Drug-related Deaths

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support—there is no path to recovery without that—and I of course give credit to the organisation she mentioned that is doing such fantastic work in this space, as we were discussing earlier today.

The implications of the under-reporting of drug-related deaths are that the problem is far worse than previously thought and the decision to cut funding to services under the previous Government was based on flawed figures. The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022 there was a 40% reduction in real-terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services, so I do not think it is a coincidence that the Office for National Statistics has reported a near doubling in drug-related deaths since 2014, and that the number of deaths only rises every year.

It is clear that the problem has been made substantively worse by under-investment by the previous Government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgment without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed, punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe’s worst. Now is the time to show the difference a Labour Government can make by putting in place harm-reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage.

As I mentioned previously, and I will repeat again because it is important, near half of all drug-related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year’s ONS report found that the number of deaths involving nitazenes—a group of highly potent synthetic opioids—almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drug-related deaths crisis. As we have seen across the Atlantic, once those synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation.

I welcome this Government’s changes to the human medicines regulation that further expanded access to naloxone, the lifesaving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug-related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK, so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.

It is important to note that naloxone cannot be administered by the person overdosing and must instead be administered by someone else. That necessitates further education on the existence of naloxone, and how and when to use it, with people who may come into contact with people who use opioids, including frontline service workers, such as police officers and transport workers, and the loved ones of those struggling with addiction.

The period immediately after release from prison or discharge from hospital is when risk peaks. Opt-out pathways for naloxone distribution should be the norm. Take-home naloxone on release or discharge, same-day linkage to community treatment and a clear pathway for handover care are essential for people struggling with substance use disorders.

As of December 2021, the Government estimated the annual cost of illegal drug use in England to be £20 billion. Around 48% of that was attributed to drug-related crime, while harms linked to drug-related deaths and homicide accounted for a further 33%. Notably, the majority of those costs are associated with the estimated 300,000 people who use opiates and crack cocaine in England.

Dame Carol Black’s landmark 2021 review of UK drug policy found that for every for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 are saved through reduced demand on the health and justice systems. In the face of rising fatalities and a cost of living crisis, failing to scale treatment and harm-reduction measures is both morally indefensible and financially illiterate. If we want to realise that four-to-one return, we must provide long-term funding for organisations delivering services. Drug treatment services can only deliver if they are able to retain staff, train consistently and scale according to demand.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree that organisations such as Change Grow Live, which I have visited in Rugby, are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems that they have been facing, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to encourage the Government to ensure that those organisations get the funding and support they need to do that important work?

[Charlotte Nichols]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: Change Grow Live is a fantastic organisation. Multi-year funding schemes with clear outcome metrics, such as faster time for treatment, improved retention and improved naloxone coverage, will make a difference in bringing down the figures I have talked about. That is the path out of this crisis.

I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime stating she could not support overdose prevention centres because of concerns about organised crime supplying the drugs there. Overdose prevention centres are a frontline, evidence-based intervention that save lives and public money, reducing ambulance call-outs and A&E attendances, cutting public injecting and needlestick injuries, and creating a bridge into treatment. I recognise and share the Minister’s concerns about supply but, with or without such centres, people will use the same drugs, either in alleyways and stairwells or in safe hygienic settings where sharps are disposed of, and where staff can intervene and build relationships that can be the foundation for recovery from addiction.

The Scottish Affairs Committee recently published a report into problem drug use in Scotland and Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, and it is interesting to note the call for legislative action from the UK Government and Parliament and the fact that they seem to share my frustration with the Home Office’s ideological rather than evidence-based approach on safer drug consumption facilities.

In written correspondence to me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime also maintains that supplying essential safer inhalation equipment would contravene current legislation, and that the Government are unable to support such a provision or to provide a legal pathway to address this. Encouraging drug users to change their method of consuming drugs from injecting to inhaling can be an important harm reduction step, yet while supplying clean hypodermic needles is exempt under section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government continue to support a policy of criminalisation of potential providers and users of safer inhalation equipment.

Sudan: Government Support

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that this business with arms is stopped. The atrocities that we are witnessing through the news, with the work of Barbara Plett Usher at the BBC, others at The Guardian and Al Jazeera, and through social media trickling through the media blackout, will be remembered for generations. El Fasher, like Srebrenica before it, will sadly likely stand as a symbol of what happens when the world turns a blind eye.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He has mentioned Srebrenica and the Bosnian conflict twice. Does he agree that in years gone by, conflicts causing immense humanitarian suffering, death and carnage resulted in international, UN-mandated military forces protecting civilians and humanitarian corridors? Is it not a reflection on the sorry state of international affairs that that does not even seem to be on the table as an option, despite this being the greatest humanitarian crisis that the world faces right now?

[Brian Mathew]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the world needs to wake up. As the penholder, we have the means and the moral responsibility to act and ensure that we and the rest of the world do not turn our backs on Sudan once more.

Gaza and Hamas

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our arrangements in relation to arms and the very significant suspensions that we made from the Dispatch Box a number of times—they remain in place. The right hon. Member asks about RAF flights; I think he refers to the RAF flights that were attempting to find hostages in Gaza. Those flights have stopped. The hostages have been released, so there is no further function for those flights and they have ended.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

One crucial factor in achieving the current ceasefire was the unprecedented declaration at the end of July by all 22 members of the Arab League, calling on Hamas to release the hostages, lay down their arms and give up power in Gaza. That was hugely important in showing Hamas that they had run out of road. What role do the UK and our partners have in influencing that declaration? Does the Minister agree that our strong diplomatic relations, led by our excellent diplomats, have a positive impact?

[Mr Falconer]

I associate myself very much with my hon. Friend’s comments. He knows that neck of the woods well. Our diplomats are excellent. I was pleased to be in New York in July when the declaration he describes was made. It was part of a declaration that included our own commitments in relation to the Palestinian state, which led to our recognition in September.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Not having seen the hon. Member’s proposals, I will not comment on them at this stage, but we take all evidence of foreign interference in this country very seriously. I work closely with Ministers across Government, including the Home Office and the Security Minister, to keep these issues under regular assessment.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T3. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, and as I led a delegation there. The 2005 federal Iraqi constitution agreed in a popular vote to underpin Kurdish rights. We were told that Baghdad deliberately withholds salary payments to public employees in the region. The Foreign Secretary visited Erbil when she was Home Secretary, and knows how important this part of Iraq is to our security. Does she agree that we need our Kurdish ally to be strong and respected in a federal Iraq, and that a better relationship there would enable vital reform, for the benefit of that region and, indeed, our own country?

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

The relationship between Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah is of vital importance. I continue to discuss these issues with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, and Iraqi Kurdish politicians as well. We will continue to do so, and I look forward to visiting the region shortly.

Ukraine

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to see the strongest possible economic pressure on Russia—from every avenue, frankly. We have discussed that issue extensively with the US and Europe. I have discussed it with my Foreign Minister colleagues and the Chancellor discusses it with her Finance Minister colleagues. We want to see the strongest package. However, it is right to continue introducing new sanctions as soon as we have the evidence ready. I do not think that we should wait until more work can be done or more agreement reached. If we have the evidence to be able to introduce another set of sanctions, we should get on with it because we need to maximise the economic pressure as rapidly as we can to put pressure on Putin’s war machine.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure?

I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today:

“Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine?

[Yvette Cooper]

We must maintain the strongest of resolves in supporting Ukraine. I have spoken to families and children who will have to sleep in corridors or underground car parks tonight to avoid drone attacks, but will still get up for school and carry on with their lives each day. The Ukrainian people are showing resilience, and we will continue to support them.

Ambassador to the United States

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.

In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking?

Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting:

“I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied:

“No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.”

Lord O’Donnell then said:

“Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”.

David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking.

I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Slinger]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Monica Harding]

This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate—[Interruption.] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Slinger]

I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The speech that we have just heard was absolutely risible, frankly. I will just give the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) some advice: do not do the Whips Office’s dirty work for them—

[John Slinger]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like to give him some advice: please do not patronise me.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was just trying to give the hon. Gentleman some helpful advice, but there we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Let us not shy away from what this is about: this is about a man who defended a convicted paedophile, which most people know would lead to any vetting process being failed because the person could be compromised when they have defended someone of those serious criminal offences. We know from what is in the public domain how much he was in hock to this convicted paedophile, and yet processes were overridden.

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raked up the past and, quite frankly, the resignation of a director of communications is very different from the withdrawal of an ambassador with top secret access. When the Conservatives were in government, we didn’t exactly not have our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through. I remind the House that what did for Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister was not the allegations thrown from the Labour side of the House; it was when he said to this House that he was not aware of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher, and then it turned out that he had evidence that he was aware.

We know that this Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and did not have any documents, when we now know that his office had them. The question has to be answered: when did he know and how can it be shown that he did not know beforehand? The Conservatives moved against Boris Johnson as Prime Minister when it became apparent that he did know. I say to those Labour Back Benchers and those giving opinions in the press, “Do you have the courage now to move against a Prime Minister who has done exactly what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in this country?” This party moved against him it became clear that that was not correct. It is said that “the buck stops here”. Well, the buck really needs to stop here.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time, whereas this Prime Minister has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I took that intervention because I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to help himself. The reality is the Prime Minister made all this thing about, “I’ve appointed an ethics adviser, I’ve done this—” and yet, when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, “Would you sack a Minister who has broken the ethics code?” he could not answer. He obfuscated, as he always does. This is smoke and mirrors, and this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.

It is not good enough to say, “We didn’t know.” I come back to the fact that people who were subject to a paedophile had to watch somebody who defended that paedophile get put in one of the highest offices in the world, carrying some of the greatest secrets of state—and yet this Prime Minister said, “That’s all fine; we’ll override it.”

I do not want to go beyond the six minutes I was allowed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just ask these questions of the Minister—some of them have been implied.

International Day of Democracy

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.

To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.

Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.

On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,

“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.

At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.

Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.

As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:

“The left is the party of murder.”

I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.

Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.

It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution. 

Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.

I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.

Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:

“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.

Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.

Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.

[John Slinger]

As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is most kind. I serve my God and saviour. That is who I try to represent in this House, and that is my purpose for being here.

Political violence undermines democracy by disrupting peaceful political processes and intimidating others. On the International Day of Democracy, I celebrate those who uphold democracy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did so in her introduction, as did everyone else who spoke, and others will do the same. Unfortunately, we live in a world where those with violent vendettas seek to silence and take over, and we must never allow that to happen.

Democracy without morality is not possible. We must not forget those who stood up and fought for the principles of democracy. Charlie wanted to be remembered for his courage and his faith, which will never be forgotten. Those who share his values and feel silenced by these acts—and there are many—should not forget the importance of democracy and how many people before us fought for our rights in wars throughout history. I look to the Minister for his commitment to respect and freedom of expression, and for condemnation of these horrific acts of political violence. We must do more in this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together—to stand up against them.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are committed to Qatar’s security and defence—we have a close relationship with the Qataris on both, and we are of course in constant discussions with them about the importance of that collaboration. On his second point about a protective force—and here I will take advantage of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development when I was posted in South Sudan with a chapter VII UN peacekeeping force, which at that time had the most far-reaching mandate to protect civilians—we in this Chamber cannot pretend that UN peacekeeping forces are able to impose peace where there is none. There must be a ceasefire negotiation. In Juba I saw, as did the world, the horrifying ethnic cleansing that followed the inability of the UN mission to protect people. We must have a ceasefire. It is easy to get distracted with other alternatives, but the truth is that only a ceasefire will protect civilians in Gaza.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Given that, under article 51 of the UN charter, any pre-emptive strike is normally regarded as justified only when a threat is imminent; that article 2(4) states that

“all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;

and that article 51 states that

“measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”,

does my hon. Friend agree that international law and the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based system is vital to the peoples of the region, the wider world, our ally Qatar and the UK? Will he make it clear to Israel that we expect it to obey international law?

[Mr Falconer]

We expect Israel, alongside all of our allies, and indeed every state, to abide by international law. My hon. Friend sets out the relevant tests of self-defence and imminence. As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for an urgent session of the Security Council this afternoon on this question.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. We must continue to strive to use every possible avenue for delivering supplies, so I welcome the Government’s co-operation with Jordan on airdrops. I want to put on record my praise for the efforts of Ministers and diplomats at a difficult time, but we must all do more.

The Palestinian people must not pay the price for the atrocities of Hamas, yet Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza with

“no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”.

We all know that starvation as a method of warfare is illegal under international humanitarian law. The Gaza strip has now faced what is effectively a siege. The UN-backed panel, as hon. Members have said, has declared that there is now a famine in parts of Gaza. I know that the Government believe that the strip must be flooded with aid, not drip-fed through the piecemeal deliveries of the failing Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

According to the House of Commons Library, the UK considers Gaza’s status as occupied. As the occupying power, Israel is bound by the fourth Geneva convention and Hague conventions, which require it to ensure civilians’ access to food and medicine and to avoid collective punishment. The UK views Israel’s naval blockade as part of that. Blockades are governed by customary international law, including the San Remo manual, which requires legality, necessity and humanitarian access.

Given the humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s role in fomenting it, do the Government have a view on whether we and other countries have a legal right to provide aid by sea? Can the Minister outline whether the Government have looked at whether the Royal Navy could deploy ships off the coast of Gaza or a hospital ship? I am not singling out Israel; I am asking that we treat it by the standards, norms and law that all nations must adhere to, especially democracies. Those rules are fraying before our own eyes, and that is terrible, mainly for the Palestinians, but also—

Middle East

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now more than ever, the will of the international community must take precedence over the will of those who perpetuate conflict and deny a two-state solution? Of course that means Hamas, but also, sadly, the Israeli Government. Can he assure me that this Government are looking at previous times when the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has ended conflicts, despite difficulties, and built a fair and just peace, overcoming facts on the ground and restoring hope?

[Mr Lammy]

No conflicts are the same. That region has had numerous conflicts over the years. What we have seen over the past 23 months has been horrific. It is my job, as the country’s chief diplomat, to do everything I can, straining every sinew and working with colleagues, to bring the conflict to an end and keep my language diplomatic.