Middle East

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I would like to update the House on the conflict in the middle east. Since the start of the conflict, we have seen Iran fire over 900 missiles and over 3,000 drones across 13 countries in the region—countries that are UK partners, and that hundreds of thousands of British citizens visit, work in or live in. Regional air defences have intercepted the vast majority of Iranian strikes, but in recent days we have seen damage to oil export infrastructure, gas facilities, ports and airports, and restrictions on the strait of Hormuz, with major consequences for the global economy; there are impacts on the UK economy, too. US and Israeli strikes across Iran are continuing. We have also seen attacks from Iranian proxy groups, and troubling escalation in Lebanon. The UK is continuing our support for British nationals in the region, our defensive military support for partners against Iranian strikes, and our intensive diplomatic activity on both security and economic issues in the UK national interest.

In Riyadh a few days ago, I saw the work to get British nationals home from across the region, and how we are protecting our people and our partners. I stressed the UK’s support and solidarity as I met counterparts from across the Gulf. Over the last week alone, I have held discussions with my counterparts from all six nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the US, Israel, key European allies and other regional partners. We want the swiftest possible resolution to the crisis to bring security and stability back to the region, and to stop Iran’s threats to its neighbours and its efforts to hijack the global economy.

The events in the middle east have consequences around the world and affect our security and our prosperity here in the UK. Our response is based on clear principles and calm leadership: we will support UK households under pressure; we will protect our people in the region; and we will defend our allies under attack. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will not be drawn into a wider war; nor will we outsource our foreign policy. Our decisions will be based on UK values and the UK national interest.

Let me update the House on support for British nationals in the region. At the outset of the crisis, more than 300,000 British citizens were in the region. When the air strikes started and airspace closed, many were stuck. Since then, we have been working relentlessly to help them get home. That has been a complex task. Our 24/7 crisis response centre has been working with our embassies, partner Governments and the rapid deployment teams we sent to operate on the ground. We have worked closely with airlines and laid on additional Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We estimate that the number of British nationals who will have flown back from the region since the start of the war will today reach 100,000. We continue to monitor the situation to provide the latest advice, but I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those involved in the tireless efforts to support British nationals abroad and to bring British citizens home.

Turning to the conflict, as the Prime Minister set out to Parliament, we took the decision not to be involved in the initial US strikes, or to join any offensive operations. We have taken a different position on that from the US and Israel, based on what is in the UK national interest. When Iran began to target other countries across the region, putting our partners and citizens in danger, we took the further decision to support defensive action. In Saudi Arabia, I have seen the air defences that the British Army is helping to operate to counter drones. We discussed additional defence assets, which were pre-deployed by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to the region before the conflict began, and we have increased support since. We have jets operating from sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and eight in Qatar, including in the joint UK-Qatari squadron. As I speak, British Typhoons and F-35s are flying in defence of the eastern Mediterranean and across Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. The UK’s defensive military action is supporting the wider region, with four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters and a Merlin helicopter already deployed. We are increasing our naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, as HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay approach. As the House is aware, we have given permission for US forces to use long-standing basing at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to support defensive strikes against the ballistic missiles that are targeting the Gulf, but let me confirm again the point that the Prime Minister made last week: our Cyprus base is not being used in those US operations.

We want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more pressure on the cost of living here at home. Iran’s capabilities have been massively degraded, but the conflict has confirmed the threat that the regime poses through its weapons and its proxies, and why for so long there has been an international determination that Iran should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. As the conflict eases or ends, we will need some form of negotiated agreement to contain and constrain the future threats from ballistic missiles, drones, proxies and Iran’s nuclear programme, and to safeguard international shipping.

In the past seven days, we have seen Iran particularly focus its strikes on economic infrastructure in the Gulf: oilfields in Saudi; ports in Oman; strikes against commercial ships from Thailand and Malta; and threatened mines in the strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. It is holding hostage supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser, affecting prices and supply chains across the globe, threatening the cost of living here at home, and causing real worry for our constituents across the country. That is why the Prime Minister laid out yesterday how the Government will stand up for working people here in Britain, including by providing support for households with heating oil costs, and by maintaining the energy price cut and cap. Last week, we joined 31 other countries in the biggest co-ordinated release of oil in the International Energy Agency’s history, while maintaining our economic pressure and sanctions on Russia. As we welcome President Zelensky to London today, we are determined that war in the Gulf must not become a windfall for Putin. We continue to stand with Ukraine.

Reopening the strait of Hormuz is vital for market stability, and for the cost of living for British households. However, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious and complex issue, and there is no easy fix. We are discussing this with international partners in Europe and Asia, Gulf partners and the US. These discussions are separate from the conflict itself, as the US has said; countries around the world have been clear that they do not want to see escalation, or be drawn into a wider conflict, but they do want to see the strait open and functioning, and they do not want to see the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation undermined. Because it is an international shipping lane, multiple nations need to be involved in planning the way forward. Our discussions will continue to reflect serious, expert military and commercial assessments of what is credible and feasible, so that commercial shipping can return as soon as possible, as the conflict subsides.

I turn to Lebanon, which I am extremely concerned is on the precipice of a widening conflict that risks disastrous humanitarian consequences. In recent days, I have spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, as well as holding discussions with the US, France and other European and Gulf partners. We need urgent diplomatic action to avert further escalation, but amid that danger, it is possible that there is also a moment of diplomatic opportunity, and we must bring all support and pressure to bear so that it is seized and not squandered.

Let me set out the UK position. First, we condemn the appalling attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets at northern Israel. This must cease immediately. The actions of this proscribed terrorist group, at the instigation of the Iranian regime, are once again drawing the people of Lebanon into a conflict that they do not want and that is not in their interests.

Secondly, we support the sovereignty of Lebanon. We welcome the commitments made by the Lebanese Government, including the significant decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activities, and we will continue to support the Lebanese armed forces—they, not Hezbollah, are the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.

Thirdly, we are extremely worried about the civilian consequences of current Israeli operations. An estimated 1,000 people have been killed, and one in seven Lebanese civilians have reportedly been displaced from their homes. This scale of humanitarian displacement is unacceptable and risks devastating consequences. This weekend, I announced that the UK would provide an additional £5 million in essential humanitarian aid, and today I can announce a further £10 million of humanitarian support to provide emergency medical care, shelter and other lifesaving assistance in Lebanon and the region. This will help prevent further displacement and instability that would risk escalating regional problems and have a wider impact on other countries beyond the region.

Fourthly, we believe that diplomatic progress can be made, as there is a shared interest across Lebanon and Israel in seeing an end to the Hezbollah threats and seeing peace and stability return. Both the Lebanese and Israeli Governments have expressed an interest in joint talks. We strongly support this path, the framework for which is in Security Council resolution 1701, as it presents the best route to lasting peace, security and stability beyond the region. The UK stands ready to provide diplomatic support to this process.

This conflict in the middle east is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

International Women’s Day

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Never a truer word was spoken. To building on the hon. Lady’s comment, it is worth the House knowing that, at the current pace, it will take 283 years for women to achieve equal representation in tech. That is why I am proud that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched the Women in Tech taskforce to champion diversity in the UK tech sector, with a pipeline strengthened by stronger engagement with tech in the classroom. There are spaces in which our economy is going to grow, and we need a plan for women to be part of that.

Throughout history, women have consistently been the backbone of our communities, giving their power, time, ideas and more. They have done this in our classrooms, in our offices, in our hospitals, in our military and in the home. History has taught us that despite giving so much, women do not always gain equally to men. Every day, women and girls across the UK challenge the stereotypes so often thrown upon them, but they are our scientists, our teachers, our business leaders, our astronauts, our athletes and so much more. There is nowhere that women and girls should not be able to reach.

But while this Government have women’s equality firmly on the agenda, the battle is not yet won. Increasingly loud voices attempt to dismiss the necessary protections for an inclusive culture at work. Some argue that our existing equality framework has gone too far—that it hinders progress. Let us be clear: these protections embody the British values that women should be treated equally with men, and that people should be treated equally regardless of their race. That is a core British value. It was fought for.

In a Westminster Hall debate last September, a now Reform MP described the Equality Act 2010 as fuelling “a corrosive culture” of grievance. He then called for it to be abolished. It is not a grievance to recognise that a woman who is made redundant for being pregnant, or who leaves work because her employer does not make reasonable adjustments for the menopause, leaves us poorer as individuals, as an economy and as a society.

In this battle, these voices are taking up space online, too. When we see the level of online abuse and intimidation, we must tackle the misogynistic insurgency that threatens to roll back women’s rights and that is having a huge impact on the wellbeing and aspiration of women and girls across our country. The online abuse of women athletes is set to be discussed at the next women’s sports taskforce meeting. I am proud that the offence of creating intimate images without consent was signed into force last month, and that our female Secretary of State announced that it will be made a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, delivering for users the strongest protections from such content.

But this happens against a backdrop of changing social attitudes that we are only just beginning to address. New research from Ipsos MORI and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College business school shows that 31% of gen Z men—born between 1997 and 2012—agree that a wife should always obey her husband, and one third, or 33%, say that a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to a new global study of 23,000 people in 29 countries. We are in a renewed battle of ideas and new conversations about progress and rights. We also see pressures and influence through online social influencers. This demands our engagement. It is through conversation, legislation, education and campaigning that this Government are determined to keep us moving forward.

With the challenge to women’s inequality now being international, so must our response be. In the year 2000, we led the first UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security. It was a simple but transformative idea: that peace is more durable when women help to shape it. UN statistics show that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, the resulting agreement is 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict and more likely to see their rights curtailed. Some 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of deaths of under-fives take place in settings of conflict and displacement.

We continue to use our voice at the United Nations to push for women to be embedded in peace processes, resolutions and humanitarian responses. Indeed, this week Baroness Smith of Malvern and the UK special envoy for women and girls, Harriet Harman, are leading our delegation in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, because this Government stand in solidarity with women and girls not just in the UK but around the world.

International Women’s Day marks the beginning not only of a month-long celebration of women’s history, but also, I hope, a year of progress and action. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, the aim of which is to emphasise the power of reciprocity and support, whether through advocacy, education, mentoring or time, to help to create a more supportive and interconnected world, building new networks in our communities to bring hope, leadership and change, and renewing our determination. Connecting with our sisters at home and abroad will give us a renewed frontline to resist the roll back of our rights and push forward for the progress of women and girls for generations to come.

But this month is about more than reflection; it is about maintaining momentum. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.”

That is not an observation; it is a directive. It is for us to hold the light up to highlight progress, and to keep fighting for a better world for women and girls everywhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a privilege to respond to the International Women’s Day debate and to follow the Minister for Equalities. It is wonderful to hear her talk about her passion for fighting inequality, fighting for rights and fighting the gender pay gap. I hope very soon to see her in shadow Cabinet—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean the real Cabinet, not with us. That would be terrible for you; you wouldn’t like that! [Laughter.]

This topic is what unites us today in the Chamber: we may have differences of opinion on every topic and come at issues from every ideological point of view, but we are united in our ability to exercise that right to debate and to stand up for women. I am so grateful to be a part of this country and to have those rights that so many women no longer have across the world.

I would like to pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not only for your amazing work here in the Chamber keeping us all under control—a full-time job for anyone. I want to highlight the incredible work that you have done to champion Uyghur women and girls. When everyone was turning their back on Uyghur women and girls, you led the campaign. You tirelessly campaigned across the world to make sure their story was heard and their voice was heard. You worked cross-party on that, so from everyone across the House: thank you for your incredible work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am incredibly grateful. It is why I was then sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party—but there are a lot of very powerful women in this room who will not be deterred, regardless of any sanctions.

[Joy Morrissey]

I feel that if one has received sanctions, it is a badge of honour.

First, to honour the international scope of the debate, I would like to take this moment to think about the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under the Taliban. The life of all human beings is intrinsically valuable and should always be remembered. Afghan women, whose rights have been systematically dismantled with 100 decrees to restrict their freedom of movement, education, work and expression, to visit a doctor or to have financial freedom. There is no protection there against violence, beatings and forced child marriage. May we remember them today and how quickly the rights we take for granted can disappear.

Across the House and throughout our great country, women have shaped our communities, strengthened our institutions—throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—and led with courage, determination and resilience. Women are leaders in business, education, science, the armed forces, charities and voluntary organisations, and, of course, here in Parliament.

We must also recognise the women who contribute but who are often not recognised: the carers who support their families every day, with no thanks and no recognition; the volunteers who hold our communities together; the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who provide strength and stability in the times we need it most. I have often spoken in this House about the importance of service, both to our communities and to our country. That spirit of sacrifice and service is embodied by countless women across the United Kingdom who quietly make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. May we recognise their contributions today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. You may be coming to this, but it is an incredible—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not wish to correct any one of our fantastic female parliamentarians, but “you” means me. One more time: Dawn Butler.

[Dawn Butler]

Thank you, and you are amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but my friend Elaine Banton was the lawyer in the case she refers to. I want to put that on record alongside my hon. Friend’s excellent remarks about her constituent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a staunch feminist—one of the reasons why he will speak in this debate.

I will finish by saying that the justice served to Sanju is a victory not just for her, but for the countless women across the country who have fought so hard to get reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I hope that the Minister will consider this case and that legislation will follow from the Labour Government to ensure that women never again have to face discrimination in the workplace.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. These are really fantastic speeches. So that I do not have to interrupt them, let me say that “you” and “your”, unless you are referring to the Chair, should not be said at all. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If colleagues could keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, it would help other Members. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done.

As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters.

I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms.

Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan.

Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer.

What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There is now a speaking limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Gibraltar Treaty

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlingto and the Wolds) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That is not good form. Ms Martin, you are not meant to give way when you are asking a question, but I assume you have finished your question.

[Amanda Martin]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the question is done. I call the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with eloquence and expertise on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. She is a staunch defender of the people of Gibraltar, and of their rights, sovereignty and future prosperity. Like many Members of the House, she has visited Gibraltar with me. She has seen the reality on the ground, the difficulties resulting from the current arrangements, and the fears for the future. She is absolutely right that this Government are supported by Gibraltar. The treaty is good for the people of Gibraltar. I welcome her support and that of the all-party group on this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days.

The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests.

The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them?

The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Even though he has been a very naughty boy, I call Charlie Dewhirst.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.

Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?

Ukraine

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Roome]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that poignant point, with which I totally agree.

We in the UK are relearning the strategic importance of warfighting, of deterrence, readiness and resilience at home, and of sticking with European allies that we could have taken for granted. It is important that UK civil society understands the hardship faced by the Ukrainian people. If Russia succeeds in using force to redraw borders, it threatens the collective security of the entire European continent and of NATO, and threatens the safety of the UK. Facing down tyrants is in this country’s DNA. Ukraine will fight on, and we must back it. There is no stronger defence than showing that we are as good as our word.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I also want to pay my tribute to the Ukrainian people and the many Ukrainians who live in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 152J, as amended by the Order of 2 February relating to Estimates day debates),

That this House agrees with the Report of the Backbench Business Committee of 24 February:

That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2025-26: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry of Defence; and Department for Business and Trade.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.

[Mr Falconer]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.

[Mr Falconer]

On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.

The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.

[James Cartlidge]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account.

The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.

[Mr Falconer]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.

As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February I asked a named day question about the role of Jonathan Powell in the Chagos islands deal, which was due for answer on 12 February. As of now, 25 February, it has still not been responded to by the Government. How can I best encourage the Government to produce timely and accurate answers to named day written questions on this subject?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Israel-Palestine conflict, HC 488, and the Government response, HC 1374; Fifth Report of the International Development Committee, Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid, HC 526; Second Report of the International Development Committee, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, HC 373.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Brendan O’Hara, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Because I want to get everyone in before we finish at 5 pm, all Members are on a three-minute speaking limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.

Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,

“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”

That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.

Secondly, article II(b) prohibits

“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.

We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.

Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.

When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.

History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Andy McDonald.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If interventions are made, not all colleagues will get in. Please consider that.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this crucial debate. As he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on 7 October and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that horrific day.

Despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge that risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people.

Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back Hind Rajab, her six family members or the two paramedics who tried to save her. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2,700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel’s hands, or the relatives of more than 6,000 sole survivors. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter, such as the three-year-old Wesam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five-year-old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and her grandparents.

Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the more than 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret that I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by this Government’s decisions.

The point is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK Government to cease arms exports, impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes.

I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese:

“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation.”

The UK has aided and abetted this genocide—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. I think that is what we are all trying to get at, and Members from right across the House want answers on that.

It is imperative to listen and act when such respected bodies speak with one voice. It is vital to our ability to stop future genocides. Genocide is not something we can recognise only when it is politically convenient; we must call it out, without fear or favour, whenever and wherever it is occurring. What we are seeing in plain sight in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the powerful voices from across the House—in the way he has listened to us on the many occasions when he meets us to hear about our constituents’ concerns—because there must be a reckoning for what is happening before our eyes, and history will judge us for anything less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Andrew George to speak for two minutes.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this issue to the House. I was worried that we would concentrate primarily on the jurisprudence—on the merits of the arguments over whether the threshold in the definition has been reached. We are politicians and do not have—I certainly do not have—the skillset to make such an analysis. I find that arguments are advanced, as they were by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—very eloquently, of course—that engage in the political sophistry of the issue itself, and that worries me.

The bottom line is that what has been happening in the middle east is appalling, and the level of death and destruction has shocked the world. Of course, the horrors of 7 October 2023 were absolutely appalling, but we all need to reflect on the overwhelming response of the Netanyahu regime, which has taken such advantage of the opportunity for retribution. This is not just about the mass murder in Gaza itself but, as Members have said, about the murder of our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker Jim Henderson. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the strikes have been careful, but they have not been careful; the strikes have been indiscriminate and certainly amount to clear murder.

I just hope that the Government will stop doing the minimum they can get away with—stop the trading, stop the excusing, stop the support of the Israeli regime—because it is in the interests of the international world order, of the Palestinians and Palestine, and of Israel itself to get this sorted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to speak for just a few minutes.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.

Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.

However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.

International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier on in the debate I referred to several organisations and individuals. Due to time constraints, I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interests of clarity and to keep the record of this House correct, I now seek to set the record straight.

I referred to the International Court of Justice. I clarified that it has found a plausible risk of genocide, triggering the clearest legal duty on all states to prevent it. I then referred to UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, and the UN commission of inquiry. They have all warned of genocidal acts and catastrophic intent. I referred to the 600 lawyers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. No doubt, the record is now clarified. We cannot continue the debate. It is now 5.1 pm, and the debate is now over.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.

We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.

I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.

Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will

“have noticed this act of total weakness.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.

[Priti Patel]

Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.

This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, I will continue.

The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please keep your speech short.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.

In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.

At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.

We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.

On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.

I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.

Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.

Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I will try to be brief. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made a set of arguments predicated on the case for national security. It is therefore important to take on the question of how secure we are. Look at the economic security that this Government inherited: 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, and wages that had grown at a consistent 2% a year flatlining. Look at the impacts of the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives: in early 2025, the UK’s GDP was between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost between £180 billion and £240 billion of output. This is important, because it relates to the credibility of the Opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Hayes, this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the Opposition. Let us get to the point quickly.

[Tom Hayes]

Moving forward three pages—those pages were a condensed history of how our country was left completely insecure by the Opposition—to look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that in the House. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile states and enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide. That is, in large part, why the US Administration have backed what this Government have been pushing forward. Recent operations against high-value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe.

With this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards, a UK-controlled electromagnetic spectrum, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone and a ban on foreign military presence on the outer islands. In the interests of giving a briefer speech, I am going to put down the two pages that further explain the way in which the treaty reinforces the UK’s relationship with the Chagos islands and supports our national security.

We have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many urgent questions, statements and debates in the House. The Opposition talk about the importance of national security. This country is facing some of the gravest threats to our national security. We are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation daily. Our security services are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.

[Dr Luke Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Dr Luke Evans, you need to stop using points of order to continue debates. No doubt Mr Hayes is going to get right to the point and then conclude very quickly.

[Tom Hayes]

I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.

I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.

I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:

“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”

That is wholly unwise.

I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.

This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.

[Stephen Doughty]

With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.

The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.

I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope this is an actual point of order.

[Graham Stuart]

I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.

The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.

Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.

There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would impose a charge on public revenue that has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendments 2 and 3 are therefore deemed to be disagreed to.

After Clause 5

Cost of the Treaty

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Stephen Doughty.)

Arctic Security

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I begin by expressing my condolences to all affected by the terrible train crash near Cordoba last night and thanking the Spanish emergency services who responded overnight and throughout today. I am sure the House will join me in thinking of the people of Spain at this distressing time.

With permission, I will make a statement on Greenland and wider Arctic security.

On the evening of Saturday 17 January, President Trump announced the intention to impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK over the future of Greenland. This is a serious moment for our transatlantic discussions and partnerships, so let me outline to the House the UK’s response, which rests on three key principles. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Its future is a matter for Greenlanders and the Danes, and them alone. This reflects the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity to which the whole House is committed. Secondly, the use or threat of tariffs against allies in this way is completely wrong, unwarranted and counterproductive. Thirdly, Arctic security is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic. It can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO. So instead of divisions that only aid our adversaries, we now need a serious and constructive dialogue about our Arctic security that is built on respect for sovereignty and collective security and the rules that underpin our alliance.

As the Prime Minister set out this morning, the north star for the Government’s foreign policy is to stand up for the UK’s national interest and to defend and advance Britain’s security, Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s values, and we do so through the alliances and partnerships we build abroad that make us stronger here at home, including alliances where that transatlantic co-operation between Europe and North America has long been vital. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our close and deep-rooted partnership with the United States is a hugely important part of our security and our prosperity. The depth of our co-operation on intelligence sharing and defence helps keep us safe, and our trading relationship and the new agreements we have reached in the last 12 months are driving billions of pounds of investment in the UK, supporting jobs across the country. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will be very direct about our differences, as he was in speaking to President Trump yesterday, because standing up for the UK national interest means defending the principles that underpin stable and enduring international co-operation. That means respect for sovereignty and respect for long-standing allies.

Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, Denmark has long been one of the US’s closest allies, a proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK and the US, including at real human cost in recent decades. Rooted in that partnership, the US already has in place a 1951 treaty with Denmark that provides for an extensive US security presence in Greenland. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure, and tariff threats like this are no way to treat allies.

The tariff threat has come following the co-ordinated preparations for the annual Danish programme of activities under the Arctic Endurance framework, which is focused on addressing Russian security threats in the Arctic. Last week, at the request of the Danish Government, one UK military officer currently based in Denmark joined a planning group visit in an observational capacity. These sorts of visits are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure.

A trade war would hurt workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be in no one’s interests. Both sides of the Atlantic should be working together on Arctic security, not moving apart. That is why the Prime Minister and this Government are working intensively in the UK national interest to prevent this from happening and to reach a resolution.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke directly with President Trump, the Danish Prime Minister and other close allies and international leaders. Today, I welcomed Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen here to London for valuable discussions, and the Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. I have also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues, and on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will visit Denmark. We will continue with this urgent diplomacy in pursuit of the principles I have set out.

We will also argue for the strengthening of our multilateral co-operation around Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway for Russia’s northern fleet to threaten Britain, western Europe and North America—threats to undersea cables and to critical national infrastructure. We have seen a greater presence of Russian ships and submarines making their way to the north Atlantic. We have seen Russian aircraft testing our air defence as shadow fleet vessels pass through our waters, trying to evade our sanctions and continuing to fund the war in Ukraine. Northern Norway, Finland and sea routes through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap have long been strategically significant when considering Russian threats. We know that the strategic significance of the Arctic is likely to grow as the melting of Arctic ice stands to open new routes through the Arctic ocean, and with new-found geo-economic competition for critical minerals and rare earths.

Arctic security is crucial not just to the UK but to the entire NATO alliance—of the eight countries north of the Arctic circle, seven are NATO allies—so across our alliance, working together, we can and should do more. That is why last week I travelled to Finland and Norway to discuss the threats they currently face, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was also in Sweden.

In Helsinki, I met the Finnish Foreign Minister and was briefed on Finnish border force activities to tackle a Russian ship that had damaged undersea cables between Finland and Estonia. In northern Norway, I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. We signed a new agreement to strengthen our co-operation to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, and we travelled together to Camp Viking to see the work of the Royal Marines and their Norwegian partners.

In the bitter cold of that unforgiving landscape, our commando forces are training and exercising, and preparing for contingencies. For more than 50 years, the Royal Marines have trained in the Norwegian Arctic, but we are increasing that commitment by doubling the number of marines there from 1,000 to 2,000 in the space of three years—I pay tribute to their phenomenal work. Alongside that, the landmark Lunna House defence agreement will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a new fleet of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to hunt Russian submarines and protect our critical undersea infrastructure.

In the autumn, the UK-led joint expeditionary force saw thousands of troops, including over 1,700 British personnel, dozens of ships, vehicles and aircraft, deployed from the Baltics to Iceland. The UK plans to contribute to a range of exercises in the north Atlantic and High North throughout 2026, because that is how we believe we will best strengthen our Arctic security for the sake of western Europe and North America—together, through alliances and partnerships, not through threats on tariffs or on sovereignty that simply undermine our collective security.

I welcome the messages of cross-party unity and the shared conviction that the future of Greenland must be determined by the Greenlanders and the Danes. Whether on Greenland, on tariffs or on wider Arctic security, we are clear in our views, firm in our principles and steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding UK interests. The UK will continue to pursue constructive ways forward, collaborating intensively with our partners and allies and pursuing our security, our prosperity and our values every step of the way. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.

I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.

There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by the Foreign Secretary about the terrible rail crash in Spain? I thank her for her statement.

President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe and our world. Without provocation or justification, the President of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods and our national security. Trump has put British businesses and jobs on the frontline in his unprovoked aggression. The only people cheering him on are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Only a few months ago, Trump hailed the special relationship at Windsor castle. Now, thanks to his actions, it is nearly in tatters.

How do we stop Trump’s damaging trade war? For a year now, the Prime Minister has tried a policy of appeasing Trump, flattering him, fawning over him and refusing to stand up to him, because—he argued—Trump would otherwise hit us with damaging tariffs. Well, the Prime Minister has tested his approach to destruction, and it has failed. It is time for the Government to change course.

We have to finally be clear-eyed about the sort of man Trump is and treat him accordingly. He is a bully. He thinks that he can grab whatever he wants, using force if necessary, and he is corrupt—the most corrupt president that the United States has ever seen. There are only two ways of getting him to back down: bribing him—with a new jet, perhaps, or a few billion in his crypto account—or standing up to him, like we would with any other bully, and standing together with our European allies to make him back down. That is the choice. Which one, Foreign Secretary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Colleagues need to shorten their questions. Many Members want to get in, and that will depend on the length of your questions.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for setting out the UK’s position that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Danes to decide. It is not right that one of our closest and oldest allies is threatening us with economic sanctions, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, how will she explain to the US Administration our interests and our actions at this time, and stop the sanctions and resolve the situation? Secondly, building on the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), might the Foreign Secretary take an interest in the Franco-British fast jet replacement programme and a company called Aeralis, so that we do not have to rely on an American solution?

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of that point of order. As she will know, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers—if only we were—but she has most definitely put her point on the record, and the Minister might wish to respond now.

[Seema Malhotra]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Minister has declined to respond now. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will feed that point back to the Ministers responsible.