Sudan
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I wish to update the House on the situation in Sudan.
On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.
That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.
In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.
I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.
But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.
What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.
In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.
Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.
This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.
The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.
African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.
As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.
Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s points and pay tribute to the bravery of Sudanese civilians, especially those who continue to run the emergency response rooms, providing urgently needed support for desperate people in Sudan. She is right that civilian capacity has to be a central part of the peace process. In fact, members of the Quad have specifically asked us to play a role in developing that as part of the peace process. I also discussed that with the African Union this week, because we believe that civilians can only be supported with the assistance of the countries bordering Sudan, and with the African Union.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?
Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?
I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?
What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. While it is not a matter for the Chair, she has now put her remarks on the record.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 2nd February 2026
(6 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 157-I Marshalled list for Report - (8 Jan 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 9
Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Seema Malhotra
I am delighted that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill has returned to this House for the consideration of Lords amendments. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and for the constructive and collaborative approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I also place on the record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the Bill expertly through the other place. In today’s debate, we will seek to address the amendments made by the Government there, and I thank all those in that House who have been involved in debates on this Bill.
Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I remind the House that the passage of this Bill is a vital part of delivering the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in those areas and help to ensure that the benefits arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.
I am pleased to inform the House that the BBNJ agreement entered into force on 17 January. Following Royal Assent, and subsequent secondary legislation to be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement. We intend to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before 16 January 2027.
Turning to the Lords amendments, the House is being asked to consider a package of 12, all of which were put forward by the Government. They relate to devolution and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements and ensuring that devolved Ministers are appropriately engaged, where devolved competence is affected.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by.
I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill.
Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply.
Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended.
The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.
We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?
On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?
The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?
The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?
It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?
We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure.
The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity.
Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round?
I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I will conclude my remarks—I am sorry but I have taken a number of interventions today.
Since coming into power, this Government have been clear on our deep regret for the way in which Chagossians were removed from the islands and have sought to recognise the wide range of views within the Chagossian community. We remain committed to building a relationship with that community that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past.
We have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to doing in the other place. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have engaged with Chagossian individuals and groups more than 30 times and they are regularly in conversation with the Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.
In conclusion, doing this deal was right and essential. It protects our national interest, it defends our national security, it protects the Diego Garcia base from legal threat, it supports the Chagossian community and it preserves the unique environment in the archipelago. We know that the best way to do that is to pursue this deal. It is time that the Conservatives realised—or should I say, remembered—that too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Evans
Absolutely. That is another perfectly sensible question to pose to the Government, and for them to answer and to set out the reasons and the rationale.
I am still concerned, when we are dealing with the detail, about the long-term nature of the deal and whether it is bomb-proof. When we come to the end of 99 years, what will happen? The only protection we have is that we have first say on taking it on. We have already heard, from Members on both sides of the House, how much China’s economy will grow. Will we even have the finances to buy that deal? Will we be outbid by the United States, by China, or by some other BRIC power? We are held over a barrel by the Mauritians, or, worse still, the Mauritians can simply say, “We don’t want it any more”, and the base is gone and we can do nothing about it.
Why does all this matter? Those are all technical questions that I want the Government to answer, but overall we must see the wider context, which has been explained here numerous times before. The United States is changing its foreign policy, China is changing its foreign policy, yet the UK does not appear to have an approach in either direction. It appears that we are looking towards a sphere of influence, with America having one side and China and Russia having another. So the question for the House is, “Why rush this through?” Why not think about it? Why not answer these simple questions, to get this side of the House on board, so that we could then say, “We think this is the right thing for the country?
The saddest aspect of this whole debate is the way in which the Government have turned it into a scapegoating of the Opposition as if we were playing political games, rather than seeing that the simple technical questions that need to be answered are the key to unlocking our understanding. If we as parliamentarians cannot get answers to these questions and do not understand the rationale, how can we explain it to our constituents, how can we explain it to the nation, and how can we explain it to the world? If the Government want us to stop—supposedly—playing politics, I ask them to give simple answers to simple questions, back them up and give evidence for them. Otherwise, we are left fighting the Black Knight, who is brave, who is forthright, who is keen to stand in the way of any progress, but who simply will not answer a question and is cut down, limb by limb, in a pool of blood.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 294 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
Andrew Rosindell
I will make some progress.
With assurances from the United States, and given precedents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations, in 2016 I tabled an urgent question calling for self-determination. The response from the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this:
“we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.]
What a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn—another British community that the then Conservative Government were willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
I am sad to say that the Government are correct that it was my Government—the Conservative Government at the time—that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. I commend Lord Cameron, who rightly ended those talks, but they should never have begun in the first place. Why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why did they not say, “That’s the end of it. Never again.” and repudiate the failure of Sir Alan Duncan to give self-determination? Why did we not jettison that entire policy? We did not do so.
Even from within the shadow foreign affairs team, I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response, but I was shut down. The Conservatives’ opposition to this Bill, I am afraid, does comes not from principle but from convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye-watering and has been the focus of the Opposition for the last year, but no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out British people.
Self-determination is fundamental to everything I believe in—so fundamental that it rendered my position as shadow Minister untenable. I was pleased to hear the words of self-determination used earlier by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), because when I asked we take that position in the past, I was told it was not party policy. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official Conservative party policy. I hope that is the case—if it is, then everything that I have been fighting for over the last 25 years has been worth it—but the Bill and its origins, under both this Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to come before party; and I believe that the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen.
A few weeks ago, I was genuinely horrified and upset to be prevented, on Conservative Whips’ instruction, from voting for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is a fine addition to the House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people. His amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. I went to the doorway of the Lobby, but was told that I could not go in and vote for it. I apologise to my Chagossian friends that I let them down on that, but I was told not to and I felt deeply upset that I did not. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that he had, and still has, my support.
Meanwhile, genuine opposition on the Benches from which I speak now has put aside party squabbles, because national interest must always come before party—there is not really much in common usually between the Reform and Liberal Democrat Benches, but this is a matter of principle. Colleagues in my new party voted for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I commend them for doing so. It asked simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift-wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That is all we are asking: let the people decide. Who can seriously disagree with that principle? We rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, we strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony. The Government are happy to support that principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it is morally reprehensible.
What took place in the House of Lords on Third Reading was shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a Division, shouts of “Not content” were heard again and again, yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote. A Bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence—one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament—was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it.
I was further disturbed to learn from many very angry Conservative peers who contacted me that they had been instructed not to vote the Bill down, not because the arguments were weak or because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended too robustly today, lest it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many Members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions that they were given by their Whips. This is not coming from me, because I am not in the Lords, but from those who were there who were deeply upset by that. That crossed the line. A Conservative Government denied the principle of self-determination.
This Labour Government have gone much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without the consent of the Chagossian people. This is a bipartisan failure. The legislation sells out the King’s islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not in good conscience remain silent and complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party and ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher—the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination—would be implicated in this betrayal.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own Deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV last February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of pressures of time, and that he will bringing his remarks to a conclusion shortly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members should be aware that I am planning to start Front-Bench contributions at 3.40 pm.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we move to consideration of the Lords amendments, I can confirm that Lords amendments 2, 3 and 6 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Clause 1
Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4.
Stephen Doughty
National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.
As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Iran: Protests
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Lady asks important questions. Let me turn first to the question of numbers. I do not want to give the House an artificial sense of precision when the internet has remained restricted since 8 January. There clearly have been many deaths; we believe in the thousands. We will not put a more precise figure on it at this time because to do so would be at risk of misleading the House that we have a more precise picture than we do. That does not in any way take away from the strength of our condemnation.
The Iranian regime has provided a variety of rationales, both in private and in public. It has claimed that it was responding to armed protesters, and it has complained that others are seeking to interfere in its internal affairs. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the scale of bloodshed that we have seen in relation to those protests. It is not to seek to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs to say that the protesters have rights—rights of assembly, rights to protest and rights to have their internet turned back on.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I know that the Minister shares with me—and probably with most of the House—a deep affection for the Iranian people, for their beautiful country and for their extraordinary culture, which makes the killing and terrible violence we have seen even worse than we could possibly have imagined. Can he give the House confidence that Britain and the international community will not now abandon the Iranian people for geopolitical expediency?
Mr Falconer
We will not. As I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Iranian people have rights—rights that we hold dear in this place and this country—and we will continue to press those points with the Iranian regime.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Since the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, Ayatollah Khamenei has confirmed the death of thousands of protesters, but he has again deflected responsibility for the brutal crackdown by his regime. The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that sanctions against the leaders of the regime, and the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, relied upon new legislation or instruments. We have waited too long for that. Will the Minister give the House a date by which those measures will be introduced?
Will the Minister update the House on internet connectivity? What is the UK doing, with our partners, to restore internet access so that people in Iran can communicate and evidence can be gathered to hold the regime to account? What dialogue have Ministers and officials had since last week about the Liberal Democrat proposal to pursue, through the United Nations, an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity perpetrated by the regime?
Proposed Chinese Embassy
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I reiterate that our intelligence services have been involved throughout. A range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. She will also know that the Government are still to make a decision. That planning decision will be made independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning grounds.
It is also important to recognise that we have set clear red lines through this process. That has included, for example, the consolidation of the diplomatic presence of China from seven buildings to one, which will have security benefits. It is also important to say that we do routinely engage with our allies, including the US, which is our closest ally, on a range of issues, including security and intelligence in relation to China. It is important to recognise that we do that routinely and that it is important to discuss national security factors that we may consider.
My hon. Friend referred to transnational repression. She will know that the UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK, and we take the protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms and safety very seriously.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board.
The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms.
The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions?
Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how.
Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?
Seema Malhotra
I know that my hon. Friend has raised her concerns a number of times. I reiterate that national security considerations are always the first duty of any Government, and the security and intelligence agencies have been involved throughout this process. As I noted in my opening remarks, the two national security issues that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office made public as part of the planning process have now been addressed. If the planning application for a new embassy in Tower Hamlets is approved, China has committed to replace seven sites that make up its diplomatic footprint in London with the new embassy, which will also bring clear security advantages. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to have conversations with her local council and with the Government in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have made it clear from the beginning of this saga that the approval of China’s super-embassy would be a terrible betrayal of Hongkongers who moved to the UK to escape the very repression that the Government are now inviting to their doorstep. The Government must halt the application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make it clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our community.
On the specifics of the application, in a 2018 letter the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted diplomatic status to Royal Mint Court. That letter made no mention of a condition relating to planning permission and, under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, represents a fulfilment of the condition to provide express consent. Eight years later, we are now being told that consent was somehow conditional on planning permission, based on a secret note verbale from May 2018 that has not been published. Will the Government release that note verbale, which is the only evidence that diplomatic status was provided conditional on planning permission and, therefore, that the application was not prejudged by the Government?
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is quite right about the spheres of influence that Russia seeks to exert across central and eastern Europe.
Ivanishvili could be sanctioned under any number of our regimes—Magnitsky, global anti-corruption or even the Russian sanctions regime given his reported links to the Kremlin and his blatant kowtowing to Moscow. Just this morning, I was made aware that Georgian Dream has increased state financing for the Kulevi oil refinery, which Reuters has reported received its first shipment of Russian oil last October. The refinery itself is linked to Vladimir Alekseev, first deputy chief of Russia’s GRU. That seems to be an obvious route for sanctions violations, and I hope it will be added to Ivanishvili’s rap sheet. I know the Minister will be unable to comment on individual cases, but can he at least confirm that Ivanishvili’s supposed status as too big to fail due to his alleged personal importance to the Georgian economy does not preclude him from being sanctioned by this country?
I will come to the United States later, but our allies across the Atlantic sanctioned Ivanishvili on 27 December 2024 for undermining democratic processes on behalf of, or for the benefit of, Russia. I certainly do not suggest that we follow the US in every aspect of foreign policy, but it is correct in applying that designation. Sanctioning cronies and underlings can make an impact, but let us be clear that the fish rots from the head. My fear is that our silence on Ivanishvili sends the wrong message to would-be kleptocrats around the world.
Let me turn to Hong Kong and the ongoing repression there, which is of keen interest to me and the valued community of Hongkongers across my Bolton West constituency. The dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms is unacceptable. Since the imposition of the national security law, we have seen the systematic criminalisation of dissent: independent media shut down, civil society organisations dissolved, elected opposition figures jailed, and fundamental freedoms erased in all but name. This is textbook human rights abuse.
The case of Jimmy Lai, who has already been mentioned, symbolises that injustice—a point I was reminded of by constituents of mine who used to work with him back in Hong Kong. As a British national, a publisher and a peaceful advocate of democracy, Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned for years for exercising rights that we regard in this place as fundamental. He now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars under a law designed to silence free speech, not to deliver justice. Of course, I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s strong condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s sham trial last month, but words alone do not protect political prisoners. If Magnitsky sanctions are to retain any credibility, they must be used against those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and for the persecution of individuals such as Jimmy Lai. That includes officials who designed, implemented and enforced the national security law and those who have overseen its use to crush free expression and political participation.
That brings me to a wider point. We are entering a period in which the United States cannot always be relied on to apply evidence-based sanctions. In that context, the UK cannot simply wait for Washington to lead. We must be prepared to act where the United States will not. We should also not be afraid, as critical friends, to point out where the US gets it wrong. I asked the Minister earlier this week at the Foreign Affairs Committee for his response to Trump’s sanctioning of two British citizens for seeking to, as Secretary Rubio sees it, “coerce” American tech platforms into suppressing free speech. Does the Minister agree that that is dangerous nonsense?
That brings me to my second theme: enforcement. Increasing designations alone is not enough. Sanctions without enforcement are no sanction at all; they are just suggestions. We now have a vast and complex sanctions architecture—Magnitsky sanctions, Russia sanctions and anti-corruption sanctions. Since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, we have had a massive boost in our own sanctions capacity and seen a huge undertaking in the private sector to keep up, yet enforcement in the UK remains worryingly weak.
We know that sanctions are being evaded. We heard earlier about Roman Abramovich reportedly transferring his UK property empire to his children just weeks before being sanctioned—the very same individual who is now being represented by the Conservative shadow Attorney General over a dispute with the Jersey Government on the source of his wealth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) outlined forensically, if the Opposition are serious about standing by Ukraine, they cannot have him as their top Law Officer, serving in the other place and attending shadow Cabinet meetings. It is simply incredible. Does the Minister agree that Lord Wolfson’s position in the shadow Cabinet and attendance of those meetings is now completely untenable?
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has concluded that it is “almost certain” that UK lawyers, estate agents and property service firms have helped clients evade asset freezes. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) outlined, in the past year OFSI has imposed just three fines for breaches of the UK’s sanctions regime, totalling just over £622,000. That is a rounding error compared with the scale of wealth at stake, and it is simply not a credible deterrent. All the while, there have been no breaches of Magnitsky sanctions in the past year.
This issue is acute in the British overseas territories, where low policing capacity and high financial secrecy create ideal conditions for sanctions evasion. There have been some laudable efforts in the OTs to enforce sanctions. However, I have too often been made aware of civil society organisations submitting detailed evidence of Magnitsky sanctions breaches in the overseas territories but receiving no meaningful response at all from those jurisdictions. Will the Minister assure me today that he will ensure that British overseas territories that receive such detailed allegations will act on them?
We must tackle head-on the scourge of corporate secrecy in offshore financial centres linked to the UK. If we are to ensure that our sanctions bite as much as possible, there is an urgent need for those overseas territories that continue to drag their feet—including the British Virgin Islands—to finally adopt fully public registers of beneficial ownership, as they have promised time and again but failed to deliver. As an interim step, the Minister will agree that individuals with a legitimate interest, including journalists and civil society, must have meaningful access to beneficial ownership information. Without that transparency, asset freezes cannot be enforced effectively. I look forward to the update on this issue promised earlier this year in the Government’s new anti-corruption strategy, but can the Minister provide any further information on timelines—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion, because we have another debate to follow, and we still have the Front-Bench spokespeople to come.
Phil Brickell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Transparency is the name of the game here, so will the Minister confirm whether his Department has looked at publishing comprehensive data on assets frozen within UK jurisdictions, broken down by asset class, including assets held by individuals, state- owned enterprises and states themselves? The reason I ask is simple: Parliament cannot assess the effectiveness of our regimes if it cannot see the full picture.
Let me end with this. Magnitsky sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to defend human rights, but they work only if they are used consistently, enforced rigorously and connected clearly to accountability and reparations. If the UK wants to be a global champion of human rights, it must stop being a safe haven for those who abuse them and start ensuring that sanctions mean something on paper and in practice.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of reporting to Parliament, and I can assure him that I have been scrutinised in this place many times. I have sent a letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to Lord Ricketts in the other place, to set out the full detail of all the work we have done. I am committed to reporting regularly to Parliament on these issues; indeed, I have held private meetings with many Members from across the House to discuss their concerns, and I am absolutely committed to continuing to do that.
On the issue of enforcement, I think some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted. This is an issue that I have regularly championed. I agree with the principles of what colleagues have said, but I point out that in November the National Crime Agency announced that, based on the intelligence it gained in Operation Destabilise, it supported international law enforcement partners in seizing $24 million and over €2.6 million from Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs and organised crime. There have been over 128 arrests as a result of that operation alone, with over £25 million seized in cash and cryptocurrency—another issue that has been mentioned. In 2025 alone, OFSI issued four major civil monetary penalties, totalling over £900,000—I think some of the figures Members have used are not quite accurate—and for its part, HMRC concluded a £1.1 million compound settlement for trade sanctions breaches in May.
The shadow Minister asked for figures. I am happy to write to her with further details, but to give one example, OTSI has received reports or referrals about 146 potential breaches of sanctions and it has a number of investigations under way. I do not want to comment on them, but I do want to assure hon. Members that we take all the considerations they have raised very seriously. Sanctions, including Magnitsky-related sanctions, are an important tool, and we will continue to look at all such possibilities. I welcome the challenge, and we will continue to rigorously pursue not only the designation of such regimes, but, crucially, the enforcement that makes the difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up very quickly.
Middle East and North Africa
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been a number of developments in the middle east that I would like to update the House on, including in Gaza, Iran, Yemen and Syria. I would also like to take the opportunity to provide an update on the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, which has been a subject of debate during the parliamentary recess.
To begin with Gaza, the humanitarian situation there remains desperate. Even with the ceasefire, half a million people are struggling to find enough food, and 100,000 people are in catastrophic conditions. The peace plan was clear: the Israeli Government agreed to let aid in, without interference, through the UN and other international organisations. At the same time, Hamas must disarm, their weapons must be decommissioned, and they must allow a path to lasting security for Palestinians. More trucks are entering Gaza, which is very welcome, but right now key crossings remain closed, convoys are being turned back, medical and shelter supplies are blocked, and non-governmental organisations are being banned. Over the recess, we joined nine other countries in stating that this is not acceptable. The peace plan cannot work if NGOs are shut out, and Israel’s decision to ban 37 of them is unjustifiable.
Furthermore, many trucks entering Gaza carry commercial goods, which face fewer barriers than humanitarian aid. This means that, perversely, it is currently easier to get cigarettes and luxury goods into Gaza than the basic medicines and shelter that people so desperately need. Too much aid is still stuck at Gaza’s borders—thousands of tents and shelter supplies, funded by the UK, are waiting to get in. Families are sheltering from winter floods and storms under rubble, and are suffering from hypothermia and sewage running in the streets. This is unforgivable.
We have not wavered in our commitment to help. This financial year, we are providing £116 million for humanitarian and other aid, including healthcare, food, clean water and sanitation. That includes treatment for 800,000 Palestinians through UK-Med. The UK formally recognised Palestine last autumn to protect the viability of a two-state solution and to create a path towards lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. We welcome the establishment of full diplomatic relations with the state of Palestine, and I can confirm the establishment of a Palestinian embassy in London today.
Let me turn to Iran, where we have seen protests enter a ninth day following the rapid depreciation of the currency. We are disturbed by reports of violence against those who are courageously exercising their right to peaceful protest. We are monitoring developments closely, and we urge Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. The UK was integral to delivery of the Iran human rights resolution adopted by the UN Third Committee in November. It called on Iran to halt its human rights violations, including in relation to women and girls and ethnic and religious minorities, and to stop the use of the death penalty. We will continue to work with partners to hold Iran to account for its rights record.
I know that many in the House will be thinking about Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who spent Christmas in detention in Iran. We are deeply concerned that they have been charged with espionage. We are focused on supporting them and their family and we remain in regular contact with the Iranian authorities. The Foreign Secretary raised their case with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 19 December.
I wish to provide the House with an update on another consular case that has been in the spotlight for many years: Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Supporting British nationals overseas is at the heart of the work of the Foreign Office, and the provision of that consular support is based on the circumstances of the case. Following Mr el-Fattah’s registration as a British citizen in 2021, successive Governments gave him consular support and made it a priority to argue for his release. That is why it was welcomed by Ministers across the Government, and many others in this House, when he was released from detention in September and reunited with his family in the UK on Boxing day. However, we recognise and share the deep concern felt across the country following the subsequent emergence of extremely disturbing historical social media posts by Mr el-Fattah. Let me emphasise once again that the historical posts were abhorrent, and I join my colleagues in condemning them wholeheartedly. It is right that Mr el-Fattah has apologised.
I fully recognise the profound distress that the posts have caused, in particular to the Jewish community in this country, and especially in the context of rising antisemitism and recent horrific attacks against Jewish people in this country and around the world, and I very much regret that. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I were all unaware of those historical posts, as were the civil servants working on the case. The Foreign Secretary has therefore asked the permanent under-secretary to urgently review the Department’s systems for conducting due diligence on high-profile consular and human rights cases to ensure that all necessary lessons are learned. The Foreign Secretary has undertaken to update the Foreign Affairs Committee on the changes that the Department will put in place.
I turn now to the dramatic developments in Yemen, which we are monitoring closely. I welcome calls by Yemen’s President for dialogue in the south. I also welcome Saudi Arabia’s offer to host a conference and the United Arab Emirates’ calls for de-escalation. A swift diplomatic resolution will best serve the Yemeni people. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Yemen’s unity, including the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council and the Government of Yemen, as we set out in the recent UK-led UN Security Council statement. I, the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Adviser have all been in regular contact with our partners in Yemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates about the situation, and we will continue to work closely with them.
We must not forget that Yemen already faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises: 18.1 million people face acute food insecurity, as I saw for myself in November when I visited a clinic supported by the UK in Aden. Responding to this crisis is a priority for the UK. We are the largest donor to the Yemen humanitarian needs and response plan, maintaining our commitment to provide £139 million in humanitarian aid in the current financial year.
In Syria, the past year has seen remarkable change. The Syrian Government have shown commitment to tackling security threats, joining the Global Coalition Against Daesh and committing themselves to dismantling Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles. In my engagements with the Syrian Government, I have heard directly a commitment to build a Syria for all Syrians. Despite that progress, the challenges remain immense. There have been outbreaks of sectarian violence in the last year, most recently in Latakia at the end of December. The recent attack on US soldiers in Palmyra is a reminder of the enduring Daesh threat.
A stable Syria is firmly in the UK’s interest, as it reduces the risk of irregular migration, terrorism and other threats to our national security. That is why we have stepped up our engagement and our support for Syria over the last year. The UK remains an active partner in the Global Coalition Against Daesh, and on 3 January the Royal Air Force conducted a joint strike with France on an underground Daesh facility north of Palmyra. The UK will continue to do what is necessary to prevent a Daesh resurgence, support Syria’s stability and protect UK national security.
I hope that that update on the developments that have taken place in the middle east over the recess has been helpful to the House. His Majesty’s Government remain committed to playing their full role in the region.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. We have engaged extensively with the Israeli Government, both on the importance of overturning the non-governmental organisation registration provisions, and in order to speak against the deregistration process that she described. We have also called repeatedly for the opening of the Rafah crossing and other vital crossings.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I regret that the Government have presented developments in four significant states in one statement, but I will do my best to respond in the time afforded to me.
While the attention of the world is seized by the illegal actions of the US President, it is crucial that the UK works closely with our allies to support just, lawful and humanitarian action in the middle east. After two years of widespread destruction, people in Gaza are already facing severe shortages of food, clean water and medical supplies in the midst of winter. What immediate action are the Government taking to persuade Israel to reverse its decision to bar reputable international aid agencies from Gaza and the west bank? The continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian land by Netanyahu’s extremist Cabinet since the House last met is explicitly intended to undermine any prospect of a two-state solution, so will the Government implement immediate sanctions on members of the Israeli Cabinet, and a full ban on the import of settlement goods? Will they finally publish their response to the 2024 International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law?
The Liberal Democrats condemn the violent repression of public demonstrations in Iran. The US President’s casual threats to take unilateral military action there merely serve to escalate tensions. How are our Government working with European and regional partners to co-ordinate lawful external pressure on Iran, and when will the Government commit to proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in UK law?
The people of Yemen desperately need peace, yet regional powers continue to intervene to support the armed factions. Will the Government review all arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to ensure that UK weapons are not enabling them to sustain the conflict? The UN estimates that around 24 million Yemenis desperately need food and protection. How is the UK ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need, particularly in areas where access is restricted or contested?
The Liberal Democrats support limited multilateral strikes against Daesh in Syria to ensure the eradication of its infrastructure, and to counter its dangerous and violent ideology in the middle east. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are confident that the recent strikes were fully compliant with international law and proportionate to the threat, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the new Syrian Government are protecting the rights of all, including minorities and women?
Venezuela
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Again, I think the hon. Gentleman wants to draw equivalences between a whole series of different situations. We have been very clear about our view on Greenland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question on this statement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I definitely have the strongest legs in this Chamber—I have been bobbing for over three hours.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement and her strong commitment, but will she further outline what support we can offer our US allies to ensure that democracy is restored—or indeed created—in Venezuela? That nation has great potential to do so much good. Further, what support can our UK Government offer to secure the daily needs of so many young people who have been ignored for many years and left in poverty for far too long?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right about the future of Venezuela and the future for the Venezuelan people, including young people who have been pushed into hardship and poverty by the corruption and criminality of the regime. There is now an opportunity, but it is very fragile. We have to ensure that we support stability in Venezuela and the transition to democracy, which is crucial. Those are the points we will continue to make as part of our discussions with the US, and that is the work that our embassy will continue to do on the ground.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes the statement on Venezuela. I thank the Foreign Secretary, who has taken over 90 questions and has been on her feet for two and a quarter hours.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 17 November 2025 - (17 Nov 2025)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
The Agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss to following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”.
This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 15 to 23 stand part.
Government amendment 3.
Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Powers of the Secretary of State: review—
“(1) Within three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) a description of the powers used,
(b) the purposes for which they have been used,
(c) an assessment of how effectively they have been used,
(d) an assessment of how their use accords with the objectives of the Agreement.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by this Bill.
New clause 2—Reporting requirements relating to the Act—
“(1) Before the end of the period of two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) data on access to samples;
(b) information relating to the number and nature of DSI views and downloads;
(c) information about the amount and nature of enforcement actions taken;
(d) an assessment of the impact of the Act on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry;
(e) a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Act;
(f) an assessment of the impact of any such regulatory changes.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act.
Schedule.