Israel and Palestine

Debate between Meg Hillier and Stephen Doughty

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly support the type of work that my hon. Friend describes; indeed, he has been involved in various initiatives over the years, in a range of conflict contexts. He will be happy to know that I have just answered some parliamentary questions on the international peace fund; that will hopefully provide him with the reassurances that he seeks.

The appalling reality in Gaza and the west bank is placing the two-state solution that we all want to see under immense strain, as are the actions of this Israeli Government. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, Gazans have endured unimaginable trauma and suffering for three years. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine whether that is so. At the same time, we are witnessing unprecedented violence on the west bank, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by settler terrorists. We condemn settler violence and settlement expansion, which are contrary to international law and a grave threat to the two-state solution.

The question has been asked: why now? Why was it necessary for the Government to act? I will set out clearly the reasons for doing so. We need to recognise that last year was a record year for new settlements. In August, we saw a long-standing red line crossed when the E1 tenders were issued for more than 1,200 homes. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that at the time of Oslo, around 270,000 settlers lived in Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 750,000, and more settlements have been approved in the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. We have seen 65 Palestinian communities completely expelled since October 2023 and a total of over 4,000 Palestinians evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions. This Government refuse to stand by and watch further suffering and the destruction of the two-state solution.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend, and the Foreign Secretary last week, for the tone in which they have set out this recent decision on the settlements. I, too, have Jewish constituents who are very scared, but it is right, as the Minister said, to call a friend out when their behaviour goes too far. We know that there are big issues about the legal definition of genocide in Palestine. I wonder whether the Minister, or the Department, has had any conversations with the Israeli Government or the ambassador to the UK about the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, and whether the Minister could update the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

In advance of the statement, when the Foreign Secretary came into office and I took on this ministerial role, we were of course in contact with the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar, I spoke with the Israeli chargé here, and we have had continual contact with the Government of Israel about our concerns and what we believe needs to change. My hon. Friend will have seen the reaction and the commentary in recent days, which was deeply regrettable and deeply unfortunate, but of course we maintain close and important links with Israel on a range of other measures. This is very much focused on the actions that we see on the ground—the actions of, for example, settler terrorists and those who are backing them in expanding those settlements, and the withholding of aid to Gaza. This is not a quarrel with Israel, or the Israeli people.

We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. It is also important to recognise our engagement on furthering the agenda of reform and inclusion in the state of Palestine; we work very closely with the Palestinian authorities, hampered as they are by the continued withholding of tax revenues and a range of other measures taken by the Israeli Government. As I said, we have been resolute that Hamas cannot be part of government going forward and must disarm. As many people have said, we have worked with the Palestinian authorities closely on the reform of prisoner payments, and welfare payments must be needs-based.

We are very clear that there needs to be reform and an inclusive process in Palestine. We want a viable, secure, prosperous and well governed Palestine going forward, and we have always been there as a partner to enable that. As for that state being threatened geographically, or in the functioning of its institutions, if we say that we believe in a two-state solution, we must believe in two states, geographically and in terms of ability to function. We have seen that goal come under even greater pressure in recent times.

We have been very clear in our engagement with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Government. I spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister recently, and have also engaged with those involved in the transitional processes that will hopefully lead to a settlement and a new Administration in Gaza. I met with the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza when I was in Egypt recently, and have discussed, even in these difficult times, the ways we can look to a positive and productive future.

I must be clear, as the Foreign Secretary was, that the official view of this Government is now that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine is unlawful. That concurs with the central finding of the June 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. We have come to that conclusion for a range of reasons. The Foreign Secretary and others have mentioned that Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist agenda and support for and facilitation of illegal settlements are key in this. That is our clear position. It is very important that I set out our values, what we aim at and the legal position, and that leads us on to the actions that we must take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree that we need to get Ukraine every support that it needs. Our support is iron-clad, which is why we hosted the coalition of the willing on Thursday. Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we are working closely with partners to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused, and we will find the lawful and most effective ways to do that.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Karim Ennarah is an internationally recognised human rights activist who has been subjected to a travel ban by Egypt and has been stuck there since 2020. What is the Foreign Office doing—or what can it do—to ensure that he is able to come to the UK to join his wife in my constituency?

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Meg Hillier and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone. I set out very clearly in my statement the answer to a number of points that he raised. Matters have also been set out very clearly by the St Helena Government. They have indicated their full agreement. In fact, they were fully part of the process and there was full consultation with them. This is a mutually beneficial win-win for the UK Government and St Helena. As I said, the Chief Minister of St Helena has said that it is in a unique position to help the UK Government, and this will strengthen its reputation and enhance its partnership with the British family.

The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions about the arrangements with Mauritius. The Foreign Secretary spoke at great length about the arrangements with BIOT recently. The agreement will go through this House in the proper way, as has been set out, and will face proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that it will attract scrutiny, and that is only right. As I explained, this is a contingency agreement for the period before any agreement with Mauritius comes into place; after that, it will take any migrants. The situation on BIOT is not suitable, long term, for migrants. We have explained that at great length.

I have to say that the Government inherited a mess, and we are taking pragmatic, sensible and proactive measures to address the situation. I am hugely grateful to St Helena for the role it is playing. This is a mutually beneficial win-win. The hon. Gentleman asked where the funds will come from. They will come from the FCDO. We already have a long-term established partnership with St Helena, and it has hugely welcomed this plan. It will help it to deal with a number of ongoing issues. I have set out the details fully. The full details of the agreement are also available from the St Helena Government.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is welcome to hear St Helena mentioned in the House. The money going there amounts to an increase of about 20% in financial aid from the UK this year, which is sorely needed in a community that is so challenged; but will the Minister explain how he will convey people from BIOT to St Helena, given the travel difficulties, and tell us what conversations he has had with the Chief Minister and her Ministers about where these people will be accommodated, if they do arrive?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in St Helena, which has been long-standing. I understand that she visited the island recently, and I welcome her ongoing engagement with the people and the Government there. We have made it clear that we would support the transfer of anyone who did arrive, but let me reiterate that no one has actually arrived on BIOT since 2022. This is a contingency measure only, and, of course, it is not a safe place for people to attempt to go to. This is about closing that route and ensuring that if anyone did make that attempt, they could go to a safe place and be properly supported. The St Helena Government have made clear how they would accommodate and integrate people in that community.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Meg Hillier and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I have hopes for some of the £100 million that HMRC has been given. In fact, having scanned the Red Book, I see that other money is being added to HMRC. As a Committee—as the right hon. Gentleman, a former Chair of the Committee, will know—we are very keen for HMRC to get money because with every £1 it gets for compliance it brings back a lot more to the Exchequer. We need to look closely at this because there is a challenge in the tax system—for example, as regards high street businesses versus online businesses. It is a complex matter and no one should imagine that there is a simple solution; I know he does not think it is simple. It is something we need to continue to engage with.

On housing, once again we have seen a focus on fuelling demand, not increasing supply. The Chancellor seems to have got off the hook on leasehold issues for constituents of mine, and those around the country, who had dangerous cladding by taking the announcement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last week as though that is the matter closed.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about leaseholders, as did the Father of the House, and she knows that many are affected in my constituency. Does she agree that it is absolutely crucial that we get clarity from the Chancellor as soon as possible about the consequentials for Wales—he talked about funding across the Union—of those announcements? There needs to be work with the Welsh Housing Minister to sort out the issues around the levy and the tax that have been proposed that are supposed to fund dealing with these fire and building safety issues. It is absolutely urgent that that is done as soon as possible.