Israel and Palestine
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the state of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived.
My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel.
I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out.
Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate.
I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either.
Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate.
I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the state of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades.
It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the west bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich,
“bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.
There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the west bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer).
We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering, but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.
What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the west bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions.
In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the west bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable.
On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year.
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as
“A violent and criminal effort…to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.”
The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defence Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said:
“This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.”
Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as
“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the west bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice.
For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.
Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions.
Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements.
The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign.
The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1.
I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists.
To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the west bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.
I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. They must decommission their weapons and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.
Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins.
International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that.
On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.
Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government.
Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza.
UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others.
Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the west bank.
Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless.
Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today, France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.
My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees, and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.
I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Miliband
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words, and I pay tribute to her. Let me also do what I should have done in my statement, and pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who have been advocates of this issue—I see them behind me, and opposite me as well—and to the people outside the House whose voices have been heard in this debate. My right hon. Friend and I have had good discussions about these questions, and I look forward to working with her and her Committee on matters including the speedy implementation of the plans that I have announced.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency.
Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community.
The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences.
The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended?
Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur?
This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”
Ed Miliband
I thank my right hon. Friend for his great advocacy and for our conversations on this issue. I can confirm that there will be a new sanctions regime that covers settlements in the occupied territories, under the SAMLA regime. That is what will give us the powers to take action on both goods and services, and he is right to say that action on both is necessary if we are to have an effect. I come back to the point that this is partly about what goods we should accept in this country, but truthfully, our trade with the settlements in the occupied territories is relatively small when it comes to goods. I believe that we can make a real difference to settlement expansion through the action on services, and we will be working to make sure that happens.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate how important this statement is, but questions must be short. Foreign Secretary, please keep your answers short too.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the entirety of this statement, particularly the acceptance of the ICJ advisory recommendation that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The ICJ recommendation is broad and damning. It is not just about settlements; it is about taking Palestinian natural resources, forced transfer, taking Palestinian land, taking their goods and taking their businesses. It is also about stopping Palestinian trade and the free movement of people, and about imposing Israeli laws on the Palestinian people.
Has the Foreign Secretary given any consideration to moving a motion at the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian rights? Is he doing anything to support the Palestinian Authority to be able to govern effectively? Is he doing more to urge Israeli politicians and the Israeli Government to enable journalists and politicians to enter Gaza, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Asking more than one question just denies other colleagues the opportunity to contribute.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister have shown leadership and moral courage by introducing these sanctions. I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the International Criminal Court’s case on genocide in Gaza. What discussions will he have with allies to encourage more countries to support the ICJ’s judicial process to bring about justice for Palestine?
Munira Wilson
It finances some of our political parties in this country, but not the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need any contributions from those I have not called to speak. I call Munira Wilson to finish her question—quickly, please.
Munira Wilson
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies that facilitate this destruction, given that we were told by a Trade Minister this time last year that there was guidance on gov.uk—that is all there was—and that such companies should be aware of the reputational risk?
Ed Miliband
I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, honestly. He needs to take a sober look at what has happened in relation to Israel and Palestine, and what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. From Members on his own side, as well as across the House, he has heard the huge injustices eloquently described. My view is that we need to be tackling injustice across the world, but we cannot ignore the centrality of Israel and Palestine—both our historic relationship with Israel and our responsibilities, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. Frankly, in terms of our geopolitical interests, we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. For all those reasons, it is right that we act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
All of us want to see an end to violence in the west bank. The Government should challenge the Israeli Government, but also the Palestinian Authority. I find myself asking, “Will these sanctions bring peace any closer and how will they impact Britain?” Given that other anti-Israel measures have failed to have the impact that the Government seek, what difference does the Secretary of State think this new round will make? Given our deep trade relationships in areas like defence and health, as well as warnings about possible conflict with US policy, is there not a risk that British interests could be harmed as a result of this announcement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will have to cut people off if they continue asking long questions, and that will ruin their social media shots if that is what they are here for. There are far too many people still wishing to contribute. You are only going to disappoint your own colleagues. Keep your questions short. I call the Foreign Secretary.
Ed Miliband
I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have known him a long time, so I say this to him: how dare he try to speak for the Palestinian people instead of the Palestinian Prime Minister or the Palestinian ambassador in the UK? Why does he not meet the Palestinian ambassador in the UK and hear from him?
Ed Miliband
This is something that we work on with the courts, and the most important thing is upholding the role of both the ICC and the ICJ in these processes. They are incredibly important institutions, in the view of the British Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In thanking him for his patience, I call Douglas McAllister.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
During the debate in this House on 9 July, I and other Members raised our concerns about charities working in the illegal Israeli settlements and, in particular, about the use of taxpayers’ money through gift aid contributions to those charities. As a result, I received a response from the Charity Commission for England and Wales sharing those concerns about the potential impact, including on public trust and confidence in the charity sector, of charities being seen to actively assist in the development or expansion of illegal settlements in Palestine. What more will the Foreign Secretary do, in the light of today’s statement, to ensure that gift aid is not given to organisations linked to Israeli settlements?
Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let me start by joining the Minister in expressing the Opposition’s sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent wildfires in Spain.
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our starting position is that an agreed legal basis for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU is needed. Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. Businesses in both Gibraltar and Britain need certainty. British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty, and the many thousands of frontier workers need certainty. We need to have proper scrutiny, not least because an acceptable deal between Gibraltar and the EU has to do many things at once. It must uphold unequivocally and without qualification British sovereignty over Gibraltar and the express will of the people of Gibraltar to be part of the British family, not Spain. Every Government has a duty to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom and the British family wherever it exists. It must also deal with the practical realities of the frontier and Gibraltar’s economy.
However, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, with the treaty signed and provisional application under way, and even with the final sections of the frontier fence now removed, Parliament has still not been afforded a proper debate in Government time to scrutinise this agreement. Since the agreement was announced, the shadow foreign affairs team has asked five urgent questions and numerous oral and written parliamentary questions to try to establish the Government’s intentions, often receiving unsatisfactory non-answers. The FCDO is responsible for Britain’s treaty obligations, but it has been the Government of Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who have all too often kept Members of this House informed. I thank them for that.
Even today in this statement, there is no mention of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and scrutiny, so I ask again for confirmation that the 21 sitting day CRaG process will apply. Will the Minister set out the timetable for that today? We cannot have a repeat of the way the Government have tried to avoid scrutiny with the Chagos deal.
On the substance of the deal itself, starting with the military base, can the Minister offer an unambiguous and unequivocal guarantee that nothing in this agreement constrains the operation, freedom of action or sovereign control of His Majesty’s armed forces in Gibraltar? Britain’s military base is not a matter for compromise, negotiation or shared competence. It is sovereign British territory, serving vital British and NATO interests.
On the entry of British commercial goods, including British foods, into Gibraltar, can the Minister confirm whether the new process has been stress-tested with British businesses and when guidance for businesses will be published?
On the movement of people, having a fluid border with Spain—a key request of the Gibraltar Government—clearly comes with trade-offs, and we should recognise that. The decision to have Schengen checks in a British overseas territory is obviously one such compromise, and there is understandably a real strength of feeling about it, notwithstanding that Gibraltar has always had its own entry requirements, including for Brits.
In the light of reported chaos at the border, it is imperative that the Government get this right. Given the totally chaotic way that the EU has introduced its entry-exit systems across Europe, it is imperative that we do not see a similar situation at Gibraltar airport. The Conservatives will be watching. What tabs is the Minister keeping on the roll-out of the new checks by the EU, and what is his recourse if British nationals end up being disrupted by EU issues?
Gibraltar’s new residency regulations came into force on 14 July. What assessment has the Minister made of their impact on the ability of British citizens to live and work in Gibraltar? What is the anticipated impact on British citizens of retirement age wishing to relocate permanently to Gibraltar? Do the Government have contingency plans to support Gibraltar if the Spanish Government stage any provocations for their domestic audience now that the border fence is down?
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar has expressed concern that the UK-Gibraltar concordat envisages circumstances in which the UK could act without the consent of Gibraltar’s Government or people on treaty matters. What is the Minister’s response? If there were to be a change of Government in Gibraltar, what would the implications be?
To conclude, Gibraltar is as British as any of our constituencies. Britain and NATO rely on Gibraltar’s strategically vital military base. In an age of insecurity, the base is indispensable for our country. Any deal to secure a long-term future arrangement between Gibraltar and the EU needs to be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny in this House. The Government should know that, and they should expect that Opposition Members rightly desire to understand what this treaty means in practice.
Stephen Doughty
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair? There was no substantive difference in my statement as delivered from the copy provided, but I may have stylistically altered a couple of lines slightly; I apologise.
I thank the shadow Minister for her very reasonable questions, her broad support for what we have signed and agreed, and her recognition that the agreement is supported by the people of Gibraltar. It is what the people of Gibraltar want and there was unanimous support in the Gibraltarian Parliament for the deal; that is very important.
The right hon. Lady asked about the CRaG process. As I explained in the debate that we had the other day, the treaty is now laid so the CRaG process starts, but scrutiny will only take place when both Houses are sitting—the intervening period of the recess does not interfere with the ability of both Houses to provide scrutiny. Helpfully, this aligns with the process in the European Parliament, which has its own processes, so scrutiny will take place in the autumn there as well. I remain completely at the disposal of the right hon. Lady, shadow Ministers and other shadow spokespeople if they have further technical or other questions, and I am sure that officials would be happy to provide further briefings.
I would gently say that we have answered many, many questions on this issue. We published a draft treaty text on 26 February—it has been available to study in this House for four months—but the text has not substantively changed since then. I have appeared before multiple Committees and indeed we had a debate in Westminster Hall just the other day. I am very happy to talk about this; there is absolutely nothing to hide. It is an important treaty and, despite the right hon. Lady’s comments about the process, I am glad that she broadly endorses it.
The right hon. Lady asked about military autonomy. I can tell her absolutely that military autonomy is protected—that was a key red line for us. Indeed, I think the treaty reflects a new relationship of co-operation: Spain is a key NATO partner, who we are working alongside on many different issues. The agreement reflects a mature and responsible way forward, but it does not affect the operations of British Forces Gibraltar in any way.
The right hon. Lady asked about goods. Guidance is being provided to businesses. There are always teething issues when bringing in such processes, but we are actively monitoring what is happening and ensuring that the systems can keep up.
The right hon. Lady asked about checks on people. I am not sure what she meant by “reported chaos”. I think there were some slight issues with the first flight that came in, but the second flight has come in, I think, without incident. We are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground. As with any new system, this is a dramatic change and there will be implementation issues. She rightly raises important concerns about the entry-exit system. The deal was made to prevent that system from operating at the existing—now removed—hard border, which would have been very logistically complex; she knows from the geography at the border. I am confident the new arrangements will work and we are monitoring them closely. Myself and other Ministers have been regularly raising with other European counterparts and the European Commission the wider entry-exit system issues that she mentions.
The right hon. Lady made some specific points about pensions, which I will happily write back to her on. I do not expect to see any provocations in the future—I am not sure what she was referring to when she said that. I expect co-operation in the mutual prosperity of the people of the whole region. That was clearly reflected in the remarks made by the Spanish Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Mayor of La Línea and Spanish officials. Everybody wants this treaty to work for people and for businesses, and we see a new spirit and a way forward.
The right hon. Lady asked about the concordat. I have signed the concordat with the Chief Minister. I have also written with some further clarifications, which I hope are satisfactory and address any concerns, but we are very clear: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. Of course, we have some constitutional responsibilities, but as I have set out, only in exceptional circumstances would there be any difference in our position and we would always be working alongside Gibraltar. I set that out very clearly in the documents, which she can read. I hope she is satisfied and I remain at her disposal for further detailed technical questions.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely do. The agreement enjoyed unanimous support in the Parliament. Gibraltar has been at the heart of the negotiations throughout: one of our key conditions was that Gibraltar was entirely satisfied with what was agreed. Fundamentally, the agreement will benefit people, businesses and communities —that is at its heart. I add my thanks to the officials mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement.
The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be.
I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
Returning to the question about the consequences for the Israeli Government, we could not have been clearer, alongside 11 other world leaders, about what they would look like. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the range of actions taken by the Government that I am a part of was absolutely unthinkable to him when he was sitting on the Government Benches. Recognition, suspension of—[Interruption.] We have done it; you did not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, so let us make sure that we keep our emotions in check.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Israel’s illegal expansion in the E1 zone of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a clear breach of international law and makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. Does the Minister agree that that is nothing short of ethnic cleansing, and that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent that from happening by sanctioning all British companies complicit in the expansion, bringing an end to the import of settlement goods, and establishing a full arms embargo?
Mr Falconer
And no doubt you can set out your own proposals. We have taken repeated actions and will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
“You” and “your”—the best thing to do is always speak through the Chair. That prevents that mistake from happening.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), what more can we in this House and this Government, and other Governments around the world, do to make it clear to those many Israelis who are appalled by the behaviour of this Israeli Government that a two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state are very clearly in their interests, and furthermore that we will do everything in our power to ensure that that state becomes a reality and is safe and secure, just as we want Israel to be safe and secure?
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca
I will finish this point; I might then give way if I am feeling generous.
That conduct was so grave that it resulted in a damning report, which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on, rather than voting in favour of it. Of course, that is quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction.
There is no equivalence—none—between those cases and what is before us today. If there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross-party piece of persuasion. Instead, what we got from the Leader of the Opposition was a rambling rollercoaster on Iran, the two-child benefit cap, U-turns and so on. To attempt to draw that comparison is not just wrong but diminishes the seriousness of those findings in the past. It risks turning the Privileges Committee from a guardian of standards into a weapon of convenience. The motion speaks the language of contempt—contempt of Parliament—but actually it reveals something else: the contempt in which the Opposition hold the British people.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—[Interruption.] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—
Sam Rushworth
I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.
Middle East
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I would like to update the House on the conflict in the middle east. Since the start of the conflict, we have seen Iran fire over 900 missiles and over 3,000 drones across 13 countries in the region—countries that are UK partners, and that hundreds of thousands of British citizens visit, work in or live in. Regional air defences have intercepted the vast majority of Iranian strikes, but in recent days we have seen damage to oil export infrastructure, gas facilities, ports and airports, and restrictions on the strait of Hormuz, with major consequences for the global economy; there are impacts on the UK economy, too. US and Israeli strikes across Iran are continuing. We have also seen attacks from Iranian proxy groups, and troubling escalation in Lebanon. The UK is continuing our support for British nationals in the region, our defensive military support for partners against Iranian strikes, and our intensive diplomatic activity on both security and economic issues in the UK national interest.
In Riyadh a few days ago, I saw the work to get British nationals home from across the region, and how we are protecting our people and our partners. I stressed the UK’s support and solidarity as I met counterparts from across the Gulf. Over the last week alone, I have held discussions with my counterparts from all six nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the US, Israel, key European allies and other regional partners. We want the swiftest possible resolution to the crisis to bring security and stability back to the region, and to stop Iran’s threats to its neighbours and its efforts to hijack the global economy.
The events in the middle east have consequences around the world and affect our security and our prosperity here in the UK. Our response is based on clear principles and calm leadership: we will support UK households under pressure; we will protect our people in the region; and we will defend our allies under attack. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will not be drawn into a wider war; nor will we outsource our foreign policy. Our decisions will be based on UK values and the UK national interest.
Let me update the House on support for British nationals in the region. At the outset of the crisis, more than 300,000 British citizens were in the region. When the air strikes started and airspace closed, many were stuck. Since then, we have been working relentlessly to help them get home. That has been a complex task. Our 24/7 crisis response centre has been working with our embassies, partner Governments and the rapid deployment teams we sent to operate on the ground. We have worked closely with airlines and laid on additional Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We estimate that the number of British nationals who will have flown back from the region since the start of the war will today reach 100,000. We continue to monitor the situation to provide the latest advice, but I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those involved in the tireless efforts to support British nationals abroad and to bring British citizens home.
Turning to the conflict, as the Prime Minister set out to Parliament, we took the decision not to be involved in the initial US strikes, or to join any offensive operations. We have taken a different position on that from the US and Israel, based on what is in the UK national interest. When Iran began to target other countries across the region, putting our partners and citizens in danger, we took the further decision to support defensive action. In Saudi Arabia, I have seen the air defences that the British Army is helping to operate to counter drones. We discussed additional defence assets, which were pre-deployed by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to the region before the conflict began, and we have increased support since. We have jets operating from sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and eight in Qatar, including in the joint UK-Qatari squadron. As I speak, British Typhoons and F-35s are flying in defence of the eastern Mediterranean and across Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. The UK’s defensive military action is supporting the wider region, with four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters and a Merlin helicopter already deployed. We are increasing our naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, as HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay approach. As the House is aware, we have given permission for US forces to use long-standing basing at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to support defensive strikes against the ballistic missiles that are targeting the Gulf, but let me confirm again the point that the Prime Minister made last week: our Cyprus base is not being used in those US operations.
We want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more pressure on the cost of living here at home. Iran’s capabilities have been massively degraded, but the conflict has confirmed the threat that the regime poses through its weapons and its proxies, and why for so long there has been an international determination that Iran should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. As the conflict eases or ends, we will need some form of negotiated agreement to contain and constrain the future threats from ballistic missiles, drones, proxies and Iran’s nuclear programme, and to safeguard international shipping.
In the past seven days, we have seen Iran particularly focus its strikes on economic infrastructure in the Gulf: oilfields in Saudi; ports in Oman; strikes against commercial ships from Thailand and Malta; and threatened mines in the strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. It is holding hostage supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser, affecting prices and supply chains across the globe, threatening the cost of living here at home, and causing real worry for our constituents across the country. That is why the Prime Minister laid out yesterday how the Government will stand up for working people here in Britain, including by providing support for households with heating oil costs, and by maintaining the energy price cut and cap. Last week, we joined 31 other countries in the biggest co-ordinated release of oil in the International Energy Agency’s history, while maintaining our economic pressure and sanctions on Russia. As we welcome President Zelensky to London today, we are determined that war in the Gulf must not become a windfall for Putin. We continue to stand with Ukraine.
Reopening the strait of Hormuz is vital for market stability, and for the cost of living for British households. However, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious and complex issue, and there is no easy fix. We are discussing this with international partners in Europe and Asia, Gulf partners and the US. These discussions are separate from the conflict itself, as the US has said; countries around the world have been clear that they do not want to see escalation, or be drawn into a wider conflict, but they do want to see the strait open and functioning, and they do not want to see the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation undermined. Because it is an international shipping lane, multiple nations need to be involved in planning the way forward. Our discussions will continue to reflect serious, expert military and commercial assessments of what is credible and feasible, so that commercial shipping can return as soon as possible, as the conflict subsides.
I turn to Lebanon, which I am extremely concerned is on the precipice of a widening conflict that risks disastrous humanitarian consequences. In recent days, I have spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, as well as holding discussions with the US, France and other European and Gulf partners. We need urgent diplomatic action to avert further escalation, but amid that danger, it is possible that there is also a moment of diplomatic opportunity, and we must bring all support and pressure to bear so that it is seized and not squandered.
Let me set out the UK position. First, we condemn the appalling attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets at northern Israel. This must cease immediately. The actions of this proscribed terrorist group, at the instigation of the Iranian regime, are once again drawing the people of Lebanon into a conflict that they do not want and that is not in their interests.
Secondly, we support the sovereignty of Lebanon. We welcome the commitments made by the Lebanese Government, including the significant decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activities, and we will continue to support the Lebanese armed forces—they, not Hezbollah, are the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.
Thirdly, we are extremely worried about the civilian consequences of current Israeli operations. An estimated 1,000 people have been killed, and one in seven Lebanese civilians have reportedly been displaced from their homes. This scale of humanitarian displacement is unacceptable and risks devastating consequences. This weekend, I announced that the UK would provide an additional £5 million in essential humanitarian aid, and today I can announce a further £10 million of humanitarian support to provide emergency medical care, shelter and other lifesaving assistance in Lebanon and the region. This will help prevent further displacement and instability that would risk escalating regional problems and have a wider impact on other countries beyond the region.
Fourthly, we believe that diplomatic progress can be made, as there is a shared interest across Lebanon and Israel in seeing an end to the Hezbollah threats and seeing peace and stability return. Both the Lebanese and Israeli Governments have expressed an interest in joint talks. We strongly support this path, the framework for which is in Security Council resolution 1701, as it presents the best route to lasting peace, security and stability beyond the region. The UK stands ready to provide diplomatic support to this process.
This conflict in the middle east is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
International Women’s Day
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
Never a truer word was spoken. To building on the hon. Lady’s comment, it is worth the House knowing that, at the current pace, it will take 283 years for women to achieve equal representation in tech. That is why I am proud that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched the Women in Tech taskforce to champion diversity in the UK tech sector, with a pipeline strengthened by stronger engagement with tech in the classroom. There are spaces in which our economy is going to grow, and we need a plan for women to be part of that.
Throughout history, women have consistently been the backbone of our communities, giving their power, time, ideas and more. They have done this in our classrooms, in our offices, in our hospitals, in our military and in the home. History has taught us that despite giving so much, women do not always gain equally to men. Every day, women and girls across the UK challenge the stereotypes so often thrown upon them, but they are our scientists, our teachers, our business leaders, our astronauts, our athletes and so much more. There is nowhere that women and girls should not be able to reach.
But while this Government have women’s equality firmly on the agenda, the battle is not yet won. Increasingly loud voices attempt to dismiss the necessary protections for an inclusive culture at work. Some argue that our existing equality framework has gone too far—that it hinders progress. Let us be clear: these protections embody the British values that women should be treated equally with men, and that people should be treated equally regardless of their race. That is a core British value. It was fought for.
In a Westminster Hall debate last September, a now Reform MP described the Equality Act 2010 as fuelling “a corrosive culture” of grievance. He then called for it to be abolished. It is not a grievance to recognise that a woman who is made redundant for being pregnant, or who leaves work because her employer does not make reasonable adjustments for the menopause, leaves us poorer as individuals, as an economy and as a society.
In this battle, these voices are taking up space online, too. When we see the level of online abuse and intimidation, we must tackle the misogynistic insurgency that threatens to roll back women’s rights and that is having a huge impact on the wellbeing and aspiration of women and girls across our country. The online abuse of women athletes is set to be discussed at the next women’s sports taskforce meeting. I am proud that the offence of creating intimate images without consent was signed into force last month, and that our female Secretary of State announced that it will be made a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, delivering for users the strongest protections from such content.
But this happens against a backdrop of changing social attitudes that we are only just beginning to address. New research from Ipsos MORI and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College business school shows that 31% of gen Z men—born between 1997 and 2012—agree that a wife should always obey her husband, and one third, or 33%, say that a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to a new global study of 23,000 people in 29 countries. We are in a renewed battle of ideas and new conversations about progress and rights. We also see pressures and influence through online social influencers. This demands our engagement. It is through conversation, legislation, education and campaigning that this Government are determined to keep us moving forward.
With the challenge to women’s inequality now being international, so must our response be. In the year 2000, we led the first UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security. It was a simple but transformative idea: that peace is more durable when women help to shape it. UN statistics show that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, the resulting agreement is 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict and more likely to see their rights curtailed. Some 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of deaths of under-fives take place in settings of conflict and displacement.
We continue to use our voice at the United Nations to push for women to be embedded in peace processes, resolutions and humanitarian responses. Indeed, this week Baroness Smith of Malvern and the UK special envoy for women and girls, Harriet Harman, are leading our delegation in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, because this Government stand in solidarity with women and girls not just in the UK but around the world.
International Women’s Day marks the beginning not only of a month-long celebration of women’s history, but also, I hope, a year of progress and action. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, the aim of which is to emphasise the power of reciprocity and support, whether through advocacy, education, mentoring or time, to help to create a more supportive and interconnected world, building new networks in our communities to bring hope, leadership and change, and renewing our determination. Connecting with our sisters at home and abroad will give us a renewed frontline to resist the roll back of our rights and push forward for the progress of women and girls for generations to come.
But this month is about more than reflection; it is about maintaining momentum. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.”
That is not an observation; it is a directive. It is for us to hold the light up to highlight progress, and to keep fighting for a better world for women and girls everywhere.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a privilege to respond to the International Women’s Day debate and to follow the Minister for Equalities. It is wonderful to hear her talk about her passion for fighting inequality, fighting for rights and fighting the gender pay gap. I hope very soon to see her in shadow Cabinet—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean the real Cabinet, not with us. That would be terrible for you; you wouldn’t like that! [Laughter.]
This topic is what unites us today in the Chamber: we may have differences of opinion on every topic and come at issues from every ideological point of view, but we are united in our ability to exercise that right to debate and to stand up for women. I am so grateful to be a part of this country and to have those rights that so many women no longer have across the world.
I would like to pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not only for your amazing work here in the Chamber keeping us all under control—a full-time job for anyone. I want to highlight the incredible work that you have done to champion Uyghur women and girls. When everyone was turning their back on Uyghur women and girls, you led the campaign. You tirelessly campaigned across the world to make sure their story was heard and their voice was heard. You worked cross-party on that, so from everyone across the House: thank you for your incredible work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am incredibly grateful. It is why I was then sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party—but there are a lot of very powerful women in this room who will not be deterred, regardless of any sanctions.
Joy Morrissey
I feel that if one has received sanctions, it is a badge of honour.
First, to honour the international scope of the debate, I would like to take this moment to think about the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under the Taliban. The life of all human beings is intrinsically valuable and should always be remembered. Afghan women, whose rights have been systematically dismantled with 100 decrees to restrict their freedom of movement, education, work and expression, to visit a doctor or to have financial freedom. There is no protection there against violence, beatings and forced child marriage. May we remember them today and how quickly the rights we take for granted can disappear.
Across the House and throughout our great country, women have shaped our communities, strengthened our institutions—throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—and led with courage, determination and resilience. Women are leaders in business, education, science, the armed forces, charities and voluntary organisations, and, of course, here in Parliament.
We must also recognise the women who contribute but who are often not recognised: the carers who support their families every day, with no thanks and no recognition; the volunteers who hold our communities together; the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who provide strength and stability in the times we need it most. I have often spoken in this House about the importance of service, both to our communities and to our country. That spirit of sacrifice and service is embodied by countless women across the United Kingdom who quietly make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. May we recognise their contributions today.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. You may be coming to this, but it is an incredible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not wish to correct any one of our fantastic female parliamentarians, but “you” means me. One more time: Dawn Butler.
Dawn Butler
Thank you, and you are amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but my friend Elaine Banton was the lawyer in the case she refers to. I want to put that on record alongside my hon. Friend’s excellent remarks about her constituent.
Tulip Siddiq
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a staunch feminist—one of the reasons why he will speak in this debate.
I will finish by saying that the justice served to Sanju is a victory not just for her, but for the countless women across the country who have fought so hard to get reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I hope that the Minister will consider this case and that legislation will follow from the Labour Government to ensure that women never again have to face discrimination in the workplace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are really fantastic speeches. So that I do not have to interrupt them, let me say that “you” and “your”, unless you are referring to the Chair, should not be said at all. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If colleagues could keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, it would help other Members. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters.
I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms.
Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan.
Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer.
What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There is now a speaking limit of seven minutes.
Gibraltar Treaty
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlingto and the Wolds) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That is not good form. Ms Martin, you are not meant to give way when you are asking a question, but I assume you have finished your question.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with eloquence and expertise on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. She is a staunch defender of the people of Gibraltar, and of their rights, sovereignty and future prosperity. Like many Members of the House, she has visited Gibraltar with me. She has seen the reality on the ground, the difficulties resulting from the current arrangements, and the fears for the future. She is absolutely right that this Government are supported by Gibraltar. The treaty is good for the people of Gibraltar. I welcome her support and that of the all-party group on this matter.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days.
The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests.
The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?
The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them?
The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Even though he has been a very naughty boy, I call Charlie Dewhirst.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.
Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?
Ukraine
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Roome
I thank my hon. Friend for making that poignant point, with which I totally agree.
We in the UK are relearning the strategic importance of warfighting, of deterrence, readiness and resilience at home, and of sticking with European allies that we could have taken for granted. It is important that UK civil society understands the hardship faced by the Ukrainian people. If Russia succeeds in using force to redraw borders, it threatens the collective security of the entire European continent and of NATO, and threatens the safety of the UK. Facing down tyrants is in this country’s DNA. Ukraine will fight on, and we must back it. There is no stronger defence than showing that we are as good as our word.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I also want to pay my tribute to the Ukrainian people and the many Ukrainians who live in my constituency of Sussex Weald.
Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 152J, as amended by the Order of 2 February relating to Estimates day debates),
That this House agrees with the Report of the Backbench Business Committee of 24 February:
That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2025-26: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry of Defence; and Department for Business and Trade.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
Mr Falconer
It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.
Mr Falconer
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.
Mr Falconer
On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.
The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.
James Cartlidge
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account.
The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.
Mr Falconer
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.
As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February I asked a named day question about the role of Jonathan Powell in the Chagos islands deal, which was due for answer on 12 February. As of now, 25 February, it has still not been responded to by the Government. How can I best encourage the Government to produce timely and accurate answers to named day written questions on this subject?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.