Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let me start by joining the Minister in expressing the Opposition’s sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent wildfires in Spain.
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our starting position is that an agreed legal basis for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU is needed. Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. Businesses in both Gibraltar and Britain need certainty. British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty, and the many thousands of frontier workers need certainty. We need to have proper scrutiny, not least because an acceptable deal between Gibraltar and the EU has to do many things at once. It must uphold unequivocally and without qualification British sovereignty over Gibraltar and the express will of the people of Gibraltar to be part of the British family, not Spain. Every Government has a duty to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom and the British family wherever it exists. It must also deal with the practical realities of the frontier and Gibraltar’s economy.
However, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, with the treaty signed and provisional application under way, and even with the final sections of the frontier fence now removed, Parliament has still not been afforded a proper debate in Government time to scrutinise this agreement. Since the agreement was announced, the shadow foreign affairs team has asked five urgent questions and numerous oral and written parliamentary questions to try to establish the Government’s intentions, often receiving unsatisfactory non-answers. The FCDO is responsible for Britain’s treaty obligations, but it has been the Government of Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who have all too often kept Members of this House informed. I thank them for that.
Even today in this statement, there is no mention of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and scrutiny, so I ask again for confirmation that the 21 sitting day CRaG process will apply. Will the Minister set out the timetable for that today? We cannot have a repeat of the way the Government have tried to avoid scrutiny with the Chagos deal.
On the substance of the deal itself, starting with the military base, can the Minister offer an unambiguous and unequivocal guarantee that nothing in this agreement constrains the operation, freedom of action or sovereign control of His Majesty’s armed forces in Gibraltar? Britain’s military base is not a matter for compromise, negotiation or shared competence. It is sovereign British territory, serving vital British and NATO interests.
On the entry of British commercial goods, including British foods, into Gibraltar, can the Minister confirm whether the new process has been stress-tested with British businesses and when guidance for businesses will be published?
On the movement of people, having a fluid border with Spain—a key request of the Gibraltar Government—clearly comes with trade-offs, and we should recognise that. The decision to have Schengen checks in a British overseas territory is obviously one such compromise, and there is understandably a real strength of feeling about it, notwithstanding that Gibraltar has always had its own entry requirements, including for Brits.
In the light of reported chaos at the border, it is imperative that the Government get this right. Given the totally chaotic way that the EU has introduced its entry-exit systems across Europe, it is imperative that we do not see a similar situation at Gibraltar airport. The Conservatives will be watching. What tabs is the Minister keeping on the roll-out of the new checks by the EU, and what is his recourse if British nationals end up being disrupted by EU issues?
Gibraltar’s new residency regulations came into force on 14 July. What assessment has the Minister made of their impact on the ability of British citizens to live and work in Gibraltar? What is the anticipated impact on British citizens of retirement age wishing to relocate permanently to Gibraltar? Do the Government have contingency plans to support Gibraltar if the Spanish Government stage any provocations for their domestic audience now that the border fence is down?
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar has expressed concern that the UK-Gibraltar concordat envisages circumstances in which the UK could act without the consent of Gibraltar’s Government or people on treaty matters. What is the Minister’s response? If there were to be a change of Government in Gibraltar, what would the implications be?
To conclude, Gibraltar is as British as any of our constituencies. Britain and NATO rely on Gibraltar’s strategically vital military base. In an age of insecurity, the base is indispensable for our country. Any deal to secure a long-term future arrangement between Gibraltar and the EU needs to be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny in this House. The Government should know that, and they should expect that Opposition Members rightly desire to understand what this treaty means in practice.
Stephen Doughty
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair? There was no substantive difference in my statement as delivered from the copy provided, but I may have stylistically altered a couple of lines slightly; I apologise.
I thank the shadow Minister for her very reasonable questions, her broad support for what we have signed and agreed, and her recognition that the agreement is supported by the people of Gibraltar. It is what the people of Gibraltar want and there was unanimous support in the Gibraltarian Parliament for the deal; that is very important.
The right hon. Lady asked about the CRaG process. As I explained in the debate that we had the other day, the treaty is now laid so the CRaG process starts, but scrutiny will only take place when both Houses are sitting—the intervening period of the recess does not interfere with the ability of both Houses to provide scrutiny. Helpfully, this aligns with the process in the European Parliament, which has its own processes, so scrutiny will take place in the autumn there as well. I remain completely at the disposal of the right hon. Lady, shadow Ministers and other shadow spokespeople if they have further technical or other questions, and I am sure that officials would be happy to provide further briefings.
I would gently say that we have answered many, many questions on this issue. We published a draft treaty text on 26 February—it has been available to study in this House for four months—but the text has not substantively changed since then. I have appeared before multiple Committees and indeed we had a debate in Westminster Hall just the other day. I am very happy to talk about this; there is absolutely nothing to hide. It is an important treaty and, despite the right hon. Lady’s comments about the process, I am glad that she broadly endorses it.
The right hon. Lady asked about military autonomy. I can tell her absolutely that military autonomy is protected—that was a key red line for us. Indeed, I think the treaty reflects a new relationship of co-operation: Spain is a key NATO partner, who we are working alongside on many different issues. The agreement reflects a mature and responsible way forward, but it does not affect the operations of British Forces Gibraltar in any way.
The right hon. Lady asked about goods. Guidance is being provided to businesses. There are always teething issues when bringing in such processes, but we are actively monitoring what is happening and ensuring that the systems can keep up.
The right hon. Lady asked about checks on people. I am not sure what she meant by “reported chaos”. I think there were some slight issues with the first flight that came in, but the second flight has come in, I think, without incident. We are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground. As with any new system, this is a dramatic change and there will be implementation issues. She rightly raises important concerns about the entry-exit system. The deal was made to prevent that system from operating at the existing—now removed—hard border, which would have been very logistically complex; she knows from the geography at the border. I am confident the new arrangements will work and we are monitoring them closely. Myself and other Ministers have been regularly raising with other European counterparts and the European Commission the wider entry-exit system issues that she mentions.
The right hon. Lady made some specific points about pensions, which I will happily write back to her on. I do not expect to see any provocations in the future—I am not sure what she was referring to when she said that. I expect co-operation in the mutual prosperity of the people of the whole region. That was clearly reflected in the remarks made by the Spanish Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Mayor of La Línea and Spanish officials. Everybody wants this treaty to work for people and for businesses, and we see a new spirit and a way forward.
The right hon. Lady asked about the concordat. I have signed the concordat with the Chief Minister. I have also written with some further clarifications, which I hope are satisfactory and address any concerns, but we are very clear: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. Of course, we have some constitutional responsibilities, but as I have set out, only in exceptional circumstances would there be any difference in our position and we would always be working alongside Gibraltar. I set that out very clearly in the documents, which she can read. I hope she is satisfied and I remain at her disposal for further detailed technical questions.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely do. The agreement enjoyed unanimous support in the Parliament. Gibraltar has been at the heart of the negotiations throughout: one of our key conditions was that Gibraltar was entirely satisfied with what was agreed. Fundamentally, the agreement will benefit people, businesses and communities —that is at its heart. I add my thanks to the officials mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement.
The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be.
I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
Returning to the question about the consequences for the Israeli Government, we could not have been clearer, alongside 11 other world leaders, about what they would look like. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the range of actions taken by the Government that I am a part of was absolutely unthinkable to him when he was sitting on the Government Benches. Recognition, suspension of—[Interruption.] We have done it; you did not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, so let us make sure that we keep our emotions in check.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Israel’s illegal expansion in the E1 zone of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a clear breach of international law and makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. Does the Minister agree that that is nothing short of ethnic cleansing, and that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent that from happening by sanctioning all British companies complicit in the expansion, bringing an end to the import of settlement goods, and establishing a full arms embargo?
Mr Falconer
And no doubt you can set out your own proposals. We have taken repeated actions and will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
“You” and “your”—the best thing to do is always speak through the Chair. That prevents that mistake from happening.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), what more can we in this House and this Government, and other Governments around the world, do to make it clear to those many Israelis who are appalled by the behaviour of this Israeli Government that a two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state are very clearly in their interests, and furthermore that we will do everything in our power to ensure that that state becomes a reality and is safe and secure, just as we want Israel to be safe and secure?
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca
I will finish this point; I might then give way if I am feeling generous.
That conduct was so grave that it resulted in a damning report, which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on, rather than voting in favour of it. Of course, that is quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction.
There is no equivalence—none—between those cases and what is before us today. If there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross-party piece of persuasion. Instead, what we got from the Leader of the Opposition was a rambling rollercoaster on Iran, the two-child benefit cap, U-turns and so on. To attempt to draw that comparison is not just wrong but diminishes the seriousness of those findings in the past. It risks turning the Privileges Committee from a guardian of standards into a weapon of convenience. The motion speaks the language of contempt—contempt of Parliament—but actually it reveals something else: the contempt in which the Opposition hold the British people.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—[Interruption.] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—
Sam Rushworth
I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.
Middle East
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I would like to update the House on the conflict in the middle east. Since the start of the conflict, we have seen Iran fire over 900 missiles and over 3,000 drones across 13 countries in the region—countries that are UK partners, and that hundreds of thousands of British citizens visit, work in or live in. Regional air defences have intercepted the vast majority of Iranian strikes, but in recent days we have seen damage to oil export infrastructure, gas facilities, ports and airports, and restrictions on the strait of Hormuz, with major consequences for the global economy; there are impacts on the UK economy, too. US and Israeli strikes across Iran are continuing. We have also seen attacks from Iranian proxy groups, and troubling escalation in Lebanon. The UK is continuing our support for British nationals in the region, our defensive military support for partners against Iranian strikes, and our intensive diplomatic activity on both security and economic issues in the UK national interest.
In Riyadh a few days ago, I saw the work to get British nationals home from across the region, and how we are protecting our people and our partners. I stressed the UK’s support and solidarity as I met counterparts from across the Gulf. Over the last week alone, I have held discussions with my counterparts from all six nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the US, Israel, key European allies and other regional partners. We want the swiftest possible resolution to the crisis to bring security and stability back to the region, and to stop Iran’s threats to its neighbours and its efforts to hijack the global economy.
The events in the middle east have consequences around the world and affect our security and our prosperity here in the UK. Our response is based on clear principles and calm leadership: we will support UK households under pressure; we will protect our people in the region; and we will defend our allies under attack. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will not be drawn into a wider war; nor will we outsource our foreign policy. Our decisions will be based on UK values and the UK national interest.
Let me update the House on support for British nationals in the region. At the outset of the crisis, more than 300,000 British citizens were in the region. When the air strikes started and airspace closed, many were stuck. Since then, we have been working relentlessly to help them get home. That has been a complex task. Our 24/7 crisis response centre has been working with our embassies, partner Governments and the rapid deployment teams we sent to operate on the ground. We have worked closely with airlines and laid on additional Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We estimate that the number of British nationals who will have flown back from the region since the start of the war will today reach 100,000. We continue to monitor the situation to provide the latest advice, but I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those involved in the tireless efforts to support British nationals abroad and to bring British citizens home.
Turning to the conflict, as the Prime Minister set out to Parliament, we took the decision not to be involved in the initial US strikes, or to join any offensive operations. We have taken a different position on that from the US and Israel, based on what is in the UK national interest. When Iran began to target other countries across the region, putting our partners and citizens in danger, we took the further decision to support defensive action. In Saudi Arabia, I have seen the air defences that the British Army is helping to operate to counter drones. We discussed additional defence assets, which were pre-deployed by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to the region before the conflict began, and we have increased support since. We have jets operating from sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and eight in Qatar, including in the joint UK-Qatari squadron. As I speak, British Typhoons and F-35s are flying in defence of the eastern Mediterranean and across Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. The UK’s defensive military action is supporting the wider region, with four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters and a Merlin helicopter already deployed. We are increasing our naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, as HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay approach. As the House is aware, we have given permission for US forces to use long-standing basing at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to support defensive strikes against the ballistic missiles that are targeting the Gulf, but let me confirm again the point that the Prime Minister made last week: our Cyprus base is not being used in those US operations.
We want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more pressure on the cost of living here at home. Iran’s capabilities have been massively degraded, but the conflict has confirmed the threat that the regime poses through its weapons and its proxies, and why for so long there has been an international determination that Iran should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. As the conflict eases or ends, we will need some form of negotiated agreement to contain and constrain the future threats from ballistic missiles, drones, proxies and Iran’s nuclear programme, and to safeguard international shipping.
In the past seven days, we have seen Iran particularly focus its strikes on economic infrastructure in the Gulf: oilfields in Saudi; ports in Oman; strikes against commercial ships from Thailand and Malta; and threatened mines in the strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. It is holding hostage supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser, affecting prices and supply chains across the globe, threatening the cost of living here at home, and causing real worry for our constituents across the country. That is why the Prime Minister laid out yesterday how the Government will stand up for working people here in Britain, including by providing support for households with heating oil costs, and by maintaining the energy price cut and cap. Last week, we joined 31 other countries in the biggest co-ordinated release of oil in the International Energy Agency’s history, while maintaining our economic pressure and sanctions on Russia. As we welcome President Zelensky to London today, we are determined that war in the Gulf must not become a windfall for Putin. We continue to stand with Ukraine.
Reopening the strait of Hormuz is vital for market stability, and for the cost of living for British households. However, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious and complex issue, and there is no easy fix. We are discussing this with international partners in Europe and Asia, Gulf partners and the US. These discussions are separate from the conflict itself, as the US has said; countries around the world have been clear that they do not want to see escalation, or be drawn into a wider conflict, but they do want to see the strait open and functioning, and they do not want to see the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation undermined. Because it is an international shipping lane, multiple nations need to be involved in planning the way forward. Our discussions will continue to reflect serious, expert military and commercial assessments of what is credible and feasible, so that commercial shipping can return as soon as possible, as the conflict subsides.
I turn to Lebanon, which I am extremely concerned is on the precipice of a widening conflict that risks disastrous humanitarian consequences. In recent days, I have spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, as well as holding discussions with the US, France and other European and Gulf partners. We need urgent diplomatic action to avert further escalation, but amid that danger, it is possible that there is also a moment of diplomatic opportunity, and we must bring all support and pressure to bear so that it is seized and not squandered.
Let me set out the UK position. First, we condemn the appalling attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets at northern Israel. This must cease immediately. The actions of this proscribed terrorist group, at the instigation of the Iranian regime, are once again drawing the people of Lebanon into a conflict that they do not want and that is not in their interests.
Secondly, we support the sovereignty of Lebanon. We welcome the commitments made by the Lebanese Government, including the significant decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activities, and we will continue to support the Lebanese armed forces—they, not Hezbollah, are the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.
Thirdly, we are extremely worried about the civilian consequences of current Israeli operations. An estimated 1,000 people have been killed, and one in seven Lebanese civilians have reportedly been displaced from their homes. This scale of humanitarian displacement is unacceptable and risks devastating consequences. This weekend, I announced that the UK would provide an additional £5 million in essential humanitarian aid, and today I can announce a further £10 million of humanitarian support to provide emergency medical care, shelter and other lifesaving assistance in Lebanon and the region. This will help prevent further displacement and instability that would risk escalating regional problems and have a wider impact on other countries beyond the region.
Fourthly, we believe that diplomatic progress can be made, as there is a shared interest across Lebanon and Israel in seeing an end to the Hezbollah threats and seeing peace and stability return. Both the Lebanese and Israeli Governments have expressed an interest in joint talks. We strongly support this path, the framework for which is in Security Council resolution 1701, as it presents the best route to lasting peace, security and stability beyond the region. The UK stands ready to provide diplomatic support to this process.
This conflict in the middle east is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
International Women’s Day
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
Never a truer word was spoken. To building on the hon. Lady’s comment, it is worth the House knowing that, at the current pace, it will take 283 years for women to achieve equal representation in tech. That is why I am proud that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched the Women in Tech taskforce to champion diversity in the UK tech sector, with a pipeline strengthened by stronger engagement with tech in the classroom. There are spaces in which our economy is going to grow, and we need a plan for women to be part of that.
Throughout history, women have consistently been the backbone of our communities, giving their power, time, ideas and more. They have done this in our classrooms, in our offices, in our hospitals, in our military and in the home. History has taught us that despite giving so much, women do not always gain equally to men. Every day, women and girls across the UK challenge the stereotypes so often thrown upon them, but they are our scientists, our teachers, our business leaders, our astronauts, our athletes and so much more. There is nowhere that women and girls should not be able to reach.
But while this Government have women’s equality firmly on the agenda, the battle is not yet won. Increasingly loud voices attempt to dismiss the necessary protections for an inclusive culture at work. Some argue that our existing equality framework has gone too far—that it hinders progress. Let us be clear: these protections embody the British values that women should be treated equally with men, and that people should be treated equally regardless of their race. That is a core British value. It was fought for.
In a Westminster Hall debate last September, a now Reform MP described the Equality Act 2010 as fuelling “a corrosive culture” of grievance. He then called for it to be abolished. It is not a grievance to recognise that a woman who is made redundant for being pregnant, or who leaves work because her employer does not make reasonable adjustments for the menopause, leaves us poorer as individuals, as an economy and as a society.
In this battle, these voices are taking up space online, too. When we see the level of online abuse and intimidation, we must tackle the misogynistic insurgency that threatens to roll back women’s rights and that is having a huge impact on the wellbeing and aspiration of women and girls across our country. The online abuse of women athletes is set to be discussed at the next women’s sports taskforce meeting. I am proud that the offence of creating intimate images without consent was signed into force last month, and that our female Secretary of State announced that it will be made a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, delivering for users the strongest protections from such content.
But this happens against a backdrop of changing social attitudes that we are only just beginning to address. New research from Ipsos MORI and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College business school shows that 31% of gen Z men—born between 1997 and 2012—agree that a wife should always obey her husband, and one third, or 33%, say that a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to a new global study of 23,000 people in 29 countries. We are in a renewed battle of ideas and new conversations about progress and rights. We also see pressures and influence through online social influencers. This demands our engagement. It is through conversation, legislation, education and campaigning that this Government are determined to keep us moving forward.
With the challenge to women’s inequality now being international, so must our response be. In the year 2000, we led the first UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security. It was a simple but transformative idea: that peace is more durable when women help to shape it. UN statistics show that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, the resulting agreement is 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict and more likely to see their rights curtailed. Some 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of deaths of under-fives take place in settings of conflict and displacement.
We continue to use our voice at the United Nations to push for women to be embedded in peace processes, resolutions and humanitarian responses. Indeed, this week Baroness Smith of Malvern and the UK special envoy for women and girls, Harriet Harman, are leading our delegation in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, because this Government stand in solidarity with women and girls not just in the UK but around the world.
International Women’s Day marks the beginning not only of a month-long celebration of women’s history, but also, I hope, a year of progress and action. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, the aim of which is to emphasise the power of reciprocity and support, whether through advocacy, education, mentoring or time, to help to create a more supportive and interconnected world, building new networks in our communities to bring hope, leadership and change, and renewing our determination. Connecting with our sisters at home and abroad will give us a renewed frontline to resist the roll back of our rights and push forward for the progress of women and girls for generations to come.
But this month is about more than reflection; it is about maintaining momentum. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.”
That is not an observation; it is a directive. It is for us to hold the light up to highlight progress, and to keep fighting for a better world for women and girls everywhere.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a privilege to respond to the International Women’s Day debate and to follow the Minister for Equalities. It is wonderful to hear her talk about her passion for fighting inequality, fighting for rights and fighting the gender pay gap. I hope very soon to see her in shadow Cabinet—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean the real Cabinet, not with us. That would be terrible for you; you wouldn’t like that! [Laughter.]
This topic is what unites us today in the Chamber: we may have differences of opinion on every topic and come at issues from every ideological point of view, but we are united in our ability to exercise that right to debate and to stand up for women. I am so grateful to be a part of this country and to have those rights that so many women no longer have across the world.
I would like to pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not only for your amazing work here in the Chamber keeping us all under control—a full-time job for anyone. I want to highlight the incredible work that you have done to champion Uyghur women and girls. When everyone was turning their back on Uyghur women and girls, you led the campaign. You tirelessly campaigned across the world to make sure their story was heard and their voice was heard. You worked cross-party on that, so from everyone across the House: thank you for your incredible work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am incredibly grateful. It is why I was then sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party—but there are a lot of very powerful women in this room who will not be deterred, regardless of any sanctions.
Joy Morrissey
I feel that if one has received sanctions, it is a badge of honour.
First, to honour the international scope of the debate, I would like to take this moment to think about the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under the Taliban. The life of all human beings is intrinsically valuable and should always be remembered. Afghan women, whose rights have been systematically dismantled with 100 decrees to restrict their freedom of movement, education, work and expression, to visit a doctor or to have financial freedom. There is no protection there against violence, beatings and forced child marriage. May we remember them today and how quickly the rights we take for granted can disappear.
Across the House and throughout our great country, women have shaped our communities, strengthened our institutions—throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—and led with courage, determination and resilience. Women are leaders in business, education, science, the armed forces, charities and voluntary organisations, and, of course, here in Parliament.
We must also recognise the women who contribute but who are often not recognised: the carers who support their families every day, with no thanks and no recognition; the volunteers who hold our communities together; the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who provide strength and stability in the times we need it most. I have often spoken in this House about the importance of service, both to our communities and to our country. That spirit of sacrifice and service is embodied by countless women across the United Kingdom who quietly make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. May we recognise their contributions today.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. You may be coming to this, but it is an incredible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not wish to correct any one of our fantastic female parliamentarians, but “you” means me. One more time: Dawn Butler.
Dawn Butler
Thank you, and you are amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but my friend Elaine Banton was the lawyer in the case she refers to. I want to put that on record alongside my hon. Friend’s excellent remarks about her constituent.
Tulip Siddiq
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a staunch feminist—one of the reasons why he will speak in this debate.
I will finish by saying that the justice served to Sanju is a victory not just for her, but for the countless women across the country who have fought so hard to get reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I hope that the Minister will consider this case and that legislation will follow from the Labour Government to ensure that women never again have to face discrimination in the workplace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are really fantastic speeches. So that I do not have to interrupt them, let me say that “you” and “your”, unless you are referring to the Chair, should not be said at all. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If colleagues could keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, it would help other Members. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters.
I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms.
Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan.
Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer.
What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There is now a speaking limit of seven minutes.
Gibraltar Treaty
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlingto and the Wolds) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That is not good form. Ms Martin, you are not meant to give way when you are asking a question, but I assume you have finished your question.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with eloquence and expertise on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. She is a staunch defender of the people of Gibraltar, and of their rights, sovereignty and future prosperity. Like many Members of the House, she has visited Gibraltar with me. She has seen the reality on the ground, the difficulties resulting from the current arrangements, and the fears for the future. She is absolutely right that this Government are supported by Gibraltar. The treaty is good for the people of Gibraltar. I welcome her support and that of the all-party group on this matter.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days.
The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests.
The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?
The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them?
The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Even though he has been a very naughty boy, I call Charlie Dewhirst.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.
Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?
Ukraine
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Roome
I thank my hon. Friend for making that poignant point, with which I totally agree.
We in the UK are relearning the strategic importance of warfighting, of deterrence, readiness and resilience at home, and of sticking with European allies that we could have taken for granted. It is important that UK civil society understands the hardship faced by the Ukrainian people. If Russia succeeds in using force to redraw borders, it threatens the collective security of the entire European continent and of NATO, and threatens the safety of the UK. Facing down tyrants is in this country’s DNA. Ukraine will fight on, and we must back it. There is no stronger defence than showing that we are as good as our word.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I also want to pay my tribute to the Ukrainian people and the many Ukrainians who live in my constituency of Sussex Weald.
Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 152J, as amended by the Order of 2 February relating to Estimates day debates),
That this House agrees with the Report of the Backbench Business Committee of 24 February:
That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for the financial year 2025-26: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry of Defence; and Department for Business and Trade.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
Mr Falconer
It is interesting that the hon. Member started her question by referring to months. Going back years to when she was a special adviser in the previous Government and talks were being conducted, there was clearly recognition in the Conservative Government that there was a real issue to be addressed. You pursued talks. You took them into—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That was two yous in one go, Minister. Have another go.
Mr Falconer
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I am failing again. The hon. Member will appreciate the scepticism on the Government Benches given that the Conservative Government started this process, two American Administrations recognised that there was a real issue to be addressed, and this American Administration supported the steps we had taken in May.
Mr Falconer
On the first question, as I understand it the talks first started under the Conservative Government, but I am very happy to check the Foreign Office records and come back on that question. Whether they were started in 2009 or in 2010, that was quite a long period afterwards during which the Conservative Government were in charge and this strength of feeling was not demonstrated. Indeed, other hon. Members did not raise these issues in their time in office—[Interruption.] The suggestion, if I may say so, from the Conservatives that they were vociferously against this decision—they just took 11 occasions to work that out—does not feel very plausible to me. The hon. Member asked specific questions about Jonathan Powell’s work—[Interruption.] I thought I answered the first set of questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will move on to the final question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. If he were a goalkeeper, he would be exhausted at this stage. Maybe he has kept the ball out of the net—we will see how that goes.
The Minister will forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but it was my understanding that the leasing of the base at massive cost to the working person in this country was to secure national interests and safety. I therefore cannot grasp why the Government are possibly working against our greatest ally in the US of A and sending an internationally resounding message that our base cannot be used if it is deemed necessary. Will the Minister please outline what discussions have been held in the past number of days to correct any belief that we do not stand fully with our American allies?
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You or your advisers will be aware of a letter that I and my colleagues have sent to Mr Speaker about this issue, particularly pertaining to the apparent discrepancy between answers given in the House on 22 May and those to a written question on 12 February. The Minister said that he was not able to answer that, although in my long experience of this place Ministers have been bound by collective responsibility and therefore answer for the whole Government. The Minister said that he wants an answer to be given on that point. I give notice that I will give the Government time for consideration and then on Monday morning I will apply for an urgent question specifically on the discrepancies in the information given to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Father of the House is no doubt hugely respected across the whole House. He knows that we do not discuss urgent questions publicly—let alone on the Floor of the House—so that was a slight error on his part. He also knows that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the responses provided by Ministers—if only we were—but he has most robustly got his point on the record.
James Cartlidge
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is concern, among Opposition Members at least, that we heard repeatedly from the Minister that he was not the correct Minister to respond to the questions we asked. Our understanding procedurally is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that in coming before Parliament they are here to be held to account.
The key question, which refers to the previous point of order, is about the fact that last May the Secretary of State for Defence said that Diego Garcia would be weeks away from a legal ruling unless the treaty was agreed to. Opposition Members are concerned that that is not correct and that he may have inadvertently misled the House, because article 298 of UNCLOS provides an opt-out for binding rulings in relation to “military activities”. Surely we should have a Minister in front of us who can answer our fundamental legal questions on the treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for which Minister the Government put forward to respond to an urgent question. The Minister may wish to respond at this point.
Mr Falconer
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg the forgiveness of the House. As the House knows, I am the middle east Minister. On this occasion I am the duty Minister, so I am here to answer any question that I can. Where greater precision can be provided in writing—rather than risk providing the House with anything other than the fullest possible answers—I think that is appropriate.
As it happens, the Minister responsible for the Bill is travelling back to the UK today. I am sure he would have been more than delighted to answer the urgent question but was not in a position to do so. I want to ensure that the House gets precise answers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might not be satisfied with the response, but that was a response none the less. We will not continue the debate.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February I asked a named day question about the role of Jonathan Powell in the Chagos islands deal, which was due for answer on 12 February. As of now, 25 February, it has still not been responded to by the Government. How can I best encourage the Government to produce timely and accurate answers to named day written questions on this subject?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench, including Ministers, heard that. It is not good enough when Members put in for bits of information and table written questions and the responses do not come back in a timely fashion. I see those on the Treasury Bench and the Ministers nodding. One can assume that a response will be forthcoming very quickly. The hon. Member has got his point on the record. We do not want to continue the debate.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Brendan O’Hara, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
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.
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—
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—
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—
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.
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.
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.