Israel and Gaza

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Facts are important, and the facts have not changed since 7 October. It is Hamas who embed themselves in civilian areas, use civilian institutions and put their own people at risk in this conflict. It is Hamas who have committed rapes as a weapon of war. It is Hamas who are still holding innocent civilians hostage. And it is Hamas who went into Israeli communities on 7 October and butchered 1,200 people, including slicing the breasts off women and the limbs off children. On the other side, we have the democratic, liberal state of Israel with an independent judicial process and a Supreme Court that is respected internationally and that the ICC is supposed to respect. Yet there are people in here who, from day one, have done very little to call out some of the other behaviour and everything to hold Israel to a standard they do not hold others to. That is why the Czech Prime Minister and the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please can everybody focus on a question? I am not quite sure that I heard a question there—[Interruption.] I think the Minister has heard enough to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

May I ask Members again to focus on the question please? Please also remember that you have to have been here for the entirety of the statement to ask a question—I am taking your word on that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Other countries have now suspended arms sales. Other countries have restored the funding going forward to UNRWA. Why are we now leading from behind rather than leading from the front on this? Should we not now do the right thing, suspend arms sales and refund UNRWA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I apologise to those Members who did not get in today. We will take a note of your names and get you in at another time. We must now move on.

[George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for their speeches today. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for her support. I know that her personal commitment to this issue, from the very many debates we have shared and the all-party parliamentary groups we have worked on together, is genuine and profound. I thank, too, my right hon. Friend the Minister. May I also ask her to convey my thanks to all the Ministers in the FCDO, who have strongly supported the Bill to ensure its passage through this place?

Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their wonderful support, and the Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, for her unflappable counsel and patience. Thanks, too, to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her terrific and efficient support, and to my private secretary, to Sue Breeze in the FCDO, and, finally, to the Prime Minister’s deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, for his unfailingly wise and calm counsel.

This short Bill embeds our collective commitment and solidarity with individuals across the world who courageously stand for their faith or belief, and do so suffering discrimination, harassment, persecution or worse.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Another person who I know would have been here, and who it is right to remember, is Sir David Amess. He was a huge supporter of the mover of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

War in Gaza

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The roles and rights of British civil servants in these matters are very clearly codified, and the Government respect that absolutely.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Deputy Foreign Secretary for coming here today and responding to the urgent question for a few minutes short of an hour and a half.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is on this topic.

On Friday Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, published a letter pointing out the uncertainties and bias relating to the casualty statistics produced by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Many academic statisticians have also pointed out that the Hamas figures are metronomically linear and obviously fabricated. Members on all sides have used these terrorist figures, some with careless abandon, but Sir Robert said that

“it would be desirable for Ministers, Shadow Ministers and other Parliamentarians to state the source of any estimates they use in the public domain and to recognise”

their limitations. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, advise Members to heed the urging of the UK Statistics Authority and to be highly cautious about using Hamas casualty statistics?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. As he knows, comments made by Members in the Chamber are not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has successfully put his own view on the record.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which I will deal with as best I can. He indicated just two or three of the defects in this appalling legislation. He was right to identify them. He did not ask me whether the legislation is in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In fact, it is not; the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves. The British Government declared in 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the Sino-British joint declaration.

My right hon. Friend asked about the rule of English common law and the warnings given by the Government of the United States. The British business community is extremely experienced and well able to reach conclusions for itself, but if ever the British Government’s advice were sought, we would always give it. He talked about targeted sanctions. I know that he is sanctioned; I hope that he will bear that with the necessary fortitude. It is outrageous that he and others should be sanctioned in that way. We do not discuss our approach to sanctions on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that we are keeping all such matters under regular review.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Hong Kong’s new national security law is the latest degradation of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. It is causing fear and unease not only to Hongkongers, but to UK and other foreign nationals living and working in Hong Kong, as well as international businesses and organisations operating there, and many outside Hong Kong. Article 23’s provisions apply to Hong Kong residents and businesses anywhere in the UK. We have seen where that can lead; there was the frankly appalling attack on a protester in Manchester in December 2022. What steps are the UK Government taking to counter the threat of transnational repression, especially towards the 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK via the British national overseas passport route? Many will feel unsafe and unprotected, and are denied access even to their own pensions. I ask on their behalf, does the Minister accept that the law not only “undermines” the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, as the Foreign Secretary put it, but represents a clear breach? If so, will he say that to his Chinese counterparts?

The Minister says that he does not talk about sanctions, but it is of concern that although the US thinks sanctions are appropriate, the UK Government seem to be sitting on their hands. In the constant absence of the Foreign Secretary, can I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary accepts that his “golden era” with China was a strategic mistake that undermined British influence over Hong Kong, set us on a rodeo of inconsistency towards China and failed to stand up for the UK’s national security interests? Can we expect the Foreign Secretary to deliver the strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach that is needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with him about the nature of China. The question was whether China would respect the Sino-British joint declaration and recognise the uniquely brilliant features of Hong Kong as an international trading city. It is a matter of great regret that politics have trumped economics in that respect, as perhaps it always will in the case of China.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent question. Let me try to get some answers from the Government about a response to what communist China has done, and critically what we can do in the UK about Confucius Institutes. Back in May 2022, the Open University bragged about being the first online Confucius Institute. Until 2023, the Government were allocating at least £27 million to Mandarin-language teaching, channelled through university-based Confucius Institutes. Will the Minister confirm that that has stopped? There is some confusion about that.

In relation to the comments made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Governments of countries such as the United States and others believe that sanctions are possible. The Netherlands and Germany have discouraged their universities from engaging with the Confucius Institutes; Sweden has gone as far as I would, by banning them. On providing answers, there are practical things that the United Kingdom can do about what is going on in Hong Kong. Will the Government consider ending the rights of Confucius Institutes in the UK? And will the Minister clarify the Government’s allocation of funding to Mandarin-language teaching through those institutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

At the end of his interesting contribution, the hon. Gentleman asked a philosophical question, and I think he seeks a rhetorical answer. By the very way in which he expressed his question he made clear precisely what the dangers are. We have seen throughout the trial of Jimmy Lai that this is a political prosecution. Once again, we call for his immediate release. Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about this being a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, a point that was made earlier. As the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves, it may or may not be a breach technically, but we have been perfectly clear since 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the declaration.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and the questions of others present.

Bills Presented

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Victoria Atkins, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Gillian Keegan, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, Michael Tomlinson, Andrea Leadsom and Gareth Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the supply of tobacco, vapes and other products, including provision prohibiting the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009; and to enable product requirements to be imposed in connection with tobacco, vapes and other products.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 189) with explanatory notes (Bill 189-EN).

Private Parking (Regulator) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Emma Hardy presented a Bill to establish a regulator of privately-owned car parks; to make provision about the powers and duties of that regulator; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 185).

Ukraine

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee very much for her perceptive and wise comments. To take her last point first, she is of course absolutely right that we are hoping Congress will follow the lead by passing the relevant Bills swiftly, following its return from recess. United States’s support is absolutely vital for Ukraine’s success, as she so rightly says. I am very glad that she has been able to see for herself what is happening. Sometimes, we understate the extent to which Putin is being beaten back. Although the Russian advance into Avdiivka did take place, those 2 km cost between 40,000 and 50,000 Russian deaths.

One fifth of the Black sea fleet has been destroyed, Crimea is no longer safe for the Russian military to operate in and grain supplies are moving across the Black sea. Revenues for Ukraine are at pre-conflict levels, and unlike in year one, this winter the lights stayed on and the bombings by Russia were unable to achieve the same effect as they achieved before. This war is not affordable for Russia: 40% of Government spending is now spent on the war, or 6% of GDP. This is all in pursuit of the worst atrocities—unmatched—that we have seen in Europe over the last 80 years. It is important to point out that Britain has supplied not only £2.5 billion of military matériel, announced by the Prime Minister, to be supplied this year, but 300,000 artillery shells. That is a measure of our determination to ensure that Ukraine has everything we can offer it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I want to put on the record, once again, our steadfast and unyielding support for the people of Ukraine in defending themselves, their homes and their country against Putin’s illegal and aggressive war. I share the concern expressed by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), that Putin’s plan appears to be to keep the war going until Ukraine’s democratic allies lose interest and somehow let support slip away. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

I have spoken to colleagues who have just returned from Kyiv—they were attending events to mark the second anniversary of the war—and they report that, at this critical time, Ukraine needs our help now every bit as much as it did on the day Putin attacked. First and foremost, we must guard against complacency. We cannot let the Ukrainian people down simply because we lose interest, because if Ukraine loses, we all lose.

I very much welcome the UK Government’s financial and military support package and the new €50 billion multi-year funding package from the European Union, as well as the fact that Germany has committed to doubling its military aid. I share the Minister’s hope that many of Ukraine’s allies will now follow that lead, most notably the United States. Its prevarication has surely only emboldened Ukraine’s enemies and depressed the Ukrainian people further.

However, there is still so much we can do. I take the Minister’s point about the sanctions regime, but what about using frozen Russian assets to assist Putin’s war victims, most notably the £2 billion sitting in a London bank two years on from the sale of Chelsea football club? As we look ahead, has the FCDO’s atrocity prevention monitoring body been keeping track of breaches of international law and war crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine? With a marked increase in the targeting of civilians in Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv and Lviv, are the UK Government preparing a case for the International Criminal Court against Russia for the deliberate targeting and bombardment of civilians in Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will do everything we possibly can.

I end by saying that the key steps we will take will be to strengthen Ukraine in its fight, to ensure that Ukraine wins the war if Putin prolongs it and to lay the foundations for Ukraine’s long-term future. Recently, we have seen British International Investment—the Government’s development finance institution—and the International Financial Corporation from the World Bank joining together to facilitate trade finance. We saw the $500 million UK loan guarantee via the World Bank. We are determined not only to prosecute in every way we can support for Ukraine in this existential struggle, but to look to the future and lay these foundations for Ukraine in the longer term.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions. Slava Ukraini.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The recent ICJ ruling means that the UK, as a signatory to the genocide convention, is legally obliged to take measures in the face of Israel’s failure to prevent acts that may be found to amount to genocide. I have been contacted about this issue by many constituents, asking for me to support a ceasefire, but I want to read out the email from one constituent. She contacted me, and I spoke to her yesterday by phone. Her email says:

“I am writing to you again as a Jewish constituent urging you to join your fellow MPs in calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I, like many in my community, have been utterly shaken by these months of violence. As I write over 28,000 Palestinians have been killed—12,000 of them children—and over 1.9 million displaced. Jews in the UK have been in a collective state of shock and distress since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th. Many in my community lost family and friends in the attack. Yet this only strengthens my resolve to end the utterly heartbreaking violence Israel is unleashing against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This is not a war. I pray for the safety of both Palestinians in Gaza and the hostages in captivity, but only a ceasefire can provide the relief they desperately need. Lives, livelihoods and families are being destroyed; the very fabric of Palestinian society in Gaza is being upended. Such a policy of revenge and collective punishment achieves safety for nobody. The UK government is responsible for ensuring international law is adhered to—yet every moment it fails to advance a ceasefire, it is complicit in the perpetration of war crimes and the killing of civilians. The ongoing escalation of violence in Rafah risks further mass atrocities. This cannot go on. As a Jewish constituent I thank you, the First Minister, and the SNP for your actions so far in working towards a ceasefire, the return of the surviving hostages, and a lasting peace. I urge you, my MP, and my government to demand an immediate ceasefire, the safe return of hostages, and the urgent provision of substantial life-saving aid to Palestinians in Gaza.”

This is quite simply the only way we can end this violence and start to fight for a future that guarantees freedom, equality and dignity for all Palestinians and Israelis.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Three-minute limit. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Late last night I returned from Cairo, which I had visited as one of the members of the International Development Committee to listen to the experience of heads of non-governmental agencies and UN agencies working in Gaza. They described a man-made humanitarian catastrophe, and I am ashamed of the moral cowardice in the response of those in the world who first failed to prevent, and are now failing to stop, the atrocity unfolding before our eyes. I have heard at first hand how Gaza is characterised by death and destruction. Bombs and bullets have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people. Whole families have been wiped out and whole cities left uninhabitable. Those who survive have been horrifically injured and left displaced with nowhere to go. Nothing is off limits for Israeli forces, which have been targeting and destroying places of worship, schools and hospitals. Disease, malnutrition and starvation have become inevitable. In these conditions, hope has been extinguished for so many. Time and again, some of the most experienced humanitarian workers—people who have borne witness to the world’s worst disasters and conflicts—have told me that they have never experienced anything like the horrors of Gaza.

Only 150 aid trucks a day are getting into Gaza. The UK says that it is supplying aid, but that aid is sitting in trucks at the border. Even so, the destroyed infrastructure, the lack of security due to the constant threat of Israeli bombardment, and the huge number of people contained within such a small area mean that aid cannot be distributed once it arrives.

The message from aid workers is clear: an immediate ceasefire must be implemented to stop the slaughter and to deliver lifesaving aid to the trapped people of Gaza. How anyone in this Chamber could vote against this basic notion of humanity is beyond me and my constituents.

Where else in the world has there been a war in which the majority of people killed are women and children? They are hemmed in with no escape and, as one witness told me, they are being killed like “fish in a barrel.” Andrew Gilmour, the former UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, told “Newsnight” last night that the killing of women and children “was probably the highest kill rate of any military killing anybody since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.”

In Cairo, I was told of ambulances and field hospitals being targeted, of people with white flags being shot on the spot and of children as young as five being pronounced dead with single sniper shots to the head. This is not a proportionate response. It is collective punishment, pure and simple, and it is a breach of international humanitarian law. Who here honestly believes that this immense suffering is part of a just war?

I have listened to Prime Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber rightly call for justice for Russian war crimes in Ukraine, despite there being no judicial judgment. Conversely, I have voted to recognise the genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, despite the UK Government refusing to recognise it, as they say that a genocide can only be determined by a court. Yet when the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide, as there is a plausible risk, the UK Government said that

“Israel’s actions…cannot be described as a genocide”.

And the UK Government have not publicly called on Israel to comply with the court’s ruling—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have to leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I was playing party politics. I am not in a political party. He should know that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair; that is part of the argument.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Member can still play political football.

We need a Palestinian state. We need to get justice and an end to this conflict, which has lasted for seven decades. As those on both sides of the House have said, the brutal reality, and the real tragedy, is that there is a lot of consensus but the extreme voices in the debate have been the loudest. That is true in Israel and Palestine as well. It is a simple fact that the moderate voices on both sides have been drowned out for two decades. Those who believe in a two-state solution have been left at the edges. Both the Netanyahu Government, together with his allies, and Hamas have thrived on, and needed, each other’s extremism. Enough is enough. Let peace prevail, and let us have a ceasefire now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady’s motion, which she is asking me and other Members to vote on tonight, does not contain a single word about 7 October. It is a denial, and it is invisible because it is as if it did not happen. That is what we are being asked to vote on tonight by the SNP.

The tragedy of the thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza is the moral responsibility of Hamas, just as the Israeli casualties are the moral responsibility and the actual responsibility of Hamas, who have deliberately and cynically initiated a high-intensity conflict in one of the most densely populated areas on earth specifically to maximise civilian deaths and to turn global opinion against Israel. Today, Israel faces attacks on eight fronts: Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank, Yemen and Iran, plus the one the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute wants us to open up as another front, which is the parliamentary front against Israel. He wants us to oppose Israel in this place. The SNP fails to recognise that this House can be pro-peace and pro-ceasefire, but also recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is a shame that the SNP could not do that tonight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Rob Roberts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker has pointed out time and again that we must use temperate language, particularly in debates that are very heated, so I would ask Members to be very careful. I did not hear what was said, but I must reinforce: please use temperate language whether you are on your feet or you are sitting down yelling something. I would prefer you not to yell anything, but please use temperate language.

[Mr Roberts]

Last week, I wrote to Israel’s ambassador in the UK. It occurred to me that, for as long as I can remember, we have heard that Israeli military strength is among the greatest in the region, and that Israeli intelligence networks, led by Mossad, one of the largest espionage agencies in the world, are second to none in gathering information. In my letter to the ambassador, I asked why, with such a strong military that is presumably led by such a brilliantly informed network of intelligence, it was not possible to be surgical and precise about the strikes. I explained that I would be embarrassed, if I was one of them, not to be able to tell the difference between an innocent civilian and an enemy combatant.

Can one of the world’s greatest intelligence networks really not isolate and take out these terrorists without needing to simply level entire city blocks? If they cannot strike with more precision, I said, arguably they should not be striking at all, because every time they do so, they put innocent people in harm’s way. Now, in a completely foreseeable and obvious development, having been told to flee south by Israel, the plan seems to be to attack the southernmost city. I have to say that, if I were in the Israeli military and intelligence services, I would be ashamed of some of the things I was being asked to do. If I was in the Israeli military command, I would hope that I would be brave enough to say, “Stop. This isn’t right. This is no longer self-defence.”

A friend of mine asked me, “Why do you think they’ll listen to your letter when they have disregarded everyone else?” I replied, “Well, they probably won’t, any more than either side will listen to calls for a ceasefire.” She said, “If it’s your view that either way both sides will ignore calls whatever, but you believe that stopping the killing is right, and if it was your family in Gaza, why would you not vote for a ceasefire, at least for your own conscience?” That simple point of logic from my friend won the debate, and has shaped the speech I am making today.

As I have mentioned family, I would like to take a moment to metaphorically reach out across the Chamber, as I am sure the whole House does, to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) not only for facing the horror of having family trapped and, indeed, killed in the region, but for having had to deal with ignorant and bigoted comments in media interviews because of her Palestinian heritage. It may not always feel like it, but I am sure that if we allowed ourselves to be humans and not politicians, the whole House would conclude that we are all with her and our hearts go out to her, as indeed they do to the families of the hostages held by Hamas.

In the words of Martin Luther King:

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

I hope that this House can stop its foolish bickering, and reinforce a clear and unequivocal message of hope for the people embroiled in this conflict. I hope that they can recognise the sanctity of all life, and bring this madness to an end. As the right hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said earlier, we must not dance on the head of a pin about the wording; we must get behind a simple message of peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Logan]

I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. Members on my side of the House have talked about the motion being merely symbolic or virtue signalling, but at the end of the day we are MPs not to fix potholes or to follow up on whether a hedge is growing into next-door’s garden; we are here to protect lives. We have the opportunity today to call for an immediate ceasefire. Yes, that may just be signalling to an extent, but that signal must be given today to Israel, one of our close allies in the region. Twenty years back, with the United States in Iraq, we thought we were being the good friend by going along with them. No. The better friend says, “No, this must stop now; this must stop today.” A ceasefire must happen now.

No longer in good conscience can I continue to back in public the line that Government Members have taken, regrettably. Even from a geostrategic perspective, I do not see what favours that does for Israel in the long term. Israel has had a difficult time in the region that it is sat in, but this will not create any more friends for Israel. I come from Northern Ireland—I see the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), a villager from the same neck of the woods as me—where, in the last 30 to 40 years, 3,500 people died in the troubles, and I know the trauma that has caused. But in five months, 30,000 people have died—how will people ever get over that? In our experience, Hamas are bad people, and they have to be called out. The people behind them have to be obliterated. We do not want to work with Hamas.

The SNP motion could have gone further to call out Hamas. We in Northern Ireland have dealt with those troubles, when very bad people hid behind political leadership. The ceasefire must happen. That is also in the interests of Israel in the long term. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to step up and take a leadership position with other middle powers, not wait for the next United States election.

In my own good conscience, I cannot acquiesce to the Government’s position on Gaza anymore, and neither can the people of Bolton. Although you sit diagonal to me today, you are not diametrically opposed to me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Alan Brown.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are no further speakers on the Government side, so if Members can say what they need to say in fewer than three minutes, they will be helping their colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I have listened intently to those Members who are supporting the Government amendment, and they are asking us to ignore two key facts. They are asking us to ignore the International Criminal Court investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel, and they are asking us to ignore the order from the International Court of Justice, which urges the UK Government to uphold their own legal obligations to prevent Israel from committing genocide.

Difficult though it may seem for some, the act of voting today for an immediate ceasefire is the simplest of actions required of Members of this House. The harder task is finding an effective means of applying pressure to do so. We could start with halting the provision of arms to Israel. The UK Government already have the means to do so through articles 6 and 7 of the arms trade treaty, which they have signed and which ban sales where there is a concern that arms may be used to breach international law.

A YouGov poll in December showed that 71% of the UK public believe that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, with only 12% against. The military escalation since then, and the impending threat to Rafah, have only strengthened those views. As Oxfam pointed out, more than 100 countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, support an immediate ceasefire. These numbers will grow and we may increasingly find ourselves on the wrong side of history and humanity.

Both the international community and our own individual constituents are aware of what is continuing to happen. Israel has intensified the airstrikes on Rafah ahead of its threatened ground offensive. Let us remember that Rafah has 1.5 million people, including half a million children, all shielding in 20% of the Gaza Strip, without access to adequate shelter, water, food, and medical facilities. That needs to stop.

I am blessed to represent a diverse constituency. Like so many others, I have had local organisations write to me. I wish to end with the words from the Crookston Community Group, which is represented by people of all faiths and of none.

“In the midst of conflict and turmoil, the pursuit of peace becomes more crucial than ever. A ceasefire between Palestinians and Israelis is not just a regional issue; it is a call for humanity to come together and prioritise dialogue over violence. By embracing peace, we can pave the way for a brighter future for all mankind.”

I ask all Members to support the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. After Richard Foord, there will be only Labour Members left to speak. If they can lose a couple of paragraphs from their speeches, they will be really helping their colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

In January, I visited Israel and saw for myself the aftermath of Hamas’s attacks last October. In the kibbutz Kfar Aza, I walked the burned-out streets and saw the homes, razed to the ground. This was not the scene of a battle, but of a well-planned and ruthlessly executed massacre: a pogrom. Surprised as they slept in their beds, the residents had no chance to defend themselves. More than 60 people were murdered, 20 were taken hostage, and an unknown number of women were subjected to horrific acts of rape, torture and mutilation. Such scenes were repeated throughout the border communities of southern Israel, and at the Nova music festival, where more than 360 young people were murdered. In Tel Aviv, I visited the exhibition that tells the story of the festival and the appalling events that unfolded there. Our guide, a survivor who had helped to organise the festival, told us that she had lost so many friends in those few bloody hours that she had to choose which of their funerals to attend.

We urgently need an end to the fighting, and a permanent and sustainable ceasefire in Gaza, but that requires the perpetrators of the 7 October attacks to be disarmed, and to have no part in the future governance of Gaza, so that they can never again—as they have repeatedly pledged to—repeat the horrific crimes that they committed against Israeli men, women and children nearly 140 days ago. It also requires Hamas to immediately release the more than 130 hostages that they continue to hold—hostages who we know Hamas have beaten, tortured and raped. Among the hostages is the British citizen Nadav Popplewell, whose sister Ayelet Svatitzky I met in Israel. Ayelet’s 79-year-old mother, Channah, was also seized at the kibbutz Nirim, and her brother Roi was shot and killed behind his home at the kibbutz.

I also want to mention events closer to home. Within hours of the Hamas attacks, anti-Israel protesters massed outside the Israeli embassy in London, and they have continued to demonstrate in our towns and cities ever since. Some have chanted antisemitic slogans and carried racist signs. Others have glorified Hamas’s butchery, and many more appear not to have noticed, or not to have been concerned, by what was occurring around them. This Manichean view of the conflict, which seeks to cast one side as victim and the other as villain, will do nothing to promote or further a desperately needed, genuine peace process that fulfils the Israelis’ right to security and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those in this House who take a different view on Israel’s actions in Gaza. We all feel distraught at the suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza. We all know that there must be a massive and immediate increase in humanitarian aid. We all fear the impact of a significant Israeli military operation in Rafah; however, the SNP motion is one-sided, and does not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Sam Tarry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has on several occasions stood before this House and professed his support for a two-state solution to the crisis in the middle east. On that, I agree with him wholeheartedly. A viable and sovereign Palestine co-existing with a safe and secure Israel is the only path towards peace that remains open. Indeed, when I put that very question to the Prime Minister in October, during a statement to the House, he responded that he would recognise Palestine as a state when the time is right. If the time is not right now, when is it going to be?

It is precisely for that reason that I will vote to support an immediate ceasefire today. The violence in Gaza has now left over 30,000 dead, with millions displaced. It is therefore clear that if the violence continues, the prospect of a two-state solution diminishes, along with any hope of a lasting and just peace for the region. That is why I believe any commitment to a two-state solution must be more than words; it must be matched by actions and deeds. The best action towards that goal would be for the UK to work towards an immediate ceasefire, the release of any remaining hostages, and the recognition of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

The vast majority of British people want a ceasefire. The path to peace will be a political solution: violence and military action will not achieve peace. The members of the United Nations Security Council want a ceasefire, yet the USA has vetoed it twice, with the UK abstaining on 8 December and again yesterday. I say to this Government that they should get off the fence and be on the right side of history. That said, while a ceasefire is clearly a necessary condition for peace, it is not sufficient. The recent ICJ ruling states that it is “plausible” that acts that could amount to genocide are being committed in Gaza against the people of Palestine. The British Government must therefore end the sale of arms to Israel—weapons that are being used to kill innocent Palestinians.

Finally, in making these demands I am not speaking for myself. Over 10,000 constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green have recently written to me calling for a ceasefire, for the recognition of Palestinian statehood, and for the ending of the arms trade to Israel. Never have I witnessed such passionate advocacy on any issue by the people of Birmingham, Hall Green, and I am proud to stand in the Chamber today to be their voice and their vote in this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups are expected at 5.50 pm, and the Division is expected from 6.10 pm. Contributions a lot shorter than three minutes will help—please look towards two minutes.

Iran: Freedom and Democracy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The position here is that the Iranian Government are funding professional gangs to inflict attacks and violence on individuals in this country. They have neither mercy nor morals in how far they will go. A Spanish politician and vocal opponent of the Iranian regime was shot outside his home by a criminal gang employed by the IRGC. We must not allow such despicable attacks to occur on domestic soil. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country are being followed home or having to suppress their freedom of expression for fear of being targeted. I urge the Government to tackle this issue with urgency.

The Iranian authorities have been targeting BBC Persian staff, who are predominantly based in the UK, and their families since 2009 in an attempt to intimidate them into stopping their work as journalists. The intimidation escalated in 2017 and has been at an unprecedented level since September 2022. BBC Persian staff frequently receive credible death threats, threats of horrific violence, thousands of abusive comments and increased threats to their personal safety on online platforms.

With several colleagues, I was a target of the Iranian regime when we attended the annual gathering of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, with delegations from almost every major democracy, back in 2016. An Iranian diplomat tried to bomb the conference. He had the audacity to smuggle the bomb through security in diplomatic bags. Thankfully, the Belgian and French authorities apprehended the terrorist and no one was harmed. Had he succeeded, there would have been a world war.

The Iranians assumed responsibility, and they forced the Belgian authorities to hand over this despicable so-called diplomat after they kidnapped two Belgian journalists and held them as hostages. If this does not highlight to the Government that we cannot engage in dialogue with the Iranian regime, I do not know what will. The key point is that the current policy on Iran is not working. Its influence is stretching across the middle east and further. It is time to look for an alternative solution, and I urge the Government to proscribe this merciless regime with utmost priority.

I am aware that we have already sanctioned individuals, but we must go further. Until we start cracking down on the IRGC, it will continue to extort and suppress innocent people. Its military capacity is growing and, even if it does not already possess a nuclear capability—I have my doubts—its nuclear capability will also grow.

The international community must wake up and protect countries such as Israel by killing the initial piece of the chain. Without funding and support from Iran, terrorists like Hamas will not be able to carry out their dreadful attacks. Iran will feel the pinch only if there is full proscription, and I reiterate my plea for the Government to do so. Hezbollah is already proscribed, and it is the birthchild of the IRGC. The IRGC must therefore be proscribed, too.

I have heard the rumours that the Government are holding off such action in order to continue a line of dialogue, but there is no honest or trustworthy dialogue to be had with this terrorist regime. Instead, we must show Iran that such action is not and will not be tolerated. Fifty per cent. of the IRGC’s training efforts are on indoctrination, creating more ruthless, more radical and more committed generations. The dangers are only increasing, so we must act before it is too late.

It is high time that we work together to banish this unlawful regime, to protect innocent protestors and to champion free democratic rights across the world—we often take those rights for granted. To oppose the Iranian regime is no longer a political calculation but a simple humanitarian choice. We must support the Iranian people and acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian opposition if we are ever to see a free and democratic Iran.

I look forward to hearing from colleagues on both sides of the House. I know that several Members who wanted to take part in this debate have unfortunately had to leave, but I hope we will have excellent replies from my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, the shadow Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Paisley, during your intervention on Mr Blackman you made reference to an individual member of the secretariat to an all-party parliamentary group. It is a very serious allegation. If you have any correspondence or information in relation to that individual, could you please pass it to Mr Speaker? Inform me, and I will follow it through.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you are taking it seriously. I have made arrangements for a substantial dossier of information to be left with Mr Speaker this afternoon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I know that the hon. Member feels passionately about this issue, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East feel strongly about it as well. That is exactly the point that I was going to come to.

Several Members have raised the issue of the IRGC, which we have already sanctioned in its entirety. The hon. Member for Halifax will be familiar with what I am about to say, but I will put it on the record. We have real concerns about the intent and activities of the IRGC. The separate list of terrorist organisation proscriptions is kept under review, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is under consideration. We are actively disrupting Iranian malign activity by means of a range of tools. This is about using effective measures to curb Iran’s destabilising activity, which has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Halifax and others throughout the debate. The UK maintains sanctions on more than 400 Iranian individuals, entities and aligned groups for roles in weapons proliferation, regional conflicts, human rights violations and terrorism, and more than 47 IRGC officials have been sanctioned since October 2022.

Comments have been made about Iran’s interference in other countries, notably, today, in Albania, which is typical of its nefarious tactics. We support partners in the face of pressure from Iran, and, following the visit of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and that of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we will be interested to find out whether there is any other intelligence that we need to learn from; if so, we will gather it in. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is no longer in the Chamber, raised a sad case involving the secretariat of an all-party parliamentary group. We would be very interested to see the dossier that the APPG has given to Mr Speaker if that is appropriate, and we will do anything we can to follow that up.

Points have also been made about Iran’s nuclear programme, which has never been more advanced than it is today and which threatens international peace and security. Iran’s behaviour since those negotiations has made progress much more difficult, and we are working with our international partners to co-ordinate our response. We are clear about the fact that Iran poses an unacceptable threat to Israel, for instance through its long-term support for Hamas. In December, designations were made under our new Iran sanctions regime, targeting the head of the IRGC Quds Force, IRGC individuals, and an entity linked to Iran’s relationship with proxy groups such as Hamas.

Other points were made about what we are doing in the light of the action in which Iran has been engaging through actors such as the Houthis. The targeted strikes, which have been supported by Members on both sides of the House, have been, as we have said today, limited, necessary and proportionate. Military action is, of course, always a last resort. We continue our diplomatic efforts, talking to countries in the region such as Oman and Turkey—the hon. Member for Caerphilly was interested in these points—but we provided warning after warning, including at the UN Security Council and directly to the Iran Foreign Minister, yet the Houthis have continued the attacks. If necessary, the UK will not hesitate to respond again in self-defence; we cannot stand by and allow these attacks to go unchallenged.

In conclusion, it is clear that Iranian authorities are imposing policies at odds with the values of freedom and democracy. As has been said across the Chamber, their upcoming elections are clearly not going to be free and fair, and will not address the concerns set out in this debate. For as long as that remains the case, we will continue to work across government, and with the international community, to hold Iran to account for its unacceptable behaviour. The repression of women and girls, the uninhibited use of the death penalty and violent crackdowns on dissenting voices within Iran cannot go unchallenged, but that is also true of Iran’s behaviour in the region and beyond. We will continue to work with international partners to make it clear to Iran that we will not stand for destabilising activity that threatens our values and our security, and indeed the security of the region. Like the Iranian people, we want to see an Iran that respects the rights and freedoms of its citizens, and respects international law and norms. That is why we are urging its leaders to listen to the Iranian people, who are calling for a better future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the dossier that is being passed to the Speaker in relation to the all-party parliamentary group. For the remaining two minutes, I call Bob Blackman.

Situation in the Red Sea

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Perfectly done, Sir Julian.

[John Healey]

One other way of stretching the limits of a tightly drawn debate is experienced interventions of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated. One advantage of debates such as this is that we hear from the Government not just at the start of the debate, but at the end, so we can look forward to the Minister picking up and responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s question when he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has insights into the situation that are rare, even in this House, from his own experience and his particular interest. He is totally right. It is not just about the risks of Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq: the Iranian interests in Iraq, and the attacks on American bases and personnel—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some of those bases are shared with UK personnel—constitute one of the flashpoints and risks of wider escalation. Mercifully, none of those attacks has led to any deaths, but they have led to some injuries. Given that we have 2,500 UK personnel in the region, and given the heightened risk they may face, it would be good to hear what additional protections and measures the Defence Secretary is ensuring are put in place.

Our UK military presence in the Red sea protects international shipping and strengthens regional security. If anyone doubts that, consider what the consequences would be of no action being taken to deal with the Houthi attacks. That extremist force, backed by Iran and with a long record of brutal piracy in the region, could attack commercial ships at will and attack our Navy’s ships without consequence. They are targeting the ships of all nations, threatening the freedom of global trade and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why last month, 20 countries joined the Red sea maritime protection force, Operation Prosperity Guardian; it is why this month, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions and demanding that their attacks stop; and it is why the UK and the US, with operational support from four other nations, have conducted joint strikes on Houthi missile sites, command centres and weapons stores.

We back the two UK-US joint air strikes carried out this month. We accept that they were targeted, necessary and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life, and we will judge any future UK military action on its merits. Ministers have said that the aim of these strikes is first to degrade Houthi capabilities, and secondly to deter their attacks. We accept that the attacks were justified, but we ask the Defence Secretary to confirm how they were also effective. We know that deterrence is a sliding scale, so we ask the Defence Secretary how the Government will guard against Britain being sucked deeper into the Yemeni conflict.

We also back the leading role that the Royal Navy plays in the continuing military defence of shipping from all nations against further Houthi missiles, drones and attack boats. However, the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world for nearly 80 years. What action are the Government taking to persuade other countries to join the maritime protection force? What are they doing to persuade those already involved to deploy more ships? What efforts are they making to encourage other nations with a big global trade interest to play a part in protecting freedom of navigation and using their influence to stop the Houthi attacks, and how long does the Defence Secretary expect Operation Prosperity Guardian to be needed?

The US aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been essential to the operations to date in the Red sea. Is the UK carrier ready to deploy to the Red sea if required? Has the Defence Secretary made the decision to not deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth, and if not, why not? A UK destroyer, HMS Diamond—to which the Defence Secretary has paid tribute—has also played a hugely important and impressive part in the maritime task force. She has been in the Red sea for nearly two months and will need to be rotated out. Do we have a second UK destroyer available to replace HMS Diamond in the Red sea, and if not, what will replace her? If that is to be HMS Richmond, when will she arrive in the Red sea, and how will that change the capabilities that we can contribute to Operation Prosperity Guardian?

We must cut the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi militia. The US intercepted a weapons shipment about two weeks ago, and the UK has successfully done similarly in the past. What is the UK’s capability and plan for doing so again now? Rather as the Defence Secretary indicated, military action on its own cannot solve the problems in the region, so what diplomatic action are the Government taking to pressure the Houthis to cease their attacks, to settle the civil war in Yemen, and to pressure Iran to stop supplying weapons and intelligence to the Houthis?

Like the Defence Secretary today and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I totally reject the Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking oil tankers and seizing ships for least five years, not just in the past 109 days since 7 October. These attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people. We want the Gaza fighting to stop, with a humanitarian truce now and then a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent citizens, get all remaining hostages out and get much more aid into Gaza. This is what we have been calling for in public, and what we have been working for in private. Our leader, our shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and our shadow International Development Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have all been out in the region in the last three months.

The humanitarian agonies of the Palestinians in Gaza are now extreme. Parents are starving, children are drinking dirty water and there are even reports of amputations being carried out without anaesthetic. More aid has to get to Palestinians now. Surely Britain can do more. There have been just four RAF aid flights and one Navy shipment in nearly four months. We got 100 tonnes of aid to Turkey in the first 10 days after the earthquake last year. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Armed Forces Minister has told me recently that the RAF and the Navy stand by ready to do more, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has not asked it to do so. What is going on? There should be a steady stream of aid from Britain. Our aid efforts must be accelerated.

For long-term peace, there has to be a political process, and one that has the capacity, conviction and commitment to turn the rhetoric around two states living side-by-side in peace into reality. Many across this House, like all in the Labour party present, will have found the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent rejection of the two-state settlement utterly unacceptable and wrong. Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is the only long-term hope for peace and stability, and for normalisation for both Israelis and Palestinians. If elected to form the Government, Labour will lead a new push for peace, working with international allies, in the confidence that, as the Prime Minister said to this House yesterday, we in this country and we in this House are

“united in support of a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 152.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members can see, 14 Members wish to participate in this debate. Although I am trying not to put a time limit on people’s speeches, if they could show some self-discipline, we will get everybody in with a decent amount of time. I call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I also agree with my hon. Friend.

The deaths that continue to occur daily in Gaza have so far been mostly the result of military action, but we have reached a point where the number of deaths through privation and disease is overtaking them. There is a strong parallel with what happened in Yemen, where about 150,000 people—mainly civilians—have been killed over the course of the civil war that began in 2014. At least another 200,000 have died through disease and privation as a consequence of the civil war, and we are at that tipping point in Gaza. Yes, those are higher numbers, but they are from a much longer period. Many of the same arguments apply, and I do not think any Member present would not wish to see an end to the suffering in both Yemen and Gaza. We need a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, and pressure from the UK alongside partners could play a much bigger role in achieving that.

Secondly, we need aid and reconstruction, but that requires a more permanent peace, because many donors, including EU and UK donors, who have contributed to the reconstruction in the past have seen the money wasted as a result of further military action. Better governance is also needed, and support for civil society. One of the most cynical things that has happened since the terrible, tragic events of 7 October—we all feel for the people of Israel for what they suffered then—is that the response has been not just to go after Hamas but to destroy civilian neighbourhoods and civil society. Destroying law courts, destroying the Parliament, and destroying the records office appears designed to make Gaza ungovernable. That has to be addressed as well.

One could make exactly the same points in relation to Yemen. These are two of the great catastrophes going on in the world. There may be points where we do not want to link the two, but there are clear points where we do. What puts Gaza in a different category than Yemen, is that we are dealing with occupation. Following his statement yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister when the UK will recognise a Palestinian state. Unsurprisingly, he gave an answer that will be familiar to everyone present, and said that

“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that best serves the peace process.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 166.]

That time is now, or nearly now, because it is impossible to have serious negotiations towards peace unless they are between two sovereign states, notwithstanding conditions in Gaza and, increasingly, conditions in the west bank as well.

Let us not pretend that the recognition of a Palestinian state would put Israel and Palestine on an even keel, but without it as a precondition of the negotiations, they simply will not get off the ground. I hope we see that change in position. There is strong support not just for our military, but for the diplomatic initiatives that the UK is doing in the middle east.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have given the hon. Member a lot of latitude, as he is focused on one aspect, but the debate is on the situation in the Red sea. If he could direct his attention towards that subject, I would be extremely grateful.

[Andy Slaughter]

I should have taken your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than the advice of the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), at the beginning of the debate. You interrupt me at an appropriate point, because I am concluding my remarks. There is strong support from all sides, but we need to go further. Britain’s historical responsibility in the region requires us to make that additional diplomatic effort.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am not sure I can answer that, because I do not know whether they know, but there have been one or two instances where whistleblowers have come to see me—about Jersey, for example. It has been very difficult to find out and identify how much the Jersey authorities knew, and why or whether they took action on the information that is available. It would be wonderful if the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee could look at this issue in greater detail to establish that.

Illicit finance is not just an evil in itself: it is the golden thread that runs through all serious crime, from drug smuggling to people smuggling. It threatens our national security, hits the poorest countries the hardest, and starves our public services of much-needed investment. It was in recognition of that importance that we established the strong cross-party consensus in the House that led to the 2018 law, which was agreed unanimously in this House. Ten years have passed since David Cameron first openly supported public registers, and five years have passed since we legislated, but we are still waiting. That is not good enough.

It is the job of the Executive to implement the will of Parliament. To that end, I ask the Minister to take two actions. First, will he now lay an Order in Council, requiring the overseas territories to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership forthwith? Secondly, will he legislate to require Crown dependencies to do the same? If the Government do not act, I can assure him that Parliament will, for we must—for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our security and for the sake of our reputation. I urge the Government to move forward on this issue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Five people have indicated that they wish to speak, and the wind-ups will begin at 4.30. That means eight minutes for Richard Thomson, 10 minutes each for Stephen Doughty and Mr Rutley, and two minutes for Margaret Hodge to wind up. If people stick to five minutes, everybody will get equal time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call Marie Rimmer and then Meg Hillier. You must sit down by half-past 4, so perhaps you can divide the time between you.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I have been on this journey with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) since I served on the Public Accounts Committee when she was chairing it—shockingly, it is now 10 years on from that. We began to deal with some of the domestic issues with companies that had international footprints—the large companies such as Starbucks, which we had before the Committee. I remember that rollercoaster ride and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on that work.

Let us be clear what the impact of the lack of beneficial ownership registers is. Others have touched on security, but I wish to talk about the tax that is lost. We are in a cost of living crisis, there is a huge pressure on the Exchequer and we have an election looming, with each party that is likely to be in government wanting to make promises to the electorate. This money is being hidden away without people knowing where it is and that is definitely having an impact on the tax take; it is an absolute opportunity for tax avoidance and tax evasion, in particular, and it is key that we have this register. In my constituency, a lot of properties are owned by offshore companies, some of them in the overseas territories, and it is impossible for the residents of those buildings to know who their landlord truly is; they face an address with no name attached, and no responses come from those landlords. It is against natural justice for people who have their homes owned by others as finance vehicles not to be able to have access to them.

We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with, because if we do not deal with the issues of money laundering and economic crime across the piece, and we deal with them only domestically, without a strategy for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, there is a risk that the problem will simply move, rather than be resolved. People with money and advice about where to hide it, if they are minded to hide it, will find ways to do that where those ways exist. This loophole needs to be closed and we have a prime opportunity, with the Foreign Secretary, the very person who, as Prime Minister, was backing that a decade ago, now sitting in the House of Lords and at the Cabinet table. He could be driving this, so I urge the Minister to speak up for his new boss. I hope that the Minister has been given the go-ahead to give us some comfort today that this issue will finally be revolved. There are only a few weeks until the end of the year, and I hope he can give us some comfort on the timeline.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your co-operation. For the first wind-up, I call Richard Thomson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Let me begin by sharing the disappointment of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that this debate is necessary at all. It is incredibly disappointing that the target the UK Government had of ensuring that by December 2023—the month we are in—public registers were set up for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies looks set to be missed. This debate ought to start, as in fairness it has, from a fundamental premise: public registers of beneficial ownership are a vital tool in helping to identify and therefore reduce financial crime, and to increase financial transparency.

The simple fact of knowing who owns what, who benefits from it, and where the moneys have flowed from and are flowing to all helps to identify and tackle crime of all sorts, including corruption, drug trafficking and people trafficking, as well as domestic and international tax evasion and tax avoidance. Being able to get this under control would be massively to our collective benefit, and not just from a reputational point of view, because the revenues, moneys and assets that are concealed in this way can be used to fund activities that are detrimental to national security. It would also be massively to the benefit of the rest of the world to close down options for kleptocratic “businesspeople” or politicians to strip assets from their countries and squirrel them away in untransparent jurisdictions to enrich their lifestyles. That is clearly not a good thing, and the people of those countries suffer as a consequence of that permissive environment.

Registers are a necessary but insufficient step, and there is a lot of work to be done, not just on this issue. We have heard about London’s unenviable reputation as the laundromat—I think that term was used—for some of the world’s dirty money. I remember participating in a debate earlier in my parliamentary career about similar issues that were caused by London being the laundromat for reputational issues, through the prevalence of libel tourism, the ability to use SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—and the prevalence of public affairs and public relations agencies that are willing to accept money to do such things. There is much work to be done to clean up the United Kingdom’s act in that sense.

Although the UK Government introduced a register of beneficial ownership in 2016 and have encouraged the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to follow suit, they have not done that, so far at least, despite voluntarily agreeing to do so. That is despite the UK Government using the sweet persuasion of publishing a draft Order in Council as long ago as in 2020 to require them to do so and giving them a deadline of this month, which now seems almost certain to be missed.

This is the fundamental point: if the UK wishes to seek leadership on this issue, it cannot be taken seriously as a world leader on financial transparency if it does not do more, and is not seen to do more, to stop overseas territories being used as havens for individuals to evade their obligations.

It matters very much that that should happen. More than half of the shell companies exposed in the Panama papers were incorporated in UK tax havens. More than two thirds of the companies analysed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists from the Panama papers leaks were found to be registered in the British Virgin Islands. The UK and its overseas jurisdictions are collectively responsible, through that permissiveness, for costing the rest of the world nearly $90 billion in lost tax each year by enabling non-residents to hide their finances and avoid tax. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) highlighted, Tax Justice UK estimates that the UK and its network of overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for some 35% of global tax losses suffered by countries around the world.

The impact that clamping down on this problem could have, not just on the public good for the UK but in many other countries around the world, is highly significant. We are often invited to believe that the biggest threat to our quality of life—[Interruption.] Excuse me. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Mr Doughty for providing a cup of water, in the spirit of the Lib-Lab pact.

[Richard Thomson]

Lib? Well, it shows that there is perhaps a future for progressive alliances of one kind or another, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a hugely useful debate on the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing this crucial debate and for her tireless and unrelenting work on combating illicit finance, fighting for transparency and opposing corruption. As shadow Minister for the overseas territories, I draw attention to my declaration of interest.

We have heard some important, passionate speeches, not least from my right hon. Friend. The campaigning motivations behind her speech have been clear and transparent in what she has attempted to achieve over many years, as many hon. and right hon. colleagues have reflected on.

Important points have been made, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on one of the key reasons for transparency, which is understanding who owns buildings, for example, and in what way they own them. I have had the same experience in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency, with many residents affected by fire and building safety issues having difficulty establishing who is the freeholder and how the ownership is structured.

In an equally passionate speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) clearly exposed why this matters in so many different regards. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch also explained the importance to the public purse of dealing with these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made an equally passionate speech about why this matters to our efforts against Russia and its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, and in relation to our responsibilities elsewhere in the world, including in Africa and many other locations.

We heard strong comments from the Father of the House, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), also made important points on the constitutional position of the Crown dependencies. I am no expert on the different legal opinions that have been expressed on that matter, but I have certainly had it put to me clearly by representatives of the Crown dependencies.

As Labour’s shadow Minister for the UK overseas territories, I want to begin by reiterating our unwavering commitment to each member of our global British family, their sovereignty and their right to self-determination. We are committed to a respectful but candid, productive but principled partnership between the UK and each territory, and the same is true in many respects of the Crown dependencies. It was a pleasure to meet the premiers, Chief Ministers and representatives of each overseas territory earlier this month during the week of the joint ministerial council and to hear their insights, concerns and perspectives on issues from security to sovereignty, climate change to infrastructure, and constitutional relationships to this very issue of financial services and beneficial ownership.

As I have said in previous debates, we need to be careful that we do not pursue misconceptions about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Each territory and dependency is distinctive and unique. Many of the overseas territories do not engage in financial services, and this debate applies less to them. We must also recognise that steps have been taken and that there has been progress in some areas. Indeed, reference was made to the public register of beneficial ownership in Gibraltar, to the exchange of notes agreement, which has existed since 2017, and to a number of other steps that have been taken. I also want to acknowledge— I have discussed this with them over the last two years—that a number of the overseas territories, and indeed Crown dependencies, have been integral to efforts on freezing Russian state and other assets since the onset of Putin’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine.

However, Labour believes that being part of the British family comes with clear responsibilities. We share common values, obligations and principles, including a robust commitment to democracy, the rule of law and liberty, and the protection of human rights. We also believe in the advancement of good governance and in ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation, which of course includes transparency in financial services.

The 2018 Foreign Affairs Committee report was referred to, and I note the comments in it and comments made today about the interdependence between proper regulation and transparency and our wider national security and foreign policy objectives. That is why we must respond to the calls made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and many others today for us to tackle these issues by urgently bringing about the full implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and, I hope, Crown dependencies.

Sadly, action on economic crime has been held back by years of Conservative delay and dithering. As has been referenced, we were first promised a register of overseas ownership by Lord Cameron in 2016, and it beggars belief that we are still debating how it should be implemented.

Section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 required the Secretary of State

“no later than 31 December 2020”

to

“prepare a draft Order in Council requiring the government of any British Overseas Territory that has not introduced a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies within its jurisdiction to do so.”

Yet here we are in 2023.

We should also remember the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which was passed as emergency legislation in the light of the situation in Ukraine and the need to sanction Russian state entities and others involved in the invasion. Its primary purpose included setting up a register of overseas entities and their beneficial owners and requiring overseas entities that own land in the UK to register in certain circumstances.

We have repeatedly been clear that overseas entities should not be able to hide behind trusts, and it is important to explain why that matters. A recent article by Advani, Poux and Summers from the London School of Economics tells us that

“63 per cent of cases where beneficial ownership is not publicly reported”

involve “the use of trusts”. It also states:

“The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are…heavily implicated here. Over 85 per cent of all trust arrangements come from…Jersey (32 per cent), Guernsey (25 per cent), British Virgin Islands (17 per cent) and Isle of Man (11 per cent).”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only highlighted why we need to see who owns what and in a way that is transparent and publicly available.

We have made clear time and again the need to bring forward much-needed reforms to Companies House, alongside a review of the register of overseas entities, to ensure that the right balance is struck between privacy and the public interest, including our ability, for example, to apply sanctions effectively. Here in the UK I am afraid we have been playing a game of catch-up. We need to move forward in that respect, working co-operatively with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, but taking action if it has not yet been forthcoming.

The views of the British public are clear. The results of a poll for the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition show that 72% of the British public believe that the Government should take more responsibility, working with offshore financial centres to tackle money laundering and tax evasion. That will require the opening up of corporate registries to public scrutiny, and for the end-of-year deadline to be met as a matter of priority. We are seeing, as never before, a confluence of the need to ensure good governance across financial centres and our own national security.

Let me ask the Minister some questions. First, will the deadline be met—yes or no? If not, what do the FCDO and the wider Government consider to be a reasonable deadline, and what will be done to meet it? Can he clarify the position in relation to the Crown dependencies in particular, given the comments that have been made today? Obviously I have seen the statement that they have made about coming forward with a public commitment—I think that was the phrase—in relation to their approach to access to information on registers of beneficial ownership by the end of December 2023, to replace the 2019 commitment.

I was pleased to read the Joint Ministerial Council’s communiqué, which said that

“the Overseas Territories and the UK…will be establishing a technical working group on beneficial ownership…and…the implementation of publicly accessible registers”.

What is happening about that, and what support is being given to smaller territories, in particular, to enable them to make progress? What is the group doing, and how will it move forward and actually deliver results? After the November JMC, the Minister pledged that he would report to Parliament before the recess on the progress toward the deadline. Is today that day, and can he provide a precise timeline? Could he also provide an update on the status of the draft Order in Council and the circumstances in which it would be invoked? Will he tell us what percentage of business covered by the 2017 exchange of notes agreement is being covered now? I understand that in 2019 it was 87%; is it now 100%, as promised? At what speed is the information being exchanged? The Cayman Islands has told us that it does it within 24 hours; is that timeline the same in every single territory?

I hope that the Minister can answer those questions today. We want to see progress as a matter of urgency, as part of a respectful, constructive but principled relationship with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If the Minister can sit down by about two minutes to 5, that will allow Dame Margaret Hodge to sum up the debate.

UK-Chile Relations and 50th Anniversary of Coup in Chile

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate and on sharing his lived experiences and sincerely held views. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Members and my Parliamentary Private Secretary that I do not intend to speak until 5.30, but I will reply to the important points that the hon. Gentleman has made with sincere conviction, and to the other contributions.

As a country, we share a long-standing and warm partnership and friendship with Chile, which continues to go from strength to strength, as demonstrated by this week’s highly successful Chile Day. I would like to take a moment to express my sincere sympathies for those affected by the recent deadly flooding in central and southern Chile, which saw over 30,000 people evacuated from their homes last month. Let me reaffirm this Government’s commitment to address climate risks.

This is a timely debate, following the anniversary of the coup on Monday and the fact that this year marks the 200th anniversary of the UK and Chile establishing formal consular relations. It has been an honour to join the celebrations on Chile Day this week. Let me begin by reflecting on the anniversary of the coup.

Just over 50 years ago, General Pinochet launched a coup against the democratically elected Government of Salvador Allende. Fifty years might feel like a long time ago for some people, but I remember it myself—perhaps not in quite the same way as the hon. Gentleman—and it is not quite as long ago for me as it will be for some people listening to the debate. Following the coup, the military junta was quick to suspend all political activity and suppress dissent. The total number of people who were disappeared or killed between 1973 and 1990 stands at 3,216. That is a slightly different number from that given by the hon. Gentleman, but as we understand it, it is 3,216. That is a large number of people, with the figure for survivors of political imprisonment and/or torture much, more higher. It is tragic to hear about the experiences of the Bell family and others. There can be no justification for an armed coup bringing to an end a democratically elected Government.

At the time, all countries grappled with the challenge of how to respond to the events on the ground. The UK was far from the first country to recognise the Pinochet regime. Indeed, we were the eighth European country to do so, having judged that we needed to be able to talk to the Government to present our views on human rights and protect the interests of over 4,000 British subjects in Chile. Demonstrating our support for the return to democracy, just over a year after it happened, the UK welcomed President Aylwin on a state visit in April 1991 when he met Her late Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister.

It is important to recognise—I think the hon. Gentleman recognises it, too—that there is a live debate today in Chile over the context in which the coup happened. That debate is happening democratically and peacefully, and it is right that the Chileans are leading it. It is also the case that the hon. Gentleman has a democratic right to put his views on the record today as well. It reminds us of the importance, still today, of protecting democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. They have been hard won and hard fought for in this country and across Latin America over recent decades, and they absolutely need to be protected. Across the House, we would all agree with that.

Following the commemorative events this week in Chile, it was heartening to see representatives of all political parties come together to agree a commemorative statement made by the Senate President on Tuesday. The Foreign Secretary saw during his visit in May, which was part of an extended visit across Latin America, including Brazil, Colombia and the Caribbean, how Chile has restored and strengthened democracy since 1990, and how the country continues to work through the consequences of the dictatorship. In particular, his visit to the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, which commemorates the victims of human rights violations during the military dictatorship, highlighted the importance of memorialising the 50th anniversary of the coup, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. The Foreign Secretary met the museum’s director, Marcia Scantlebury, a victim of torture by the military dictatorship, and jointly toured the museum—this is significant—with Chile’s Foreign Minister, Alberto van Klaveren. In their meeting, the Foreign Secretary and Minister van Klaveren reaffirmed our countries’ shared values and commitments to protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Today, the UK and Chile are two like-minded, liberal democracies committed to working together to solve global challenges. I particularly welcome Chile’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council. It is a key priority for both Governments to protect and strengthen democracy and human rights in the face of increasing challenges. Democracy and human rights are not abstract concepts in Chile or the UK. They are values that must be fought for and protected. It is important, now more than ever, to reaffirm our shared values and commitment to protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Looking further back, this year also marks 200 years of our consular relations with Chile, which began with Christopher Nugent, the first British consul general in Chile, who was appointed to Valparaiso in 1823—I cannot remember that far back, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you cheekily intervene. It is a reminder of the strength and longevity of our partnership, which continues to thrive today. The UK supported the establishment of Chile’s navy. Admiral Lord Cochrane’s heroic efforts to support Chilean independence are still celebrated—he was certainly quite a character by all accounts. Indeed, our defence co-operation continues to this day through joint training and exercising among our armed services and through the defence dialogue between our two countries, addressing shared defence priorities on a range of issues.

Sadly, I missed the all-party group’s reception to celebrate the 200th anniversary this morning because I needed to respond to the urgent question on Libya, but I would like to thank the Chilean embassy in London and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—sometimes I wish the Scottish constituency names were shorter—for organising the event to celebrate this important anniversary.

I would also like to welcome the Chile Day celebrations taking place in London this week for the 12th year. These events have now flourished to such an extent that I suggest that we change the name. Although it is not my call, I think “Chile week” would be a much more appropriate description. It is a perfect example of our close relationship, with over 300 top Chilean investors and businesses visiting London, led by Finance Minister Mario Marcel, to improve economic and trade co-operation between our two countries.

I know that it is not all about commerce, but commerce is important to bind our countries together. Chile was the first country to sign a continuity agreement with the UK after we left the EU. We have worked together with Chile to further strengthen our relationship through our annual trade dialogue and modernisation road map. The fourth trade dialogue took place yesterday, with Trade Ministers in discussions. It was led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security on our side and by Claudia Sanhueza.

Chile acceded to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership in February, and we are grateful for its support for the UK’s accession in July. As a result, the bloc now accounts for 15% of global trade. The partnership brings new opportunities for both countries, including for growth. The agreement will eliminate tariffs on over 800 products, including exports of Chilean fruits, fruit juice and olive oil to the UK. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for his sterling work as trade envoy.

Overall, the figures show that trade between the two countries is thriving. Bilateral trade between our countries amounted to £1.7 billion in the year to March 2023, an increase of £100 million on the preceding year. Clearly, there are more opportunities going forward.

As the hon. Member for Hemsworth set out, this is not just about trade. Of course, we need to ensure that growth is green and sustainable. Chile is a clear climate leader in Latin America. Inspired in part by UK legislation, Chile has legally committed to a net zero target by 2050 and has ambitions to be a leading global producer of green hydrogen. I learned more about that during the Chile Day celebrations this week. There are clear opportunities to benefit both our countries and the planet if we move these initiatives forward. Our COP26 presidency came after Chile’s, creating a close relationship on climate action that continues to this day. Chile signed up to more commitments at COP26 than any other Latin American country. We have supported Chile to sell green and sustainable bonds worth more than £21 billion on London’s sustainable bond market.

Turning to foreign policy, we stand together against Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. President Boric is a leading Latin American voice against it. We must continue to work together with other allies in the region to condemn Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

The ties between our countries are equally strong when it comes to cultural links. The UK is a destination of choice for Chileans undertaking postgraduate study. They are supported by UK scholarships such as Chevening and welcomed by leading universities such as the London School of Economics—where I was privileged to study—University College London, Sussex and many others. We want to expand the Chevening programme to enable more Chilean students to pursue postgraduate studies in the UK, especially when it comes to fields concerning lithium and green hydrogen. Plans are in train to launch a scholarship next year to boost the study of lithium battery technology.

British music is big in Chile. I hear that Chilean music was big in Leeds, at least for a period, and I am sure that it will continue with the support of the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Over the past 12 months, global British artists such as Harry Styles, Coldplay, and Dua Lipa have performed in Santiago to huge crowds. Some other bands that I am a bit more familiar with, such as Blur and Pulp, are at the vanguard of British music in Chile.

British immigrants introduced a number of sports to Chile, including football, tennis and rugby. We are all proud to see that Chile have qualified for the rugby world cup, for the first time in their history. We congratulate them and look forward to an entertaining match on Saturday.

I am confident that the links between our two countries will only continue to grow over the coming years and decades. Chile has an important role to play in making the international order fit for the 21st century, and the UK will work closely with our friends and partners there to do just that. We will continue to stand together to promote and protect democracy and human rights. We will work to boost our trade relationships further, creating jobs and furthering innovation in both our countries. On climate, we will continue our close relationship as we strive to deliver net zero, and on the global stage we will continue to stand together to speak out in condemning Russia’s aggression and supporting the people of Ukraine.

Although we might be rivals on the rugby pitch next week, our links across sport, music and education continue to promote friendship, understanding and connections between our people. Long may that continue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I was privileged to visit Chile a few years ago with an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I went to Santiago and a few other places, and we were royally looked after by the Chilean Parliament. It is a superb country. I was there at the same time as the Archbishop of Canterbury, so the links between the United Kingdom and Chile are incredibly strong. I wish all well for Chile week, as it has now been rebranded by the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.