in getting through to our team, but I want to reassure people that our hotline is open 24/7, and they will speak to Foreign Office staff when they get through. I am keeping a close eye on the waiting times for people to get through. I know that this will not all be smooth sailing, and that we will encounter all manner of issues and glitches, but we will do everything we can to minimise them and work as quickly as we can to get everybody home safely.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A statement on consular assistance is no time for party political attacks. That does a disservice to hard-working officials such as Sarah Taylor, who has been doing amazing work, and it does a disservice to our constituents who are stuck abroad.
I am pleased to report to the Minister that Cameron, the individual I mentioned to the Prime Minister in the Chamber earlier this week, who was stuck in a hospital in Dubai, is now back home safe in London. However, I want to raise the plight of another constituent, Donna, who I spoke to the Minister about yesterday. Donna has attempted to board six flights from the United Arab Emirates back to London, but each has been cancelled. She has a number of health conditions and has run out of medication. She cannot get that medication or its equivalent in the United Arab Emirates. What can the Minister do to support us, first, to get an alternative to the medication that she needs, and, secondly, to get Donna back home to Eastbourne safely?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for his tone and the welcome news that Cameron is home safely. I know he has been in touch directly with our excellent director for consular affairs, who will be red in the face at being in Hansard unexpectedly. We will do everything we can to make sure that Donna gets the assistance she needs.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
As someone with family who have been living in the UAE for a number of years, I know how worrying it is for many families both here and there, so I thank the Minister for his work and that of his officials in providing consular assistance. I want to raise the case of a constituent who has been in touch. He was on his way to transit in Kuwait and found that Kuwait Airways is no longer paying for his accommodation and is seemingly providing very little help. What more could he be doing, and what more could I be doing to support him? What other support is available to him? What work are we doing with the commercial airlines to ensure they are providing the right support to people like my constituent?
Mr Falconer
We are working directly with the airlines. I am sure my hon. Friend is putting these points to my officials, and we will follow up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers, and I also thank his Department. I have some constituents who work for Bombardier and were in Malaysia. They were returning home to Northern Ireland via the middle east but found themselves restricted by the events taking place there and unable to travel. They got home last night, so I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and his Department.
Some 138,000 British people have registered their presence in the middle east. Getting them home is one thing, but making sure they are safe until then is another. What is being done to make sure they are safe? Families are worried sick, and they want to know that their loved ones are safe.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am conscious that there is a slightly different process for those from Northern Ireland, depending on whether they have a British passport on them, for signing up to “register your presence”. We have clarified the process. If there are any questions, please do refer them to the Foreign Office.
The hon. Member is right to talk about the risks in the region. We are providing updated travel advice to ensure that British nationals are aware, but of course we are taking concrete actions, too. I can confirm to the House that we have been actively disrupting threats over the last few days. That includes the RAF Typhoon squadron jointly with Qatar shooting down drones over Qatar, RAF F-35B Lightnings shooting down uncrewed aerial systems over Jordan, and British counter-uncrewed aerial systems teams neutralising drones in Iraqi airspace heading towards coalition forces. Britain will take active action to defend our people, our interests and, of course, our friends and partners in the region.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences to the families of those who have been killed, and I thank him for his statement, for his tone and for summoning the Iranian ambassador yesterday, who I hope was left in no doubt about both our values and our resolve. I acknowledge the work to get those stuck in the middle east home, but my constituent and his family from Newcastle-under-Lyme are stuck because their flights through the middle east have been cancelled twice. The next available flight, they were told this morning, is on 24 March. Their travel agent has told the family that they must pay for their accommodation between today and 24 March, at a cost of about £1,000 a night for almost three weeks, which is £20,000 or so. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said today, may I urge him to go further and much, much faster in ensuring that airlines and agents do not leave people in the lurch, do not take advantage and do not let them down?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that I left the Iranian ambassador in no doubt about the British position and resolve. In relation to my hon. Friend’s constituents, please be in touch. It sounds like they are not in the region and are facing a particularly expensive set of hotel bills. It would be easier for me if I had a little bit more detail, following a conversation with officials.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. May I invite him to join me in paying tribute to the pilots and other service personnel based at RAF Marham in my constituency? It was the F-35s based there that were engaged in action this week to protect British citizens and support our allies, and I pay tribute to their skills, expertise and dedication.
Mr Falconer
I, of course, join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to RAF Marham. I also have to mention RAF Waddington, a vital airbase in my constituency, which is providing a considerable contribution. I know the whole House will be thinking of our armed forces as they keep our people, our interests and our allies protected in these tense days.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My thoughts are with British citizens in the Gulf; as someone who has lived and worked in that region, I can only imagine how concerned they must be. Those on the Opposition Front Bench yesterday and today have used careless, aggressive and disrespectful language in this Chamber, and I imagine they are doing so in order to wrap themselves in the cloak of national security patriotism. Does my hon. Friend agree that this use of language actually undermines national security, because it suggests that this House is divided on such an important issue? I would like to pay tribute to his diplomats, our incredibly brave armed forces and other civil servants in this country who are dealing with this crisis. As they deal with it, they would benefit, I think, from a united House of Commons.
Mr Falconer
I agree very much with the tone of my hon. Friend’s question. When I look behind me, I do not see “orcs and goons”—I see hon. Friends concerned about their constituents, and I know the same is true across all these Benches.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK strongly condemns the expansion of illegal settlements and the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that introduced sweeping extensions to their control of the west bank. These actions threaten peace and stability and undermine the 20-point plan. They risk making a two-state solution impossible to achieve. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, they must stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and they must stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right in his characterisation of the increase in settlements. That increase has been accompanied by a very concerning increase in settler violence. I know that many hon. Members will have been shocked by the footage they have seen of these incidents. The Foreign Secretary raised those issues directly, including the risks of instability that they cause, with Israel’s Foreign Minister Sa’ar in New York last month. We will not accept attempts to advance settlement expansion under the cover of regional instability. We will consider concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter the expansion.
Caroline Voaden
Last year, the Israeli Government issued nearly 10,000 units of settlement housing tenders, which was more than the combined total of tenders over the previous six years. The extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet clearly have the explicit intention of undermining any prospect of a viable Palestinian state, let alone a two-state solution. The Minister said that he condemns the expansion and is considering actions to take, but will he do the right thing now and introduce a full ban on all trade with illegal settlements in the west bank, to show that this Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution; it has been at the heart of our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine for the entire duration of our time in government. As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and announced three waves of sanctions, and I am sure that she will have listened carefully to my remarks in answer to the previous question.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question; I know she is extremely focused, rightly, on the deterioration of the situation in the west bank. She focuses correctly on the threat of annexation. We oppose that absolutely, as do our American counter-parts, as I am sure she is aware. I am not in a position to provide further commentary on what the steps I alluded to might yet be, for the reasons that we have rehearsed in this Chamber many times. We have taken action, including the three rounds of sanctions that I described, and we will continue to take action while the situation continues to deteriorate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right: Israel must stop. What estimate has he made of the time that we have before a separate Palestinian state becomes, geographically and economically, utterly untenable?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Member and my predecessor for that important question. We have pointed to a whole range of areas of concern in relation to the viability of a Palestinian state. One that has not received mention so far in our exchanges, but which is vital, is the E1 development. The British Government are deeply concerned by the speed with which the Israeli Government are proceeding with a project that we completely oppose. It is clearly designed to try to split two parts of a contiguous Palestinian territory. We oppose it, and we will continue to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?
Mr Falconer
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.
Mr Falconer
We have taken a range of steps and we continue to take steps, including raising those issues both with our partners and directly with the Israeli Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The hon. Member refers to sections 3 and 8 of the UK’s 2025 UK-Palestine MOU, which is clear on our commitment to supporting the PA’s reform agenda on education. We welcome President Abbas’s pledge in 2025 to continue reforms in line with UNESCO standards. The Foreign Secretary and I have pressed him and Prime Minister Mustafa on this personally. An external review has been commissioned to verify the implementation of those reform commitments. I will report to the House on our assessment when it is completed in the coming months.
Jack Rankin
The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to
“turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”.
That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?
Mr Falconer
As I said, there will be an external assessment. I am aware that the process of education reform, which is being led by some of our friends in the European Union, is happening grade by grade. As I understand it, there has been considerable progress on grade 12, and they are looking at some of the other grades. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to send me the textbook, to confirm which grade it relates to.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I accept that there are problems with the curriculum in Palestinian schools, but the eyes of the world are now distracted, and settlement expansion continues, as far as we can tell. I am concerned that when the dust settles and the rubble is cleared, the viability of the Palestinian state will be significantly jeopardised. Does the Minister share my firm belief that what is going on does not really represent the will of the Israeli people?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks. He is right that violent settlement expansion is not the will of most Israelis; polling reflects that time and again. As the Israeli public approach Israeli elections, I hope that there will be a discussion in Israel about the appalling nature of this violence and this expansion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?
Mr Falconer
I have tried to answer as precisely as possible on all the sections of the MOU. If the right hon. Lady has a particular area that she would like to raise, I am happy to address it, as I did the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I can confirm that I raised these questions in my most recent interaction with the Palestinian ambassador. She refers to what is sometimes described in public as “pay to slay”—the Tamkeen system. That is being externally audited by a United States auditor. Once we have that audit, we will be in a position to provide a further update to the House.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have spoken many times about the risks to children in the west bank and Gaza. It is a priority for this Government. We raise it regularly with our Israeli counterparts, and I am familiar with the report the hon. Lady references.
UK-German Relations
Hamish Falconer Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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—
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—
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.
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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?
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.
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—