Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Over the weekend, two Members of this House—my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed)—on a parliamentary delegation to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories were detained and refused entry by the authorities. They had both been granted entry clearance in advance of travelling to Israel. On arrival in Tel Aviv at 2.30 pm local time, the two hon. Members were held in immigration for six hours. When I spoke to them at 8.30 pm, they believed they were to be detained overnight without their mobile phones.
While the situation was ongoing on Saturday night, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his counterpart, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I spoke with the Deputy Foreign Minister and the Israeli ambassador. Following that intervention, both hon. Members were released from detention, but their entry was still denied. Foreign Office officials supported the two MPs and their staff at the airport as soon as they were alerted to the situation. After a public statement at 10 pm from the Israeli immigration authority, they were then flown back in the early hours of Sunday morning.
It is my understanding that this is the first time a British MP has been barred from entering Israel. That decision appears to have been taken on the basis of comments made in this Chamber. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, and as I am sure almost every Member of this House will agree, their treatment is unacceptable and deeply concerning. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is no way to treat democratically elected representatives of a close partner nation. We have made this clear at the highest levels in Israel. I pay tribute to the contributions that both Members have made to this place since they were elected. I know that they both believe in a two-state solution. They have our support and solidarity.
The Foreign Secretary and I spoke to both MPs while they were in Israel, and I met with them earlier today. They have behaved with great dignity. They were part of a delegation visiting humanitarian projects amid the appalling situation in Gaza and a dangerous and deteriorating situation in the occupied west bank. They were going to see for themselves what is taking place in the occupied territories and to meet those directly affected by the shocking rise in settler violence.
Such visits are commonplace for MPs from across this House and from all parties. Indeed, I am told that more than 161 Members of Parliament have conducted such visits. They enrich our knowledge and experience as legislators and representatives. They create connections with countries, political counterparts and civil society. Indeed, I note that both Medical Aid for Palestinians and the Council for Arab-British Understanding have supported visits involving Members from all the main political parties, including those on the Benches opposite. All Members should therefore be worried by what this decision means and the precedent it sets.
So our message to the Israeli Government is not just that this is wrong, but that it is counterproductive. We have warned them that actions like this only damage the image of the Israeli Government in the eyes of hon. Members across the House.
Amid this unnecessary and unwelcome decision, the bloodshed continues in Gaza. The hostages are still held by Hamas, essential aid is still blocked by Israel, and yet more innocent Palestinians are suffering. The killing of 15 paramedics and rescue workers in Rafah on 23 March was one of the deadliest attacks on humanitarian staff since the war began. These deaths are an outrage, and we must see this incident investigated transparently and those responsible held to account. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families.
We will not go quiet in our calls for the violence to stop or in our demands for humanitarian workers and civilians to be protected. We urge all parties to return to ceasefire negotiations. It is clear that this conflict can be won not by bombs and bullets, but by diplomacy. A ceasefire is the only way we will bring the conflict to an end and return to negotiations for a lasting peace in the region. This is the only way we can end the needless loss of humanitarian workers striving to alleviate suffering, and it is the only pathway toward the two-state solution that we all want to see, where Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security. I know that hon. Members across this House will continue to work towards that goal. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is important that we put this all within the context of Britain’s relationship with Israel. Israel is a key security and defence partner for the United Kingdom, and it is the only democracy in the middle east. Its security matters and helps to keep us safe, including by dealing with threats that undermine our interests.
When the Conservatives were in government, we were able to have candid and honest conversations with the Government of Israel on all issues, because of the mutual trust and respect in our relations. It is only by maintaining that trust and respect that Britain can bring influence to bear on issues that really matter for peace and security in the middle east and, indeed, for us too, including on the course of this terrible conflict and, ultimately, on finding a sustainable end to the conflict, which is what we all want to see. That is more relevant than ever because of the current situation with the 59 hostages who are still being held. It is not in Britain’s interests, nor is it in the interests of peace in the region, if there are tense and difficult relations with Israel that would undermine our influence.
The Minister will be aware of his own Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advice on entry to Israel, but for the benefit of the House it states:
“The Israeli authorities decide if you can enter Israel… Some visitors may face longer searches and questioning, including those …who are considered to have publicly criticised the state of Israel”.
Does the Minister accept that British nationals visiting Israel—a country that is at war—should be aware of those requirements and consider them carefully before making decisions to travel, and that they therefore travel to Israel at their own risk?
I think it would also be helpful today to understand what the Minister considers to count as an official trip, and whether the FCDO was aware in advance of this trip. As MPs—[Interruption.] As Members of Parliament, we do not have diplomatic immunity, so what would the FCDO do—this is really important—if MPs were allowed entry and then arrested? [Interruption.] Moreover, who were the aides who accompanied the delegation and also returned to the UK? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have to be able to hear the shadow Minister. I understand that emotions are high. We have to make sure that we temper the debate.
Wendy Morton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important and right that we ask some questions. Will the Minister update the House on the UK Government’s latest engagement with key interlocutors on efforts to find a way through the current, extremely difficult moment in the conflict? [Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Government Benches, but they will have the opportunity, I am sure, to ask the Minister questions themselves.
Wendy Morton
As I have said before, Britain needs to be a proactive player and help to drive things to a better destination with practical solutions. Is any progress being made, including on the central issue of the hostages, who have been held in such cruel captivity by Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October? The return of the hostages to their loved ones by Hamas remains the key to a sustainable end to this awful conflict, and we have in our thoughts today, and every day, the brave families of the hostages, for whom this is an unimaginably painful time.
On the deaths of the 15 emergency workers last month, has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had official discussions with Israeli counterparts in recent days on their investigations, and what does the Minister make of Israel’s latest assessment? Clearly, it is important in all conflicts that there is the most effective deconfliction possible. As I say, we want to see a sustainable end to this conflict. On aid to Gaza, has the Minister sought to address Israeli concerns about diversion, which may help to unblock the current situation on access? Finally, we are yet to have a clear answer from the Government, despite repeated questioning, on how they envisage what remains of Hamas can be removed from power in Gaza, and what the UK’s diplomatic contribution will be to bringing that about.
Mr Falconer
I had hoped that the right hon. Lady might come to the Dispatch Box to withdraw the comments of the Leader of the Opposition—comments that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not prepared to support. I remain none the wiser from the comments of shadow Minister what the position of the Conservative party is on the detention of British MPs overnight, despite having clearance to enter, and their return.
Many Conservative Members have been on such delegations; I can see one of them in the Chamber. I am sure that the Conservative party would have the full support of this House were the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), my neighbour the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), or indeed the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who is also from Lincolnshire—all of whom have been on such delegations—to be treated in this way. The whole House would support them.
These are not difficult questions, and I am truly surprised by the answers. The right hon. Lady asked me further questions, but the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity to ask questions before her Sunday round—not of the two MPs concerned, and not of the Foreign Office. She characterised their comments in this House as “Hamas propaganda.” She can make whatever political characterisation she likes of Back-Bench MPs, but she seemed to imply that the reason for their removal was that they were not going to comply with Israeli laws. [Interruption.] Would you like me to read out her comments?
Mr Falconer
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition said on Sunday:
“If you look at the reasons the Israeli Government has given for why they’re not letting them in—they don’t believe they’re going to comply with their laws.”
The reason for the denial, which the Israeli Government gave to the two MPs in writing, was for the prevention of illegal immigration considerations. The Leader of the Opposition should apologise.
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to the dignity of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Earley and Woodley.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with the Israeli Government, and all our partners across the region, towards a two-state solution. I welcome the strength of support from her and many other colleagues in this House.
To be clear on the position of the Israeli Government: they do have the right to decide who enters their country, as indeed do we. On this occasion, the two Members of Parliament were given clearance to enter, so it was known to the Israeli Government before they arrived at the airport that they would be travelling. It was therefore with some surprise that I received the call on Saturday evening.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support his rebuke of the Israeli Government for detaining two hon. Members of this House and denying their entry into the state of Israel. I am disappointed, however, that this House has not been able to speak with one voice on this matter.
I was shocked by the leader of the Conservative party’s comments yesterday morning, and I am deeply disappointed by the shadow Minister’s comments today. The Liberal Democrats believe that Members should be free to advocate without fear or favour on issues of national and global importance. We believe it is vital for parliamentarians to be able to see for themselves the realities of the situations we discuss in this Chamber.
Israel’s actions are inconsistent with the behaviour we would expect from an ally and from a democracy, and it is regrettable that the leader of the Conservative party and the party spokesperson do not agree. Transparency in the middle east is vital for securing a long-lasting political settlement, which must be based on openness and trust. Has the Foreign Secretary since made clear to his counterpart in the Israeli Government that such treatment of parliamentarians is unacceptable, and that no further parliamentarians will be treated in that way or denied entry into Israel?
Will the Foreign Secretary also raise with his counterpart this morning’s deeply disturbing reports of Palestinian detainees being subjected to torture, and this weekend’s report that the initial IDF account of the deaths of 15 aid workers at the hands of Israeli forces has been contradicted by video footage from a victim’s mobile phone?
Mr Falconer
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, we will keep such matters under review on a case-by-case basis. On the question of which MPs are now welcome to travel to Israel, I will have to revert to this House. To our knowledge, this is the first ever such incident. Colleagues from across the House with a whole range of views on the conflict in Israel and Gaza have travelled there, so we were dismayed to see the weekend’s events.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
This is an unprecedented situation, and I pay tribute to both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. I have visited Israel on many occasions, and I have had the opportunity to live there. While Members of this House may have disagreements with the current Israeli Government, does the Minister agree it is essential that we enable delegations to visit the region? That is the only way that we listen, learn and are exposed to a wide range of views and perspectives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. A large number of colleagues wish to contribute, so can questions please be short? I ask the Minister to ensure that his responses are just as short.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is regrettable that the Israeli Government are now acting with impunity —they seem to be accountable to no international law. Enabled by the US President, they continue to bomb hospitals and schools, killing aid workers and thousands of Palestinian civilians. Today, Breaking the Silence reported further executions, as well as the destruction of homes by the Israel Defence Forces, and now this: banning Members of our Parliament from entering. I put on record that I wholeheartedly disagree with what has been said by Opposition Front Benchers and the accusations made by them. My hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) are our friends and our colleagues, and they have more dignity and strength in their little fingers than has been shown by Opposition Front Benchers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I have answered questions on that matter a number of times in this House. This Government will not scrimp on security. The base on Diego Garcia will be secured for ourselves and our allies. Protecting the British people and our allies is our No. 1 priority, and full details will be provided in due course.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government have finally admitted to front-loading payments to Mauritius for their surrender deal, caving in to Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s demands since he took office in November. Yet they still refuse to disclose the amount or clarify which budgets will cover the lease, economic partnership and Chagossian trust fund. Why the secrecy? Will the Minister disclose the details now? Will he also confirm whether the statement from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct in saying that concessions have been made, including the loss of sovereign rights on Diego Garcia and of unilateral lease renewal provisions? When will this horrific deal finally come to Parliament, and what time will be provided to debate it? Or, better still, why does the Minister not dump the deal completely and keep Chagos British?
Stephen Doughty
The Foreign Secretary has been discussing these important issues with the Health and Social Care Secretary. My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of Gavi, as well as our role in that. The decisions will be set out in due course, but I hear what she and, indeed, other hon. and right hon. Members are saying on this important issue.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is very clear from Ministers’ answers that we still have no indication about which programmes and where will be affected by the planned reductions to ODA and from when exactly the cuts will be effective. We are told to wait for the spending review, but many organisations, including those tackling infectious diseases, are left to face uncertainty and to work at risk. Will the Minister tell us what instructions have been issued to his Department’s humanitarian aid programmes about what they are expected to do between now and the spending review in June?
Mr Falconer
The meeting on Friday considered those questions. There was agreement across the Security Council on the importance of preserving the space for humanitarian action. As I have said this morning, we regret deeply that there have not yet been further improvements, and we will continue to use all available diplomatic steps to ensure that aid gets into Gaza, aid workers are protected, and the horrific scenes described by the emergency relief co-ordinator are not repeated.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Our thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Hamas captivity in Gaza and with their families. What recent contact has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel, America and our partners in the region to secure their release and broker a way through this impasse? What steps are being taken across Government to address the threats to stability posed by Iran? How does the Minister envisage the removal of Hamas from the governance of Gaza?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman should know that the UK’s commitment to the security of Estonia is iron-clad, and made real by our NATO forward land forces deployment. Discussions regarding how our military can support Ukraine’s future security arrangements are ongoing, including with NATO allies and Secretary-General Rutte. Part of the discussion for countries committed to the coalition of the willing is about ensuring that those countries on the frontline are not left without adequate support. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The whole House continues to stand united with the people of Ukraine in their existential struggle. Although there has been much coverage of tentative steps towards a Black sea ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, with the brutal war raging on land, we must continue to constrain Putin’s war machine with every tool at our disposal? Could he update us on his plans for doing so beyond sanctions? Does he agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove whether he is in any way serious about the kind of lasting and just peace that President Zelensky wants to see?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady should know that, with EU colleagues yesterday, at the G7 a few weeks ago and, I am sure, with colleagues as I head to NATO, we are discussing an oil cap in particular and how that would limit Putin’s reserves. We continue to discuss not just the freezing of assets but the seizing of assets. We recognise that some European colleagues are more exposed than we in the UK are. Nevertheless, why should we use taxpayers’ money? We should use Russian money that has caused so much damage in Ukraine. Of course, we continue to look at the arsenal of sanctions that we can use, and I am sure that I will have more to say on that in the coming weeks.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Of all the horrors that Vladimir Putin has inflicted on Ukraine, the abduction of more than 20,000 Ukrainian children is one of the most vile. It threatens to rob Ukraine of its future, which is surely Putin’s ultimate goal. The Prime Minister praised the work of Kyiv’s Bring Kids Back initiative last week. Will the Foreign Secretary now commit to the UK filling the funding gap left by the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of funding for Yale’s humanitarian research lab, so that it can continue to research Russia’s war crimes, especially to track the whereabouts of these children, so that they can be brought back home?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary gave a speech on trade, but could not explain how much growth would follow the measures he announced, if any. What role is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office actually playing in supporting the trade negotiations with the United States? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary personally undertaken about the trade agreement, and can he confirm that this will be the comprehensive trade deal that the Conservative Government were negotiating?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady uses the phrase CCP almost as if to suggest that I am some sort of communist. The last Government had 17 different approaches to China. They bounced around so much—there was the Iain Duncan Smith position, the Rishi Sunak position and the Liz Truss position—that we lost count of how many positions they took. We have been clear that there are areas where we will co-operate with China, areas where we will challenge China and areas where we must necessarily compete. It is right that we engage with China. Closing our ears and pretending they are not there is no strategy. That is why the Government have changed from the strategy of the last Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Foreign Secretary does not need to be reminded that we reference sitting Members not by their names, but by their constituencies.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Last month, I pressed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to conclude the Military Advocate General’s consideration of the World Central Kitchen incident, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. I have met the families of those killed in the attacks and assured them that this Government will continue to support their calls for justice. Gaza is the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, with more than 400 killed since the start of this conflict. We need to see lasting safety improvements for aid workers on the ground, and that would be a fitting legacy for those British individuals who have lost their lives.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents who work at the BMW Mini plant in Cowley are deeply concerned by the impact of Donald Trump’s global tariff war. The uncertainty the plant faces is made much worse by the red tape that now inhibits integrated car production with suppliers in the EU. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in addition to a robust response to the White House, the best step that the Government could take to support British businesses would be to start talks on a bespoke UK-EU customs union without delay?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Topical questions must be kept short, otherwise there will be many disappointed colleagues.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly that the UK should move from freezing to seizing Russian state assets, although I am still waiting to hear what proportion of those are in the UK. Meanwhile, €300 billion sits in the EU. When peace eventually comes, the rebuilding of Ukraine will need to be paid for by the Russians, so those frozen billions will be key. When I was at a security conference in Poland last week, everyone seemed to agree that these assets need to be seized. I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what are the remaining barriers to seizing those assets, and what concrete steps is he taking to ensure that he can bring our allies with us?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the importance of those issues; he knows the UK has a strong record on them. Obviously, all decisions on future ODA spending will be discussed as part of the ongoing resource allocations in the spending review, but I note what he says.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On 23 March in Gaza, eight medics in the Palestinian Red Crescent, five responders from the civil defence and a UN staff member were killed by the IDF while responding to casualties. Their bodies have been returned today. International humanitarian law is clear: medical personnel, ambulances, humanitarian relief workers and civil defence organisations must be respected and protected. International humanitarian law is not something for debate. The Foreign Secretary understands the importance of upholding the law and holding to account all who breach it, including our friends, so why is Israel seemingly allowed to act with impunity when it comes to the protection of medics, humanitarian workers and civilians?
Mr Falconer
We have announced to this House a series of sanctions in relation to the risk of breaches in relation to the attacks on aid workers, which I have covered a number of times in this session. [Interruption.]
Point of Order
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After much chasing in October last year, the Foreign Secretary committed to give oral evidence to my International Development Committee early in the new year. He has not done so to date and we do not have a date in the diary, despite repeated requests from my Committee team. Can you advise me on how I can encourage the Foreign Secretary to give evidence? Much is going on in the world that we need to discuss.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial appearances before Select Committees, but I can see that the Foreign Secretary is keen to respond. No doubt he will have a positive response to her point of order right now.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just remind the House that I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 December and I will be appearing in front of the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee on 30 May. We have made changes to development, as has been discussed in the House this afternoon. My right hon. Friend Baroness Chapman will be appearing before the International Development Committee on 13 May. Of course I will appear again before the Foreign Affairs Committee and in front of my hon. Friend’s Committee in due course. I hope to do that by the end of the summer or in the September recess period.
Myanmar Earthquake
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The heartbreaking scenes from Myanmar and Thailand over the weekend have shocked the world. I am sure I speak for those across the House in expressing our sincere condolences to all those affected by this terrible tragedy.
The devastating earthquake has only added to the plight of the people in Myanmar, who were already facing extreme vulnerability and hardship. Over 3,000 people have died and that is likely to increase significantly in the days ahead. I thank all the first responders in Myanmar, as well as the humanitarian and civil society partners working tirelessly in extremely difficult conditions to assess the scale of destruction and provide lifesaving support. I put on record the House’s thanks to our team in Yangon, and express the UK’s continued solidarity with and support for the people of Myanmar as they face yet more hardship.
Within the first half hour of the earthquake on Friday, the UK released in-built contingency funding to our humanitarian partners in Myanmar, and on Saturday, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and the International Development Minister, Baroness Chapman, announced a further £10 million of life-saving support. That will be delivered to UK-funded local partners already mobilised to provide a humanitarian response on the ground because of the ongoing conflict. It will bolster their efforts, including in the areas hardest hit by the earthquake, where they will help provide the most vulnerable with food, water supplies, medicine and shelter, regardless of their location.
I assure the House that these funds will not be used to benefit the current Myanmar military regime or individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK. Instead, it will be directed to partners with whom we have a trusted and long-standing working relationship, with a strong record of delivering assistance in an extremely challenging operating environment across Myanmar. Our priority is to help the most vulnerable in all areas affected by this disaster, including those outside the control of the military regime.
The UK is also supporting the emergency response through other global funds, in which we consistently rank as one of the top donors every year; for example, the $5 million from the United Nations central emergency response fund and $2 million from the Access to Health fund. Those funds will support emergency health response efforts focused on first aid and trauma care for the affected population.
To conclude, our combined support demonstrates the UK’s continuing commitment to supporting the people of Myanmar. Despite the earthquake, we have seen reports of ongoing airstrikes against civilian targets. Such attacks have had devastating consequences on local communities over the last four years, and we condemn all attacks that target civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. We welcome existing ceasefires and call on all parties to the conflict to give emergency responders and humanitarian partners full, unhindered and safe access to those affected.
We recognise that the earthquake has also had significant impact in Thailand, and have expressed our deepest condolences to the Government of Thailand and to the families who have lost loved ones. We provided consular support to British nationals who were affected and I am relieved to update the House that our high-achieving team in Bangkok continues to function as normal.
We stand with the people of Myanmar and Thailand at this challenging time, and I commend this statement to the House.
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his work with the Burma Campaign over the years and for his question. We have heard the reports of airstrikes after the earthquake and are looking into that with our partners. The UK has consistently called on the military to cease its targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, and we fully condemn those attacks. The military must immediately cease attacks on the civilian population, including humanitarian personnel. All parties to the conflict must ensure full unhindered humanitarian access to the most vulnerable and ensure the safety of those facilitating it.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I share the grief expressed by the whole House for the people of Myanmar. It is heartbreaking that a country that has already suffered four years of brutal civil war now faces further devastation. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement of £10 million to support the emergency response. It is vital that these funds reach those most severely impacted by the disaster as quickly as possible. Can the Minister confirm how much funding has been dispensed so far and outline the steps her Department is taking to translate funds into lifesaving aid as quickly as possible?
As the death toll continues to rise and the ultimate scale of the disaster becomes clearer, will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to increase our humanitarian support to match the needs on the ground? In the spring statement, we saw that the UK’s development spending faces a cliff edge in 2026, with almost £5 billion in cuts anticipated by that time. That will reduce the UK’s ability to respond to disasters and provide the long-term consistent support that rebuilding Myanmar and its economy will require. Will the Minister confirm that bilateral aid to Myanmar will remain a priority?
The military junta in Myanmar has long blocked aid access for civilians in opposition-controlled areas. Aid workers have been attacked, and we hear reports that aid workers responding to the earthquake fear junta arrest and interference. What are the Government doing to ensure that humanitarian aid is getting through and that responders on the ground can work free from repression? Will the Minister outline the Government’s diplomatic response to the wider conflict and their response to what the UN are calling reports of human rights violations?
Myanmar needs our support in the aftermath of this tragedy. As the world’s spotlight turns to it, I urge the Government to take this opportunity to use every lever they can to push for an end to conflict and for a future democracy.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her points. I am glad she raised Lord Peach because that allows me to put on the record again my tribute to him for all his excellent work as the High Representative; it was a genuine pleasure to work alongside him. I am also delighted that we now have Dame Karen Pierce, one of our most experienced diplomats, in the role. She is already playing a crucial role across the region. As I said, one of her very first visits was to Bosnia, because of the very issues that the shadow Foreign Secretary has outlined.
The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. I have been very clear about the diplomatic efforts that we are taking across the region, working with partners and allies including the United States, the European Union and members of the Quint. We continue to work with partners and engage with regional partners, who are absolutely crucial to that stability. The Foreign Secretary met Croatian Foreign Minister Radman on 24 March, and I spoke to Serbian Foreign Minister Marko Djuric on 27 March, as part of a regular series of engagements that we have been having, including through the Berlin process. The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we will now be hosting the Berlin process and that preparations for the summit are being led by Dame Karen Pierce. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary and I have had extensive engagements with regional partners. I was out in Serbia and Montenegro just a few weeks ago, and I intend to visit the region again soon.
The right hon. Lady asked about the important role of NATO, alongside EUFOR. I have referred to EUFOR already. We continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Through joint training of UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces and our support for reforms, we are helping it strengthen capabilities and enable alignment with NATO standards. We are working to invest in and strengthen the capabilities of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian armed forces for peacekeeping operations. Countries that export security are also more secure themselves. We maintain offices at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
What we have seen from Russia—in Georgia, Moldova, Romania, the Baltic states and now playing out in the western Balkans—is nothing less than hybrid warfare. Democracies are working hard together to stand strong and support Ukraine, but does the Minister agree that we need to put more effort into working with our allies in support of eastern Europe and the western Balkans, which are very much on the frontline?
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, rightly raises Russia’s malign actions not only in relation to its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, but across the whole of Europe and globally. We continue to see a pattern of behaviour intended to hamper Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and exploit instability and division.
Recent attempts by Russia to divide the international community at the United Nations Security Council and in the OSCE have only further demonstrated the resoluteness of partners to work together to protect the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My right hon. Friend’s work in the Committee on these issues is crucial. We are also working closely with our allies and the European Union on these matters, in relation to not just the Balkans but locations such as Moldova.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
My former party leader, the late Lord Ashdown, regularly expressed his grave concerns about the fragility of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, drawing on his own experience as the country’s former High Representative. Despite repeated warnings, the UK ignored the threat posed to peace in Bosnia by Milorad Dodik, his entourage and his supporters in the Kremlin. Dodik’s latest defiance of international authority, rejecting the legal orders of the international peace envoy, is only the latest act in his concerted work to undermine the Dayton agreement and regional stability in the Balkans.
It is clear that the UK has taken its eye off the ball in Bosnia. The Conservatives’ short-sighted decision in 2020 to withdraw our troops from the EUFOR Althea peacekeeping operation sent entirely the wrong signal about our commitment to the region. Does the Minister agree that the UK should recommit to the EUFOR mission, so we can work in lockstep with our international partners to prevent a further deterioration of the situation in the Balkans?
Conflict in Gaza
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With the permission of the House, I shall make a statement about the conflict in Gaza. In January, I outlined to the House the deal agreed between Israel and Hamas. It was a moment of huge hope and relief. In the weeks that followed, hostages cruelly detained by Hamas were reunited with their families, and aid blocked by Israel finally flooded into Gaza. A path out of this horrendous conflict appeared open. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that I have to update the House today on a breakdown of the ceasefire and yet more bloodshed in Gaza.
On the night of 18 March, Israel launched airstrikes across Gaza. A number of Hamas figures were reportedly killed, but it has been reported that over 400 Palestinians were killed in missile strikes and artillery barrages. The majority of them were women and children. This appears to have been the deadliest single day for Palestinians since the war began. This is an appalling loss of life, and we mourn the loss of every civilian.
Yesterday morning, a UN compound in Gaza was hit. I can confirm to the House that a British national was among the wounded. Our priority is supporting them and their family at this time. Gaza has been the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, and I share the outrage of the UN Secretary-General Guterres at this incident. The Government call for a transparent investigation, and for those responsible to be held to account.
The UK is working closely with partners, such as France and Germany, to send a clear message. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities. We urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Hamas must release all the hostages, and negotiations must resume. Diplomacy is the one way to achieve security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The House will know that the ceasefire in Gaza had lasted for almost two months—the result of dogged efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States. The deal reached in January saw the nightmare of captivity for 30 hostages end, and the bodies of eight further victims of Hamas returned to their loved ones. We all remember the joy of seeing Emily Damari reunited with her mother and family. Desperately needed aid began to flow back into Gaza—food, medicines, fuel and tents. Children in Gaza had respite from relentless fear. The severely injured could cross the border again for treatment. Palestinians had begun to return to their homes, and to consider how to rebuild their lives.
In the first days of the ceasefire, the UK moved swiftly to invest in the peace. We released £17 million in additional emergency humanitarian funding for the promised surge in aid. We brought our total support this year for Palestinians across the region to £129 million. We accelerated work on the pathway to reconstruction, supporting our Arab partners’ very welcome recent initiative. We worked at every level to support negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and the return of every single hostage in a backed extension to phase one of the current deal.
But negotiations have been gridlocked for several weeks. Hamas has been resisting calls for the release of further hostages in return for a longer truce. Israeli forces did not begin to withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor as agreed, and on 2 March, the Israeli Government announced that they were blocking all further aid deliveries until Hamas agreed to their terms. For weeks now, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked, leaving over half a million civilians once again cut off from clean drinking water and sparking a 200% surge in the price of some basic foodstuffs—a boon to those criminals who use violence to control supplies.
As I told the House on Monday, this is appalling and unacceptable. Ultimately, of course, these are matters for the courts, not Governments, to determine, but it is difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to a civilian population can be compatible with international humanitarian law. Although it is important to say that I could have been a little clearer in the House on Monday, our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law.
The consequences of the ceasefire’s breakdown are catastrophic. For the families and friends of the remaining 59 hostages, including Avinatan Or, the agony goes on. Hamas’s kidnapping of those people and treatment of them in captivity, the cruel theatre of their release, depriving them of food and basic rights—those are acts of despicable cruelty. Hamas must release them all now.
Palestinian civilians, who have already endured so much, now must fear a re-run and a return to days of death, deprivation and destruction. Civilians have once again been issued with evacuation orders by Israel. Only 4% of the United Nations flash appeal is funded—not even enough to get through to the end of this month. Health centres have had to close, even as the devastated Gazan health service has to treat another surge of those wounded in strikes.
Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but a collapsed ceasefire will not bring the hostages home to their families, an endless conflict will not bring long-term security to Israel, and a deepening war will only set back the course of regional normalisation and risk further instability, shortly after the Houthis resumed their unacceptable threats to shipping in the Red sea.
Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, I have spoken to Secretary Rubio, to EU High Representative Kallas and to UN emergency co-ordinator Tom Fletcher, and I will shortly speak to my Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar and Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa. We and our partners need to persuade the parties that this conflict cannot be resolved by military means. We want Israel and Hamas to re-engage with negotiations. We continue to condemn Hamas, of course, for their actions on 7 October, their refusal to release the hostages, and their ongoing threat to Israel, but we are also resolute in calling on Israel to abide by international law, lift the unacceptable restrictions on aid and demand the protection of civilians.
Many months ago, only weeks into office, I concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching international humanitarian law in Gaza. It was that risk, which I first set out in the House back in September, that meant that the Government suspended relevant export licences for items for use by the Israel Defence Forces in military operations in Gaza. The actions of last week only reinforced that conclusion. In the days and weeks ahead, we will redouble our efforts to restore a ceasefire, but we will also continue to work with our partners on the security, governance and reconstruction arrangements. Those issues are not going away. There remains no military solution to this conflict. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace.
At this Dispatch Box in January I called the ceasefire deal
“a glimmer of light in the darkness”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 511.]
It feels like the darkness has returned. Former British hostage Emily Damari said that the resumption of fighting left her heartbroken, crushed and disappointed. I am sure that she speaks for the whole House. But we must preserve hope for the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza, and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long. We will keep striving for a return to the path to peace. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and let me make clear regarding the charity worker who was injured, that of course our ambassador and the Foreign Office are in touch with his family. As she would expect, we have made representations to the Israeli Government, and I will be speaking to the Israeli Foreign Minister in the coming hours.
The right hon. Lady talks about Hamas, and I have said at this Dispatch Box that the scenes of those young men in balaclavas with Kalashnikovs parading hostages are obscene, and I condemn them. I said in January that we would continue to stand with the hostage families, and we will. There are still dozens of families waiting, hoping, praying that their loved ones can return, but the right hon. Lady will also have seen overnight that many of those families are saying that this is not the way to bring them home. They fear that as a consequence of this resumed action, their loved ones will perish, and I thought that the tone of some of her remarks did not sit with what I see coming out of Israel at this time. No one could not be absolutely touched and affected by the gaunt and malnourished hostages paraded around in a sick propaganda exercise. We all condemn Hamas.
The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. What we are doing, and what the previous Government did, is supporting the Palestinian Authority with reform. There has to be an alternative to Hamas, and that alternative is the Palestinian Authority. We must work with it; we have to give people hope and prospect that is not about terrorism, and that is about supporting Prime minister Mustafa in all his efforts. That is what we have been doing, and why we have been working particularly with the Arab Quint. She asked about how we are working with partners in the area, and there was to be a conference, a gathering, in Egypt this weekend. It has been postponed, but it will be important that we attend that gathering, and work with our Arab partners. I put on record our support for Egypt and Qatar in their conversations with Hamas. She knows that we do not talk to Hamas, but we do work with those partners who can.
The right hon. Lady asked about future operations in the Red sea, and she knows well that I would never comment from the Dispatch Box on operational issues in the Red sea. She asked me if there is any moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government. Of course there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government, and none of us has ever suggested that that is the case. She asked, rightly, about the role of Iran. She is right about the malign affect of Iran in the region, and we will act to ensure that it does not get the nuclear capability that it is seeking to secure —I discussed that issue with Secretary of State Rubio and my counterparts in France and Germany.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his passionate and articulate plea for peace from the Dispatch Box. In doing so he speaks for us all, and I know that he has witnessed the suffering and feels it very deeply, as we all do. The renewed bombing in Gaza cannot be justified, the renewed siege of Gaza cannot be justified, and it is difficult to see how either of those things are compatible with international law. It will be for a court to decide, and there will be a reckoning.
The question, however, is what is going to happen now, because whatever it is that the British Government are doing in the region, it is clearly not working. What is plan B? Now that the Israeli Government have abandoned the fragile course of peace, what is plan B for the west bank, which still faces the threat of annexation? Following reports that the strikes may have American endorsement, what is plan B when it comes to uniting our international allies, to make sense of this senseless violation of the peace process? We must ensure that this is met not just with words, no matter how passionate or articulate. We have to do something internationally and with our allies. It is time to stop talking about it, and to do something.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I know that she was in the region recently, discussing these very same issues at the Knesset. I understand that the US envoy, Steve Witkoff, is flying into the region as we speak, and I hold out hope that we can once more get a ceasefire that gets us to the plan, which was to the end of the Passover period—I cannot give up hope on that. She says that we must have more than words, and she knows, as I do, that the business of diplomacy is words, conversations, and using our influence to bring this about. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our Arab partners and, of course, with our E3 partners, in particular, and the European Union at this time, and I will do everything I can to get us back to that ceasefire.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Israel’s resumption of its military campaign in Gaza is heartbreaking for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and for the world. For two months, the fragile ceasefire provided space for the release of hostages and, until early March, the flooding of Gaza with vital aid to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. The resumption of fighting now threatens the lives of Israeli hostages still held in captivity by Hamas, and of Palestinians, who have already seen their homes and communities devasted by 15 months of war. A new ceasefire must be secured as soon as possible. To that end, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Israeli Government on rapidly recommitting to a ceasefire?
Even before the resumption of military operations, the Israeli Government had cut aid routes into Gaza, as well as the supply of electricity. That was illegal and wrong, contravening Israel’s obligations under international law. In this House on Monday, and today, the Foreign Secretary stated that Israel’s aid blockade was a breach of international law. Will he outline what action he is taking to ensure that there are consequences to breaching international law? Hamas must now immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, the treatment of whom while in captivity has been despicable. We are also deeply concerned by reports that a British bomb disposal expert has been injured in an explosion at a UN facility in the strip, and our thoughts are with their family. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on his safety and condition?
Arab states have a vital role to play in supporting the transition back to a state of ceasefire. Their plans for the reconstruction of Gaza also provide a pragmatic proposal for rebuilding the strip, particularly when compared with the reckless proposals put forward by Trump, who described his intention to remove Palestinians from Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has engaged closely with Arab partners in the region around their plans for reconstruction? As conflict returns to Gaza, we must also give Palestinians hope, and show them that we support their right to statehood. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK must now move to officially recognise a state of Palestine, as a vital part of a two-state solution that offers dignity and security to Palestinians and Israelis?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will assist the shadow Foreign Secretary once the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has finished her question. Please continue.
Melanie Ward
Yesterday, the Israeli Defence Minister threatened the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to stop that and to hold the Government of Israel accountable for their actions?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the point of order absolutely relevant right now?
Priti Patel
I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the suggestion—a misrepresentation—that I have not spoken about the Palestinian Authority in this House, because I have done so from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a very sensitive and important debate. We need to ensure that language is temperate and respectful at all times. Our constituents are watching, as indeed is the world, so we must ensure that we in no way inadvertently misrepresent our colleagues. The right hon. Lady’s point is noted. We will now continue because we have a lot of people to get through. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary has said, in particular that we have to give hope to the Palestinian people. To be fair to the Israeli Government position, Hamas could solve the problem now by releasing the hostages. Having said that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that is quite wrong for any member of the Israeli Government to say that the Gazan people could rise up against Hamas? If they did that, they would be tortured, at best, and probably killed. The people of Gaza are victims of Hamas as much as anybody, and it is quite wrong for the Israeli Government to inflict collective judgment on the people of Gaza: that will bring death, destruction, more radicalism and we will never get the hostages home.
G7
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful in particular for the cross-party nature of what the Secretary of State for the Opposition said—I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am a little jetlagged. I got off a plane at 6 am, and I hope the House will forgive me. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the manner of her remarks, particularly on Ukraine. There were a number of questions, which I will seek to deal with.
The right hon. Lady is right that Zelensky has made it absolutely clear that he is committed to peace. She asked me about the US decision on a pause in military aid and intelligence aid. I am pleased to say that our assessment is that that pause, as she will know, was for a short period, not an extended period. It therefore has not had a material effect, but we were pleased to see that aid resume. We were pleased to see what flowed from Jeddah: the United States, European allies and President Zelensky and Ukraine absolutely square with the need for that ceasefire. It is for Putin to accept unconditionally that ceasefire: the ball is in his court. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with Secretary Rubio over the course of the three days at the G7, and with Vice-President Vance yesterday morning at his residence in Washington.
The right hon. Lady rightly asks about Russian assets. Let me make it clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing Ukraine. I am delighted that the first £752 million of the UK’s £2.26 billion loan—to be repaid by the profits generated on Russian sanctioned assets— has been paid, but she knows that there is rightfully a discussion about moving from freezing to seizing. If we were to move in that direction, it would be important for there to be unanimity among the G7, and a way forward within the European Union for the most exposed countries. As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are discussing those very issues apace.
The right hon. Lady asked about UK troops on the ground. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine, but the collective security of our continent and, therefore, Britain’s direct national interest. That is why the Prime Minister has said that Europe needs to step up, and the UK is, of course, prepared to consider committing British troops on the ground; but there must be a US backstop. There will be a further meeting in London this week to continue to get into the operational detail.
The Prime Minister and I are pleased, alongside the Defence Secretary, that the coalition of the willing is growing. It is right that we consider carefully what would be required on the ground, but the right hon. Lady will know, too, that the exercise of monitoring what is put in place is very important. No doubt she, like me, will have seen the operation that was run by the OSCE. I saw it in January 2022, just before the fighting began in the February. That would not be adequate this time round, so, rightly and properly, we must get into the granular detail of what would be required—as the European family, of course, but also involving nations such as Canada. I received a commitment from Minister Mélanie Joly that Canada was willing to step up to be part of that coalition, but there will be others in that coalition of the willing, and we will look at these issues in detail over the coming days.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Gaza and the middle east. Let me make it absolutely clear that we were all united in saying that there could be no role for Hamas. We welcome the work that has been done by the Arab Quint as a direction of travel. The United Kingdom wants to continue to work with the Quint on strengthening that proposal, particularly on the security guarantees that the Israelis would rightfully need—their assurance that 7 October can never, ever happen again.
The right hon. Lady raised the situation in Syria. The awful clashes during the weekend of 8 and 9 March led to the deaths of more than 1,000 people. We condemned the violence at the time, and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), updated the House on 10 March. It is critical for the interim Administration in Syria to respect and protect all Syria’s minorities, which is why it was heartening to see the agreement last week between the interim Administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces, particularly in north-east Syria. This was obviously a topic of much discussion.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the strikes by the US. Since 19 November 2023, the Houthis have targeted international commercial shipping in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden and attacked British and American warships. That cannot go unchecked. It is totally unacceptable, and it must be dealt with. We do not, of course, comment on other nations’ military operations, but I can confirm that, while we did not take part in the strikes over the weekend, we are in close touch with our US friends on the need to act in respect of the Houthis and what they are doing in the Red sea.
The right hon. Lady talked about the Government’s approach to China. I can assure her that there will not be seven different approaches to China from this Government, which is what we experienced under the last Government, who were ping-ponging about over the course of those 14 years. As for the calamity of a United Kingdom Prime Minister having a beer with the leader of the Chinese Communist party, I can give her a guarantee that that will not happen under this Government. Quite properly, as the right hon. Lady knows, I and the Home Secretary made representations to the planning process about the security issues that must be kept in mind as the proper procedures are followed for China’s application. She also knows that we, too, have concerns about our embassy in China and its proper operation.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am so pleased to see the Foreign Secretary continuing to lead our allies in support of Ukraine, and equally pleased to see that he has expressed his support for moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets—we have £18 billion-worth of them held in the UK. However, if we are serious about doing that, we need to start getting on with it. What moves is his Department making—for example, putting legislation on the books to allow us to seize those assets when the right time comes? I am glad to hear that there are discussions on that, but has pressure been put on our G7 and EU allies, who still sit on the remaining £300 billion-worth of assets, which perhaps need to be seized at this stage? Has he considered putting forward a UN General Assembly resolution to provide the legal basis for co-ordinated asset seizures?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question and, of course, for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I reassure her that we continue to work closely with our allies on this issue, including through the lengthy discussions that we had at the G7, but let me emphasise that it is important in this particular area that any way forward involves a pooling of that exercise. I do not believe that it would be right for the UK to act unilaterally in this instance; therefore, this is a multilateral endeavour and discussion. She is right to emphasise that we should work at pace, and I reassure her that we are doing so.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I will focus on Ukraine.
Last week, President Zelensky announced his willingness to accept an immediate ceasefire. In response, Vladimir Putin intensified his attacks on Ukraine. This gives the lie to Putin’s cheap talk about agreeing with the idea of a ceasefire. His goals remain the same: to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and turn it into a satellite state of Russia.
The only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is by strengthening Ukraine in the face of Putin’s brutality, so I was slightly alarmed to hear the Foreign Secretary say that we can seize Russian assets only if we progress by unanimity. If the US refuses to seize Russian assets, will the Foreign Secretary take a lead with European partners so that the support can flow? Can he also say what is stopping him unlocking the £2.5 billion generated from the sale of Chelsea football club, which is held here in the UK and should have already been used to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine?
The Foreign Secretary referred to the work that Ministers have been doing to build a coalition of the willing to support any final peace agreement in Ukraine, which my party strongly supports, but can he be more specific? What levels of support have other countries committed, and what progress has he made in securing a backstop security guarantee from the United States?
The Liberal Democrats have warned repeatedly that Donald Trump’s actions are emboldening Putin. Last month, Trump said that Russia should rejoin the G7 if a peace settlement is agreed. That would be unjust and wrong. Did the Foreign Secretary make it clear to his G7 counterparts that the UK would oppose Russia rejoining the G7?
Given that Donald Trump is not a reliable ally, the Liberal Democrats have argued that the UK must lead in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on the United States. We support the creation of a pan-European rearmament bank so that Europe’s defences can be rapidly rebuilt, yet last week we saw proposals from the European Commission for EU structures that could leave the UK out. Will the Foreign Secretary use his meeting with High Representative Kallas tomorrow to make sure that the UK plays a full part in European efforts, to the benefit of our security and our defence industry?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that all colleagues can get in, questions will have to be short, and if the answers continue to be long, there will be some disappointed Back Benchers.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s strong statement that blockading all aid into Gaza, including UK aid, is “appalling and unacceptable”. What discussions did he have with G7 colleagues about what can be done about this provocative action during Ramadan, and what consequences are there for what people are saying is a breach of international law?
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible.
Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security.
Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending.
The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA?
The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely.
There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily.
This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years.
The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again.
From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage.
I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told:
“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.”
The speaker continued:
“Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.]
That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues can see how heavily subscribed this debate is. I need to fit in another debate before 7 o’clock, so many colleagues will be disappointed that they will not be called to speak. They can judge that as they may. We shall set a speaking limit of four minutes so that I can get as many people in as possible.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and four fellow members of the Committee.
I make it clear that I strongly support the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. I fear that that may not be enough and that we will have to spend more if we are to maintain our security against the threat that is now clear. I therefore accept that part of the funding of that needs to come from ODA, although I feel the pain of both the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That makes it even harder to swallow the £9 billion bill we face paying to maintain a base on the Chagos Islands.
I will focus specifically on soft power. I welcome the establishment within the FCDO of the Soft Power Council; it is very important that strengthening hard power should not be at the expense of Britain’s soft power. A number of Members have already talked about the BBC World Service, which is one of our great assets. It was very welcome that in the Budget, the Government increased their contribution by £32 million, but it was concerning that the BBC recently announced a reduction in its contribution of £6 million, with the loss of 130 jobs. While all 42 language services are being maintained, the World Service defence committee has already pointed out some of the damage that those reductions will do, with the loss of regional editors, science coverage and business programmes. I am particularly concerned about the letter that the Chair of our Committee received a few days ago from the director general, in which he said:
“In the last few days we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in Overseas Development Spending.”
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be no reduction in the Foreign Office’s funding of the BBC World Service. Indeed, I hope he will give serious consideration to the BBC’s request that in the longer term, the Government consider taking on the full funding of the World Service.
We on the Committee have also heard from the British Council, another aspect of soft power. It is absurd that the loan of £250 million given to the British Council has to be renewed each year, creating huge uncertainty. I hope that a solution can be found to put that funding on a long-term basis.
I finish by referring to an issue of huge concern to me and many others: media freedom. Both this Government and the previous Government have very good records on supporting media freedom around the world; we set up the global Media Freedom Coalition. However, as the Minister knows, media freedom is under huge threat. I urge the Government to continue to press the cases of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen imprisoned in Hong Kong, and of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen imprisoned in Egypt. The Minister also knows that in Ukraine, 97 journalists have been killed since 24 February 2022, 12 while on duty, and the most recent withdrawal of funding—that of USAID—will put at risk over half the media outlets that are bravely reporting what is happening in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can provide support to them, too.
Mr Mitchell
Yes, it is. As far as I am aware, it is not true that the office in East Kilbride is being closed. It is being moved to Glasgow, and I am advised that the Government have no plans to change that arrangement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The point of order is noted, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Time is limited, so we will go back to Joani Reid.
Joani Reid
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, East Kilbride is not Glasgow. Closing the development office and shifting the jobs to Glasgow is not just tinkering with the administration of the FCDO; it is a blow to our community, which has built itself around the development opportunities that the office provides. It is taking well-paid, skilled jobs from a town and centralising them in a city—the kind of decision that too often leaves towns behind. I know that many of my hon. Friends share my concerns about the hollowing out of towns such as East Kilbride, and I urge the Government to think again.
The decision to close the development office has been made at a moment of deep uncertainty for the civil servants working in international development. The Government have already made this very difficult and painful decision. It is not a decision that I celebrate, but I support it, because governing means taking tough choices, not easy ones. However, closing the office and moving it to Glasgow, at a time when there is such deep uncertainty about the international development budget and no clear evidence that it will do anything other than cost money in the immediate term, is ill advised.
Labour has a proud legacy, built by pioneers such as Judith Hart, and we must not allow it to be weakened by short-term thinking. We are now in an era where words are not enough and an era of show, not tell. If we really believe in the role that East Kilbride can continue to play in shaping Britain’s international engagement, the answer is clear: take the closure off the table, and use the money to focus on the announced priorities in international development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are dropping the time limit down to three minutes.
Alex Ballinger
Absolutely. I think that those of us who have served would recognise that development and defence are completely complementary. When we reduce our development spending, our defence spending needs to go up.
After leaving the Royal Marines, colleagues and I worked with civil society in Syria, helping to keep hopes of a different, more tolerant country alive during that civil war. Those groups are probably now the best hope for Syria’s civil society and for a more tolerant and stable country.
Aid helps to mitigate the worst impacts of conflict and to prevent further conflict. I am concerned that cutting our development budget so deeply will undermine our ability to stabilise fragile states, reduce the drivers of extremism and stop further conflicts emerging. The implications of that will be felt here in the UK, with a greater chance of spikes in food and energy prices, increased migration and threats from extremist groups. Our military and security services will face those challenges at a time when their attention should be on Ukraine. While I wholly support raising our defence spending, I encourage the Government to look over the next two years at opportunities to avoid such drastic cuts to our aid budget, in particular our investments in conflict zones and on conflict prevention. Each pound we spend on conflict prevention can save £16 in aid to mitigate the destruction caused by conflict.
I welcome the pledge the Prime Minister made for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace last December, and I hope that that remains a priority for the FCDO after the latest announcements. I strongly support the increase in defence spending announced last week, but, as a former marine, I also urge the Government to value the critical role our aid budget plays in delivering vital aid in conflict zones and preventing conflicts altogether.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Due to time constraints, we now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that they should refer to other Members by their constituency or by their title if they are a Minister, not by their first name.
Sudan and Eastern DRC
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know he did a lot of work with my predecessor in Tottenham on issues to do with the African continent. He has been raising these issues consistently for the past three or four decades, and we are very grateful to him for that.
I seek to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when I say that we want to convene and come together with regional partners and those neighbouring Sudan, as well as with the international partners that take a big interest and play a big role, as the UN penholder, we are of course aware of some of the motivations; there is gold, for example, in Sudan. We urge everyone to step back and get to a ceasefire. This cannot go on forever; there has to be a ceasefire. We need that ceasefire now because of the women and children who are suffering. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been to Goma. We have been talking about the coltan in our mobile phones for many years. It is why there are so many external actors engaged in the DRC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If questions and answers are short, I can squeeze in just a couple more Members.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful that that is the subject of the last question. One reason why the world is not paying attention to these crises is that they are in the continent of Africa. The second reason, I fear, is gendered: it is women who are suffering. It is men who are doing the fighting and women who are being left behind. We cannot go backwards. For all those reasons, I urge parliamentarians to secure debates and raise these issues with the colleagues they meet from other parliamentary democracies, so we get attention back on these women and children in both conflicts and across so many others, who are suffering horrendously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Foreign Secretary. We got through quite a lot of questions.
Detained British Nationals Abroad
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady, and I welcome her to the debate as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is absolutely right, but the problem in this case is that dual nationality was used as an excuse for why the Government did not want to raise the matter, because China did not recognise that British citizenship. She is right that if someone is a British citizen, they are a British citizen, and the inside of the passport tells us why that is important. It seems to be ignored too often.
We know that sanctions are a vital tool for deterring and punishing state actors involved in arbitrary detention, yet that tool is often underutilised by UK Governments. I will touch on that later, because compared with the Americans, we fail to utilise it as a possible way to leverage changes to what is going on outside.
Another area of concern is the inconsistent application of Government policy regarding international legal standards. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he confirm the Government’s official definition of arbitrary detention? How does it align with international legal standards, such as those established by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention? I have never been able to get an answer out of any Foreign Minister yet, but I ask him, given his experience in the Department, to kindly find out the definition for us and let us know.
I said I would raise specific cases, so I will run through some of the list. Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen unjustly detained in Dubai for more than 16 years, originally in isolation. His case represents an egregious violation of human rights and, importantly, of due process. He was arrested in 2008 on false fraud allegations relating to a $500 million Dubai Islamic Bank loan, and his 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years in 2018 through retroactive application of a new law without proper legal proceedings. The bank seized assets worth $1.6 billion from Mr Cornelius, far exceeding the original loan amount. The UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled categorically that Ryan’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law, calling for his immediate release and compensation. However, there still appears to be FCDO resistance.
Mohammed Ibrahim Al Shaibani became DIB chairman shortly before Mr Cornelius’s arrest. He appears to have orchestrated Mr Cornelius’s continued detention and the asset seizure. Mr Al Shaibani holds influential positions in Dubai’s Government, indicating an abuse of power. Mr Cornelius is now 70 and has suffered severe health issues in prison, including tuberculosis that went untreated for 18 months. Meanwhile, his seized property, originally claimed to be “worthless” by the bank, is now being redeveloped as a luxury project called The Acres, worth, strangely, $3 billion.
Under the last Government, I raised Mr Cornelius’s case finally with the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron while he was Foreign Secretary. Subsequently, he engaged personally in seeking clemency for Mr Cornelius. He met the family, raised the case with the UAE Foreign Minister and wrote personally to the ruler of Dubai. That was a first, because everybody else seemed to have shied away from this one, not wanting to upset the UAE, it appears.
To be fair to Lord Cameron, he got the issue and he started to tackle it, and that was important. The present Foreign Secretary, who replaced Lord Cameron in July, failed to raise Mr Cornelius’s case in his recent visit to the UAE in September, which perplexes me, given that it had already been raised. That just encourages a country like the UAE to carry on and to double down. I do not understand why.
In response to my written question to the Foreign Secretary, I received this answer:
“The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of consular issues, although not this specific case, during his visit to the UAE on 5 September and first meeting with Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed.”
I understand that on Sunday, the Prime Minister is expected to visit the UAE and, I think, Saudi Arabia. Will the Minister make it clear to the Prime Minister— I believe this is the view that will be expressed in this debate—that he must not only raise the case, which is important, but demand categorically that Ryan Cornelius is released into the hands of his family without delay? I hope that whatever is summarised from his meetings, that specific issue is there in black and white for this House to record.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) raised Mr Cornelius’s case several weeks ago in an Adjournment debate, when he was reassured by the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), that:
“the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities”,—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 241.]
and yet it was not. If Ministers give assurances in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, do you not agree that they should actually back up those assurances? I wonder if the Minister present will explain why that was the case.
Although individual cases are raised with international counterparts, often no concrete action follows. I hope the Minister agrees that once a case is raised, it will be followed up. In Mr Cornelius’s case, I believe the path could culminate in sanctions, so there is a process. It is clear that raising the case with the UAE authorities has yet to produce a result. What we want is a real record that the authorities are now being warned that should they fail to take action, individual sanctions under the Magnitsky rules will follow.
Will the Minister therefore now look to imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizures? There are a number of them: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani, who was the chairman of the DIB; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, the vice chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, who was a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi, a board member; Dr Hamad Buamim, a board member; Javier Marin Romano, a board member; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb Al Mheiri, a board member; and Dr Cigdem Kogar, a board member. All were involved in this case; all are eligible for Magnitsky sanctions. Mr Cornelius should now be released immediately, or sanctions, I believe, should follow.
I will deal reasonably quickly with the case of Jimmy Lai, and then I will give way to others in the debate. Jimmy Lai is a renowned pro-democracy campaigner, journalist and media owner. I wear the badge to free him with pride. This man has been treated abominably—he is a hero, and we should recognise that. He is 77 and a proud British citizen. He is also a Catholic, and has been denied the normal communion that he would expect as a believer in Catholicism; it has been shut off from him for a long time, which matters a great deal to him. He is a prisoner of conscience. He could have fled Hong Kong after the Sino-British agreement was trashed, but he chose to stay. Why? He wanted to set an example for the many who could not flee and who were going to be arrested—that he was not going to run away just because he had money. This is a brave man.
Mr Lai is currently on trial in Hong Kong for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition, said to arise out of his work as a newspaper publisher and his pro-democracy activism. His case is emblematic of the crackdown on the media in Hong Kong, civil society and the rule of law. On 15 November 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained and called for his immediate release. The working group found multiple violations of Mr Lai’s rights and freedoms, expressed alarm at his prolonged detention in solitary confinement and stressed that he should not be on trial at all.
This case, I say to the Minister, is very urgent. Mr Lai has been arbitrarily detained in prolonged solitary confinement for nearly four years, often in insufferable heat during the summer months. Securing Jimmy Lai’s release requires effective action across the Government to bring him home and reunite him with his family in London. At the moment, he is bravely giving evidence in his trial—at which, by the way, a number of Members present have been named. I have been apparently named. I am already sanctioned by the Chinese, but I have also been named as being party to the case being brought against him. I have to say publicly that I have, sadly, never met Jimmy Lai or corresponded with him. I wish that I had. I wish that I could tell him what a brave man he really is. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister outline today what urgent steps the Foreign Office is taking to secure Jimmy Lai’s release?
I remind the Minister and others that what we see in front of us now is a rise in hostage taking by nation states. The biggest abuser of this process is, of course, Iran. I worry about this abuse growing more and more in Iran. In January 2023—we must not forget about this—Iran executed British-Iranian national Alireza Akbari, who was arrested, charged and executed on spying charges, which he denied and which were totally untrue. It was the first execution of a dual national since the 1980s. Only four months later, the Iranian authorities executed a second dual national, Swedish-Iranian Habib Chaab. In October 2024, it executed a third dual national, German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd. At least one more dual national, Swedish-Iranian Ahmad Reza Djalia, has been sentenced to death since 2023.
I conclude on the simple basis, as I raised at the beginning, that we can no longer go along with the idea that we somehow lose influence if we raise these cases publicly. We can no longer go on with this idea that we can manage a generalist approach to this in the Foreign Office. As has already been raised, we need a much more professional, deliberate and permanent status in the Department to deal with this matter.
Finally, we have in our hands the Magnitsky sanctions legislation. With the case of Ryan Cornelius and others, it is high time that those who were party to the arrest and incarceration of innocent British citizens find themselves facing Magnitsky sanctions, unless they recant and that individual is released. That at least gives us a tool. I ask the Government to get to the Dispatch Box, when the time comes, and commit to that process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Jim Shannon
I brought the case up in Westminster Hall. Jimmy Lai was denied the Eucharist when it is his right to practise his religious belief. When there is that attack on someone’s religious belief, along with persecution, human rights abuses and the denial of that very right, we thank God that Jimmy Lai has that relationship with God in heaven. He may not have the Eucharist, but he has a greater faith, which hopefully will strengthen him. However, when someone wants to outwardly express themselves and is denied that—that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—that is totally wrong. The Chinese Government, particularly those in Hong Kong, should be criticised for the way that they have denied Jimmy Lai his rights.
Furthermore, we must act to ensure that the international community does not normalise the repression of freedoms in Hong Kong. The cases of Mr Johal and Mr Lai are not isolated. They reflect a troubling global trend where authoritarian regimes act with impunity to silence voices of dissent. Whether they are targeting activists, journalists or those practising their faith, these regimes seek to erode the very freedoms that form the bedrock of a just society.
I am reminded of Amanda Damari, who I think is a British passport holder. Her daughter, Emily, was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. I met Amanda just after Easter when I was on a visit to Israel. I was incredibly impressed by her courage and determination to see her daughter once again. I believe that we, in this House, have a duty to fight Amanda Damari’s case for the release of her daughter.
The United Kingdom has a moral and diplomatic duty to lead by example. Words of condemnation, as important as they are, are not enough. I call on the Government to do three things: prioritise these cases in all diplomatic, bilateral and multilateral engagements; explore the application of targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in these human rights violations; and advocate for stronger mechanisms of accountability at forums such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth. We cannot always fight battles on our own, but we can fight them better together. I urge that we do so in a positive way.
We must also be mindful of the human stories behind these injustices. We try to express the human stories behind each one of these cases in the way that we can, but perhaps we do so without using the individual knowledge that we have. Jagtar Singh Johal is a husband, a son and a brother. Jimmy Lai is a father and a tireless advocate for freedom. Amanda Damari just wants her daughter home. Both those men are people of faith, and so too is Amanda. Their families bear the heavy burden of waiting, hoping and fighting for their return. We owe it to them and to ourselves as a nation—this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Strangford, but he knows better than to refer to the Minister as “you” because it ends up meaning me in the Chair.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this vital debate. He is an impressive champion on this issue, as I know from my time spent serving as an officer with him on the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation.
It should be a primary function of any given state to protect its citizens. It should not matter where in the world a British national or an individual with strong ties to the UK gets into trouble; we as a nation should be right alongside them trying to get them out. Arbitrary detention abroad and related human rights abuses, such as torture, are unacceptable. They often have profound, long-lasting physical, psychological and social impacts, not just on the individual concerned, but on their loved ones, friends and wider social network.
Many Members have spoken in depth today about individual cases of British nationals or UK-linked individuals detained abroad, so I will touch just lightly on two that I have followed mostly closely. First, as the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has mentioned, there is the unacceptable continued detention of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu in Azerbaijan, whose son, Ibad, I had the pleasure of meeting just last month. Ibad and his siblings are hugely impressive advocates for their father, and I know that he will be proud of the tenacity and dignity with which they have conducted their campaign for his release.
Dr Ibadoghlu has spent more than a quarter of a century advocating for a democratic Azerbaijan. He has tirelessly fought for fundamental human rights and campaigned against corruption in Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry. He has been detained since July 2023 on clearly spurious charges, under threat of spending 17 years in prison, while contending with serious health issues. The European Court of Human Rights has demanded that he be transferred to a specialised medical institution so that he can receive the treatment that he so desperately needs. But, all the while, the Azerbaijan Government have denied this request, claiming spuriously that his health is “satisfactory”.
I wish to place on record my support for the immediate release of Dr Ibadoghlu. As a British resident and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, the UK should be standing by him and using all available diplomatic levers to show the Azeri Government that their flagrant human rights abuses will not be tolerated.
Secondly, I wish to join the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maldon, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in raising the case of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy has been held in solitary confinement in Hong Kong for over four years for publishing content critical of the Chinese regime. I have a significant Hong Kong community in my constituency of Bolton West, and I know from speaking to many of them that they worry that, if it is Jimmy detained today, it could be them tomorrow. Indeed, many of my constituents were effectively forced from their homes in Hong Kong due to China’s disruption of Hong Kong’s democratic freedoms, which we have heard about in this Chamber today. Only last week, in a debate on the status of Taiwan, we heard how Jimmy’s treatment is part of a broader pattern of behaviour, which is China’s consistent and blatant disregard for the international rules-based system.
In both those cases, I fear that the UK Government have not done their utmost to fulfil that very central function of protecting our nationals. I share the view of colleagues that, unfortunately, the Foreign Office lacks a clear, centralised and proactive strategy for dealing with arbitrary detention of UK nationals. Given the severity of the issue, I believe that a dedicated UK envoy in this area, in a similar vein to the US role of presidential envoy for hostage affairs, should be considered very swiftly by the Foreign Office. While in opposition, the Foreign Secretary pledged to look at that, so I hope the Minister can give me an update on how this pledge will be realised in fairly short order.
A good first step, however, would be to consider greater transparency in the Foreign Office. It could, for example, share with us information about how many British nationals are currently being arbitrarily detained. I hope the Minister will speak to that in his wind-up. At the very least, we should be able to hold statistical data on the number of victims of arbitrary detention, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green quite rightly said.
I welcome this Government’s manifesto pledge to give British citizens the legal right to consular access when they get into legal difficulties overseas. I find it extremely concerning that that is not already the case. As colleagues have already attested to, consular assistance not only comes with protection against the very worst excesses of arbitrary detention, but is sometimes the only link between the individual suffering in absolutely harrowing circumstances and the outside world. It is no exaggeration to say that it can be life-saving, and I wish to go on the record to commend the work of dedicated officials in the Foreign Office when such assistance has been provided.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to say one final word on the diplomatic levers available to us. Magnitsky sanctions are a critical tool for ensuring that there is a cost to hostage taking and arbitrary detention, and they should be deployed in a consistent manner in cases such as those mentioned in the Chamber today. In addition, we know that asset freezes can be a very effective tool, as can denying sanctioned individuals access to London’s financial sector and property market. Sanctions must be used in a holistic manner against those responsible for arbitrary detention of British nationals. To deter states from engaging in arbitrary detention, we must also ensure that they bite as much as possible.
On a related point, just last month, Financial Times analysis found that companies registered in the British overseas territories exported $134 million worth of goods to Russia in 2024, in an apparent breach of UK sanctions. The lack of open ownership records in our British overseas territories complicates efforts to establish who is involved in such shipments. The same principle applies to assets that we would seek to freeze. That matters for today’s debate, because without fully public registers of ownership, we will never be totally comfortable that we are not unwittingly allowing individuals who are subject to sanctions to evade them.
I place on the record my thanks to the organisations campaigning on this issue, including Redress, and my deepest sympathy with the families of those who have been arbitrarily detained abroad. Their suffering, and of course the suffering of those detained, is why this debate needs to be had, and why the Government must act on the concerns raised by colleagues on both sides of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To make the final Back-Bench contribution, which I have no doubt will be just as impactful as the others, I call Douglas McAllister.