Palestinian Rights: Government Support

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they need to bob in order to be called—although, by the look of it, they do not need reminding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I see a lot of Members are standing. I will not impose a formal time limit, but if people stick to about three minutes, everyone will get in. I discourage interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am delighted that we are having this debate. I compliment the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate, but for the decent, human way that he presented the case for people who want peace in the region. That must be the message that we all put forward today. The images that we have seen and heard about today are unbelievably horrific; I can relate to many of them, having visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza many times and seen those horrific images for myself.

People’s thirst to gain peace, and in particular peace through justice, has led to a search for peace through international law, hence the application that was made by South Africa to the International Court of Justice and the application that was made to the International Criminal Court. It was my pleasure to go to the International Court of Justice with the South Africans to observe the proceedings there.

I was recently in The Hague, alongside the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for the launch of The Hague Group. The group is made up of a number of nations that have determined to proselytise on every global stage for the carrying out of international law, with respect to the illegal nature of the occupation and the bombardment of Gaza, as well as the continuing bombardment of the west bank.

As Members of Parliament, we have been elected and we are all very proud to be here. Our primary function is to hold the UK Government to account and to demand policies of our Government that are appropriate to a given occasion. I wrote yesterday to the Prime Minister to ask that he initiate a Chilcot-style inquiry into the whole gamut of policies in relation to Israel, Palestine and the conduct of this war. I think that we, as a country, need examine ourselves in this, and what we have actually done over the past few years. I say that with respect to both the current and previous Governments, because some of us were in the previous Parliament or previous Parliaments before that. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself have been here for an equal length of time; it is just that he signed the book 15 minutes earlier than I did on that fateful day in 1983. I compliment him on his speed.

In my letter, I put the following points to the Prime Minister. History is repeating itself. Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000; two Israeli officials are now warranted by the ICC for war crimes; and Britain has played a highly influential role in all of that. A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee outlined the extent of that relationship, including the sale of weapons, the supply of intelligence and the use of RAF bases in Cyprus. Many of us have repeatedly objected to the use of those bases, and the continuing supply of weapons. We must pursue all the avenues that we can for an independent inquiry and some transparency about what is going on.

Our Government—both the current and previous Governments—have supplied weapons, have supplied intelligence and have allowed the use of the RAF bases in Akrotiri. Some 61,000 people are already dead in Gaza, there is a rising death toll in the west bank and, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Israeli Government are encouraging the settlement policy. Let us have some transparency and let us hold our Government to account so that we can play our part in bringing about peace and justice for the people of the region.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their abbreviated remarks. If people keep going in that way, everyone will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I appreciate that the debate is arousing strong feelings, and I want to get everyone in. Please work with me. If Members speak for a couple of minutes each, we will get you all in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Unlike other Members who have been reflecting on recent visits to the region, although I have visited the region more recently, I visited both Gaza and Israel as long ago as 2012. My reflection when I returned, particularly from Gaza, was how appalling the conditions were. How much worse they are now. I wrote an article for my church magazine reflecting on my visit to Israel and I said that one could feel the tensions within society. It was not a society at ease with itself, and I suspect that is probably still the case.

In preparing for this contribution, I looked back on the Backbench debate that took place in October 2014 about the recognition of Palestine. I noted that 39 Conservatives voted for recognition, including me and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was a Teller on that occasion, I noted. It would be interesting to hear from the Front Benchers what their views are now on that particular situation.

One of the contributions came from our former colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who of course in the 1990s was Foreign Secretary. His view was that it was not the right time for recognition at that point because to be a recognisable state there needed to be a functioning Government and military. In the present circumstances, achieving a functioning, democratically accountable Government and all the extensions of that such as a military is clearly an impossibility. I am very interested to hear the Front Benchers’ comments on that.

As the Father of the House said, and I agree entirely, Israel has a perfect right to exist. I would describe myself as a friend of Israel, but friends can be critical and there is a lot to criticise the state of Israel about. It must surely recognise that its actions in Gaza—while with the perfectly legitimate aim of eliminating Hamas, particularly after the appalling atrocities of 7 October—are creating the Hamas of the future. They are radicalising the children and young people, who see death and destruction all around. How will they not grow up wanting revenge for what they see?

In so many ways, Israel is an admirable country. The people have shown courage. Their science and technology are very advanced, and the resulting benefits are tremendous. However, Israel has a proportional representation system of Government, which inevitably means coalitions, and the extreme elements that exist within those coalitions will always hold them back. I very much hope that after this debate a united approach can be taken, whereby we recognise the rights of Israel but are also extremely critical where appropriate.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will delay calling the Front Benchers until 3.30 pm, so that I can get more Back Benchers in.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on bringing this important debate. I will cut down my speech to the bare bones and focus on the rights of the Palestinians as attributed to them by the Government here.

I believe that the UK’s denial of Palestinian rights for more than a century has directly led to the situation we face today. What rights have we denied them? As right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, they have a right for the UK not to refuse to recognise their state, their homeland. They have a right not to be starved and denied essential life supplies, such as water and medicines. They have a right not to be unlawfully killed by Israeli forces and settlers at any point in their daily lives. They have a right not to be unlawfully and violently evicted from their homes, and forcibly displaced.

They have a right not to face abusive detention and torture in Israeli prisons. They have a right not to face movement restrictions, blockades and checkpoints that prevent pregnant mothers reaching hospitals to deliver babies. They have a right not to face discriminatory laws passed daily by the Israeli Knesset. They have a right not to undergo collective punishment and not to be sexually abused trying to live their lives.

To conclude, it is clear that successive UK Governments and many in this House have denied the rights of Palestinians, and continue to do so in blind loyalty in defence of Israel and its many war crimes. Palestinians are as human as any Israeli or Ukrainian, and deserve the same rights from the UK.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have agreed to have slightly shorter times. I will try to get two more people in for one minute each.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir John. I also thank the Father of the House for securing this debate. In his Oscar acceptance speech, the director of the film “No Other Land”, Basel Adra, called on the world to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. We must bear witness to the atrocities documented in his film, and the genocide documented on our mobile phone screens, and heed his call.

Having committed what many experts are clear is genocide in Gaza, Israel is now, during the holy month of Ramadan, once again collectively punishing the people of Gaza by withholding aid. The UK has licensed arms for export to Israel, and UK military bases have been used to facilitate military cargo to Israel, and for surveillance flights over Gaza. It is very difficult to argue that the UK Government are not complicit in at least some of Israel’s breaches of international law.

If the UK is seen to take an inconsistent approach to war crimes, it undermines the international legal order, which is there to protect us all. We must not treat Israel differently just because it has been our ally. If the ceasefire holds—we must do everything in our diplomatic power to ensure that it does—rebuilding Gaza will be a huge challenge. We must play our part in that by committing significant funding and other resources.

I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. When will the Government recognise the state of Palestine? Will the Government stop all arms sales to Israel and other military support? Will they implement sanctions on Israel? Will they commit to funding the rebuilding of Gaza?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, why not? Why are our responses to Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza so different? Can the Government not see that hypocrisy on this issue does the whole world a disservice and threatens global security? We must be consistent and stand for human rights everywhere. That means doing everything in our power to hold Israel to account, prevent genocide in Gaza and secure rights and justice for the Palestinian people.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will enforce a one-minute time limit.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate but for the manner in which he introduced it. I will speak briefly about what I saw and heard on my visit to Israel and Palestine. It was a journey of stark contrasts—immense suffering, but also remarkable courage. Those experiences should carry us forward in how we set British policy on Palestinian rights.

In Gaza, the devastation is beyond words. In the shadow of Gaza’s skeleton ruins, I met aid workers risking their lives to provide vital relief, and refugees whose homes and futures have been torn apart. The scale of the destruction means that we must push for immediate and sustained humanitarian aid, and we need to stand firm against any measures to undermine that aid getting to where it is needed. In the west bank, I saw the daily reality of life under occupation: the constant roadblocks, the endless checks and the ever-present fear. I met families who have been forcibly removed from their homes and villages that have been demolished six times. Palestinians are treated worse than second-class citizens. The UK cannot turn a blind eye to this injustice. We should use the financial sanctions available to us as a country to target Israeli settlements, to uphold international law and human rights.

When we talk about Palestine, it is easy to focus on the sheer terrible nature of the events, but on my visit I also heard voices of hope—from Israelis who lost loved ones but refuse to embrace revenge, to Palestinians committed to building a peaceful and democratic future. I met a family of a young Israeli hostage, desperate for the safe return of their family member but let down by their own Government’s indifference. These voices remind us that peace is possible, but only through justice and equality.

The UK can play a role in that. We need to recognise the state of Palestine. We must ensure that aid gets to where it is needed. We must challenge policies that entrench division and violence, whether they come from Hamas, the Israeli Government or any other actor. We have seen Trump and Vance bully their guest Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, yet across the Atlantic, Britain continues to stand up for its ally, Ukraine. We must seize the chance to support countries that find themselves enslaved, isolated and bullied by their neighbour’s aggression. The UK should use its worldwide respected authority to support such nations in gaining recognition of their statehood.

The people I met deserve our support. Let us stand with those who want a better world, and pursue an agenda of peace that upholds human rights and self-determination—for a safe and secure Israel alongside a free and independent state of Palestine.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Harpreet Uppal. A paragraph, please, Harpreet—no more.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House for bringing forward this vital debate.

The already strained Palestinian healthcare system in the west bank has been further weakened, and is facing significant budget constraints stemming from Israel’s increased withholding of tax revenues meant for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, as stipulated by the Oslo accords. The World Health Organisation reports that 45% of essential medications are out of stock, and health workers have not received their full salary for over a year, meaning that most clinics and hospitals are running at significantly reduced levels. Of course, the effective ban of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is impacting the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Hardly any healthcare facilities are running in Gaza.

I will leave it there, Sir John. I am sure that the Minister has heard those concerns.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

That was wonderful. A few commas, a couple of semi-colons, but a paragraph, I reckon—don’t you? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for bringing this critically important debate.

Late last year, I also visited the occupied territories and the west bank, and I share his and other hon. Members’ strength of feeling. I also pay tribute to our officials in East Jerusalem, who work so hard to tell and navigate the story, to all those there who are seeking peace—there are many of them—and to all those who are living under the daily horror of conflict.

In this debate, I reaffirm the Liberal Democrats’ unwavering commitment to human rights, international law and a lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. First and foremost, the Liberal Democrats support the UK Government in their efforts to uphold the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Negotiations to move from phase 1 to phase 2 of the ceasefire deal must occur as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I urge the Government to do everything they can to secure the unconditional release of hostages, all the while ensuring that humanitarian aid flows unhindered into Gaza. They must do that.

Last weekend, Israel blocked further humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, which is a contravention of international humanitarian law. It also imperils the delicate but essential cessation of hostilities, and will impose yet more suffering on Gazan civilians, who have already suffered so much. Israel must act in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law and permit aid in.

I also note with concern developments in the west bank. Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, there are strong indications that the Israeli military are refocusing efforts on the west bank. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, confirmed last Sunday that 40,000 residents were displaced from refugee camps in the north of the west bank, and that Israel will not allow the return of the Palestinian residents. Will the Minister condemn this forced displacement, particularly in view of the comments of Minister Katz?

Moreover, the UK must respect and act upon the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the occupation, cease all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and work to end the arbitrary administrative detention of Palestinians by the IDF. The continued expansion of settlements in occupied territories is an obstacle to peace, and the UK must stand firm in its condemnation of those illegal actions.

On arms exports and human rights, I want to re-emphasise that it is indefensible that the UK continues to export arms to countries in which human rights violations are rampant. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for an immediate suspension of all arms exports to Israel, in line with the Foreign Office’s own human rights priorities.

The UK must also take a stand by immediately recognising the state of Palestine. When I visited, I saw for myself the rapidly shrinking state. Before it disappears, we must recognise it. However, recognition alone is not enough; we must actively work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, invest in peacebuilding initiatives, and use trade as a tool for economic co-operation and stability. The international fund for middle east peace must be supported, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to the future of co-existence and mutual security.

As we debate, leaders of the Arab world are meeting in Cairo to develop counterproposals to President Trump’s destabilising rhetoric. They intend to provide a peaceful, long-term solution for the people of Gaza. President Trump has previously advocated for the permanent resettlement of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, calling to “clean out” the strip. Such a policy would violate international humanitarian law and severely damage relations with the Arab nations, whose support and commitment will be essential to any lasting peace agreement. Will the Minister therefore affirm that the British Government oppose President Trump’s proposal for Gaza? Will she also outline how the UK is working with partners in the region to help secure lasting peace?

I cannot leave out the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Beyond the immediate violence, the long-term effects of the conflict, if left unaddressed, will devastate generations of Palestinians. It is alarming to think that we might see that devastation start to bite far more quickly than we previously feared, now that the UK and the US have cut back on their overseas aid budgets. The UK must seriously reconsider that shameful decision to reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of GNI—the lowest level this century. In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made it clear that one of the areas of UK development spending potentially affected by the cut to aid is Gaza. By putting that vital work at risk, we are not only diminishing our ability to alleviate vast amounts of human suffering—in Gaza, more than 80% of hospitals have been reduced to rubble—but we are also rolling the dice on a more dangerous world. Failed states create more Hamas.

I want to include Jordan, which has for so long been a refuge for so many Palestinians fleeing their home, and who we have supported for so long. I regret that the UK follows where other countries cut aid or stop aid. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to ensure that the UK can continue vital development work in view of these major cuts.

I share the outrage and concern of Members of this House at the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The UK has a moral duty to uphold human rights and the principles of justice on the global stage. The Government must strain every sinew to uphold the ceasefire, get the hostages out, condemn all violence and war, and they must recognise the Palestinian state. It is way overdue.

I will leave hon. Members with the words of a Palestinian Catholic priest who visited my constituency at the weekend to tell the story of the children of Bethlehem. He said to me, “I am not political, but I am here to ask you to work for peace.” He reminded me of the teaching of St James, that faith is nothing without action. The peacemakers in the region need our action. I call on the Government to act.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Please divide the remaining time by two, allowing Sir Edward a few moments to sum up the debate at the end. I call the shadow Minister.

UK-US Bilateral Relationship

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. First, I will call Members who bob, so please could those who wish to be called make sure to bob? Secondly, I remind Members that they should be here for the start of a debate if they want to contribute, but I will try to be generous. Thirdly, so that all who want to can speak, let us try to work on the basis of about four minutes each. That is informal at this stage, but as we continue, we will look at it again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation. Six Members are standing, and I will call the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so brevity would be appreciated. Three to four minutes would be brilliant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing the debate at this pivotal time. It is typically prescient of him to have done so.

When considering my remarks, my first thought was to try to embarrass the Government by replaying all the disgraceful, disobliging and damaging comments that members of the Labour party have made about America, and particularly about President Trump. It might be fun, I thought, to see Government Members squirm, particularly if I could find some choice comments by the Minister himself. However, having researched the dreadful, embarrassing comments, I cannot in good conscience replay them here.

I am a patriot. I have fought for my country all over the world, often alongside our American cousins and usually with an American as my boss. I served for General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war, on the staff of the superb General David Petraeus in the second Gulf war and under Marine Corps General Richard Mills in the Helmand river valley of Afghanistan. In Sierra Leone, my bacon was well and truly saved by the USS Kearsarge and its embarked port of marines. I cannot replay Labour’s embarrassing catalogue of errors or risk making our relationship with the United States any weaker than it currently is.

Indeed, in my own small way I have been doing my own bit to strengthen Anglo-American relations by employing as my senior parliamentary assistant a no-nonsense native New Yorker from Queens. When Gloria tells me to jump, I do not ask why; I simply ask, “How high?” But my relationship with my parliamentary assistant should never be replicated at a national level. We need to be a strong nation and to conduct our relations from that position of strength.

Of course, much of what we contribute to this relationship we cannot talk about, because it is secret and long may it remain so, but in the public realm it is very clear that the Government are playing for time with their strategic defence review, which is primarily there to produce the political cover for increasing defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. That is a mistake being played out in public. By not having a threat-based and foreign policy-led review, we are missing a huge opportunity to face down the real-world threats that we see today. Everyone in Government seems to have forgotten the old adage: “Prepare for the war you don’t want to have to fight.” The answer, instead, seems to be “2.5% of GDP—now, what’s the question?”

America has a clear-eyed view of its national interest and we should have one of ours. It has been striking to see the speed with which the Trump Administration has hit the ground running. Not for him the interminable list of reviews, taskforces and consultations that our own Government prefer.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the Chagos islands, which our Government propose to give away the sovereignty of, only to lease them back at vast expense for the British taxpayer. That is surely the worst plan since the Prime Minister hired a voice coach. He must rethink the proposed course of action and not simply hope that it never reaches the top of the President’s in-tray. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in that regard. It will reach the top of that in-tray, and this Government will be embarrassed at how cackhandedly this fiasco has been handled. The Government should climb down, and climb down quickly.

In the late 1950s, the French were demanding that all US forces leave French soil and Dean Rusk asked pointedly, “Does that include the dead ones in the military cemeteries?” The UK’s relationship with the US was probably at its lowest ebb following Suez. It has improved since and is strong today. Much of that strength was paid for by the sacrifice of our own troops, serving alongside and indeed for our American cousins. The Government must not squander that inheritance. Instead, they will honour our fallen by making this country stronger and by forging a stronger special relationship with the United States.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Members can see that we have about 11 minutes left for Back-Bench speakers, so let us divide it between the three remaining Back-Bench speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s insightful comment. In both those scenarios, withdrawal from key agencies will reduce global awareness and increase the chances of future global health crises. World Health Organisation-collaborating centres around the world, including those in the US, directly inform the development of our annual influenza vaccine, which is a vital aspect of reducing a significant pressure on the NHS every winter.

Meanwhile, it is currently unclear how the US stance on wider public health agencies may shift in the future. Just this week, the World Organisation for Animal Health reported the emergence of highly pathogenic H5N9 avian influenza in poultry for the first time in the US. This is an evolving situation for which the Centre for Disease Control would normally provide crucial updates. How orders to cease communications may impact the service remains to be seen.

The UK also invests heavily in supporting capacity building for overseas infectious disease surveillance as part of delivering our own national action and public health plans. I ask the Minister: are there plans to conduct an impact assessment on how the withdrawal of the US from key public health agencies may impact public health security in the UK? Although we totally understand that we cannot replace all that US funding, do the Government envision a requirement or see opportunities for the UK to expand or review its existing programmes to ensure stability of its global public health interests?

For so many people in need around the world, UK and US foreign aid has been the difference between life and death. Whether tackling climate change, pandemics or extreme poverty, the Liberal Democrats believe in global solutions to global problems, and in the importance of international development when building a more peaceful and prosperous world, with the UK leading the way. That is why we are eventually hoping to see our international development budget restored to 0.7% of GDP. Not only will that make the world more stable; it will also make the UK a safer and healthier place to live.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Three minutes each now. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I want to use this debate to try to get an answer to a question that I asked in PMQs a few weeks ago, and to which I did not get an answer. How does the United Kingdom Government hope to obtain a trade deal for the United Kingdom so long as the customs laws, the trade laws and many of the economic laws of a part of this United Kingdom are made not in the United Kingdom by Parliament but by the EU? How, without the unity of a common customs base, a common trade base and common standards affecting the goods that can be imported and exported from our country, do we obtain a trade deal with a third country such as the United States?

If President Trump proceeds with his threatened tariffs on the EU, does that mean they will apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to the EU’s wretched trade laws and tariffs and everything else that goes with it? When and how will the United Kingdom put ourselves in a position where we can obtain a trade deal applicable to all the United Kingdom so long as it persists with the partitioning protocol agreement that divides the United Kingdom and leaves part of it under the control of a foreign power? Or are this Government interested only in a trade deal that would benefit Great Britain? Have they abandoned any interest in a trade deal for the whole United Kingdom? I would like an answer to that question, and I would like the Minister to explain how it is even possible, legally, to obtain a trade deal for the whole United Kingdom so long as this Government do not control the trade laws of the whole United Kingdom.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their brevity. I am determined to ensure that those who want to speak get the opportunity to do so. Thank you for your co-operation this afternoon. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing today’s debate on this important topic. The level of interest shows how important the issue is to our country. Many Members, including the hon. Members for Rugby (John Slinger), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have spoken warmly of how they have benefited from the historical relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Let us be in no doubt: the US is a key ally of the UK, and our relationship today is the consequence of close co-operation across many generations. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not concerned about the preservation of any relationship. He is threatening Denmark and Panama, bullying Canada and Mexico and undermining NATO by praising Putin’s aggression towards Ukraine.

In personal and international relations, the President is unpredictable and disloyal. He breaks laws and he lies. He bullies and intimidates. He does not see the benefit of institutions that foster co-operation and promote stability and peace. That represents a threat to the UK’s relationship with the US and to the UK’s wider interests.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway had some colourful rhetorical flourishes, but they could not mask the brass neck of his remarks, for his Conservative party is in no position to criticise others for selling the UK short in global affairs. From their botched Brexit deal to the rushed trade deals that betrayed British farmers under the last Government, the UK shrank from leadership and stood small on the global stage.

We know that Donald Trump likes to set the news agenda by making outrageous pronouncements. The only thing I agreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is that we should focus not on the statements but on his deeds. Sadly, even in his first days in office, actions by the new US Administration underscore that we cannot depend on the US in the way that we have in the past. In critical areas, this US Administration have moved far away from the rules-based order that has marked the partnership between the UK and the US over the last 60 or more years.

For example, we have seen Donald Trump sign an executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) set out, we are in an era when the UK and all countries depend on one another for health security. Covid-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome, mpox—these viruses know no borders. International co-operation is critical if we are to protect our citizens. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said we were lucky in the members of the Administration. Since a number of them disregard vaccine science, it is deeply concerning to see the US withdraw from international health co-operation.

Donald Trump has also withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement while encouraging US oil companies to renew extensive drilling operations including in sensitive environmental settings. Recent reports from Copernicus show how rapidly the globe is heating. Climate emergencies from fires in California to extreme rainfall and flooding in Valencia and in the UK show that the impacts are no abstract future threat. This decision by the new Administration sets back hard-won international progress and undermines collective efforts to reduce carbon emissions and protect future generations.

Take, too, the recent announcement of a stop to all USAID funding, alongside the briefing that the Administration wants to wind up USAID entirely. USAID is the world’s largest single aid donor. In 2023, it disbursed $72 billion of aid worldwide. In countries across the globe, UK Aid has worked alongside our US partners to support women and girls, the victims of conflict and those displaced by climate emergencies and natural disasters. The consequences of this unilateral action by the US Administration have been severe. From Ukraine to Syria to Sudan, cuts to US support have put lives at risk while throwing international partnerships into disarray. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester highlighted, USAID cuts threaten progress in eradicating illnesses such as polio once and for all.

We have urged this Government not to abandon Parliament’s historic commitment to provide 0.7% of GNI in overseas aid. Leadership with our international partners on international development is all the more critical in light of the capriciousness of the US Administration. Perhaps the greatest worry comes from the Administration’s approach to Russia and Ukraine. In the White House, the President described Putin’s illegal war as genius. Meantime, his vice-president has advocated a proposal that would give Russia the territory that it has illegally seized.

The post-war security of Europe was protected under US-UK leadership through NATO. Our defence, security and intelligence partnership with the US has been a cornerstone of UK foreign policy. When the facts change, we must pause and take stock. The harsh truth is that we can no longer rely on the US. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe and ensure that the brave Ukrainians are properly supported.

At a time when non-democratic states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea seek to menace and undermine democracies, the UK needs partners it can rely on and we cannot say that of Donald Trump. The issue is how to manage this situation. The Conservatives and Reform are currently engaged in an undignified squabble to show who can be the most sycophantic to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Labour has gone cap in hand to plead with Trump to treat us nicely. On this, I agree with the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that we must proceed from a position of strength.

The Conservatives, Reform and the Labour party fundamentally misunderstand that Trump is someone who believes that might is right and who scorns those who show weakness. We know that Donald Trump wants to be invited to make a state visit to the UK. If he wants to make our relationship transactional, we can do that too. The Prime Minister should make it clear that there will be no state visit unless or until Donald Trump commits to attending a summit on funding and equipping Ukraine to resist Russia’s aggression. If Trump commits to defending Ukraine and talks about seizing the Russian assets held in the US, the UK and the EU so that we can fund Ukraine, then we can talk about a state visit.

The UK needs to strengthen our position in the face of Trump’s bullying. We trade more than twice as much with our closest neighbours in the EU than we do with the US, and they share our immediate security threats—unlike the US, many of them are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression. By showing leadership in European security, and opening negotiations on a new UK-EU customs union, the UK would show Donald Trump that we are serious about leading and will not bend to his threats.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this important and timely debate.

Our bilateral relationship with the United States is one to be cherished. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), represented our party at President Trump’s inauguration last month. We look forward with optimism to the opportunities presented by his election. However, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made, shall we say, choice remarks about the President, so it is fortunate for the Government that our ties go beyond the simply political. The friendship and affinity between our two peoples and countries are profound and deep-rooted, manifesting in millions of interactions each and every day—from nearly £300 million in trade and co-operation of defence and security, to shared cultural values and a commitment to prosperity and freedom.

Our diplomatic ties bring all that together. As her posting in Washington comes to an end, I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce for her work as British ambassador to Washington. I had the pleasure of meeting Dame Karen when I was a Foreign Office Minister. This Friday will mark five years since her appointment, and she has served with distinction.

One area that is ripe for development is our trading relationship. When we were in government, our total trade with the United States grew from £123.5 billion in 2010 to £294.1 billion in the four quarters to the end of the third quarter of 2024. Labour could go further and get moving on a UK-US trade deal from which every part of the UK stands to benefit. The deal that the Conservative Government were drawing up with the last Trump Administration is sitting on the shelf. Will the Minister commit to seizing this golden opportunity and dusting off our free-trade deal? What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to get back to the negotiating table with President Trump and finish what we started?

In the absence of a full trade deal, do the Government have any plans to negotiate any new state-level agreements? In March last year, we signed a trade pact with Texas, which came just four months on from agreeing the UK-Florida memorandum of understanding. We also signed the Atlantic declaration in 2023. That declaration, and the accompanying action plan, forms the basis of an innovative partnership across the full spectrum of our trade relations. Will the Minister update us on what he and his colleagues have done since July to build on the Atlantic declaration and deliver on the action plan?

I will turn now to defence and security co-operation between the UK and the US, which is particularly crucial within NATO. We have a key role in influencing other member states to do more. We hosted the 2014 NATO summit and made the Wales pledge. That leadership was dearly needed at a time when Britain was one of only four countries to meet their defence spending targets. Today, we need to step up to the plate once again. The Conservative party went into the election with a full funded plan to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. That was a serious and major financial commitment, but 2.5% should never be seen as an end state; rather, it is a further step on the road back to the sustained increase in defence investment that we need to fully upgrade our overall deterrence posture.

Our defence policy programme will look at how we deliver more resources to the military and ensure that more funding is well spent. We will always be prudent with the public finances, but our approach to defence will be fundamentally threat-driven, with a total focus on delivering a safe and secure United Kingdom. Sadly, we see that Labour is now wobbling on its 2.5% commitment. As I have said, this is not about the number, but about our influence. If Labour fails to show the leadership in NATO that we did, we will be vacating our role as key influences in the alliance.

Integral to our security partnership are the theatres in which we work closely with the United States, and one of the Government’s first acts was to rush the Chagos islands out of the door at any price, undermining that partnership. We have been calling for weeks for the Government to wait for the new US Administration to give a view, instead of trying to force through a deal. I am pleased that they have finally conceded that they need a steer from President Trump before proceeding. Will the Minister now confirm what discussions the Government had with the new Administration in the lead-up to the inauguration?

We know that the Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Secretary of State and discussed Diego Garcia, so it is disappointing that we had to drag this fact out of the Government through written questions rather than the Government’s being candid in their read-out, which did not mention Diego Garcia. What are the Government trying to hide? What exactly did the Foreign Secretary discuss with Secretary Rubio in respect of the Chagos islands? Will UK and US autonomy of operations on Diego Garcia be absolutely guaranteed, or have the Government offered complete sovereignty, as is being reported in the media this afternoon? If, at the end of the term of the treaty, we cannot extend the period during which we exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia, will the UK-US base have to be decommissioned? This failure of diplomacy has so far never failed to bewilder. Rather than flogging our strategic assets along with the kitchen sink, Labour should focus on strengthening our shared defence capabilities.

On China, it is difficult to reconcile the clear position of the United States with the this Government’s approach. For all the Chancellor’s kowtowing in Beijing, she returned with only £600 million over five years. Where was the China audit? I understand that work is under way, but it is not due to conclude until the spring. Did Foreign Office Ministers at least discuss the audit with the Chancellor before she set off? The response to my written parliamentary question today was, let us say, somewhat lacking in clarity. The read-out on gov.uk was murky, and instead of inviting real scrutiny, the Chancellor preferred to take questions from the state-run media of the Chinese Communist party, so perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to what was actually discussed. We know that the new US Administration are particularly concerned about China’s anti-competitive trade and economic practices. Which aspects of China’s economic practices did the Chancellor raise concerns about in Beijing?

Hon. Members know that the root cause of so much of the suffering in the middle east is the Iranian regime. Through its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and, until its collapse, the Assad regime, Iran sows discord and misery. In April last year, we were in lock step with the United States in responding to Iran’s destabilising activity, including its direct attack on Israel. Through a co-ordinated package with the US, leading Iranian military figures were sanctioned, and we tightened the net on key actors in Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicle and missile industries, further limiting its ability to destabilise the region. Will the Minister tell us how the Government plan to work with our allies, especially the US, on a robust strategy towards Iran? If our American allies reassert maximum pressure on Iran, will the Labour Government be prepared to harden our policy to support that work?

More broadly in the middle east, we all welcome the ceasefire deal that has been secured between Hamas and Israel, and we acknowledge the influence of President Trump in delivering that. It is so important that we work together with the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to build on the Abraham accords, to ensure that we see a lasting peace in the region. Will the Minister ensure that the UK is absolutely plugged into those discussions and at the forefront, alongside the US?

On Ukraine, it is crucial that we continue to work extremely closely with the US, as we have since the very beginning of Russia’s illegal invasion. American security is on the line in Ukraine, as are British and European security. We therefore need to face the ongoing challenges of that war together. Like others, we are keen to learn more about the specific policies that the new US Administration plan to pursue. We are proud of how we led on support to Ukraine and its people during our time in government. Can the Minister update us on discussions with the new Administration regarding Ukraine, and on what plans there are to continue to build on our considerable support?

To conclude, we have no closer ally than the United States. Over the past century, the essential partnership between our two nations has enabled us to lead on issues of global importance together. Our bilateral relationship is underpinned by deep ties between our people and civil societies, a thriving economic relationship, and the closest co-operation on defence and security. It is a friendship to be treasured, and we hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to strengthen it for years to come.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask that he finishes a couple of minutes before 4 pm to give Mr Cooper a chance to wind up the debate.

Lebanon

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We have a long-standing no-contact policy with Hezbollah. However, we of course continue to speak to the Government in Lebanon, as fragile as that Government is. We condemn Hezbollah’s destabilising activity. We do, obviously, co-ordinate very closely with regional partners, some of whom are in contact with Hezbollah.

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

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place; he is not technically a right hon. Friend, but he has been a personal friend of mine since my original attempt to stop him being elected in Tottenham many years ago. I thank him for his statement today.

The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there are many moderate and measured voices in Lebanon and in the Lebanese diaspora. I am glad that he has emphasised the close relationship between our Government and armed forces and the Lebanese army. Will he agree to meet a small group of people associated with the all-party parliamentary group for Lebanon, which I have chaired? The all-party groups are re-forming as we speak, but a group of parliamentarians have been part of that one, and it would be very useful for us to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss what more can be done across the House to support the efforts that he has described today.

[Mr Lammy]

Over my 24 years in this place, the strangest of friendships have been struck up across party lines. Of course I will meet the right hon. Gentleman and the group, because this is a very serious cross-party issue and I know that all Members of this House want to see de-escalation.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

If it did, the hon. Lady would have been able to stand at the Dispatch Box and read out that section. In fact, the commission said that it did not find institutional racism in the areas that it examined.

A rhetorical trick is happening around this question. There is a difference between racism and institutional racism, which has a specific definition as defined by Macpherson. The commission said that there is racism and that it does persist. It has made recommendations on actions to tackle that in its report, and we have taken them up. It is quite wrong to conflate the two. We see crime in our country every day, yet we do not say that this is an institutionally criminal country. We look in the same way at accusations of racism, and it is important to distinguish where there is a pervasive institutional failing across the board that is unable to provide services to people of colour So I am afraid I reject the misrepresentation Labour Members make about the commission. I also remind them about the personal targeted attacks and harassment the commissioners suffered because of that misrepresentation—a group of commissioners who were all, bar one, ethnic minorities. I am very committed to ensuring that ethnic minorities in public life get a fair say and have their voice. What is wrong is when people with different opinions are attacked and told they are not allowed to think in a certain way because there are rules about what black people or Asian people are allowed to say. We reject that..

The hon. Lady raised the case of Child Q, and I am very happy to speak about that. It is an appalling incident. I am glad to see that the Met has apologised and that the Independent Office for Police Conduct is looking at it. We have systems in place to ensure that when things go wrong we can right them. What we cannot do is stop any bad thing happening to anyone in the country at any time. That is a threshold that is impossible to meet. What we do know is that everybody is rightly appalled and outraged by what happened to Child Q. That is an example of a country that cares about ethnic minorities and about children in the system. We will continue to do everything we can to support them.

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to higher education. In accepting my congratulations on her robust counter to the small minds who have criticised the Sewell report—small minds that cannot tell the difference between disadvantage, disparity and discrimination—will the Minister ensure that every Government Department effects what she has said today and what the report proposes? Education is at particular risk, from Brighton and Hove Council’s destructive and pernicious racial training for primary school teachers, which still has not been dealt with despite a cursory inspection from the Department for Education, to Nottingham University—my old university, by the way—which, appallingly, withdrew Tony Sewell’s honorary degree, while giving them to Chinese holocaust deniers. Will she issue guidance to each Government Department to stop the nonsense about critical race theory and white privilege?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend is right to make the point about distinctions in language. Discrimination, disparity and disadvantage all mean different things. They can correlate and they can be related. Now that we have an action plan and something written, I can assure him that we will be propagating it across Government and not just across but beyond Whitehall.

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the case of Brighton and Hove. In fact, I read in a paper today about a black mother who complained that the anti-discrimination training is actually discriminatory. He is right to raise the case of Tony Sewell, who, unbelievably, had an honorary degree withdrawn because he did not believe that this is a racist country. That is an example of the sort of silencing of ethnic minorities that we are seeing across the board. It is terrible, and I have to say I was disappointed to see the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) congratulate Nottingham University on cancel culture. She will find that those sorts of actions prevent ethnic minorities from participating in public life.

Britain in the World

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

What a fine first outing for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)! The former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee did warn me that she was one to look out for. She will not have seen what I could see, which was his career slipping away before him. I have no idea why Ministers on the Treasury Bench are laughing at that, because the same could be said for them. It was in many ways the perfect maiden speech. It contained humour in great serving, it had a generous tribute to her predecessor—a story of whom I will tell her, but not in this House—and just enough steel to show that she is indeed a voice to be reckoned with. She did well, and I wish her well in her parliamentary career.

It would be remiss of me not to also mention the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan)—he certainly has a future in reading audio books, for sure. I had not realised that he was going to start that tonight, mind you, but it was a fine outing that he had as well.

The title of this debate is “Britain in the World”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said in his opening salvo, Britain in the world is not our project. We wish it well—Britain in the world matters to us—but our project is to maintain Scotland’s place in Europe. Scotland, as well as being an independent European country, will be the greatest ally of and closest partner and friend to the rest of the United Kingdom once it has restored its independence.

As others have sought to do, I want to adumbrate the context in which this debate is taking place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said, there is certainly, I hate to say it—no matter how myopic and rose-tinted the lenses of Conservative Members—a receding Britain offering itself out to the world. That can be seen no more than in its exit from the European Union and the way in which that is happening. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, I can accept that the Government now have a mandate to press ahead with Brexit, but it is an arithmetical fact that that mandate does not stand in Scotland, and it is our job to make that case. I plead with the Government, with their huge new majority, to abide by what he mentioned, which is to always understand that one’s opponent might well have a point. Despite the Government’s majority, there should be no monopoly on wisdom. Freedom of movement is one of the greatest diplomatic instruments ever to have underpinned peace on the continent of Europe, and departing from it will be a huge crime to future generations. I plead with those Conservative Members who believe in it to please stand up for it within their own forums.

We have heard much talk about the need for the United Kingdom to start playing a proper and more serious role in the United Nations Security Council, which is one of the instruments of the international order that are supposed to underpin peace across the globe but have been rendered utterly meaningless by events over the past few years—largely, it has to be said, because of the actions of Russia, which is now pretty much the only vote that matters in the Security Council. I want to hear from the Government exactly how they plan to deal with that in the upcoming integrated review. There are already discussions and ideas being advanced at a European level, not least by President Macron. I do not agree with everything he says, but he can sometimes bring forward uncomfortable truths and interesting solutions to counter them, perhaps with a European-style model.

We have, of course, an unpredictable man in the White House—more unpredictable than anyone who has gone before. We have a gangster in the Kremlin who has redrawn the borders of a sovereign European nation by force—the first time that has happened since the second world war. Let us be honest: the world has largely allowed that to happen, and what has gone on in Ukraine has gone unnoticed. In fact, what is happening—this is why I pressed the Secretary of State on it earlier—is that the Kremlin is being rewarded for its actions in Ukraine by dint of the fact that Nord Stream 2 will go ahead. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned hybrid warfare. What do we think Nord Stream 2 is if not an instrument of Putin’s hybrid warfare? We shall reap what we sow. When her predecessor used to stand at the Dispatch Box or respond on behalf of the Government in Westminster Hall, he would tell me and tell the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, that Nord Stream 2 was largely nothing to do with the United Kingdom’s interests. I am quite confident that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will take a different view, and I wish her luck in advancing it if she does.

As was mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), a new kind of political gangsterism is rearing its head— yes, on the continent of Europe, but in other parts of the world as well. I would be interested to see in the integrated review how the Government plan to get the balance right. Of course we would expect Britain to advance its interests and seek to get good things where they are good, but how do they balance that with having the tough conversations that need to be had? I have to be honest: the score sheet does not look too good from where I am standing. We now have a situation where the Government are becoming more and more relaxed on, for example, Huawei. Why on earth would we go ahead and invite this virus into the security apparatus here in the United Kingdom? The United States Government—I cannot believe I am saying this—are right on Nord Stream 2 and right on Huawei, and the UK Government are getting it all wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling mentioned the report on Russian action in this country to subvert democracy and much else. That report has been concealed for entirely political reasons. We do not need to wait for Select Committees to be up and running. The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a normal Select Committee of the House—it exists by statute—so the Government could get on with this and get that report published, as should have happened before the election.

I want briefly to focus my remarks on Ukraine. I declare an interest of sorts in that I am to receive the presidential state honour—I have forgotten the name of the award—from the President of Ukraine, President Zelensky. I have not received it yet, so I am putting that out there just in case I do have to declare it. Ukraine weeps for its sons and daughters every night as, yes, hybrid warfare but also a physical war takes place on its territory. The right hon. Member for Maldon and I have visited the same parts of eastern Ukraine. We have maintained strong relations and even friendships with politicians there who want to see that war coming to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling rightly said, we are not short of platitudes in this House, but I think it can honestly be said that 25 years after the signing of the Budapest memorandum, that document now stands as utterly unfit for purpose. I do not blame the UK Government for that—I do not blame any of the signatories for it—but it does need to be debated. I hope that when I table such a debate, I will find allies around the House so that we can discuss it properly. It is about not just eastern Ukraine but what is happening in Crimea, where Crimean Tatars continue to be subjected to persecution and anyone who flies the Ukrainian flag will find themselves very swiftly in a Russian prison.

Funding continues to dominate as a huge issue for the Ministry of Defence. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)—I am not sure whether he is still in his place—suddenly realise that procurement is a massive issue. Anyone who has attended a defence debate in this Chamber will know that this has been getting discussed since long before I turned up in this place five years ago. As the former Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), mentioned, the last mini review that took place had attached to it a requirement that it be fiscally neutral. It sounds to me as though that will not be the case this time round, and if that is so, it is welcome.

In the last Parliament, I pressed the then Minister of State, the former Member for Aberconwy, on the Government getting serious about the fact that the Ministry of Defence bleeds money as though it is going out of fashion. It is very simple: Governments carry out a threat assessment. Governments then look at what they need to meet the challenges in that threat assessment and fund what they need to. That is where we can get into a proper discussion on multi-year defence agreements. If the small Scandinavian countries can manage this—if they can take the political heat out of defence funding and provide some stability to their armed forces—surely, with the collective imagination that exists here, we should be able to do the same.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making, as he always does, a measured and thoughtful contribution to the debate. Reform of procurement across Government has bedevilled successive Administrations. Leaving the European Union provides an opportunity to look afresh at that, and I hope I might suggest through him that it is an urgent priority for Government to look again at this and to do it better, not only in the Ministry of Defence but across all Departments.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a not entirely unfair point. It does not recruit me to the aim of leaving the European Union, although in fairness I do not think he was trying to. I accept what he says about other Departments, but the idea that procurement laws in the European Union have somehow hampered the Ministry of Defence is clearly nonsense. We only have to look at the example of the fleet solid support ships. All the Government had to do, as other European Governments have done, was to designate them as warships, and then they could have announced that the ships would be built here, giving jobs to shipyards around the United Kingdom.

The MOD needs to stop privatising where it does not have to. Why on earth do we have to privatise, for example, the defence fire and rescue service? When on earth are we going to get to grips with giving proper terms and conditions to the Ministry of Defence police, treating them properly and rewarding them properly for defending critical state infrastructure?

It is good to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government’s defence programme this time round will be different from the last two Parliaments—we will actually have some defence legislation. We will have legislation coming forward on vexatious claims, which Opposition Members will scrutinise line by line. We will be judicious and dispassionate, and we will want to get that right. Indeed, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and I had an exchange on these affairs last week.

There will also be updates to the armed forces covenant, which we welcome and want to see implemented properly. We also want to see better terms and conditions for members of the armed forces. We will continue to make the case for the armed forces to have a proper representative body similar to the Police Federation, as is normal in other NATO countries—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) can chunter away from a sedentary position if he likes, but I have yet to hear a sensible argument from him in the time that he has been here on how we improve those terms and conditions. I am happy to let him intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to see you back in the Chair. We are all thrilled to have you back in your rightful position.

I would like to commend all those who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly the ones I have just heard from my new hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). They have both left the Chamber, but in their absence I would like to commend them for their passion for their constituencies, but also for their patriotism for their country. That is why we are here—because we love our country and believe in what is right for Britain. That is why we are here to stand up for our country.

Today, I can say with great pride that the British people can be confident that Her Majesty’s Government and this House will now uphold the democratic instruction they were given on 23 June 2016 to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union, along with all of its political entanglements. Once again, we can stand tall in the world, knowing the future destiny of our island nation is now back in the hands of the British people themselves. No longer will we be a supplicant to a higher European authority, with our freedom and right of self-government being restored as a truly sovereign and independent nation.

As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the British people have a deep attachment to and a love for the basic concept of freedom. We have always been a free people; our forebears fought for and defended that over many centuries. Those who believed that it did not matter and that the people would not notice if our freedom was traded away underestimated the lion-hearted spirit of the British people. This Gracious Speech lays the foundations for, I believe, a brighter future, with our nation led by a Prime Minster who truly believes in this country and will stop at nothing to see us succeed and play an ever increasing role in the wider world.

Yes, Britain is back: back as a global free trading nation, with an independent trade policy, making new alliances and renewing those that we have neglected over the mistaken period of political union with Europe; back on the international stage, taking our place in global organisations, speaking up for British interests and co-operating with our wider Commonwealth family of nations; and back as a force for good in the world, with the most professional armed forces and security services of any nation, while at the same time providing support for the poorer nations of the world and those in need of relief from natural disaster, as well as promoting democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

We have a proud history, but our island story continues, with greater things to come as we regain our place in the world. The title of this debate, “Britain in the World”, says exactly where we as a nation have always been and must continue to be. In passing the withdrawal agreement Bill, this House has already delivered on our promise to get Brexit done, and we will be leaving the European Union in less than three weeks’ time. The British people understood that the world is much more than Europe, and our future must be global rather than tied to a political union that is essentially representing the interests of Germany and France. Britain’s role in the world has been and always will be much greater than that of a continental power. Britain is a country with a global history and global connections, and once we leave the EU on 31 January, we can once again play an independent role in foreign affairs on the world stage.

We must have a post-Brexit foreign policy that takes into account Britain’s unique history, as well as its present reality and future aims. We must not allow questions over the future relationship with Europe to dominate foreign policy thinking over this entire Parliament. The key areas of focus must be a new free trade agreement with both Europe and the United States of America, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, and there must be a renewed focus on the Commonwealth, most especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with whom we must forge a much closer relationship with the aim of creating a new CANZUK alliance. The CANZUK nations share so much in common, tied together by language, a common heritage, the same common-law legal system, a love of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which began in 1215 with Magna Carta, and by sharing Her Majesty the Queen as our sovereign. That is not the case for the United States of America of course, but from speaking to many Americans, as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you will know this only too well—one might be forgiven for thinking that our Queen is as much their Queen too; Americans seem to love and adore the British royal family, so I think we can share them with the United States if it would like to do so.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a bold and confident case for our relationship with the Queen’s realm, and I wonder if, in the spirit of Joseph Chamberlain, he might recommend to the Government some preferential trading arrangements with those countries of the realm; it seems to me that that would be a way of cementing our economic ties and complementing our political ones.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend interjected at just the right point, because I was about to talk about the importance of trade and co-operation with all of Her Majesty’s realms, of which there are 15 apart from the United Kingdom, but he will also not be surprised to hear me referring to the 21 cherished British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are part of our wider British family in what I would describe as an all-encompassing Britannic Kingdom; from the Falkland Islands to the Isle of Man, from Bermuda to the Pitcairn Islands, the British family stretches far and wide and all are part of our global family which we must defend and cherish, and include in any future free trade agreements.

Over the coming years, our nation, our Government and our people must work tirelessly to bring about this transformation, putting Britain back where we belong, as a global free-trading nation, to create the wealth and prosperity we need to make our nation stronger and to give our people the best chances and opportunities for the future. Getting this right will not be plain sailing—we understand that—but with ambition, determination and the kind of leadership demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we will be able to revitalise our foreign policy and put the UK firmly back on the world stage.

That is a far cry from the days when British embassies were being shut down across the world—I remember that in the 1990s and during the period of Mr Blair’s premiership—only to be replaced by EU external action missions, and when British Foreign Secretaries stopped visiting our closest friends like Australia and New Zealand, and when the Commonwealth was sidelined by the then Government. And—I make no apologies for referring to this—in that period our overseas territories were shamefully treated as bargaining chips in EU negotiations, as happened with the Labour Government’s attempted joint sovereignty proposals over Gibraltar with Madrid in 2002. What a shameful action and betrayal of the people of Gibraltar that was; what a sad period that was for British foreign policy. It felt like we were in retreat—well, not anymore.

Our Prime Minister, just like his magnificent and courageous predecessor Margaret Thatcher, will reinvigorate our international relations and Britain’s standing in the world. After three years of muddle caused by a Parliament that refused to accept the democratic will of the nation, not before time we now have the leadership we need to take Britain forward.

Britain is a great nation—a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council. We are the sixth largest economy in the world. We are a leading member of NATO and the Five Eyes security alliance, plus a range of other organisations, which I will not refer to now. Those who have sought to downplay Britain over the past few years were on the wrong side of history, and today we must all—yes, all of us—be proud to support a confident, independent foreign policy that reflects Britain’s true place in the world.

Our Prime Minister has already shown us just how much can be achieved if we demonstrate self-belief and confidence; as we approach the next stage of negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU we must have a clear and unflinching vision, and tough negotiators who will not crumble at the first hint of dissent from Brussels. That vision should look like a comprehensive free trade agreement, which ensures that Britain maintains its close economic relationship while never preventing us from diverging if we choose to do so. And leaving the EU must mean that we are completely free: the EU tentacles must be cut away fully so that we can make our own way in the world once again.

At the end of the day, we must all be prepared to walk away if, as happened before, the EU treat us not as an equal partner but as a supplicant; otherwise, as the last three years have shown, the EU will try to land us with a poor agreement or a bad deal, and nobody is willing to accept that now, least of all the British people, who voted overwhelmingly to get Brexit done and take Britain forward in a new direction. By taking a confident approach, setting out clear proposals and keeping the threat of no deal on the table, I believe our Prime Minister will secure a free trade agreement which will benefit both the United Kingdom and retain friendly co-operation with the nations of Europe.

But our foreign policy has to look beyond Europe. Though anchored to Europe by geography, Britain is unbounded in its global ambition, and we must engage our friends on a global scale. And what better way to develop global connections than by rebuilding our long-neglected ties with the Commonwealth, a diverse worldwide network of 53 countries, which together make up a third of the earth’s population. Our exit from the EU means that we can take full advantage of the economic opportunities of the Commonwealth. We can have our own independent trade policy and strike trade deals across the globe without being limited by the lengthy process of EU ratification. We can strike bilateral trade deals based on mutual benefit without handing over political powers which no proud sovereign nation should ever do.

Defence and security, the protection of our global environment and wildlife, climate change, tax evasion and immigration are all areas where Britain should take an active role in the Commonwealth and work together with our historical allies to form dynamic arrangements fit for the modern world.

As Britain exits the archaic protectionist structures of the European Union, it must once again reclaim its place as a global leader for free trade. Britain used to account for more than half the world’s trade and free trade is in our blood. We must make the development of free trade networks a British Government priority once again, and I believe that under this Government we will.

Britain also retains huge soft power and influence across the globe, which we can use to our advantage. The English language is the language of the world, and our historic institutions, such as the monarchy and our parliamentary democracy, are universally recognised. The emerging markets in Latin America, the far east and Africa are places where Britain must be in the future. As one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys representing the UK to Tanzania, I believe that these are vast markets that we can develop in the years ahead as we leave, rightly, the EU customs union. Those markets of the future present massive opportunities for British businesses to export goods and services, as well as the potential for lower prices for all our constituents and consumers across Britain. We must ensure that our new trade policy takes full advantage of the opportunities presented by Brexit, and that we get on with negotiating and striking new free trade agreements as quickly as possible, perhaps starting with the USA on 1 February.

We are now in a post-Brexit age. The title of this debate, “Britain in the World”, serves as an effective reminder that Britain is now no longer just in Europe, but part of a much wider global community. We must refocus how we think and act, to benefit from all the advantages of our new-found independence. That means our foreign policy must be about far more than our relationship with Europe. We must set out a truly global foreign policy from this day forth, with the Commonwealth and global free trade at its heart, underpinned by friendly co-operation between independent sovereign nations. The British people will expect nothing less.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. The information that I have is the information that she has, as we do not have consular access to Nazanin. I read the newspaper reports, which I suspect that she has read, and I am deeply troubled by them.

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

The plain truth is that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was abducted and imprisoned illegally. The latest information that we have is that at the health hearing in Iran at which she appeared she complained that she had been deprived of her medication, was sometimes held in solitary confinement, and was suffering from deep anxiety. She fears separation from her five-year-old daughter, who is to return to England for schooling.

I say to my right hon. Friend—a personal friend, whose integrity is beyond question and whose determination is well known—that there are lessons to be learned from the recent Australian experience. Two Australians have been released. Will he enter into discussions with the Australian Government to discover what steps they took to ensure that release? No stone must be left unturned in the defence of British citizens at home or abroad.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The truth of the matter is that Iran does not recognise dual nationals—that is the difference. The case to which he referred concerns an Australian-British national. Nazanin is a British-Iranian national. As far as Tehran is concerned—we can argue the point, but it will not do us much good—Nazanin is an Iranian national, which is why it will not allow us to have access. I regret that very much, and we push back on that all the time, but, very sadly, that is the position adopted by the Iranians.

Persecution of Christians Overseas

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Thank you for the offer. There are not many saints in this House, but the hon. Gentleman is about as close as anyone gets to being one.

On Monday 8 July, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the publication of the Bishop of Truro’s independent review of the persecution of Christians worldwide, and I would like now to set out in more detail the response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The world is an increasingly challenging place for people of faith, and in some parts of the world for those of no faith. In the past two years, appalling atrocities, as we have heard today, have been committed against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the horrific shootings in two Christchurch mosques shocked us all, but there are so many other stories of suffering that gain far less news coverage, and the statistics tell us, as we have heard again today, that Christians suffer more persecution than any other religious group in the world, yet we hear far less about this than one would expect. We are too reticent about discussing Christian persecution, and we must overcome this mindset; the evidence justifies a much louder voice.

As the Bishop of Truro states in the introduction to his review, the majority of Christians are found in the global south and among the global poor, and the review takes case studies from China, India, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, where persecution stems from state oppression, terrorism and ethnic or nationalist conflict. As Christianity is perhaps the most truly global of religions, the persecution of Christians often indicates wider violations of the rights of all minority groups, and the report notes the large body of evidence for this. In some places the persecution of Christians is closely linked with poverty and social exclusion, and elsewhere it is compounded by discrimination against women, so increasing the attention given to Christian persecution does not dull but sharpen our focus on human rights for all.

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

The Foreign Office has taken the lead on this, but the Minister will know that a number of hon. Members have argued that there needs to be a cross-Government approach for the very reason he has just set out: that this touches on so many areas. May we have a strategy across the whole of government to address this alarming persecution?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and in fact he is making my point for me: this is not just a Foreign Office thing. Indeed, it is not just an envoy thing; it is an everything thing, which means that all Departments, all the Government, and all Government policies must bear this in mind. And in doing so we should not be timid; we should be bold and ensure that the UK’s response to Christian persecution is in proportion to the problem, and that, as the report suggests, now demands serious effort.