Syria
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I will try to answer as many of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s questions as I can. As she knows, we have had senior-level contact with the new HTS leadership. Our Foreign Secretary met the interim Foreign Minister on the margins of the Paris meeting. We have not yet sent Ministers to Damascus, as many of our partners will. We keep these issues under close review.
On whether we are consulting the Europeans on sanctions and other things, the Europeans have taken steps on sanctions slightly in advance of us. I cannot remember the precise date, but they relaxed their sanctions before we did. I can confirm to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we keep all decisions on sanctions under very close review.
The 24 entities for which sanctions were lifted on Friday are very much focused on the economic function of Syria. As the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well, Syria is in the midst of a very significant economic crisis—the Syrian pound has lost 99% of its value—and we want to protect the Syrian people from the consequences of that crisis. The relaxation of sanctions is very much focused on allowing normal Syrians and humanitarian actors to get on with their lives, but we will keep all further sanctions under close review.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about HTS’s progress on borders and countering terrorism and drugs. She is exactly right to say that we must judge HTS on its actions, not its words. HTS has made some very welcome commitments on a range of questions. For example, we have seen a welcome commitment from the new interim authorities to work with the OPCW. The interim Foreign Minister has engaged with the OPCW, which has now visited Damascus. That is to be welcomed, but the shadow Foreign Secretary is right that actions, not words, will be how we judge our Syria policy.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his horror at the killing of civilians in Syria this weekend. I agree that this is a critical and fragile moment for the country.
In a letter to me last week, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government’s policy is to push for an inclusive political process and accountability in Syria. This is, of course, exactly what is needed to deal with the tensions formed by decades of civil war and brutal dictatorship, but what are the Government actually doing to make sure this happens? We hear about aid and the loosening of sanctions. Is this the full extent of their plan? If there is more, can it be implemented properly when we do not have an embassy in Syria and when our special representative has visited Damascus only twice this year?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that at least 1,000 Alawites have been killed over the past few days are deeply concerning. This escalation in violence undermines Syria’s fragile transition from dictatorial rule under Assad, and it harms efforts to encourage religious and sectarian tolerance.
At this stage, it is critical that we understand whether the violence represents spontaneous clashes between different sects or is the product of state-directed policy. This must inform the Government’s position on whether to lift sanctions to support Syria’s development and reintegration into the global community.
I note that the interim Syrian Government have announced the establishment of an independent committee to investigate the violent clashes, but this must be followed up with concrete steps to protect Syrians of all ethnic and religious groups and ensure they are represented in the new Administration, as well as action to bring justice to those who have perpetrated violence in this conflict.
The international community must also work with partners in the region to support Syria’s transition away from dictatorial rule, including by emphasising the importance of embedding religious and sectarian tolerance, as well as the rights of women, in the new Syrian regime. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to engage with partners in the region, including the Syrian Government, to promote respect and support for religious and sectarian tolerance in Syria?
It is important, too, that this Government recognise that neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon have generously welcomed Syrian refugees, but they face immense challenges in providing food, shelter and essential services. Can the Minister outline how the cuts to international aid will impact our ability to support Syria’s economic development, including the cuts to bilateral aid to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where many Syrians have sought refuge?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend rightly points to some of the confusion around events at the coast. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will update once we have more clarity. We are calling on the interim authorities to ensure that the violence stops now.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world. Up to the civil war, it was about 10% of the population; now, it is down to 2%. Aid to the Church in Need has described Friday as a “black and painful day” for Christians in the Latakia area, with Christians being murdered in their cars and in their homes. Will the Minister—representing, as he does, a Christian country—call out the new Sunni Muslim Government of Syria and say that they have an absolute duty of care to all minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites or others?
Gaza
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 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
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for the urgent question. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by the Government of Israel, does risk breaching obligations under international humanitarian law. To answer her question directly, the UK Government have been in touch with interlocutors to make that point. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is in the region pushing for a peace deal, hence my covering this brief today, although I am the Indo-Pacific Minister.
Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. On 28 January, the then Minister for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK has announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) asked about the long-term ceasefire prospects. The UK plays its part in pushing both sides towards a hopeful future for the region. We are working with not just Arab states, but partners such as the US to try to push for a solution that is in line with international humanitarian law.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have just come back from the middle east, where I went with the Foreign Affairs Committee. While the world watches with increasing alarm the disintegration of the peace process in Gaza, we were warned in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the west bank and Israel that the far-right Government in Israel may have no long-term plan on Gaza, but that there is a long-term plan for the west bank, and that is annexation. The international community is well aware of that. It sees the evictions, the demolitions, the increasing number of Israeli settlements, and that 40,000 people have recently been displaced. In these days of hard power, what is plan B? What will the international community do to stop the annexation of the west bank? It will not be enough to simply condemn it once it has happened.
Catherine West
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her ongoing interest in this important matter of foreign policy, and for the work that she and her Committee have done, including through personal interviews and visits to the region. That is all part of the supportive role that the UK must play. It must take an international role in pushing for peace.
The UK Government have taken a very tough position on militant factions or groups attacking Palestinians in the occupied territories and the west bank. We continue to look at the measures available to get our message across in not just words, but actions. With my right hon. Friend’s permission, I will write to her as Chair of the Select Committee with an updated assessment of the situation.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released.
The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel.
I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip?
Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the devastating impact of no aid getting through, and to say that a halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that recently announced by the Government of Israel, risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. It is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to make legal decisions or judgments, but I assure my hon. Friend that the former Minister for development pledged £17 million to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter can reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. My hon. Friend must reassure her constituents that the Foreign Office is doing all it can to get infrastructure across the OPTs and into Gaza, in order to relieve the suffering.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Israeli Government are wrong to prevent humanitarian aid entering Gaza. That threatens the lives of Gazans who are dependent on aid after the destruction of the past 15 months, and is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Israeli Government back down and let that aid in? I understand the depth of distress in Israel about the despicable way that Hamas terrorists have played psychological games with the hostages and their families, but withholding essential supplies of food, medicine and shelter only worsens the devastation faced by the Palestinian people.
In the west bank, we also see illegal settlers violently attacking Palestinians and apparently receiving the support of members of the Israeli Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that we in the UK must do all we can to undermine the extremists in this conflict, so that a second phase of the ceasefire can be negotiated, all hostages can be released, and Gazans can receive the aid that they desperately need?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Back on 17 October 2023, when the first hospital in Palestine was bombed, the al-Ahli Arab hospital, much conversation was had about who could have committed such a heinous crime. Since then, the Israeli army has destroyed all medical facilities in Gaza, and now we have a President of the United States using gangster-style intimidation to forcibly remove Palestinian people from their land. Will the Foreign Secretary—who has repeatedly refused to call out the Israeli Government for the war crimes they are committing, refused to ban all arms sales, refused to acknowledge that a genocide is happening and refused even to consider economic sanctions, because £6.1 billion is too high a price to pay—accept the reality of the situation and accept that Trump and Netanyahu’s plan proposes ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
We are in the first phase of a ceasefire that we want to hold and go to phase 2. That is the issue I was discussing with Arab leaders last week at the Munich security conference. The Quint group are working with President Trump to get to that third phase and the governance issues that will be so important, with the Palestinian Authority involved in Gaza.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
My thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Gaza and the appalling suffering they and their families are facing. The world has seen the brutality inflicted by the Iranian-sponsored terrorists, Hamas, who are a major obstacle to bringing about a sustainable and just peace in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary has previously agreed that there cannot be any future whatsoever for Hamas controlling Gaza. Can he provide an update on the actions he has undertaken to put an end to Hamas control and ensure we get to the third phase of the ceasefire? Will he discuss this issue when he goes to America with the Prime Minister to meet the President of the United States?
Mr Falconer
As I said in my previous answer, we are following events in the west bank closely. Stability in the west bank is crucial to ensuring that the fragile ceasefire in Gaza can last. All sides should work to ensure a lowering of tension in the west bank at this time. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread in the west bank.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A week ago, I was in a Palestinian village with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). We went to a school that had been demolished by illegal settlers. Immediately, two punks turned up with sub-machine guns, intimidating us—that is happening all over the place. We went to Hebron. It is completely closed down. This is appalling. The whole House should unite against the extremist Jewish settlers and the illegal settlements, because it is not in the interest of moderate Israeli opinion. It is directly contrary to peace and we must fight this. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely clear that we will retain full control over Diego Garcia, and will have robust provisions to keep adversaries out. There will be unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US, a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands threatens base operations and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions are in place to defend the security of that critical base.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was
“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.
Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal
“was so bad that we said, no way!”
and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Taliban have been undermining so much of women’s and girls’ lives in Afghanistan. We are determined to support girls in Afghanistan, including when it comes to education. I have directly discussed that with the Aga Khan Foundation to ensure that support is getting directly to girls, but we also need to push hard politically. I was very pleased to announce that the UK is politically supporting the initiative to refer Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The treatment of women and girls by the Taliban is disgusting, and pressure must be exerted in response. The Minister will know that there are concerns about the protection of rights for women and girls and other minorities in Syria too, given the ideology of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ministers have issued a statement on the future of the UK sanctions on Syria. Can the Minister give details of the measures that need to be put in place in Syria to protect those rights, and say whether such issues will be tied to future decisions on sanctions?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, security is at the heart of our engagement with European counterparts, and the UK’s commitment to the security of the Baltic states is iron-clad. We are helping to uphold that region’s security through our NATO forward land forces deployment in Estonia—the Prime Minister met joint expeditionary force leaders in Tallinn in December to discuss closer co-operation, in response to both conventional threats from Russian aggression and hybrid threats—and, of course, our work together on Ukraine. I have visited that border and met our enhanced forward presence troops there; they are doing an excellent job, and it is crucial that we stand with our Baltic neighbours and all of Europe when it comes to our collective security.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The UK can be proud of the leadership it has shown in supporting Ukraine and rallying our international partners around this cause. What work is the Minister leading, with European allies, on unfreezing sanctioned assets, so that they can be used to equip Ukraine, and what is his timeframe for releasing critical sanctioned funds, so that they can be used to strengthen Europe’s defence of our values, security and defence?
Stephen Doughty
As the right hon. Lady knows, we have already done important work with European partners to secure the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, which will make a tangible difference to Ukraine. We continue to work with European partners on sanctions, and of course, we are considering all lawful options going forward. We have had important discussions in the Weimar group and through the G7, and will continue to look, with European counterparts, at all options for supporting Ukraine.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It was shocking yesterday to see the United States vote with the despots of North Korea, Belarus and Russia against a UN resolution proposed by the UK and other European democracies. Liberal Democrats want to see the UK lead in Europe against Putin’s war on Ukraine, so we were pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that he was taking forward our Liberal Democrat proposal that the £40 billion of frozen Russian assets held in European central banks be seized and given to Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary will push the US Administration to join in that initiative when he visits Washington later this week?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
Apologies, Mr Speaker. I am answering a lot of questions today.
I have significant concerns about the Georgian authorities’ violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and journalists, which is completely unacceptable. In response, we have suspended programme support to the Georgian Government, restricted defence co-operation, and limited engagement with Georgian Dream. We have imposed visa bans and sanctions on some of those responsible for the violence, and we continue to work with international partners to support a free and open civil society and media in Georgia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I can confirm that we will continue to support the ceasefire deal through all three of its phases, which we hope to see concluded in full. I am working with international partners, as are other Ministers; I saw the Jordanian and Egyptian ambassadors on this question just last week.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This House stands united with the people of Ukraine. In the light of Putin’s brutality towards the people of Ukraine, what discussions will the Foreign Secretary be having with allies, including his American counterpart, on the international effort to prosecute Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and the sheer barbarism it has inflicted on the people of Ukraine?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her long commitment to these issues. As I made clear in the Westminster Hall debate on 12 February, the UK respects the independence of the ICJ, and we are considering the court’s advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness it deserves. We remain clear that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible, while making every effort to create the conditions for negotiations towards a two-state solution.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The whole House will be shocked to learn the worrying news that the mother of British-Egyptian political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Laila Soueif, was admitted to St Thomas’ hospital last night. She is 68 years old and has been on hunger strike now for 149 days. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on whether the Prime Minister has spoken to the Egyptian President to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and allow Laila to break her strike?
Ukraine
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine.
In January 2022, I visited the Wall of Remembrance of the Fallen in Kyiv with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces of all those who had lost their lives since 2014 brought home the human cost of Kremlin imperialism—and of the Ukrainian determination to stand up to it. Indeed, some weeks later, just as British and American intelligence services had warned, we awoke to news of Putin’s full-scale invasion, launched to shatter the sovereign state of Ukraine.
Today, we mark three years of Ukrainian courage in resisting that brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion. I have witnessed their fortitude at first hand in three visits to Kyiv over the past year—their defiant blitz spirit as Russian missiles and drones rain down night after night after night. On this grim anniversary, amid all the talk about talks, we must not forget that Russia’s barbaric war goes on, that the Ukrainian people are suffering, and that, beyond Europe, the conflict is piling pressure on the world’s poorest, too.
This debate takes place against the backdrop of intense diplomatic efforts, responding of course to President Trump’s call to bring this war to a swift end. At the G20 in South Africa last week, I listened to Sergey Lavrov. Once again, he shamelessly played the victim, rehashing the same old lies. I will say to the House what I said in response: if Russia is serious about a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, Ukraine’s independence and the United Nations charter; guarantees Ukraine’s security against future aggression; and rejects imperialism, then Britain will listen. No one wants that more than Ukraine.
At the Munich security conference, I underlined that Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks about Ukraine’s future, and I said that the west must learn from our history. Vladimir Putin and his war are no historical aberration. He draws on a tsarist tradition—the imperialism and authoritarianism of Peter the Great or Nicholas I—and a Soviet tradition: he is, after all, a KGB agent who operates by deception. It was an American diplomat, George Kennan, whose “long telegram” in 1946 warned of a deep continuity in Kremlin thinking. He argued that the Kremlin would respond only to strength. That was the basis for the policy of containment, as part of which Britain contributed tens of thousands of troops to the British Army of the Rhine. It was that strength, not paper promises, that deterred Moscow from further advances west.
Today, let us look at the Kremlin’s recent record. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975—betrayed. The Budapest memorandum of 1994—betrayed. The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997—betrayed. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015—betrayed. This is foreign policy by lies. We must respond by being true to ourselves and provide the support Ukraine needs to stay strong, because that is what is needed to secure a lasting peace and shape our collective security so that Putin never invades again.
The UK has a unique role in helping to make that happen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister was in Paris last week talking to our European allies about how we step up support for Ukraine, accelerate work on security guarantees and take more responsibility for the security of our continent. In Munich, I spoke to Vice-President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary chaired the Ukraine defence contact group, where US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that, like us, the US wants to see a sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.
Europe must shoulder its share of the burden. With the United States and its unique capabilities, we can deter Putin from attacking Ukraine again and from escalating hybrid Russian attacks in Europe into some form of direct confrontation, so this week the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Washington DC to meet President Trump. Ukraine needs friends and allies on both sides of the Atlantic working together to achieve “peace through strength”. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have spoken of their desire to achieve that, and the Prime Minister will reaffirm to Zelensky in a call today that it is Britain’s goal as well.
That must include European countries investing more in our own defence and capabilities. Already, the UK has stepped up and sped up military assistance. We have committed £3 billion in military aid a year—every year, for as long it takes. Over the next two years, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion earmarked for military spending, via our share of the $50 billion G7 loan backed by frozen Russian assets.
In addition, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we know our Kremlin history, and that is why we are ready to contribute to future security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of a US backstop, including by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. That would not be an easy decision—anyone in this House who has taken responsibility for the lives of British servicemen and women can attest to that—but I know the whole House recognises that Ukraine’s security is our security.
The UK also continues to set the pace on ratcheting up the economic pressure on the Kremlin. Together with our international partners, we have already denied Russia access to $400 billion. Its war economy is increasingly unsustainable. Inflation is 9.9% and rising, and that is just the official figure. Interest rates are running at 21%. This year, Russia will spend almost 41% of its budget on defence and security.
Today, we are announcing our biggest package of sanctions since the early days of the war: over 100 targets, including 40 oil tankers—our largest set of ship specifications in a single sanctions package yet—as well as third-country enablers that are pouring money into Putin’s war chest. New legislation imposes additional trade sanctions on Russia, too. That will deny Russia access to the world-leading expertise needed to maintain its war.
Today, the UK is also solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January. In February, I saw for myself how much that partnership means to Ukraine, and how much potential there is for our collective growth and security. Together, we lay that agreement in Parliament for scrutiny, and I look forward to it entering into force when the process is complete—a clear sign of our confidence in Ukraine’s future.
Mr Speaker, this is a critical moment. I want to acknowledge how colleagues have stood united over these past three years, including hon. Members from all parties as well as noble Lords in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, and several predecessors as Foreign Secretary. I am proud of that unity, which is a tribute to our country, proud of this country’s unwavering support for our Ukrainian friends, and proud that the United Kingdom is rightly taking on the responsibility of bringing our allies together. That is how we confront a foreign policy based on lies, and how we secure Ukraine’s future, secure Europe’s future, and face down a Kremlin dictator once again. Slava Ukraini. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the unity she demonstrates once again in the Chamber on the subject. I confirm for her that, of course, all hardware and military support, all diplomatic support and all humanitarian support continue. We continue to discuss those issues with our European partners, particularly at meetings at the Munich security conference and subsequentially, and we will continue to do that, to ensure that we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the British casualties during the last few years. Some 17 British nationals who served as members of the armed forces of Ukraine have been killed in action, and we remember them on this day.
The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned our continued solidarity with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions with our European partners. Just as we have announced a sanctions package today, the EU, following its meeting with the Foreign Affairs Council, has announced a sanctions package too, which will all bear down on Putin’s war machine. I can confirm that we continue to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for its men and women on the frontline. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that.
The right hon. Lady rightly comments on defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition are demonstrating on the issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a bigger part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues. We have said that we will come forward with our plans shortly, and we will. In that context, as we have seen from the Secretary-General, NATO has been very clear about the burden-sharing and burden-shifting environment that we are now in.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I get the opportunity to meet many ambassadors, Defence Ministers, attachés and other stakeholders, both here in London and at events and gatherings such as the Munich security conference. There is considerable consternation and anxiety among them about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances, rather than a short-term transactional approach, can still be relied on.
Given the reduced American presence, and as we mark the third anniversary of Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time as a nation to take that lead on defence and security matters in our continent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be our Prime Minister who takes that lead in our continent while pulling together our transatlantic, NATO and other allies in the process?
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today marks three years since Putin launched his barbaric full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Many people, including Putin, expected Russian tanks to capture Kyiv in days, yet Putin failed to consider the resolve of the Ukrainian people. Three years on, Ukrainians bravely continue the fight against Putin’s imperialism in defence of their sovereignty.
The UK and this House have stood together with Ukraine throughout these darkest hours. Across the country, people opened their homes to Ukrainian guests and demonstrated their opposition to Putin’s war. We must continue to support Ukrainians living in the UK, including by providing urgent clarity on what permanent options to remain the Government will introduce for them.
However, the past week has exposed the fragility of the west’s support for Ukraine. In parroting the Kremlin’s false claims that Ukraine started this war and that President Zelensky is a dictator, President Trump has shown that the US cannot be trusted to support Ukraine’s defence. That is why the UK, working with our continental allies, must step up to lead in Europe. That must include the UK committing to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, and all parties working together to build a consensus on reaching 3%.
The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s suggestion that British troops could join a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That would depend on parliamentary approval for such military deployment. We also support the Government’s announcement today of new sanctions targeting Russian kleptocrats. I urge the Foreign Secretary to add to that list the pro-Russian founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili.
The Government should also now move to seize the frozen Russian assets totalling £40 billion across the UK and Europe and channel those funds into Ukraine’s defence. As a start, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what is delaying the release of the £2.5 billion promised to Ukraine from the sale of Chelsea football club?
This week in Washington, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary must make clear that the UK will continue to stand side by side with Ukraine for as long as it takes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. Slava Ukraini.
Chagos Islands
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It was a delight to appear before his Committee to discuss other matters just a few weeks ago. This treaty reflects both parties’ shared commitment to uphold international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has expressed dedication to marine conservation and has aligned its global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and its commitments under the sustainable development goals, and establishing a fit-for-purpose marine protected area is a crucial part of that. We will work with Mauritius very closely on this matter. It was a very important part of the discussions, and I am very glad we have been able to make the agreements that we have.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time.
While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt.
This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold?
Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target?
On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus? The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?
Stephen Doughty
I set out yesterday, in a very important debate on our bilateral relations with the United States, just how much we are co-operating already with the new US Administration on defence, security and our shared priorities around growth and prosperity. We are absolutely committed in our wider international obligations. We have set that out, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has set that out, and my colleagues have set that out in relation to climate change. We will continue to work with the United States on all the global challenges we face.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I put on record the deep concern of the Liberal Democrats at the way this deal has progressed.
We accept the ICJ ruling. I thought there was a consensus across the House on the importance of the UK upholding the rule of law, so I am bemused by the confected consternation of those on the Conservative Benches. It was the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who in 2022 stated:
“it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]
But under this Labour Government, Chagossians have been ignored, Parliament is without a say, and the lack of foresight on how the US presidential election might affect the deal is troubling. After failing to force through an agreement, Ministers have now given Donald Trump a say about the future of sovereign British territory. Can the Minister confirm that before signature, this House will be given a vote on the terms of the final deal, in particular to see how UK security interests have been protected?
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. I listened carefully to the concerns of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about the deal. If those concerns are about the possible costs, then given that his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests states that he has earned nearly £600,000 in the past six months since his election, perhaps the Minister might agree with me that the hon. Gentleman could make a donation to the Government to secure our national security—
Mr Barros-Curtis
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies. Will the Minister reassure me, as he has in his response and in countless statements before, that when the treaty comes before the House, securing our national security will be paramount through a process that, as he said, was started under the previous Government?
UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, before I turn to Ukraine, I want to begin by welcoming the release of Emily Damari. After 471 days of captivity, she has been brought home. It was deeply moving to see the pictures of Emily and her mother Mandy reunited. I pay tribute once again to all those who campaigned so tirelessly for this moment. The Government will continue to work closely with our partners to secure the release of all the hostages, get aid into Gaza and see the deal implemented in full.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Ukraine. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister visited Kyiv. It was his seventh meeting with President Zelensky, but this visit had a special purpose: to sign a historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine. The partnership enshrines both sides’ commitment to a relationship benefiting the whole of our nations: businesses as well as the Government, communities as well as our military. It consists of a legally binding treaty and a political agreement outlining our co-operation in greater detail. We will lay the treaty before this House for scrutiny in the usual way.
The partnership covers the full breadth of our friendship, across nine pillars. In each area, deeper co-operation can enhance our collective security and help us both to build resilient, flourishing economies. On maritime security, through joint exercises and training between the Royal Navy and the Ukrainian navy, we can enhance their effectiveness and learn from their successes in securing the Black sea. On air defence, the supply of 15 Gravehawk missile systems, produced in Yorkshire by BAE Systems, is a direct benefit to our economy and an innovative new capability for Ukraine. On the energy sector, the agreement cements the United Kingdom as Ukraine’s preferred partner, opening up opportunities for us and them in areas such as renewables and green steel.
The Prime Minister saw at first hand what our work together can mean for the people of Ukraine, while visiting a burns unit supported by specialist national health service doctors, helping them to treat victims of indiscriminate Russian attacks and joining a Ukrainian class speaking to a primary school in Liverpool. It is these young people who will reap the rewards of the efforts we are making today.
A partnership lasting 100 years, beyond the lifetime of even the youngest Members of this House, is unprecedented, but it reflects the unique nature of our friendship—a friendship that Members on all sides did so much to strengthen. I pay particular tribute to the work of my predecessors the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield for their work under the previous Government in supporting this partnership.
This cross-party unity is a source of strength for our country and a source of strength for Ukraine. It is a unity that goes well beyond this House. Members will have witnessed it in their constituencies, from the more than 200,000 Ukrainians who have found refuge in our homes to the countless Ukrainian flags flying proudly outside churches and town halls across the country.
This Government have shown strong support for Ukraine since our first day in office. For my part, I have called out Putin’s modern-day imperialism in the United Nations Security Council, I have been using the full force of our sanctions against Putin’s war machine, with the UK having led the way in sanctioning Putin’s shadow fleet, and I announced over £600 million in humanitarian and fiscal support during my own visit to Kyiv in September. My ministerial colleagues have been playing their full part as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has accelerated the delivery of military aid, extended our training of Ukrainian soldiers to at least the end of the year and signed a defence industrial treaty with Ukraine, allowing it to draw on £3.5 billion of UK export finance to acquire military equipment. This month, legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor came into force, enabling a loan of over £2 billion more to Ukraine, all of it repaid through the use of profits from frozen Russian assets. That funding comes on top of the Government’s commitment, made by the Prime Minister in our first week in office, to provide £3 billion a year in military aid in every year that it is needed. We do not know for how long it will be needed; it is for Ukraine to decide at what point and in what way to have any form of talks with Russia, and Ukraine will continue to need support from its friends even after Putin’s barbaric, illegal war comes to an end. We have always said that we want to see a just and lasting peace, but our priority right now, together with our allies, is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to achieve that.
Three things are clear. First, Ukrainians want to live at peace with their neighbour. They did not provoke this war, whatever the false claims of the Kremlin or its army of bots online, but now that Putin’s mafia state is preying on them, they are fighting back courageously. Their cause is just: quite simply, the freedom to choose their own future. Secondly, Putin shows no sign of wanting peace. He could end this war tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine, yet he insists that the war will not end until he has achieved his objectives—objectives that amount to the subjugation of the Ukrainian people. That is no basis for meaningful dialogue, and Putin’s actions speak far louder than his twisted words: inhuman strikes on civilians on Christmas Day, dispatching North Korean troops to the frontline, and wave after wave of attacks on the brave people of Ukraine.
Finally, Putin’s position is not one of strength. The invasion has been a monumental strategic failure, and pressure is mounting. Russia’s casualty rate is staggering, the highest number of military casualties that the country has suffered since the second world war, and Russia is more insecure than it was before the war—and for what? Russia gained some territory last year, yes: fields and small settlements, left barren by relentless bombardment, and taken at a rate so slow that the Russians would need a century to conquer all of Ukraine. Meanwhile, their economy struggles increasingly to sustain the war through this year alone. Spiralling inflation is making basic goods such as butter unaffordable, welfare cuts are hitting the most vulnerable, and interest rates have been hiked to a record 21%. We are approaching the third anniversary of this conflict, and, as the Prime Minister said in Kyiv, we must not let up now. Putin hopes that the world lacks his resolve, and we need to call his bluff to prove him wrong.
This is not simply a moral necessity, although I know that the whole House has moral clarity on the righteousness of supporting Ukraine. It is also a strategic necessity for Britain and our allies. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the post-war order founded in great part by my predecessor Ernie Bevin, which has kept us all safe for more than eight decades, will be seriously undermined. Foundational principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity will be shaken, and a more dangerous world will result. That is why the Government will not falter, it is why the Prime Minister travelled to Kyiv, and it is why we stand firmly with Ukraine, today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on the all-party group. He will be pleased that there are active conversations on this very issue at this time. He will know, too, that because of some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made on procurement, we are doing all we can to assist trade in Ukraine, as complicated as that is at this moment.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the release of Emily Damari, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last week to a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and today I am thinking of those in Ukraine who have faced 35 months of continuous conflict since Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022. I am also thinking of the many communities across the UK that have welcomed thousands of Ukrainian families since that time. The courage and resilience of our Ukrainian guests has been matched by the solidarity and generosity of British communities. Cross-party support for our ally Ukraine has been unwavering.
I assure our Ukrainian allies that we will continue to support them, for in the face of expansionist Russian aggression and threats to democracy, Ukraine’s fight is indeed our fight. Yet today is a critical juncture, for a man who described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” will today become President of the United States, while his vice-president has advocated for a deal that would reward Russia with the territory that Putin has seized, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the Ukrainians must have the freedom to choose their own future.
In that context, what initial contact has the Foreign Secretary had with the incoming US Administration about Ukraine? What assurance can he give the House that the US will stay the course and not press Ukraine to capitulate to Russia? If the Foreign Secretary is unable to give that assurance, will he agree that we must redouble our efforts to work with our European allies to secure Ukraine’s future and our own security?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s tour of Ukraine and eastern Europe last week, but it leaves some questions that I now put to the Foreign Secretary. What new actions and investments will the UK take to support security in Europe? How will the UK demonstrate the strengthened leadership in the joint expeditionary force that our European partners expect? And did the Prime Minister raise with our allies the support expressed by Members across this House for mobilising the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and Europe to support our Ukrainian allies?
We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the Front Benches of the set times that they are meant to stick to. Can they please look at this and make sure they get it right next time?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for his questions and their bipartisan spirit. We welcome the bipartisan support that we eventually got from the United States after a lot of lobbying, including from my predecessor. It should not be forgotten that it was a £61 billion package to support Ukraine, notwithstanding the work that Europe is currently doing.
It is also important to say that Europe now shoulders two thirds of all aid to Ukraine, including over half of all military aid. In President Trump, we find someone who has been consistent in urging those colleagues across Europe who are still not spending 2% of GDP on defence. Since Roosevelt, successive US Presidents have raised this. When President Trump first came to office, just six countries were meeting their commitment. By the time he left, it was 18. That must be something we can welcome.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary’s announcements in December in relation to procurement and the assistance we will continue to give to Ukraine, and on the ease with which Ukraine can now use our processes to get the equipment it needs to modernise its systems. The UK will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme, which will be repaid using the profits of frozen Russian sovereign assets, and that must be welcome.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the JEF, which is hugely important. The support from the Baltic nations is extraordinary. The JEF is a very important partnership, and it has been one of the most proactive groupings in support of Ukraine. All JEF nations have signed their own bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. JEF nations are some of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and will continue to be so.
I also commend to the hon. Gentleman the Interflex training that we are doing with Ukraine, which we have said will continue until the end of this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds
This Government are determined to have a consistent and clear-eyed approach to China and to avoid the oscillation that we saw under previous Governments; as a result, we are conducting a China audit that will look thoroughly at all our relationships with China. We will compete where we must, challenge where we need to and co-operate where that is necessary.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Government signed up to a $300 billion climate finance package at COP29, with the amount increasing by $50 billion to get a deal. Since then, Ministers have not been able to give details of what our share will be, how much British taxpayers will fund, and what will come from official development assistance and what from private enterprise and investment. Can the Minister provide any of those details, and, if not, will she commit to a timetable for disclosure of that information?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear last week, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and, indeed, the Kingdom of Denmark. It would be wrong to speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make. I delivered those messages during a meeting with the Greenlandic Foreign Minister yesterday. There are, rightly, important concerns about security in the Arctic, which is why I was proud to be one of the first British Ministers in 10 years to attend the Arctic Circle Assembly and meet partners to discuss these issues just a few months ago.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Office on the inspired appointment of our new ambassador in Washington DC? Not many candidates would be able to fill the shoes of Dame Karen Pierce, who has represented UK interests so exceptionally in both New York and Washington; she is an inspirational leader and a skilled diplomat.
Lord Mandelson’s appointment is unusual, however. It is not often that circumstances demand that the UK appoint someone who is not a career diplomat to be our ambassador to such a key NATO ally. To silence critics and to show respect to Parliament and its Committees, will the Foreign Office agree that we should return to the policy of the previous Labour Government, and allow Lord Mandelson the time to come before my Committee before he leaves for the United States? That will allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him, and to learn what his priorities are in this crucial diplomatic role.
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington, and it was a pleasure to meet him last week and discuss his plans as he prepares to take up his post. Obviously we have one ambassador at a time, but I am sure that we will consider any request that my right hon. Friend makes in due course in the normal way in which we consider requests from her Committee.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The NATO alliance stands at the cornerstone of our defence and has been essential to the security of the free world. Given the importance of the Indo-Pacific security alliance, strengthening co-operation and dialogue with key allies in the region has been paramount, and our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital British-American strategic asset. However, Ministers have failed to give answers to questions about its future, or about the costs involved in the proposed treaty with Mauritius. Will the Minister give one straight answer? Will he make a commitment to the House to wait until President Trump is in office and has had time to discuss this deal with the new Administration before finalising any agreement with Mauritius—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
The shadow Minister is right about the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, when we see North Korean troops fighting in Russia and Ukraine, when we see Iranian missiles being used and when we see military companies elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region supplying Russia, it is crucial that we see global security as one. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have answered many questions about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Our deal secures the future security of the base on Diego Garcia, and it has support across the US Administration and across the United States national security apparatus. We will come forward with details in due course.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, President-elect Trump has threatened to use force to seize the Panama canal and Greenland, and he has promised tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico. Whatever else we can predict about the presidency that begins next Monday, we know that it will be unpredictable. May I therefore ask the Minister what steps his Government has taken to Trump-proof UK foreign policy so that we cannot be held hostage in the security, economic or climate realm by a President who puts short-term deals ahead of long-term relationships, and what specific steps the Government have taken to accelerate an improvement in the UK’s relationship with European partners since 5 November?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady will be pleased that we will very shortly launch our new soft power council, specifically to look in detail at this issue. I was pleased to secure further funding for the BBC World Service in the spending review, which was very important. As we move forward with our reset, we continue to discuss, particularly with European allies, what more we can do for touring artists.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This weekend, we had the indignity of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer fleeing the financial mess that she has left at home in the United Kingdom while embracing the Chinese Communist party—Labour’s friends—and the Chinese Government in a desperate attempt to secure money from them. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how this new love-in with one of the biggest threats to our national security and freedom helps our national interests? What message does that send to Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong BNOs facing threats in our country, and others living in fear of China? Is this Government’s reset with China the cause of the delay in implementing the foreign influence registration scheme?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to see Emily Damari free, and all the hostages, particularly the UK-linked hostages. We know from our contact with their families—I am thinking about the moving event that we had in No. 10 on 30 September—that there will be deep psychological scars, and we must commit to doing all we can through our ongoing humanitarian effort to support those hostages in their process of recovery.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
All Members of the House will praise the courage and resilience of the hostage families and have the hostages in their thoughts right now, particularly Emily’s mother Mandy and Emily herself. Reports of the progress being made on the hostage negotiations are truly welcome, including the Foreign Secretary’s discussions during and after his visit to Israel. Can he give an update on what information he has received about the proof of life of those hostages? Importantly, what resources will our Government be providing to support the hostages through the release process over the period of time speculated, and to bring about a sustainable end to this awful conflict?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While Gaza stands on the verge of absolute annihilation, the Israeli ambassador to the UK has repeatedly expressed opposition to a two-state solution, emphasising that that is not a feasible solution. Given that the UK has consistently expressed support for a two-state solution but does not yet recognise one of the states, will the Minister clarify any discussions she has had with the Israeli ambassador?
Mr Speaker
Order. This question is about humanitarian aid, but I am sure the Minister will be able to answer.
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government’s position is, indeed, that there must be a two-state solution. The new Government have been determined to do all we can towards that end. That will include advocating for that solution at every juncture, including with embassies and, as would be expected, with the Israeli embassy.
Monica Harding
Mr Speaker, may I declare another interest as the officer of the British Council all-party parliamentary group?
The British Council delivers more than £1 billion-worth of global impact for the UK every year. During the pandemic, it was forced to close 18 country operations, none of which has since reopened. The then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab gave it an emergency loan, but set it out on commercial terms. The interest on this loan is costing the British Council £14 million a year. Will the Minister help the British Council keep delivering on the Government’s growth, security and soft power objectives and consider reviewing the terms of the council’s loan, extending the date for beginning repayments, reducing the commercial rate of interest, or redesignating the loan—
Mr Falconer
Ministers are aware of the issues in relation to the £200 million. As the hon. Member said, the loan was made on commercial terms in order to be compliant with the UK subsidy control regime. On 6 January, my ministerial colleagues the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Chapman met the chief executive officer of the British Council to discuss these issues.
Robin Swann
I join the Minister in his opening comments. The 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence presents a unique opportunity to promote cultural and historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States, because at least five signatories of the declaration have direct Ulster links. The declaration itself was printed by an Ulster Scot—John Dunlap from Strabane. The great seal of the United States was designed by Charles Thomson from Upperlands, and 17 of the US Presidents can claim Ulster Scots roots. However, the Government’s introduction of an electronic travel authorisation scheme will have a devastating impact on tourism—
Mr Speaker
Order. The anniversary will have passed if we don’t get to the end—come on.
Stephen Doughty
We learn new things every day. I am delighted to hear about the heritage of the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world in relation to the United States. My own family dates back to the late 1700s in Pennsylvania—we are not sure which side they fought on. Later, my grandfather came over during the second world war to fight alongside us against Nazi tyranny in Europe. Those special relationship are part of all our communities and families, and we absolutely want to celebrate them across all our countries.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased that we announced a £38.5 million resilience, adaption and inclusion programme so that Nepal could deal with disaster risk. That follows £58.5 million for climate-smart development over an eight-year programme. Our relationship with Nepal, particularly on the climate issue, is essential and very important.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he is surrendering the Chagos Islands and front-loading payments to the Government of Mauritius to lease back a base at Diego Garcia at a cost of £9 billion to UK taxpayers? If that is such a good deal, why is he so secretive about it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I thank my hon. Friend for the question and for his long-standing work on Syria issues. I was very glad to join him and so many inspiring members of Syrian civil society who are keen to make a contribution. We will do what we can to enable the new Syria to be a success and to enable Syrian civil society here and across the world to play their full role in that.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
There is strong evidence that Russia has sought to influence the outcome of elections in Georgia, Moldova and Romania, and it may now be doing so in Germany. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that the current measures to track Russian money and misinformation in the UK is sufficient to protect the UK from similar interference, and does he think that the role of Russian money in funding UK political parties should be investigated to ensure that our elections remain free and fair?
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the deeply concerning ongoing conflict in eastern DRC and its devastating consequences. Our humanitarian programme, which amounts to £114 million, is delivering lifesaving emergency assistance, and I can reassure her that Lord Collins has met with the leaders of DRC and Rwanda to urge them to engage in good faith in the Luanda process, to bring an end to the horrific fighting.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Northern Gaza
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in continuing to fight for the population in Gaza, even as her own family and friends are suffering?
My Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we have heard again and again from witnesses, including both Israeli and Palestinian voices, that the UK could, in fact, be doing more to bring the conflict to an end. We have also heard from witnesses, including the former Member for North East Bedfordshire, who is also the very respected former Minister for the middle east, that where UK action has come, it has been too little and too late. While I know that the Minister is unable to comment on any ongoing negotiations, I would like to know this: what role is the UK playing in convening post-conflict discussions and what does he see as a viable, long-term resolution for Gaza?
Mr Falconer
This Government have taken a very different approach from the one that came before us. We have taken immediate, rapid action, calling for a ceasefire, making decisions on arms, which have already been mentioned, increasing the amount of aid available to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, being absolutely steadfast in our support to UNWRA and restoring funding that had been cut. Let us not think that there is no difference between the policy position taken by the Ministers here on the Front Bench and those that came before us. My predecessor, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is a good and wise man who has done much in the service of his country. Yet let us not have any illusion; there is a difference between what a Labour Government have done in relation to the middle east and what our predecessors did.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are very engaged in the questions about what must happen next in Gaza. Clearly, Gaza needs a solution that works for its people, where Gaza is governed by the Palestinians under their own legitimate authority, in safety and security. There are a wide range of international views about how we might get to that objective, and we are playing our full part diplomatically to try and ensure that there is consensus.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question. Innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and the situation is desperate; everyone in the House recognises that and we all want aid and support to reach them. Does the Minister also recognise that innocent civilians are being used continuously as human shields by Hamas, which has no regard for their safety or welfare? There are no excuses for the current situation. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) can listen to my comments and then he can comment afterwards.
Getting aid over the border is absolutely critical. In the light of the Minister’s words, he will also recognise, notwithstanding his comments about the previous Conservative Government, that that Government actively identified different ways to get aid into Gaza and secure food aid in particular. A special representative for humanitarian affairs was appointed, who was on the ground with a clear remit to address bottlenecks and those issues. There were clear proposals put to the Government of Israel to increase the delivery of aid and support. There was active dialogue and Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments. Will the Minister give details of the recent engagement on fulfilling those vital commitments, how those responsible are being held to account and whether the Foreign Office, under his Government, has identified and proposed new and alternative routes for aid delivery in recent weeks?
Importantly, the only other way to bring this appalling humanitarian conflict and suffering to a sustainable end in Gaza is for Hamas to release all the hostages. I appreciate that we have debated this difficult matter previously, but may I ask the Minister what discussions are currently taking place? The onus, as we know, is on Hamas, but what steps are the Government taking right now? There are many hostages that we know of, including Emily Damari whom we have spoken about before. All our thoughts are with those hostages and their families. We must know what the UK’s position is, especially in relation to calling out Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was right to say at the weekend that we have not seen a great deal of condemnation. May I conclude by asking the Minister what points of influence we have with Israel in particular and what his Government are doing to address this conflict?
Mr Falconer
Sorry, I was just taking a breath. On the vital question about hostages, we are continuing to use all of our influence to try to ensure an early resolution to the crisis, which has been going on for far, far too long. We must work each and every day to try to advance that situation. Clearly, given the degree of tactical leaking to the press about the latest talks, I do not want to comment on press reports.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this question. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work that she has done trying to highlight the horrors that are going on in the region.
What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s action in the Netzarim corridor, which Israel has cleared of Palestinian civilians in order to construct military roads and positions. One senior Israeli official told Haaretz that the area had been designated as a “kill zone”, with anyone who enters being shot. The same officer told Haaretz that civilians were knowingly killed and later designated as terrorists. With competitions between military units regarding who can cause the most casualties, what assessment has the Minister made of these alleged war crimes, and can he tell me what we are doing to document and to stop them?
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, as you would expect, my Department takes careful stock of all reports, including those that my hon. Friend mentions, and we include them as part of our regular assessments. We have concluded one of those assessments recently, and I have already updated the House on that.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her powerful and sustained advocacy for Palestinians. Clearly, the situation in northern Gaza is utterly dire. We need to see action from the Government in the face of a dreadful and worsening situation. At the end of December, Israeli forces closed Kamal Adwan, the last functional hospital in northern Gaza, forcibly removed patients and detained its director Dr Abu Safiya. The Minister said that he has raised this matter with the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the ambassador, but what consequences did he spell out to them if Israel fails to meet its obligations to protect civilians and sustain access to healthcare in northern Gaza?
The Minister also referred to Israeli airstrikes in the allegedly safe zone. I have on previous occasions asked the Foreign Secretary to look again at a full ban on arms sales. Will the Minister now do so? We will only see an end to violence with a ceasefire, so can the Minister update the House on progress towards the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas and a lasting ceasefire?
Finally, in the light of deep concerns about the direction that this conflict might take under the second Trump presidency and following remarks made by Israeli Government Ministers about annexation and actions on the ground in the west bank to extend illegal settlements, does the Minister agree that now is the moment to recognise Palestine on the 1967 borders?
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks 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
Priti Patel
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Once again Ministers have been reluctantly dragged to the House—in fact, I have just seen the Foreign Secretary leg it. In a world of increasing danger, change and uncertainty, why are they so keen to surrender this strategic asset? We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that this is a good deal and that it has the support of the national security apparatus—we keep hearing that, but where is the evidence to justify those hollow claims?
If the deal is so good, why have the Government been so secretive about the details? Can the Minister explain? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the House and not even come to this statement, because yet again we are responding to media reports. Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to extend the lease on the military base after 99 years, as reported? Will we and the US still have full autonomy of operations? What safeguards will be in place to stop other countries, including China, trying to establish themselves on the base or near the military base on Diego Garcia? How much is the British taxpayer going to be liable for each year and in total over 99 years, now that we know we will be paying for the privilege of giving away these islands? What exactly is our money going to be paying for?
The Government claim that they cannot disclose information about the lease, but surely the Minister can at least say—explain and be honest—where on earth the budget is coming from. If it is accounted for in the Budget forecast presented in the autumn—we all heard about those Budget forecasts recently—will the Minister tell us what the funding will be for the economic partnership and the trust fund for Chagossian people? Can the Minister also tell us what aspects of the deal the new Mauritian Government want reconsidering in the response? What consideration is being given to provide more funding or to weaken any protections that may be in this lease? Importantly, can he explain why the views of the Chagossian community have been so ignored?
When the whole world can see that this proposed deal was falling apart, the Foreign Secretary and this Government have tried to flog it constantly. Not only is this a monumental failure of statecraft from this Labour Government, but it is also a significant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary and his credibility and for the Prime Minister. Why are Labour putting our security at risk, ignoring Chagossians, and letting our standing go into freefall in this world?
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that these contributions should take no longer than two minutes.
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely not damaging our security; we are protecting it through this deal, and that is why this deal has been agreed—to protect the operation of that base; to protect it against the legal uncertainty; and to ensure it is on a safe footing well into the next century.
The right hon. Lady constantly refers to our somehow giving up the base on Diego Garcia, but the deal does exactly the opposite—[Interruption.] It protects the base on Diego Garcia. [Interruption.] It protects the base to continue operating—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gemmell, we had enough all the way through Prime Minister’s questions. If I hear any more, you are out. I seriously mean that; I am not putting up with it.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady constantly talks as if somehow we are giving up the base on Diego Garcia. That is the exact opposite of what this deal does—unlike the failure to secure the deal under the last Administration, which I might remind the House went through 11 rounds of negotiations yet failed to secure a deal to protect our base. This deal protects the base.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of other questions. She asked whether we would be able to extend the lease, and the answer is yes. Would we continue to have autonomy for our operations and those of our allies? Absolutely, yes. Are there safeguards in place to prevent foreign forces or others on the outer islands? Absolutely, yes.
I have answered the questions on costs a number of times in the House. We are very clear that it is not normal practice for the United Kingdom to confirm the value of its payments for military bases anywhere across the globe. We have not done that in the case of any other base, such as the one in Oman, and the United States itself has not confirmed the value of its direct payments for bases, including in Djibouti and the Marshall Islands.
The right hon. Lady spoke about the Chagossians and, having engaged with Chagossian communities over many years, I am confident that this deal has clear benefits for Chagossian communities and will allow the resettlement of the outer islands and the restarting of visits. She also mentioned the trust fund.
The right hon. Lady referred to media reports, and there is a huge amount of speculation. Let us get back to the actual facts. The Mauritian Prime Minister himself has confirmed to his Assembly that he is willing to conclude this deal with the United Kingdom. Those are the facts, and we will protect our national security and our interests.
Stephen Doughty
As I said, we take the interests of Chagossian communities incredibly seriously. The deal provides for Chagossians to return to the outer islands and to resettle them if Mauritius decides to pursue a programme of resettlement. Most importantly, we will get on with getting those visits going so that they can go back and visit the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate protections in place.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October that his deal is in the UK’s “security interests”. The chaos we have seen since then does nothing to assure our allies or to repel our enemies. In retrospect, does the Minister think it was wise to announce an agreement just weeks before elections in Mauritius and the US? Does he agree it would be wise for any future agreement to come before this House for scrutiny and a vote before signature?
It is important that any agreement complies with the opinion of the International Court of Justice, but self-determination remains an important principle, too. Now that negotiations have reopened, can the Minister say how the Chagossian people will be represented in those talks?
A court ruled this week that Tamil asylum seekers were illegally detained, in terrible conditions, on Diego Garcia. Will the Minister apologise for their treatment and assure the House that the camp in which they were held is now closed for good?
Stephen Doughty
Yes, indeed. As far as I am aware, that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. There has been a warm welcome for this agreement from across the United States security apparatus because it puts this base and our shared operations on a secure footing into the future. I remind the House again that that is the very reason why this Government acted and, indeed, why the previous Foreign Secretary started the process in the first place, so we are told.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Will the Minister answer this with a simple yes or no? Did the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have any conversations with Philippe Sands KC about Diego Garcia without the presence of Foreign Office or other Government civil servants? Yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
I praise my hon. Friend for his service and work. I am very clear: our allies in the United States and, indeed, our other allies who rely on the important guarantees that the base provides are supportive of the deal. It has been supported across the security apparatus at every level and that is absolutely crucial. We would not have signed up to a deal if it did not protect our interests and those of our closest ally.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Can the Minister enlighten us as to the attitude on the deal of the incoming Trump Administration? Does he know, or shall I ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker?
Does the Minister recognise that the issue is being raised by the Opposition again and again, despite the cognitive dissonance that it was they who opened the negotiations in the first place? I have to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the scaremongering and the irresponsible way in which the Opposition have conducted the debate with regard to other overseas territories and self-determination.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am a little bit concerned, as I granted the urgent question. I have taken a judgment call; I hope we are not questioning that.
Stephen Doughty
It is absolutely right that the House scrutinises these matters and it will continue to have the opportunity to do so in a range of forums; indeed, I will meet parliamentarians later today to discuss them. There appears to be collective amnesia among Conservative Members. I have raised this a number of times. Many of them served as Ministers in the previous Government and they knew exactly what the risks were to our national security.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I have just returned, hotfoot, from a very full Mar-a-Lago. I spoke to several members—senior administrators, especially—of the incoming Administration, which will be in the White House in 32 days’ time. Let me assure you that there is very deep disquiet among them all as to what this deal may mean for the long-term future of Diego Garcia and whether such a deal will hold, given the precedent of the deal break over Hong Kong. They also cannot understand why we would surrender the sovereignty of the islands on an advisory judgment from a pretty obscure court. This is about sovereignty, and you keep saying yourself that the sovereignty—
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot both stand. When you say “you”, you mean me. I have no ownership of this decision.
Nigel Farage
That is fair enough, Mr Speaker. If we respect the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, on the basis that it is what the people want, can we have a referendum of all the eligible Chagossians and let them decide the future sovereignty of the Chagos islands? That, surely, is the only fair solution.
Stephen Doughty
I have engaged with the Chagossian community twice in recent months, as I have made clear in answers to a number of parliamentary questions tabled by the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The interest of the Chagossians will continue to be at the heart of this agreement, and I take their concerns very seriously. I am being quite honest, Mr Speaker, that there are a range of views: some oppose the deal; and some are in favour of it. That is completely natural in a democratic process.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having been a member of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group ever since it was founded and had a lot of interaction with Chagossians over the past 25 years, I can assure the Minister that I have met many Chagossians in this country and in Mauritius. They were abominably treated and short-changed by the deal of 1968 and then later removed from the islands. Their one unifying cause is the right of return and settlement, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that right will be upheld. I understand all the negotiations surrounding the base, but there is no reason why they should not include the right of at least visiting, if not residing on, Diego Garcia itself.
The International Court of Justice was very clear that the decolonisation process was not properly carried out by Britain in the 1960s, when Mauritius achieved its independence, and that has to be made right. That has been voted on by the ICJ, voted on by the UN General Assembly, and endorsed by the Security Council. Is any more evidence necessary to indicate that it is clearly part of Mauritius, and that Chagossians have rights within Mauritius as well as on the Chagos Islands, where hopefully they will be able to return?
Ukraine
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week 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
Catherine West
I reassure the right hon. Lady that there is no change in the UK position. We have always said that we will support Ukraine to achieve a just peace on its own terms. The PM has been clear, including in his speech last night, that
“we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support…self-defence for as long as it takes”,
because it is for Ukraine to determine its position in any future discussions. Putin cannot be trusted—Russia has violated multiple previous agreements—and the clearest path to peace is for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine tomorrow and respect Ukrainian borders.
On the NATO membership question that the right hon. Lady poses, Ukraine’s place is in NATO. The allies agreed in Washington on 10 July that Ukraine is on an
“irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership”,
and the UK fully supports that goal.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
While Europeans spend barely the cost of two cups of coffee a week on support for the war in Ukraine, 41% of Russia’s total expenditure is spent on the war. They have had to cut social security and raise taxes to pay for the war effort. While speculation about the future of the war is understandable in the current circumstances, it is really important that we remain firm. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine? We stand with Ukraine.
Catherine West
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and its members, heard from the Foreign Secretary last week about the UK’s steadfast support for Ukraine and our strong friendship. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Select Committee Chair is aware of that given all the Ukrainians who are based in homes in her constituency, and I reassure her that we will be steadfast and keep the support going for as long as it takes.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We are watching with grave concern the most recent developments in Ukraine, and the attacks on its energy networks at the weekend show that Putin has no concern for non-combatants. The use by Russia of a hypersonic missile and the alleged change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine are clear efforts to intimidate Ukraine’s partners. Does the Minister agree that we must stand firm in our support for Ukraine?
President-elect Trump has said that he will end the war within 24 hours, and Vice President-elect Vance has said that Ukraine must give up its territory in negotiations, but ceding any territory will only give the wrong signal to other autocratic regimes around the world. We must urgently repair our broken relationship with our European allies to ensure that we act united in support of Ukraine, regardless of Trump’s potential actions. What is being done to strengthen the UK’s commitments and contribution to European collective security to support Ukraine?
We support the Bill to release the interest on frozen Russian assets that are held in the UK to help Ukraine, but will the Minister commit to work with allies to mobilise the principal, not the interest, on more than $300 billion of assets, so that there is a plan B if America withdraws financial support?