Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is the whole point of today’s debate. My feeling is that this Government and even the previous Government have to a degree dragged their feet. I often say to the Minister, who I know very well—we have debated with each other endlessly—that it seems not to matter who is in government, because the Foreign Office retains its reluctance over many sanctions. He will deny that, of course, because it is his job to do so, but I see him as a very decent individual and he must know in his heart of hearts that there is more that we could do. I will leave that for the moment, until he has the chance to wind up the debate.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a perception in my constituency and across the country that the money laundering checks on individual consumers going for a mortgage or buying something expensive such as a car seem to be more stringent than those for the millionaire- billionaire foreign investors who are investing in the City of London?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The whole point of the debate is to ensure that we know where the money comes from, that we know how it has been gained, and that the individuals must pay a penalty if they are involved in what is illegal or inhuman. The key point is that all those matters can be picked out by the Magnitsky sanctions.

I mentioned Myanmar earlier. Despite historically leaning on sanctions against Myanmar’s military junta for its role in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its civilian population after the 2021 coup, the UK has failed to target the State Security and Peace Commission, the military’s successor to the UK-sanctioned State Administration Council. Without additional sanctions, the State Security and Peace Commission, which was established in an attempt by the military to rebrand itself and rebuild financial ties with international partners, has effectively succeeded in its mission. That is exactly what we should have been tackling through the sanctions available to us, but we have not done so.

Finally, last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. However, no action was taken against their key military and diplomatic backer, the United Arab Emirates, or their chief commander. That highlights a broader, troubling trend: to date, only a fraction of Magnitsky sanctions have ever been applied by the UK Government to perpetrators from countries considered strategic allies of the UK. That is a very important point to make; politics have an awful lot to do with this issue. As reported by REDRESS, several of the most notorious human rights abusers and corrupt actors, including in Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Eritrea, the UAE and Egypt—we have mentioned Russia, too—have not been sanctioned by the UK.

I will now come to some examples of individuals and contexts that remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of involvement in corruption and serious human rights issues. Let me deal now with China. While the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in China’s violent repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from human rights organisations. REDRESS— I know, because I have seen the evidence—previously submitted it to the FCDO, calling for targeted sanctions on the following individuals and entities for their involvement in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang.

All of the following are sanctioned by the US—our ally—but not by the UK. The persons recommended for designations are: Chen Quanguo, party secretary of the Xinjiang Chinese Communist party and the key driver of the policy of genocide; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissar of the XPCC, who was sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; Peng Jiarui, deputy party secretary and commander of the XPCC, sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Public Security Bureau, sanctioned by the US on 9 July 2020. As somebody sanctioned by the Chinese Government myself—like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for raising the issues of Xinjiang at the time, I think that that is a major omission. These are the key people—close almost to President Xi himself—who, when sanctioned, will really feel it. They are locked out of America, but have not been locked out by us. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps the FCDO will take to ensure that sanctions are consistently applied to all actors involved in human rights abuses and corruption?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing forward this important debate on the effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses. They are tools that reflect our values as a country that is meant to defend human rights and the rule of law.

Under the UK’s autonomous sanctions framework, which is built on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and reinforced by subsequent legislation, the global human rights sanction regime allows us to target individuals and entities responsible for gross violations of human rights, including with asset freezes and travel bans. Magnitsky sanctions have been used against perpetrators of egregious abuses in multiple contexts, from Russian officials linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky to those implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and military leaders in Myanmar. However, today’s debate also requires us to consider the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools in the face of major crises.

Multiple authoritative assessments, particularly from REDRESS and UK parliamentary evidence submissions, highlight several areas where the UK Magnitsky sanctions regime has failed to act effectively. Evidence shows that the UK has not replicated the majority of Magnitsky sanctions imposed by partner jurisdictions across the US, Canada and the EU. Only 14% of global Magnitsky designations are listed under the UK Magnitsky regime and another 17% appear under other UK regimes, meaning that 69% of perpetrators sanctioned abroad are not sanctioned by the UK at all. Of the unsanctioned cases, 71% were designated by the US, 27% by Canada and 2% by the EU, yet the UK has not followed suit.

The gap means that the UK is failing to act against individuals already identified as human rights abusers or corrupt actors by close allies. The UK has received at least 15 detailed evidence packages from NGOs such as REDRESS documenting alleged human rights abuses or corruption in many of the countries that were referenced by previous speakers, including China, Sudan, Uganda, Bangladesh, Venezuela and others. In many of those cases, the US has already sanctioned the perpetrators, but the UK has failed to act in almost all of them.

On the use of the legal powers available, according to parliamentary evidence, since September 2021 the UK has sanctioned only three individuals under its Magnitsky human rights regime, compared with 105 designations in the preceding period under the previous Foreign Secretary. That reflects a significant slowdown and a lack of strategic direction. There is also poor co-ordination with our allies in the US, the EU and other sanctioning partners. The recommendations from the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation stressed that the UK’s unilateral approach weakens the effectiveness of sanctions. The UK has failed to systematically sanction individuals already targeted by partners, co-ordinate multilateral actions to target corrupt networks instead of isolated individuals, or match the scale and frequency of designation by allies.

Magnitsky sanctions have been used against the egregious abuses that I have mentioned. However, today’s debate requires us to reflect on the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools. In recent months, the United Kingdom has taken steps to sanction two Israeli Government Ministers over their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those designations, made alongside partners including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, include travel bans and asset freezes and were justified by the Foreign Office as necessary responses to genocide and serious abuses of human rights. Moreover, the UK has suspended trade negotiations with Israel in response to its ongoing military offensive in Gaza and related violence in the west bank and has applied sanctions against settlers and settler organisations linked to violence against the Palestinian communities.

The scale and scope of action by the UK Government has not been sufficient, and we have failed to reflect our obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law to ensure that civilians do not suffer, particularly in the light of provisional measures from the International Court of Justice ordering the protection of civilians in Gaza and actions directed at ending grave human rights violations in Gaza and the west bank. The sheer scale of suffering in Gaza, including from the blockade’s effect on civilians and the risk of mass starvation, must prompt far stronger measures, ranging from broader sanctions and trade restrictions to the enforcement of legal obligations to prevent atrocities.

Instead, we see 37 NGOs, including Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Rescue Committee, ousted and banned from providing aid across the west bank and Gaza with impunity. That is despite nearly 1.9 million displaced Gazans being vulnerable to shortages of tents, shelter materials, medical assistance, clean water and sanitation support during winter, and we still refuse to go further on sanctions and punishment for Israel’s actions. At the same time, the UK Government have stressed their continued support for Israel’s security while the Israeli Government expand illegal settlements deeper and deeper into Palestinian territory. We have recognised the state of Palestine, which is a welcome step, but we must follow that up by fulfilling our obligations under that recognition to the Palestinian people.

All that illustrates an essential point: Magnitsky-style sanctions are neither symbolic nor irrelevant, but their effectiveness depends on consistent, principled application, rigorous enforcement and alignment with broader obligations and foreign policy goals. Targeted sanctions are most effective when they clearly align with international law, with evidence and with credible human rights concerns, when they are co-ordinated with international partners to avoid loopholes and politicisation, and when they are part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, humanitarian advocacy and engagement with multilateral justice mechanisms. Used in isolation, sanctions risk being dismissed as gestures rather than being seen as instruments of accountability. Used in co-ordination with wider action, they can contribute meaningfully to deterrence, pressure for change and justice for victims.

The United Kingdom should make principal use of Magnitsky sanctions wherever there is credible evidence of human rights abuses—be it in Russia, the middle east, Sudan, Myanmar or elsewhere—but they must also be prepared to act boldly and consistently, in line with international law when confronted with mass civilian suffering anywhere on the globe. Our inconsistent approach to human rights, and the protection of so-called allies, condemns us all to an unsafe world in which might is right and wrongdoing is never corrected. In the same stroke of a pen, we shame our enemies and sign away the human rights that we like to proclaim are sacrosanct. We must ensure that our sanctions regime is not just a statement of values but a tool that genuinely contributes to accountability, justice and the prevention of atrocities. I commend the motion to the House.

Venezuela

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, to draw equivalence between different countries is the wrong approach. It does not recognise the scale of damage done by the Maduro regime or the fact that, in order to promote international law, we must promote the partnerships that underpin it. We need to work closely with the coalition of the willing, which is meeting tomorrow to discuss Ukraine, and ensure that there are US security guarantees in place, which are an important part of our security alliance with the US. On Greenland, we and other European countries have made our position clear.

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

The unstoppable machine of American imperialist invasions has killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. From aiding, arming and abetting a genocide in Palestine, to now the invasion and abduction of a leader in Venezuela, for oil, minerals and gold, and to protect the petrodollar, this has nothing to do with democracy or narco-terrorism. With ongoing threats to Greenland, Cuba, Colombia and Mexico, the list of gangsterish aggression continues unopposed. Has the global rules-based order now collapsed, or did it ever even exist for western warmongering powers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. We have a strong security partnership with the US and other countries, and not just through NATO but through a direct security partnership. The US is our strongest security ally and our alliance is based on values and principles. We continue to sustain that relationship as part of our support and continued respect for international law.

Kashmir: Self-determination

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his continuing leadership on this issue, not just in this House but around the country.

It is quite disappointing. The last time we debated this subject in Westminster Hall was in March. I think about the many hours that we spend debating foreign policy issues in this place, and the fact that Kashmir does not often get the hearing it deserves and the prominence that it demands, given the issue’s impact on so many hundreds of thousands of our constituents throughout the country and its importance on the international stage.

I want to impress on the Minister, so that he hears it from all of us in this place, that the line that this is a bilateral issue is wearing thin. It really no longer holds water, not least because of China’s increasing interest in the Aksai part of the region. If we are serious about taking a leadership role through our UN Security Council membership, saying that these issues are bilateral makes it look as if we are not interested and pushes it back to two peoples we know are looking for help and leadership on this issue.

What I find most disheartening is that I have many Kashmiri constituents and many wonderful Kashmiri local councillors, and they hold a hope in their heart that the resolution promised to them in 1948 would, at some point, become a reality that would allow them and their families in Kashmir that very basic and fundamental right of self-determination, but that light of hope is fading. Time is passing and the clock is ticking, and it seems we are getting further away from a peaceful resolution to allow for the self-determination of Kashmir than we have been at any point in my time in the House. That cannot be allowed to continue under any Government, but specifically not under a Labour Government, given that we not only have a fundamental commitment to the basic premises of human rights but put such things at the heart of what we do.

I want to press the Minister, and I hope he can provide some answers, because the issues around the UK’s relationship with India are genuinely important. Since the previous debate in March, there have been three significant interactions with India: the trade deal delegation went out in October; Prime Minister Modi visited in July; and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), visited India in November. Those are three high-level interactions with India.

Will the Minister confirm that in each of those interactions the issue of human rights in Kashmir was raised with Indian Government representatives? It would be wonderful if he is able to say what those representations were. I appreciate that he might not, but knowing that the Government are using every lever available to them, and every diplomatic and political opportunity, to continue to push for the plight of a group of people who are looking to us for leadership would give us some hope that the thing we all aspire to is not completely off the Government’s agenda.

I want to press the Minister on something else. When I speak to representatives of the diaspora community in the UK, there is sometimes a feeling that direct engagement with the Government is not what it should be. There is a feeling that sometimes, as has been mentioned, the words “Kashmir” and “self-determination” are said, and there are tick points that have to be referenced in order to get through a meeting, but actually the commitment is becoming more skin deep.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Gareth Snell]

No, I will not.

The Minister is a diligent man and takes these issues very seriously; will he outline what regular engagement there is between the Foreign Office and representatives of the Kashmiri diaspora in the UK? How are we making sure that the voices of people who have a deep and meaningful connection to Kashmir are heard at the highest levels of Government? Will he potentially commit to making statements, so that we do not have to do these things through Westminster Hall debates and the whole House can discuss these issues with the prominence that they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away.

My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly:

“We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.”

Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent.

The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency.

The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I turn to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Mr Mathew, you have no more than 10 minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. If she will meet with representatives of the Dawood Family Justice Campaign to discuss the potential repatriation of their family members’ remains.

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

I am deeply saddened that more than two decades after the tragic deaths of brothers Sakil and Saeed Dawood in 2002 the family are still waiting for Saeed’s remains to be repatriated. Following the conclusion of the criminal case this year, our consular teams remain fully committed to resolving this matter and continue to raise it with the Indian authorities to secure a resolution.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Saeed and Sakil Dawood were abducted and murdered in Gujarat, India in February 2002. Their nephew, my constituent Imran Dawood, survived the attack. For over 23 years, the family have sought accountability and the return of the victims’ remains. The previous Labour and Tory Governments supported the family during the court trials, which ended earlier this year without justice. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 1 October regarding the Dawood Family Justice Campaign that seeks repatriation of the victims’ remains. We held a parliamentary event on 22 October, to which the FCDO leadership were invited. Will the Foreign Secretary meet the Dawood family and will she commit to providing urgent direct support to assist further in securing the remains of their family members, held by the Indian Government for over two decades, and help the family to achieve some level of closure?

[Mr Falconer]

We will.

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The e-petition is focused on our humanitarian obligations in Gaza. Over 600 people from my constituency signed it, along with over 200,000 people from across our nation. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) mentioned, there is an immediate need for aid to be delivered, with or without Israeli support. That is the key point.

Since the ceasefire began, the situation has remained deeply unstable and deadly. The only positive that has come from the ceasefire is the release of the living hostages and the return of the remains of those who were killed. But leaving that positive aside, Israel has continued with impunity its relentless attack, murder and starvation of women, children and men. In the last 44 days, since the ceasefire began on 10 October, an estimated 497 Israeli violations have been documented. Around 342 Palestinians have been slaughtered, and nearly 875 injured—most of them women, children and the elderly. The violations include 140 incidents of direct gunfire at civilians and homes; 220-plus bombardments by air, land and artillery; 21 ground incursions beyond the agreed yellow line; 100 demolitions of homes and civilian structures—some of the few that were remaining; and the continued blockade of humanitarian aid, which is being used as a weapon of genocide.

The need for aid—just to meet basic needs—prior to 7 October 2023 and the current conflict, was 500 trucks per day going into Gaza. For decades the majority of that aid was distributed across Gaza by UNRWA. Throughout 2024 and early 2025, only an average of between 36 and 100 trucks of aid a day entered Gaza.

[Tahir Ali]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is now, with immediate urgency, that this Government need to work with international partners to deliver the aid that is required through a military-led humanitarian corridor, so that no aid can be blocked by Israel?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

We must do whatever it takes to get aid into Gaza to stop people dying of starvation, and to get in medical aid to stop people dying from treatable illnesses and injuries. Not only must this Government and all their allies work together to get aid into Gaza, but any involvement of Israel in Gaza must be immediately removed. Israel must not have any part to play in the peace plan. It is the perpetrator of a genocide. How can it be allowed to participate in distribution or the implementation of a peace plan that will save lives in Gaza?

The peace plan said that a minimum of 600 trucks a day would be allowed into Gaza to support more than 2 million people to meet their basic needs. However, much more than that is needed as a result of the complete annihilation of Gaza, its infrastructure and its medical facilities. Malnutrition exceeds 90%, and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification announced that phase 5—famine—was reached in July this year. The UN says that at the current pace of less than 100 trucks a day, it would take six months just to deliver the pre-positioned aid that is at the borders. UNRWA estimates that, on average, there has been a maximum of 150 to 170 trucks of aid a day, so the ceasefire has done little to stabilise access to essential services.

We have heard that the Gaza health system remains on the brink. Hospitals and clinics continue to be understaffed, undersupplied and under threat. UNICEF and other agencies have warned that the collapse of medical infrastructure means that even treatable illnesses can become life or limb-threatening. People continue to starve as aid is held up by the Government.

The pattern we are seeing is stark. Even with the supposed truce, children are being killed, people are being wounded and violations continue with impunity. I have said this in the main Chamber, and I will repeat it: Israel does not want peace, it does not want the Palestinians to have their state, and its plan of complete extermination of the Palestinian people is continuing to be enacted before our very eyes. It has been more than two years—we are now in the 26th month—and we must act now to get Israel out of Gaza, to get all the aid that is waiting at the borders in, and to provide all the supplies to start rebuilding not just the buildings in Gaza but people’s lives.

The violation of international humanitarian law continues unabated. The ceasefire was never a cure, but it was an opportunity for real, sustained protection of civilian life from Israeli bombardment. We must demand that Israel adheres to the pause in hostilities not just in name but in practice. The delivery of aid, including food, water, medicine and critical services, must be allowed immediately and unfettered.

Our moral responsibility demands more than words. I am so sorry to say this, but since I became an MP, I have not seen a concrete step by our Government that I believe has saved lives. The millions of pounds in aid that have been allocated to helping Gazans has been sat at the borders. Our supply of weapons and parts for F-35s has continued. The amount of weapons sold to Israel since this Government came to power is four times as much as over the last three years of the previous Government. Our complicity and active participation in these atrocities must stop, and the Government must act immediately to get aid in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member said. It is vital that such badly needed aid is allowed to enter Gaza unrestricted, and that we recognise that that process will need to continue for the foreseeable future because the situation is so desperate and the recovery will be long. But the recovery cannot begin without that unfettered access. There are only 15 health facilities in Gaza able to provide maternity and obstetric care. Mothers are giving birth without anaesthesia or essential drugs.

Alongside the healthcare system in Gaza, the education system has also been largely destroyed. Children in Gaza have been traumatised by the conflict. Their psychosocial recovery is a really important part of achieving long-term peace and stability. They also have a right to education. Children in Gaza are desperate to return to school and the UN is working hard to restore education services, but the current ceasefire agreement and 20-point plan are silent on the subject of education, allowing it to be deprioritised. The Israeli Government’s co-ordinator of government activities in the territories states that all school supplies are currently banned from entry to Gaza. UNRWA submitted self-learning materials to COGAT for approval in July 2024. It acknowledges that the question of textbooks and content is controversial, but those supplies have not been approved and all basic materials, including basic stationery supplies, are currently being denied.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Lady agree that Israel, the perpetrator of the genocide, should not be the one deciding what aid is allowed into Gaza?

[Helen Hayes]

As I said, I agree that aid should be allowed into Gaza unfettered. That should be administered by the UN and by aid agencies that are well able to determine with Palestinians what supplies are needed.

Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to deny the children of Gaza their right to education, and that it is vital that a way forward is found for education materials to be allowed into Gaza, along with supplies for psychosocial kits, so that children can begin the long process of recovery? Over the last two years, we have witnessed the destruction of the entire education system in Gaza—97% of all schools have sustained some level of damage. That is happening not only in Gaza, but in the west bank.

I have stood in the ruins of two schools destroyed by violent settlers in the west bank. Those attacks have been perpetrated by a UN member state that has not yet signed the safe schools declaration, which has been signed by both the UK and the Palestinian Authority. On the eve of the fifth international conference on the safe schools declaration, which takes place in Nairobi tomorrow and marks 10 years since the declaration’s inception, I call on the Minister to exert pressure on the Israeli Government to join the declaration and commit to refrain from causing further damage to education facilities in Gaza and the west bank.

Recovery is a long road, and the ceasefire is fragile. The process must start with the different parties coming together to protect education, to respect the rights of children and to ensure that there is unfettered access for all the supplies needed to sustain that recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Butler, and Ms McVey before you, for chairing the debate; it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for bringing this debate to the House on behalf of the vast numbers of people—198,966—who signed e-petition 700682. I have listened to the debate carefully. I have been moved by the passion and the deeply held, sincere concern heard from Members on both sides of the House.

No human being should be subject to the kind of inhumane treatment that we have all seen in Gaza in recent times. I hope and believe that everyone in this Chamber, whether we completely agree or not, wants the same outcome: to see peace and stability returned, and to see women, children and others who have suffered living in peace and returning to normal life. We all want to see that, whatever our opinions.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Of course, I am always moved by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and I listen avidly whenever he speaks—we do not agree on much, but we do agree on some things. I also want to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke earlier. We share the same part of Essex and east London, and our constituents have similar views on many issues. I will not refer to everyone who spoke this afternoon, but I thank them all.

Speaking on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, let me firmly put on record our support for President Trump’s peace plan for Gaza. As I said during the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2803 represents a major step towards restoring order, security and a pathway to peace. I sincerely hope that prosperity and peace will be returned for all the people of Gaza as a result. The United States has brought leadership, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies, especially the United States and Israel, if we are to have any hope of ending this conflict and building something better.

Since becoming shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this subject, as other shadow Ministers have spoken instead of me. I would like to put on record that I have always believed that Hamas—an Iranian satellite and a terrorist organisation responsible for atrocity upon atrocity, culminating in 7 October—can play no part whatsoever in the future governance of Gaza, let alone in civilised global politics. I am glad that many Members have said things along those lines this afternoon. Hamas’s contempt for human life and dignity is matched only by what appears to be their absolute hatred of Israel and the Jewish people and, from what I can see, the wider free world.

We have nothing in common with Hamas. Their repeated rejection of peace proposals, their game-playing over the release of deceased hostages and their brutal campaign of summary executions against Palestinian civilians tell us everything we need to know.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the shadow Minister agree that we in this place can and should condemn all acts of horror, terrorism and injustice anywhere and everywhere, whether it is Hamas or Israel perpetrating them?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hate what I have seen on our television screens for more than two years. I condemn all unwarranted acts of violence—self-defence, we understand. We are deeply sad to see what is happening. We all want to see an end to this, so I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s position and agree with him.

However, Hamas seek only chaos. They are completely uninterested in co-existence with Israel. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the petitioners and many Members present this afternoon. No one can fail to be moved by the scale of suffering endured by innocent Palestinians. However, any approach that sidelines Israel will do nothing to get aid over the borders. All crossings, with the exception of Rafah, border Israel, so there has to be co-operation with Israel to get aid into Palestine. I believe that the UK must work with Israel to ensure that aid is flowing through the crossings effectively, safely and securely. Last week, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that she is working with her Israeli counterparts on the reopening of certain crossings into Gaza. What are the Government proposing specifically for each of the individual crossing points? I am sure that the Minister will answer that question later.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is visiting Israel at the moment. She is seeing for herself the humanitarian aid operation at the Kerem Shalom crossing, where trucks have been crossing into Gaza with aid supplies from Israel, the World Food Programme and partners in the region such as the United Arab Emirates. Maybe not all aid is getting through, but a lot of it is. She has also met with COGAT, and I believe she is the first British parliamentarian to visit the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, where she met with General Frank, who is heading up the operations to implement the 20-point plan. That shows the importance that the Conservatives place on the ceasefire, ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is eliminated, so that the region can have the promise of a more peaceful and secure future.

The CMCC and COGAT are focused on getting 4,200 aid trucks into Gaza each week. Can the Minister confirm that this level of humanitarian assistance is getting through? Does he recognise the aid supply figures from COGAT? Does he agree with those figures? We often hear Ministers quote the UN figures, but will the Minister tell us whether he accepts that COGAT efforts are bringing in thousands of trucks of humanitarian aid a week, including vital winterisation supplies? Will the Minister also tell the House whether he or the Foreign Secretary have any plans to follow in the footsteps of the shadow Foreign Secretary by visiting the CMCC and meeting with COGAT? If they have not done so already, it is vital that they do so soon, given where we are in the plans.

The previous Government did everything in their power to increase humanitarian access. Working with allies, they secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. Israel also agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza. For a period, we saw an increase in the quantity of aid delivered. The United Kingdom supplied vital food and medical aid for innocent Palestinians. With the help of the UN and Cyprus, we managed to secure infrastructure, including the floating pier off the coast, to help get aid into the territory. I respect the fact that this is an immensely complicated and tragic situation, but the Government need to focus on practical and even novel solutions for getting around the bottlenecks.

Regarding UNRWA, we must not forget that it had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel on 7 October. The testimony of Emily Damari about the location of her captivity is incredibly serious. UNRWA must sever all links to the Hamas terrorist group. It is critical that UN bodies ensure adequate vetting of personnel and activities, and that Catherine Colonna’s reforms be fully implemented as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will accept that Hamas has been using aid as a weapon by stealing and hoarding it, preventing Gazans from receiving it, and then profiteering from its sale. That is wholly unacceptable. What constructive steps are the Government taking with international partners to address aid diversion?

At the heart of President Trump’s peace plan is the establishment of an international stabilisation force. The United Kingdom has world-class peacekeeping, policing and stabilisation expertise. Will the Minister confirm that British expertise will not be wasted and that we have a plan to support the creation of that force alongside our allies? Does he have a view on what the ISF operating parameters should be? Does he think that it should move into the red zone? On the rebuilding of Gaza, what actions is the UK taking to support the establishment of alternative safe communities?

It is widely acknowledged that if the current ceasefire is to turn into a sustainable end to the conflict, Hamas must be removed from power and their terrorist infrastructure dismantled. What we need to hear today is how the Government intend to work with regional partners—Israel, Egypt, the UAE and the emerging Palestinian security structures—to achieve that essential objective. We also need to hear that Britain will play its part in creating security, peace and stability, and give the people of Palestine, Israel and the whole region hope for the future.

Ambassador to the United States

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.

We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.

There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?

Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?

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

An additional question is whether there was any external influence. Did Tony Blair or any of Mandelson’s friends have anything to do with the appointment?

[Mrs Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.

We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate.

I begin with a harrowing quote from a father in Gaza speaking to aid workers:

“Bread has become a dream. On the fourth attempt, I finally got flour—but only by stepping over bodies of people who died trying to reach the same bag I held in my hands.”

Those words are not simply tragic; they are a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict—a cost borne disproportionately by those who have no choice and no voice in the halls of power.

More sobering is the fact that this situation is not an unavoidable tragedy. It is a deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war. It is a campaign of mass killing. It is a war crime. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned us plainly:

“We are failing the people of Gaza. Inaction is not an option.”

Yet we sit in our homes in our country, with a Government choosing to look away. I ask our Government and the Minister: has Israel really desisted? Has it responded to any of the steps that the Government have taken? It has actually increased the atrocities and the number of people being killed on a day-to-day basis, using all means available.

I end by asking the Government: will we stop looking away? Will the Government finally demand and enforce a permanent ceasefire, ensure the protection of civilians and ensure unhindered access to aid? Will we—

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm that the British Government’s position remains as set out by the then Foreign Secretary last week.

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

I join the House in its condemnation of the attacks against civilians in Jerusalem this week.

The impunity and military support afforded to the state of Israel over the past 77 years, and as it carries out the ongoing genocide in Gaza and wider Palestine, has emboldened its leaders to launch assaults in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Tunisia and now Qatar, killing thousands and forcing millions to flee their homes across the region. Is the Minister not concerned that the British Government’s continued support for a rogue state perpetrating repeated violations of international law will lead to Israel invading other countries, and undermine the UK’s security and credibility on the world stage? Does he agree that Qatar has a right to defend itself against this unprovoked illegal attack?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our position in relation to a whole range of Israeli Government actions with which we disagree, so I am not sure I would characterise our position in the way that the hon. Gentleman did. I have already set out our position on the relevant questions of international law as far as I am able.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman should look closely at the three packages of sanctions that we have had since coming to office. He will see that there is no other country in the world with the range of sanctions against those who incite in particular settler violence and expansion.

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

Israel has breached two ceasefires to date. Its bombing, its killing and now its starvation have continued for months. It is not just the hostages who are not getting food; it is also babies, children, women and men. The impunity that Israel has to continue to perpetrate war crime after war crime, atrocity after atrocity—when will the UK and the international community say enough is enough and take real action to put an end to the killing and to help the hostages be freed?

[Mr Lammy]

It is not enough to assert it or say it. That is why we restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. That is why we have had three packages of sanctions. That is why yesterday I announced an extra £15 million of aid. That is why I have spoken to my Israeli counterpart nearly every week—certainly every month—that I have been in office. It is why we have corralled the international community with the statements we have made. It is not about words; it is about action to bring this to an end.

Middle East

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she says in relation to children. Of course, there are not just the children who have died as a result of famine, which is horrific, but many thousands of children who are malnourished. Anyone who knows anything about education and children will know that if you malnourish children, you affect outcomes for them as they get older and move towards adulthood. That is why this is so horrific and disastrous for the consequences of peace and the outcomes that we want to see. I have heard what she said about sanctions.

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

The Foreign Secretary said that

“we can and must be precise with our language”.

I stand here 23 months after the atrocities of 7 October—completely unforgivable atrocities against civilians and other innocent people—and I join in his call for all hostages to be released. However, since 8 October 2023, Israel has been extremely precise in its language about what it was going to do in response to 7 October. Its playbook of war crime, genocide, murder, starvation, water blockages, power cuts and bombing hospitals and schools was laid out in extreme detail for all of us to see. Nobody on this planet can say we did not know. Over the 23 months, nothing this Government have done has prevented Israel from enacting its line-by-line extermination plan. It does not want two states between Palestine and Israel. It actually does not care about the lives of the remaining hostages. What will this Government do to help Israel see sense and save lives, both the hostages and the Palestinians?

[Mr Lammy]

I do think it is important that the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his strength of feeling, recognises that Israel is a complex place of many opinions. He will have found disputes, certainly from this Government but I think from many people in this Chamber, on the direction of travel that the Netanyahu Government have set themselves, and the extremists in that Government who have taken them on a certain path. I think that is an important qualification. We are doing all we can, but he will recognise that we do that with partners, seeking to exert leverage, and that is why we have made the decisions that we have most recently.