Gaza and Humanitarian Aid

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate, and I thank you, Ms Vaz, for your expert management of today’s proceedings. This is my first debate in this place, so I am sure that I will be considerably less expert, and I beg your indulgence at the outset. I will try to be brief so that I can give the hon. Member an opportunity to respond.

As many have said, this week marked one year since Hamas’s brutal attack against Israel. It was the worst attack in its history and without doubt the darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. As many have said in this Chamber, my thoughts are with Jewish people around the world and the Jewish community here in the United Kingdom. More than 1,000 people were massacred, hundreds were taken hostage and many are still cruelly detained today, including Emily Damari. I reiterate our commitment to bringing those hostages home; we will not give up until they are, and work is ongoing on that.

However, as has been the subject of most of the interventions, we also look back on a year of devastating conflict and suffering. I will say a little about the Government’s assessment of the situation in Gaza, then, in the time available, I will focus particularly on the humanitarian situation. I recognise that it is my fault that there are some late parliamentary questions on these issues, particularly relating to the detail on F-35s, and I will be pleased to respond in writing.

A year on, close to 42,000 people have now been killed in Gaza, with over half of all bodies identified being women and children. We believe that more than 90% of the population has been displaced, many of them repeatedly. There is now simply no safe place to go. The humanitarian zone covers less than 15% of the Gaza strip, and as has been mentioned, not even that is always safe. It is chronically overcrowded and the lack of clean water and sanitation means that the risk of disease is rife.

Reference has also been made to the severe lack of food which, according to the IPC, means that the whole population is at risk of starvation, and we expect a further update on that in due course. Sixty-six per cent of buildings, including hospitals—as many have mentioned—are damaged or destroyed. Parents cannot feed their children. Children cannot go to school. Families cannot support each other. I have been asked many questions by contributors about humanitarian access, and I want to be clear on the Government’s position: it remains wholly inadequate. There have been repeated attacks on convoys, evacuation orders have undermined operations and the level is far below Israel’s commitment to flood Gaza with aid.

[Andy McDonald]

I raised earlier the question of the Israeli military action to which the Minister has just referred. In the past hour or so, the UN has stated on its website:

“Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fired on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon early Thursday morning.”

Two peacekeepers were injured, which is yet further evidence that Israel behaves with complete contempt and disregard for international law and norms. Will he join me in condemning such action?

[Hamish Falconer]

They have only just come in, but we are very concerned about reports of attacks on staff of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The work of UN peacekeepers is incredibly important and a vital contribution to global peace and security. We will be able to say more as reports become clearer.

The situation in Gaza is a catastrophe on all counts. A few contributors have mentioned winterisation. We are deeply concerned that winter is coming in and the shortage of aid into Gaza means that most of the civilian population is unprepared for the drop in temperature. I will be visiting the region next week in part to look into some of those matters further. We intend to work together with our allies. Since entering office in July, we have made a series of key decisions. Along with our allies, we have been pushing for an immediate ceasefire since day 1, and I was confused by the reference to our position on 18 September. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire since 4 July, and we will continue to call for an immediate ceasefire. The fact that is has not yet been abided by does not in any way undermine the urgency of what we are doing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was referring to the UN General Assembly resolution where we did not vote with 124 countries.

[Hamish Falconer]

I think that is an issue in relation to the advisory opinion of the ICJ rather than the ceasefire; that is how I understood my hon. Friend’s remarks. I will stick to the ceasefire now, and I can come to the advisory opinion later. We are clear that we need a ceasefire; we need a ceasefire in Gaza and we need a ceasefire in Lebanon. It is clearly a statement of fact that neither of those things is happening, and we continue to work behind the scenes with our partners to try to achieve that. That point has been made by both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, as well as the whole ministerial team in the Foreign Office.

We are repeatedly urging our Israeli counterparts— I think it is on this issue that I have received the most questions over the afternoon. We are asking them to take three key steps. The first is to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties, and we have heard many lurid examples of where that has not been the case. The second is to ensure that aid can flow freely into Gaza through all land routes, and many contributors have described how that is not currently the case. The third is to allow the UN and its humanitarian partners to operate safely and effectively. I recognise some of the concerns raised this afternoon about the functioning of UNRWA, so I will say a little bit about that.

[Barry Gardiner]

I congratulate the Minister on making his maiden address. Can he reflect on the verb that he used? He said that we have been “asking” Israel to do those three things. He then went on to elaborate that none of those three had actually been fulfilled. Is it not time to stop “asking” and to do something a little stronger?

[Hamish Falconer]

My colleague will understand that there is a difference between what we can say in public and what we can say in private. However, I reassure him that those points are being made to partners with force, with emphasis and with consistency. As he will have seen through a number of forums over the last few weeks, the UK has made its position absolutely clear. It is, of course, a frustration to me that at this stage, and since we came into power in July, we are still having some of those discussions, so I recognise the frustration in his voice.

On my first day as a Minister, we lifted the funding pause on UNRWA. We provided £21 million to support its humanitarian appeal in Gaza. No other agency can deliver aid to Gaza on the scale that is needed. We must support UNRWA to do its job effectively. Of course, in delivering, we expect it to meet the highest standards of neutrality, as laid out in Catherine Colonna’s independent review, and the Minister for Development has met her to discuss such matters. Of our funding to UNRWA this year, £1 million has gone to support the implementation of its agreed action plan. However, I take note of the reference to some of the discussions in the Israeli Knesset. I want to emphasise the importance that the UK places on UNRWA, on its continued function and its unique role in the area, as well as our full support for the UN Secretary-General.

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but before he sits down, can he give me some assurance that he will take back to his colleagues the issue about the evacuation of children? I raised it again on Monday with the Prime Minister and still got no response.

[Hamish Falconer]

I was coming to that issue, but I will take it now.

I am very familiar with these issues; in fact, as an official in 2014, I was working with the mass atrocity prevention hub, where I know my colleagues have also served, to try to identify children at that time and in that stage of the war. It is incredibly depressing to be in this Chamber 10 years on talking about injured children in Gaza again. At that time, I was tasked with trying to find children who could benefit from UK medical assistance, and I was honestly not able to find children who would not be better served in the region. Having discussed the matter with officials—I understand the Minister for Development has looked at this as well—we primarily share the view expressed in WHO guidance that children should be treated in the region as much as possible. That will mean in most cases that being treated in Egypt or somewhere nearby is going to be more appropriate than being treated in the UK. However, I will go back to the Department and secure a fuller answer.

I want to return briefly to the mandate of the UN. We are clear that Israel must respect the mandate of the UN and must enable humanitarian workers to travel easily into and throughout Gaza.

[Apsana Begum]

It is absolutely clear that aid and aid workers are being hindered and blocked by Israel. At the same time, the UK considers Israel to be one of its closest allies. How does that make sense in terms of how the UK represents itself at the UN and on the world platform? The Minister seems to be suggesting that efforts are being made to secure a ceasefire to provide aid, when it is obvious that there is a block and that the UK is facilitating that, as opposed to opposing it.

[Hamish Falconer]

I do not accept that we are facilitating rather than opposing. I could not be clearer in everything I have said this afternoon about the position of the British Government. I have been clear with my colleagues about our frustration that we have not been able to make more progress on the things that we have been calling for. I want to reassure colleagues across the House that the whole ministerial team is working hard day and night on these issues. We recognise the acute nature of the situation before us, and we treat it with the full gravity that it deserves.

[Mr Hussain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Hamish Falconer]

I will try to make a tiny bit more progress, and then I will hand back.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

You have a minute left, Minister.

[Hamish Falconer]

Then I will probably get to the end, in order to allow people to respond.

From the Prime Minister down, we will continue to call on all parties to act in accordance with international humanitarian law. Earlier in July, when he was visiting the region, the Foreign Secretary announced £5.5 million in new medical aid to field hospitals in Gaza; I think that was the subject of a question that was asked today. We are working to try to bolster medical capacity for patients. We think that is best done in the region, and we are frustrated by the impediments that still exist, particularly around children being able to access medical care and other aid.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered humanitarian aid and Gaza.

Sanctions: Russia

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 834), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.

The instrument, which amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, was laid before Parliament on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, the instrument was first laid on 24 May under the previous Government. This Government support the aims of the instrument, so we revoked and re-laid it to provide additional time post election for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy in relation to Russia sanctions, and the substance of the instrument remains the same.

The United Kingdom’s commitment to Ukraine is iron-clad. In July, the UK contributed £40 million to NATO’s comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, which ensures that Ukraine will access vital assistance for counter-drone technology, de-mining of reclaimed land, and the medical rehabilitation of injured Ukrainian personnel. Ukraine has placed new orders for ammunition worth £300 million through the international fund for Ukraine, which is administered by the UK.

Sanctions, too, are a crucial tool to weaken Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine. In July, the UK hosted the European Political Community at Blenheim Palace, where more than 40 countries signed a call to action to tackle Russia’s so-called shadow fleet: a fleet of ageing oil tankers, which use deceptive shipping practices and substandard insurance to attempt to undermine sanctions on Russian oil. At the event, the UK spearheaded action against the shadow fleet when we sanctioned 11 oil tankers. Through this action, we continue to demonstrate the UK’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and underline our leading role in eroding Russian oil revenues.

Targeted sanctions against oil tankers have had a material and immediate impact. UK sanctioned tankers have been left idling, knocked out of the Russian oil trade and for the most part unable to load new cargoes. The instrument provides the basis for those sanctions, and has enhanced the UK’s ability to respond to Russia’s increasingly desperate and reckless attempts to undermine our and our partners’ sanctions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, welcome him to his place, and wish him well in his role.

I have been sanctioned by China and Russia, along with many others in this House—it is almost a badge of courage—but that is not the issue. My understanding of today’s sanctions is that businesses and those who have super yachts will be impacted directly, but that is all that the instrument means. If that is the case, will the Minister ensure that our sanctions have enough teeth to bite, and to be painful?

[Hamish Falconer]

I thank the hon. Member. If he allows me, I will go a little further into the introductory remarks, which I hope will specify why this afternoon’s measures will provide greater teeth. I hope that will answer his concerns, but if it does not, I will return to him.

The instrument, as well as increasing the effect on shipping, also broadens the designation criteria under the Russia regime. It expands our powers to target those who provide financial or material support to Russia’s war machine. That could include, for example, foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant transactions on behalf, or in support, of Russia’s military industrial base. That is in line with steps taken by partners and the G7’s commitment to curtailing Russia’s use of the international financial system to further its war in Ukraine.

Let me turn now to the measure about which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked. The instrument adds new relevant activities to the existing power in the Russia sanctions regime under regulation 57F—“specification of ships”—to provide the criteria to sanction individuals’ ships. The amendment provides that a ship may be specified by the Secretary of State where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is, has been or is likely to be used for any activity whose object or effect is to destabilise Ukraine, to undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine, or to obtain a benefit from, or support, the Government of Russia. That includes where a ship is involved in carrying dual-use or military goods, oil or oil products that originate in Russia, or any other goods or technology that could contribute to destabilising Ukraine or to undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

Where a ship is specified under regulation 57F, it will be subject to measures in regulations 57A to 57E—the shipping sanctions. Where those sanctions apply, a specified ship is prohibited from entering a port in the UK, may be given a movement or a port entry direction, and can be detained or refused permission to register on the UK ship register—or, indeed, have its existing registration terminated. Additionally, UK persons and persons in the UK cannot provide funds and financial services, including maritime insurance, or brokering services, in relation to specified ships that are transporting certain oil and oil products, and cannot use specified ships to supply or deliver Russian oil and oil products, regardless of the price of the oil on board.

Once again, the UK has already specified ships using that enhanced power. The previous Government specified six vessels on 13 June. In July, this Government specified 11 vessels that were operating as part of Russia’s shadow fleet. That fleet attempts to undercut our sanctions, undermines the maritime rules-based order, and presents an environmental and maritime security threat to coastal states.

This statutory instrument also amends regulation 6 of the Russia sanctions regime. That regulation provides the criteria for the designation of individuals or entities for the purpose of an asset freeze and other relevant measures. Specifically, the instrument adds additional activities for which a person may be designated, including where individuals or entities provide financial services or make available funds, economic resources, goods or technology to persons involved in obtaining a benefit from, or supporting, the Government of Russia. In practice, that widens the set of actors and enablers that can be targeted for providing financial and material support to Russia and its war machine as Putin continues to prosecute his illegal war in Ukraine.

The instrument also consolidates powers under the Russia regulations to designate individuals or entities involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine. Specifically, the additional activities that the instrument adds to the designation criteria make possible the designation of persons who have owned or controlled entities involved in destabilising Ukraine, as well as individuals who work as directors or managers of such entities.

In the plainest language—because that was the language that the hon. Member for Strangford used—the instrument enables us to target the ship, as well as the individuals or entities involved with the ship. We found, through the previous regime, that the ship itself is the sharpest area of vulnerability, so the International Maritime Organisation number of the ship itself is where sanctions have greatest effect, and that is the effect that we are using today.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand; the Minister has laid out the system very simply. It applies to the EU, but we all know that those who seem to break most of the rules are India and other countries across the world that are out to buy Russian oil. If that is the case, what discussions have been had to ensure that India does not contravene what we are trying to do through these sanctions?

[Mr Speaker]

I say gently to the Minister that we have only an hour and a half for this debate. I know Members want to speak and I do not want to take any of that precious time away.

[Hamish Falconer]

I defer to your good guidance, Mr Speaker.

In conclusion, European security is a key focus of this Government. Supporting Ukraine remains vital to that end, and the UK is committed to doing so. I am sure that, when I come to answer hon. Members’ questions, I will have an opportunity to say a little more about how we work with our partners, including India, on these matters. We will work with international partners to ensure that the values of democracy, human rights and international law are maintained. This legislation and subsequent sanctions made under it show our commitment to Ukraine as it defends its freedom in the face of Russian aggression. British support remains iron-clad. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hamish Falconer]

I thank Members for their contributions to this debate. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for her kind words about my service in the Foreign Office. Indeed, I pay tribute to hers: she did fine work on Iraq and Syria, and I was glad to work with her. I look forward to working with all of this House on matters of national security.

I welcome the maiden speeches that were made. My hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) were both funny, which is useful when I am being so dour at the Dispatch Box. I noticed that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) paid tribute to particular kinds of experience —military, business, and so on—but he did elide the diplomats. Given that there are many of them in the Box, I would like to say that he should take a look at the good work of the Foreign Office, because there are many hard-working officers who do their very best, and I am grateful to everybody in the House for recognising that.

If I may, I will come back to some of the points raised by the other parties. I regret that I may have to write to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about the specific Scottish issue.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will respond to me in writing, which I accept, but I should also be clear—this was the mistake that previous Prime Ministers made—that Scottish limited partnerships are not a Scottish Parliament issue, but a Westminster reserved issue.

[Hamish Falconer]

I understand that, and I agree. I welcome the importance that the hon. Gentleman placed in his comments on working together. I also believe that, on many of these issues, we are better together.

Some important points were raised about our partners in India and China in relation to Russia. I say to the shadow Minister that any evidence of Chinese companies providing military support to Russia would be damaging to China’s international reputation, given its strong position on not being involved in the conflict. We will not hesitate to take action against anyone supplying and funding Putin’s war machine.

On India, which was raised by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), we regularly raise Russia’s actions in Ukraine with India. We did so most recently in a conversation between the Foreign Secretary and the Indian Foreign Minister. We highlight the importance of tackling the shadow fleet. India is a key partner, and we are committed to working together across a whole range of issues. We underline to them how unreliable an energy partner Russia would be.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford raised the tragic forceful deportations of, we believe, almost 20,000 Ukrainian children, which is a matter of real concern to me and the rest of the ministerial team. As a member of the jointly led Canadian Ukrainian initiative, along with 28 other states, the UK is providing funding to support the rehabilitation of children.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) made some kind comments. I am unsure whether they were for Minister Doughty or for me, but, as I am here, I will certainly accept them. He made important points about microchips and various other dual-use technologies on which we are taking action with others to try to address. In the interests of the House’s time, I will write to him to give further detail.

On the wider point about circumvention, I am grateful to the House for its support and recognise the widespread concern about other countries doing otherwise. We are sending senior officials to the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey and Serbia to highlight circumvention risks and to offer technical support. We recognise that these issues are global in nature, so we have designated individuals in Belarus, China, Iran, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey, the Emirates and Uzbekistan. I will no doubt have another opportunity to update the House on our work in this area in due course. I thank the House for its support and urge it to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 834), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.

Sanctions: Syria

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 833), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.

This instrument amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument was laid on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, the instrument was laid on 24 May under the previous Government. We support its aims, so we revoked it and re-laid it to provide additional time post election for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy and the substance of the instrument is the same.

With the conflict in Syria now in its 14th year, the humanitarian situation remains dire. A record 16.7 million people are estimated to be in humanitarian need, nine in 10 people in Syria are living in poverty, and nearly 13 million lack sufficient food. Many more have been forced to flee their homes and are living in settlements and camps.

Our support for the Syrian people is unwavering. The UK has spent over £4 billion to date—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis—and we continue to provide lifesaving support to those in need. It is imperative that aid reaches the most vulnerable and that UN agencies, international organisations and non-governmental organisations have the support necessary for their work.

The UK has engaged with financial institutions and humanitarian actors to fully understand and mitigate the impact of the humanitarian provisions in our sanctions legislation, including by issuing general licences following the earthquakes in February last year. The UK has acted to ensure that aid continues to reach those most in need. These amendments to the regulations will allow trusted organisations to focus on delivering aid, support efficient and effective humanitarian delivery and provide reassurance for those organisations and their service providers. They will ensure that we continue to meet our humanitarian objectives while ensuring that our sanctions regime is robust.

UK sanctions are designed to encourage the Assad regime to refrain from actions, policies or activities that repress the civilian population in Syria. They also serve to encourage the regime to participate in good faith in negotiations for a political settlement in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254 and to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Syria.

This instrument amends the humanitarian exception to the petroleum measures contained in the 2019 regulations with the aim of improving the delivery of humanitarian aid in Syria. The amendments expand the eligibility for the humanitarian exception from solely UK-funded persons to all organisations covered by UN Security Council resolution 2664 to the extent that they are captured by UK sanctions. The extension will enable more organisations to benefit from the humanitarian exception.

The instrument extends the regulations to ensure that they apply to those involved in the humanitarian delivery chain. The change ensures that the delivery chain of relevant persons as outlined in the regulations will benefit from being able to use that exception. That provides assurances to relevant delivery partners on the ground and to financial service providers when improving payments.

The instrument also amends the 2019 regulations to authorise financial service providers of “relevant persons” to use the humanitarian exception, removing the requirement for financial service providers to apply for individual licences to facilitate activities authorised by the exception. The change will also provide greater assurance to both humanitarian organisations and their financial providers, reducing delays in payments.

In addition, the instrument replaces the existing notification requirement for “relevant persons” using the humanitarian exception for petroleum prohibitions in the 2019 regulations with a new requirement to notify the Treasury on an annual basis that they are involved in the provision of humanitarian assistance in Syria. The notification requirement will apply to relevant persons conducting humanitarian assistance activities in Syria, but not to financial service providers, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the British Red Cross or downstream delivery partners.

Finally, the instrument makes two further, more minor amendments. First, there is a small amendment to the humanitarian fuel exception and a related exception for petroleum products for diplomatic and consular premises in the 2019 regulations. Those exceptions are amended to refer to “acquiring” fuel rather than “purchasing” it. Secondly, the instrument amends the record-keeping requirements in the regulations with respect to trade licences to clarify that specified information is required where appropriate. That will ensure that correct records are kept for relevant licences.

UK sanctions on Syria continue to send a clear message to the regime and its supporters: we will not stand by while they commit serious human rights abuses. The regulations ensure that the sanctions will not hinder humanitarian aid efforts. We will continue to work closely with the UN, like-minded states, humanitarian organisations and the financial sector to ensure that the sanctions work in tandem with humanitarian efforts and that the Assad regime and its allies and supporters bear responsibility for the devastation endured by the Syrian people. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hamish Falconer]

I thank Members for their contributions. Let me address some of the important questions that they have raised, particularly in relation to Captagon, chemical weapons, and whether we have achieved the right balance between sanctions and humanitarian aid. I will also deal briefly with some of the points raised about freedom of religious belief.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his maiden speech, and associate myself in particular with his comment about the Chamber being a confusing place for a newbie—and if it was me who made those mistakes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. We are closely monitoring the regime’s links with Captagon, as you will know—I am sorry; as the hon. Member will know. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. In March 2024, we co-hosted a conference with Jordan and we are keeping the matter under close review. I should be happy to write to the hon. Member with further details, because it is of real concern. Also of concern, obviously, is the chemical weapons situation in Syria. Last week, I was pleased to meet the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and to make a further voluntary contribution on Syria specifically in relation to the significant problems that it poses in respect of chemical weapons. As for the concern about getting the balance right—

[Alicia Kearns]

Would the Minister be kind enough to write to me with the details of that voluntary contribution, so that I understand fully what contribution was made?

[Hamish Falconer]

I should be happy to do so.

I can assure the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) that no assistance will be provided directly to the Government of Syria, and that we go to great lengths to ensure proper compliance with our sanctions regime. The hon. Member also referred to the strikes in Syria. The protracted conflict clearly poses risks of other regional tensions being played out, but we have made it clear to all parties that further escalation in the middle east must be avoided at all costs, and is in no one’s interests.

I understand and welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I will no doubt face each other across the aisle in debates on many issues, and I recognise his personal commitment to freedom of religious belief. We have provided, I believe, £14 million of assistance in respect of human rights monitoring in the conflict in Syria, I know how desperate some of the human rights issues are in the country, and we will continue to keep them under close review.

I hope and trust that the House will support the regulations, and I thank Members for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 833), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Iran’s continued repression of women and girls, ethnic and religious minorities, and human rights defenders is unacceptable. We will continue to work with international partners to hold the regime to account, including at the UN Third Committee later this year.

[Tom Gordon]

The Iranian authorities have been systematically targeting BBC Persian staff and their families in an attempt to intimidate them into stopping their work as journalists. Freedom of the press is a fundamental right for people all over the world, so will the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues commit to working across Government with the Culture Secretary to revisit the previous cuts to BBC Persian, and look to increase funding for the vital work that the service does?

[Hamish Falconer]

That is a very important question. Iran clearly remains an extremely hostile environment for journalists, who face harassment, arbitrary detention and long prison sentences. We will raise this issue with the new Iranian Government when they are formed—as the hon. Member will know, they are having their inauguration today, so there are no Ministers yet for me or the rest of the Foreign Office team to talk to. The Foreign Office currently provides a quarter of the BBC World Service budget, and we will no doubt look at that as part of the wider budget review.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. As we were tragically reminded again this weekend, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a destructive, malign and terrorist force that is operating through proxies in the middle east, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Will the Minister please update the House on the ongoing work to proscribe the IRGC, which the Conservatives sadly failed to do when they were in government? Will he please also reassure the House that the UK continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against the IRGC’s continued aggression?

[Hamish Falconer]

The Government recognise the threat that the IRGC poses, and we will take the necessary measures to counter it at home and abroad. We will keep the list of proscribed terrorist organisations under careful review, but it would not be appropriate to comment on whether an organisation is under consideration at this time. Iran continues to destabilise the middle east through its support for its proxies and partners, and we will work with international partners to challenge that destabilising activity.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to help strengthen NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion entitled, “Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, published on 19 July 2024.

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

We have been clear that the Government must uphold both our domestic and international legal obligations. The UK respects the independence of the ICJ. We received the advisory opinion on 19 July and issued a statement that made it clear that we were considering it carefully before responding. My colleagues on the Front Bench have already made it clear that they oppose the violence from settlers on the west bank, but I am happy to expand on that point, if that is what my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman would like.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for showing bold leadership and unequivocal support for international law by dropping the previous Government’s opposition to the arrest warrant against Netanyahu. The ICJ’s historic advisory opinion earlier this month made it clear that Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories is unlawful, an issue on which many of us have campaigned. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that Israel ends its unlawful occupation, which includes the recent expansion of Israeli settlements on the west bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem?

[Hamish Falconer]

I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about these matters. The Foreign Secretary visited the region within a week of taking office, and he has also raised those precise issues with the Israeli authorities. I reiterate that we are strongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising settler violence. More west bank land has been declared state lands by Israel this year than at any time since the Oslo accords. The British Government already have sanctions against eight people and two groups in relation to settlers in the west bank, and we will look at all options when it comes to tougher action on issues related to the west bank.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Can the Minister be clear about this? The judgment or opinion given by the ICJ is, quite clearly, that the occupation of Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem is illegal. The settlement policy is illegal. Do the Government accept that view, and if they do, what actions will they take to ensure that appropriate sanctions are taken against Israel, including ending arms supplies, to ensure that that judgment is carried out, and that the people of Palestine can live in peace, and not under occupation?

[Hamish Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. This is an extremely complex finding, covering 90 pages. It was issued after considerable deliberation by the ICJ, and there is a variety of views from the judges. As we said at the time, it will take us some time to respond to the full judgment. We will update the House when we are in a position to do so. In the meantime, sanctions will remain under review, as I mentioned in the previous answer.

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

14. What recent discussions he has had with his Bangladeshi counterpart on the human rights situation in that country.