British Indian Ocean Territory

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the reported multi-billion pound cost of the UK-Mauritius deal; notes the risk the deal presents to the UK’s strategic interests; further notes that it was a policy choice, not a legal necessity, and the concerns held by Chagossians over the Government’s failure to engage comprehensively with them; and calls on the Government to—

(1) lay before this House a chronology of the negotiations between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, since 4 July 2024;

(2) confirm whether the account of Prime Minister Ramgoolam given to the Mauritius National Assembly on 4 February 2025 is correct that (a) there has been a change in the sovereignty arrangements over Diego Garcia from those previously agreed, (b) changes have been made to the terms of the lease on Diego Garcia, and (c) changes have been made to the costs of the deal since it was first agreed and announced in the UK-Mauritius joint statement on 3 October 2024;

(3) confirm from which departmental budgets the costs of this deal will come and what they will be, including whether any of the proposed increase in defence spending, as announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, will be used to pay for this;

(4) explain what involvement the Attorney General has had with this deal;

(5) set out the negotiating objectives established by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for BIOT negotiations and the reasons the Government sought to accelerate negotiations and conclude them before the Mauritian elections.

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Labour’s botched, embarrassing, humiliating and secretive deal with Mauritius to surrender the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a world that is increasingly dangerous and uncertain, where threats from both state and non-state actors are growing and our national economic and security interests face threats from new technology, it is inconceivable that a Government, whose first concern and priority must be the defence of the realm, would give away one of the most important strategic military assets that we hold, let alone pay a foreign Government for its continued use. It is like handing over your house to someone else, and having to pay for the privilege of continuing to live there.

This socialist Government are committed to the principles of redistributing wealth—Government Members were cheering about that—but redistributing the sovereignty of key strategic and military assets in this way is not just socialism but recklessness. It is incompetent and, quite frankly, irresponsible. We cannot afford to gamble in any way when it comes to our national security and defence.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I am a little confused—[Interruption.] If the Conservative party wants to take back Tunbridge Wells at the next election, its Members would do well to listen. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary clarify why she is criticising a deal for which the negotiations were started by the Conservative party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I cannot speak to the hon. Member’s confusion, but let us be clear that it is not the Conservative party that is putting forward a surrender deal. Let me be crystal clear: we are not surrendering our territory or sovereignty in any way whatsoever.

While the Labour Government, inspired by their dogmatic commitment to misguided—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

Of course I give way.

[Mr Mitchell]

Let me help the confused Liberal Democrat Member. I was in the Foreign Office during the whole of the Tory negotiations. I witnessed exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron did in those negotiations. I can tell my right hon. Friend, the House and the Liberal Democrats that the deal that has been done by the Labour party is one that Tory Ministers would never have countenanced.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is fast-forwarding to some of my wider remarks, but he is absolutely right. I thank him for his time in the Foreign Office. It was under Lord Cameron when all this was stopped. It was an advisory opinion. In 2019, it was the Conservative Government and Conservative Foreign Office Ministers who made that point and stopped all this nonsense from going on in the first place.

Conservative Members stand in support of the national interest. I pay tribute to my colleagues in previous Conservative Governments for resisting the efforts of some countries, including China and Argentina, who voted at the UN General Assembly in May 2019 to demand that the UK withdraw from its administration of the Chagos archipelago within six months. The former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron deserves credit for resisting the claims made by Mauritius and for ensuring that our sovereignty was not surrendered while he was Foreign Secretary.

How have we got here? As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the sheer volume of urgent question applications that you and Mr Speaker have presided over on the issue, the Government have acted in a secretive manner, providing little information on the deal agreed and how it was reached. Getting facts and information out of the Government has been like extracting water from a stone, but after asking many questions we have managed to secure some information.

What do we know? [Interruption.] I can tell Government Front Benchers who are chuntering away—perhaps they would like to listen to some of the information—that less than three weeks after taking office, on 23 July, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary prioritised this issue by meeting the then Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth. We do not know what was discussed at that meeting, but on 6 September the Foreign Secretary announced that Jonathan Powell would be the special envoy. On 3 October—less than three months after coming into office and when the House was not sitting—the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he had waved the white flag of surrender. He confirmed that the Labour Government would hand over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, pay a lease for the use of the base at Diego Garcia—the amount has been kept secret—and pay towards an economic development partnership with Mauritius and a Chagossian trust fund.

Not only was the deal put together in haste and in secret, but serious concerns were raised about the timing of the agreement. The then Mauritian Prime Minister called a general election the following day—4 October 2024—and, of course, the presidential election of our ally and partner in Diego Garcia, the United States of America, was held the following month. The result of both those elections led to changes in Administrations; I will touch on that shortly. The decision over the future of this key strategic military and security asset has been taken in advance of the strategic defence review being completed, the spending review and the China audit. How can the Government justify giving away the Chagos islands and losing control of this asset before they have thoroughly assessed the threats we face and our long-term defence and security needs?

Unlike lawyer-led Labour—

[Hon. Members]

Not qualified lawyers.

[Priti Patel]

If I may caveat my remarks, unlike those unqualified, pretend lawyers—not even actual lawyers—Conservative Members believe that decisions over the future of key strategic military assets cannot be taken on advisory opinions issued and by motions agreed in international organisations, especially when such votes have been cast against us by nations, and indeed judges, who may pose a threat to us and have their own interests.

Britain is a global power, and we face global threats. The base of Diego Garcia is one of the most important strategic and military assets in the Indo-Pacific for us and for our US partners. If our sovereignty over the base and the Chagos islands is lost, diluted or compromised, we are weaker, and our rivals, competitors and enemies grow stronger.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are led by lawyers—there is nothing wrong with that—should at least get the law right? If there is legal jeopardy here, does she agree that we should understand what that jeopardy is? She knows that the International Court of Justice cannot make a binding ruling against the UK on this matter because Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and we have not accepted its jurisdiction in those circumstances. If there is legal jeopardy that makes a deal necessary, does she agree that this is a good moment for the Minister to explain to us precisely what that legal jeopardy is?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. and learned Friend absolutely speaks sense on this issue and that is exactly why I enjoyed working with him so much on some of the challenges we faced in government. That is exactly the point.

Turning to the substance, or proposed substance, in the proposed treaty, the Labour Government failed to provide any transparency over plans, but we are fortunate that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, and his Government have been much more open and candid about the negotiations, sharing the details of the humiliating concessions that Labour Ministers have made in this epic failure of diplomacy.

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

I just wanted to prompt my right hon. Friend to pursue one other matter, which is quite important. I was looking at the list of the judges who sat on the ICJ panel. It is quite interesting. Apart from there being a Russian who was fully supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, it turns out that Vice-President Xue, who wrote the whole case, also voted to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and was heavily involved in the Chinese Government previously. To what degree does that represent balanced and informed judgment—here internationally—as we would have in the UK?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is spot on and makes a point that I have made. There are people—judges in particular—who clearly are undermining our integrity, sovereignty and the decision making in our own Government. They are pursuing their own interests and that is why we have to call out this deal.

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

On that point, did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Daily Telegraph on 26 February that one of the other judges who took part in that judgment, Patrick Robinson, believes that the United Kingdom should be repaying at least £18 trillion in reparations for slavery in the past?

[Priti Patel]

I did read that report. I have to say that that is exactly why we questioned the deal. It is the wrong approach, it really is. For all the lawyers sitting on the Labour Benches and in the Government—well, supposed lawyers—why are they not effectively looking at the integrity of the proposed deal and providing the scrutiny that is needed?

We need Ministers to confirm when they decided that the proposed deal should be shared with the new American Administration, because there are so many questions as to how we got into this position. For weeks, Ministers refused to say—here at the Dispatch Box—that they would wait until President Trump took office, including failing to answer questions directly on 14 January. While they were refusing to say anything, the Mauritius Government suggested that Ministers here were not just eager but desperate to complete the deal by 20 January. But on 15 January, through a Downing Street briefing—not a statement to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker—we learnt that the Government would now wait to brief the new President and that the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his Assembly that it was a unilateral decision of the United Kingdom to postpone matters. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she finally confirm on which date the Government policy towards consulting the new US Administration and delaying the deal was agreed?

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The attitude of the Government of the United States is absolutely central. There has been a profound change in the stance taken by the Government of the United States, with the election of the new President. Instead of embracing that and seeing it as an opportunity, the Labour party seems determined to railroad through a deal that does not, it appears, command the support of the Government of the United States. It is a preposterous position to be in.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful, because these are exactly the questions that we on the Opposition Benches were putting forward to the Government, and they were simply refusing to be transparent and answer any questions whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that the credibility and integrity of the Government is at stake. If they cannot come clean on these simple questions, what else are they hiding?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This was compounded even further only yesterday, when the statement was handed to the Leader of the Opposition with redacted information. That is absolutely shameful. The duty of His Majesty’s Opposition is to hold the Government to account. How can they do that if they do not get the information needed to make the best decisions for the country?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government.

Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December.

Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say.

I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct.

The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters?

Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said:

“For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”

When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said:

“The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that

“there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating:

“The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.”

The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s point is not merely semantic, because in international law—which I know holds great sway on the Labour Benches—those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have sovereign power or only power by means of an agreement that can be torn up by Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Sovereignty matters, and the Minister could not admit it to the House yesterday in the Chamber, but perhaps when a Minister sums up today they can confirm that change in position. We need to know whether we have lost sovereignty and lost control.

Fourthly, it is clear there has been a change in the lease agreement—this letter makes that crystal clear. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement to the House on 7 October 2024, he stated that the lease

“is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 46.]

The impression given was that this could be unilaterally extended, as he would not say at the time that both parties needed to agree.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The reality is that the present Prime Minister of Mauritius has publicly stated—by the way, he also mentioned that the cost would be up to £18 billion—“Interestingly, we would have happily looked at joint sovereignty where it was clear, but the British Government did not want it.”

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am afraid it shows the lack of commitment to even understanding the sovereignty of the territory.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already a campaign, led by local celebrities in Mauritius, to ensure that once sovereignty is restored to Mauritius, the treaty is reneged on and an attempt is made to close the airport?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we on the Opposition side of the House will be scrutinising the Government even further on this. We will be holding them to account. They simply do not value sovereignty and they are about to give away control, and that is simply unacceptable.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

This issue of sovereignty is crucial. First, it is not about restoring sovereignty to Mauritius; Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first place. Moreover, the moment at which the United Kingdom Government concede the point of sovereignty, all else is lost in the negotiation; we will have not a leg to stand on. So clarity on this point is essential.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government seem to have a complete disregard for this. He is absolutely right that Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first instance, and now look at this terrible mess. This is a complete surrender and an epic failure of diplomacy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way shortly.

We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions have—guess what—been changed and diluted. He told his National Assembly, talking to their Leader of the Opposition, that

“the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and then, unilaterally, the British would decide on an extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagreed completely! It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years, and then the British on their own would decide that they will renew the agreement and we have no say in it.”

He went on to say that he has got this changed:

“The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.”

The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me, remarked that the 99-year lease

“can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal, meaning it can’t be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing.”

That is, frankly, an astonishing response to receive, and an astonishing concession for the Labour Government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset, but now we know that, despite the Minister’s claim that the

“fundamentals of the deal remain the same”,—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

we have gone from the UK being able unilaterally to extend the lease by 40 years to now being able to extend it only with the agreement of Mauritius, and there is a “right of first refusal” caveat in that lease too.

The House should be shocked by this, and we need answers. I urge the Minister to answer these questions when she responds. What happens at the end of the 99-year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base and the equipment under those circumstances? What if, at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks for is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then—guess what—we have lost control. The Labour Government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows it very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know it—they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee, because on all the key negotiation points, Labour has backed down and Britain is losing control.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about how the Government are giving this away, but we only know that because of what Mauritius is saying to the public. We in this House have been constantly left in the dark—so much so that even when I was recently on “Politics Live” with the Leader of the House, she refused point blank and totally lost the plot when I started to question her about what this Government are doing. Is transparency not absolutely at the core of what we need to hear from the Government?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already made the point—Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have heard many of us say it—that there is a failure to be transparent. The fact that I have quoted so much from the Mauritius National Assembly’s Hansard speaks volumes about the conduct of this Government. It has been a great read, and the video clips are absolutely astonishing, but I certainly think that the Government should learn some lessons on high standards and raising the bar.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

What my right hon. Friend describes is truly shocking. This Labour Government are going to give away British sovereign territory, and they are going to charge the poor elderly pensioners and our businesspeople to do so. They are going to fundamentally fail in their first duty to keep Britain safe by making our country less safe. What on earth is motivating them to do this dreadful thing?

[Priti Patel]

There is plenty of speculation as to why the Government wish to go down this course, and it is not in our national interest. I will say it: Labour does not represent the national interest when it comes to sovereignty and fighting for the real freedoms that the British people believe in.

I have spoken already about the terms of the lease. The Labour Government have also made concessions on the cost—the price that British taxpayers will be forced to pay because of this shambolic, economically illiterate Government. For weeks we have been asking about the cost and any changes made from the position in October, and for weeks Ministers have failed to give answers, but the Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that concessions have indeed been made. He told his National Assembly that

“we also wanted to do front loading; some of the money had to be front loaded,

—he said that with a lot of enthusiasm—

“and that also is being agreed to”.

It was only after I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to highlight this that he finally accepted that this has happened and that changes have been made. He wrote in his letter to me:

“There have been some changes to the financial arrangements to enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments (which accounts for the impact of indexation) has not changed since”.

That change was not announced to the House, and nor did the Minister, or any Minister, mention that in this Chamber or when I raised it in the House yesterday.

We know that the costs will be front-loaded, but we still do not know what they will actually be. The Foreign Secretary told me in his letter that the £18 billion figure reported

“is false and significantly exceeds the quantum.”

So what is the figure? Is it £9 billion, £12 billion, £15 billion? Is it higher or lower? The Minister need only nod to give us clarity on that, but perhaps she does not even know the cost.

[Dr Evans]

The Defence Secretary was asked this morning on LBC where the funding was coming from. He said:

“There will be no payments unless and until the deal is struck.”

That does not answer the question. Who would go into a deal without knowing how they will pay for it? Which budget is the funding coming from—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget or the Defence budget? Is it included in the new defence spending or not? Those are questions that the Prime Minister refused to answer today. Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts on how we can get those answers now?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for that essential question, which remains unanswered. At the end of the day, the Government must be clear about which budget that money is coming from, because we need to know. We do not even know the sums, but this is taxpayer’s money. How can any Government justify those extraordinary sums?

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

[Priti Patel]

The bottom line in all this is that there is no transparency at all from the Government. We will absolutely press and hold them to account on that.

I come back to the point we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, which is that no Minister—not even the Defence Secretary today—has told us where that money is coming from. Perhaps this Minister does not know the cost, or maybe she needs permission from the Attorney General, or from Rachel from accounts, even to comment on the numbers, but the House must know. Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason for what is going on. It is constantly using the fig leaf of national security to avoid telling British taxpayers how much the deal will cost. That is simply not acceptable.

If the Government will not tell us the numbers, they should at least tell us where the budget has come from. In a written parliamentary answer of 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia, as part of the UK-Mauritius agreement announced on 3 October. Will the Minister confirm—she can intervene now if she would like to—whether that funding will come from the defence budget? If it does, will it count towards the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? It would be a stain on the Government if they reached that target as a result of wasting money—hard-pressed taxpayers’ money—on that unnecessary lease. The British public deserve accountability and transparency.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way one more time.

[Dr Murrison]

She is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government stand accused of perhaps being guilty of some creative accounting? If they are transferring money from the international development budget to defence, and then transferring the self-same money from defence to Mauritius, allowing Ministers to benefit from the fiction of an uplift in the defence budget, the public are entitled to smell a rat.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely duplicitous. That is no way for any Government to conduct themselves, particularly in relation to such a matter.

To conclude, in negotiating this deal and agreeing to surrender—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did say that I would give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if she was coming to this point in her final words, but is it not extraordinary that we should be doing something that so many people in Washington profoundly object to, when the Prime Minister is about to have an extremely delicate discussion with the President of the United States about whether he will reaffirm his guarantees for the security and peace of our whole continent, and indeed of our country? Is this not a kind gift that the Government should take to Washington and say, “We will drop this if you have the slightest objection”?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender.

The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House there will have to be an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which obviously excludes those from the Front Benches.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Since the savage terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, all of us in this House have called for the release of all hostages held by Hamas as the only way of reaching a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict, and to alleviate the enormous scale of the humanitarian suffering. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement, including, of course, the British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari. I pay tribute to the families of all the hostages for their unwavering campaigns to secure the release of their loved ones. They should never have been put through this unimaginable nightmare. We did, very sadly, learn yesterday that eight hostages would not be returning home alive, having been killed at the hands of Hamas. That was devastating news for hostage families who continue to face unbearable uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead.

There is a long road ahead, and—as we have already heard from the Minister—we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released. The important issue of humanitarian access remains, and, as the Minister has said, we must ensure that the House receives relevant updates both on the hostage releases and on every single diplomatic tool that Britain has when it comes to removing the barriers to getting the hostages out and also getting the right amount of aid in.

We all saw on our television screens yesterday the scenes of thousands of Gazans returning to the north, where, as we recognise, the situation is extremely difficult. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the volume and type of aid that the UK is sending, and how its impact will be measured? Notwithstanding the deliveries by helicopter that she mentioned, is she confident that British aid is getting over the land borders as expected, and is being effectively distributed to help those in need? As for the £17 million that she mentioned, can she clarify whether it is new money or part of money that has been released from previous funding allocations? Can she also tell us which organisations the money will support?

The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA. While no one can doubt the size of its distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within the organisation. It is in no one’s interests to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the United Nations’ internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and reforms need to be implemented in full. Is the Minister overseeing that in order to give our public, as well as donor countries, more confidence in UNRWA and the efficacy of its progress on the vetting of its personnel, and on procedures to protect the neutrality of its operations and facilities? Will she share with the House the evidence of the work that has taken place? In July, the Foreign Secretary announced £21 million for UNRWA, and the Prime Minister announced £13 million last month. What measures are in place to ensure that every penny of British taxpayers’ money is going to those most in need and not being abused by Hamas?

Without losing focus on the challenges of the immediate term and phase 1 of the ceasefire, the Government also need to be thinking about what comes next and laying the right foundations for the reconstruction and development that needs to take place in Gaza. This is a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK? Will Britain be contributing financially? Is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?

On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day one plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House:

“There cannot be a role for Hamas.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 516.]

I echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas have unleashed?

The Minister mentioned the Palestinian Authority. If they are to assume responsibility in Gaza, what action will be taken to ensure that they are reforming? They must make serious, measurable and tangible reforms on education, welfare policy and democracy.

Finally, everyone in the House knows that the root cause of so much suffering in the middle east is Tehran and the Iranian regime. Could the Minister speak about the efforts this Government are making to work with the international community on a robust strategy towards the Iranian regime?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her support for the approach being taken by the UK Government. I agree with her about the savagery of the 7 October attacks and the suffering that has been undergone by the families of the hostages. I met the brother of Emily Damari when I was in Tel Aviv. It is difficult to find the words to reflect on that experience and what he was going through at that time. I met the families of other UK-linked hostages when I was in Tel Aviv, and their suffering continues as they await the return of their loved ones, which we are all hoping for fervently.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for underlining the need for the ceasefire to hold. We need to see that move through phase 1 into phase 2. It is imperative that those measures are held to by all sides and that we see all hostages being released and then, as she said, the surge of aid into Gaza that is so needed. We will keep the House updated on the diplomatic measures we are taking; we have been doing that consistently across our team in the FCDO, and we will continue to do that.

The right hon. Lady asked whether we are confident that aid will get to where it is needed. Yes, we are. Much of the contribution we have announced today is going from the crisis reserve into the pool arrangement, which is a system designed to ensure that support is going directly into shelter, food and medical supplies. It is critical we ensure that that support is available directly.

The right hon. Lady asked about UNRWA. We have spoken about this before, but to reiterate, when the UK resumed its support for UNRWA, we were very clear that the findings from the Colonna report had to be implemented. In fact, £1 million of the £21 million that we provided to UNRWA at that point was earmarked to support that reform programme. I have discussed this directly with the head of UNRWA, and I know that my colleagues have done so repeatedly. I have also discussed it with UNRWA staff in the region, and I saw for myself that work, particularly around neutrality, when I was in the west bank, so I can assure the right hon. Lady of the UK Government’s commitment in that regard.

The right hon. Lady asked about reconstruction and what conversations we have been undertaking in that regard. We have been working with the international community and having many discussions with partners bilaterally about this. Of course, the most important thing is for the ceasefire to hold—I know she would agree with that—but when it comes to reconstruction and recovery, we have been particularly working with the World Bank. She may be aware that it conducted a rapid needs assessment, which is a very helpful process, and that is being updated.

We have also been having those discussions intensely with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Sir Michael Barber, who has incredible expertise, has been supported by the UK Government to work with the PA. I have seen his work, and I discussed it directly with the PA when I was in the west bank. It is, indeed, aiming at those measurable, tangible reforms, precisely in the areas that she mentioned.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me to underline the UK Government’s position that there will be no role for Hamas. Absolutely, I will do that again from the Dispatch Box, and the Foreign Secretary has made that very clear indeed.

Sudan: US Determination of Genocide

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this important urgent question. It is right that we take seriously the fact that the US Administration have made a genocide determination in respect of Sudan and imposed what they call “accountability measures”. As the Minister has recognised, we have a distinct mechanism for determining genocide and it is right that the Government stand by that.

Notwithstanding that, we recognise that the US’s decision is designed to confront the abhorrent brutality that the world is witnessing against the innocent people of Sudan, with appalling atrocities, as we have heard already, committed against civilians and completely unjustifiable restrictions on humanitarian aid. With millions needing urgent food assistance, Sudan is hurtling towards a man-made catastrophe of unimaginable scale. The Government need to do everything in their power to press the warring parties into a ceasefire and to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in the conflict and we cannot stand by.

As the Minister knows, the Conservative Government applied a regime of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. In the light of America’s decision, do the Government intend now to go further on sanctions and to mirror the United States? What is her strategy for trying to deter non-domestic involvement in the conflict? Do the Government intend to provide additional expertise and resources to help ensure that the perpetrators of the crimes, including those in Darfur, are brought to justice? How will we leverage our position on the UN Security Council?

On the humanitarian side, what pressure are the Government exerting to smash through what are now arbitrary obstacles blocking aid delivery? What assurances can the Minister give the House that UK aid is ending up in the right places? Finally, what assessment do the Government make of the US’s new determination?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the important points she raises, and I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on so many of these matters. I agree with her characterisation of the relationship between UK and US activity on these issues, and the fact that the UK has a distinct mechanism on determination. She talked about the fact that this is a man-made crisis, and that is absolutely right. There is nothing inevitable about the extreme suffering we see in Sudan. We call on all warring parties to cease fire and to put the needs of civilians at the forefront of their minds, rather than continuing with this appalling conflict.

The right hon. Lady asked about the actions of other nations. I and other Ministers have made it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is no reason for any other country to be engaged in Sudan, other than to provide humanitarian support; they should not be involved for any other reason.

[Priti Patel]

indicated assent.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am pleased to see the right hon. Lady nodding.

The right hon. Lady asked about the political pushes and the mechanism we have been seeking to use. We will keep up the pressure at the UN Security Council, and the Foreign Secretary has been seeking to use that mechanism as much as possible. When we last discussed these matters, it was before the UK special representative to Sudan, Richard Crowder, was able to visit Port Sudan in December last year. I was pleased that happened as it was the first time we had had a UK delegation in Sudan since the conflict began. It is really important that we can be there to put pressure on the parties to the conflict.

As I have mentioned, we keep our sanctions under review but will not comment on future designations, for reasons that the right hon. Lady fully understands. We have been seeking to use our expertise. We are determined to do all we can to support the International Criminal Court, across a whole range of different theatres of conflict and different situations where it is active. Part of that work includes its activities in relation to Sudan.

Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the jailing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

[The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question on this important matter, and I welcome her to her new role. It is a real pleasure to be across the Chamber from her this morning.

I am glad to reassure the right hon. Lady that my colleague the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has issued a statement on the verdict. She makes clear that China’s imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. She makes clear that the sentencing decision was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent. As she says, the so-called NSL45 were guilty only of exercising their rights as guaranteed under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law, and of exercising their right to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. China’s imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and the UK Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong.

[Priti Patel]

The jailing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the draconian national security law is appalling. It is a serious blow to freedoms in Hong Kong. The harsh application of this disturbing law to suppress people in Hong Kong cannot go unanswered. In government, my party consistently championed for that law to be repealed, and we gave safe routes for British nationals overseas in need of protection. I am proud to have established that scheme as the then Home Secretary. We also published reports twice a year on the situation in Hong Kong to raise our grave concerns about the erosion of freedoms with the Chinese authorities and at the United Nations.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister met President Xi and said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries tried to avoid surprises. He even confirmed that he had called in the application for the new Chinese embassy. But less than 24 hours later, the Sino-British declaration has been trampled on yet again, with the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners. Where does that leave the Government’s reset with Beijing? Did the Prime Minister actually secure any commitments on Hong Kong yesterday? Will the Prime Minister now be holding further conversations with President Xi to convey his concerns about this appalling jailing? Why did the Minister for the Indo-Pacific this morning not call, in her statement, for the repeal of the national security law?

The official No. 10 read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi failed to mention Jimmy Lai’s case. We understand the Prime Minister did raise concerns, but that is not enough. Did he call for Jimmy Lai to be released and for an end to his politically motivated trial? A yes or no answer is needed, because there is an important distinction between the two.

The UK has an historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We must stand up for their rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law. The Government must provide the mettle needed to handle the relationship with China, to stand up for the freedoms and democracy of Hong Kong, and to raise their game.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Government absolutely agree about the historic relationship between the UK and Hong Kong and the current incredibly strong and important relationship. In opposition, my party rightly supported the measures for British nationals overseas. We have been crystal clear in our view on yesterday’s sentencing. I repeat that it was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent.

Respectfully, I have to say to the right hon. Lady that when she seeks to lecture the new Government on our approach to China she should be aware of what we saw over the past 14 years: a wild oscillation in policy towards China that went from the golden era period right through, finally, to a complete lack of engagement that was out of step with our partners, including the US, France and Germany, which were having those conversations. The new Government have been determined to have those conversations.

The right hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister’s meeting, where he made very clear his concerns about human rights issues. He did raise Jimmy Lai’s case. That is very clear from the footage of that meeting. If she has not seen it, I respectfully encourage her to look at it. We will continue to raise human rights issues as part of our consistent approach to China.

Loan Guarantee Agreement (Egypt)

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

In November 2016 the IMF approved a three-year, $12 billion loan to support the Egyptian Government’s comprehensive economic reform plan. This also required the international community to commit support to fill the Government of Egypt’s remaining financing gap, and in mid-2016 the G7 countries committed to provide $600 million of support.

The World Bank’s share of this international support package has been provided through a series of three $1 billion development policy loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The first two loans have already been disbursed, and the third is due for disbursement in the last quarter of 2017.

In order to obtain the IMF loan, the Government of Egypt have committed to undertake the boldest economic reforms in a generation. While necessary, these reforms will be difficult for the population in the short term, with a sharp currency devaluation leading to a short term increase in inflation. If the impact on citizens is not managed, discontent among the population may increase the political risk of the reforms, which could undermine Government commitment to them.

A loan guarantee from the UK will enable the World Bank to increase the size of its upcoming development policy loan. This will support measures to protect the poor, which will mitigate the impact of the reform programme and therefore increase the likelihood that the necessary reforms will be implemented.

As a result I have today laid a departmental minute outlining details of a contingent liability estimated at $224 million (equivalent of £169 million) which DFID proposes to undertake, in respect of the World Bank Group. This guarantee does not involve DFID providing any resources up front. Resources will only be disbursed if Egypt defaults on its loan the risk of which is low.

The IBRD’s internal rules on loan exposure to any one country constrain the extent to which it can increase its lending to Egypt. This proposed UK guarantee will allow the IBRD to increase the size of its 2017 loan by $150 million (equivalent of £113 million). DFID’s contingent liability under this agreement is expected to be $224 million (equivalent of £169 million), covering the equivalent of £113 million of loan principal, plus the equivalent of around £56 million of interest payments, assuming current exchange rates and interest rate levels. The agreement would be in place for the expected 35 year life of the IBRD loan. The guarantee will be denominated in US dollars to maximise the value of additional IBRD lending. As a result, the size of the contingent liability will vary depending on movements in the exchange rate between the US dollar and sterling. The IBRD loan will have a variable interest rate, hence the interest payment element of the liability will also vary along with movements in global interest rates.

For the guarantee to be triggered, the Government of Egypt would have to be in arrears with the IBRD for over 180 days. The risk of Egypt defaulting, and the UK guarantee being called upon, is the same as the risk of Egypt defaulting on other IBRD lending. This risk is deemed to be low. Defaults on IBRD lending are rare. There are strong incentives for Egypt to avoid a default, as this would prevent the IBRD from providing any further funding to Egypt, would halt disbursements on already agreed lending and would lead to penalty charges. In the event that the Government of Egypt does default on a loan repayment to the IBRD, and the liability is called, the UK will provide a payment to the World Bank, in proportion to the UK’s guaranteed share of the overall IBRD loan. The payment will prevent the loss on the loan from impacting on the World Bank’s other lending activities. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal Supply procedure. If the Government of Egypt subsequently provides a payment to reduce its arrears, the World Bank will transfer the right to pursue and retain recoveries to the UK Government, should it wish to do so. This will avoid undermining the Bank’s preferred creditor status, which is so critical to its ability to borrow at very favourable rates from the market and pass these on to its borrowers.

[HCWS214]

Official Development Assistance

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

I am pleased to be able to update the House on the Government’s significant recent achievements in modernising the global definitions of official development assistance.

No task is more urgent than ending extreme poverty. Our aid saves lives and brings hope to people who have none. It is right that that we have clear, common international rules about what counts as aid. The UK is a firm champion of the rules-based international system. As one of the few leading countries to honour our promise to invest 0.7% of national income as aid, it is in our interests to ensure that the quality, poverty-focus and value for money of other countries’ aid investments match our own high standards.

The world is changing rapidly, with extreme poverty now increasingly concentrated in fragile states, and climate change increasing the risks of natural disasters. The global rules that govern aid spending—agreed by the 30 leading donors comprising the OECD Development Assistance Committee—were first set over 40 years ago. We are determined to ensure that they remain up-to-date and effective in the face of the complex challenges of the 21st century.

As a country that plays by the rules, we take a leading role in influencing and shaping these rules. We committed in our manifesto to work with like-minded countries to change the rules so that they are updated and better reflect the breadth of our assistance around the world. At a meeting of leading donors earlier this week, the UK delivered on this commitment.

The UK has argued for flexibility in the rules for how the world responds to catastrophic humanitarian crises such as the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean, and how the rules can properly recognise the unique vulnerabilities of small island developing states. As a direct result of the UK raising this issue, the DAC has for the first time agreed on the need to create a new mechanism to re-admit countries that had graduated from ODA eligibility back to the list of ODA-eligible countries, if their GNI per capital falls low enough, for example as a result of a catastrophic natural disaster or other crisis. This addresses a long-standing gap in the rules and recognises the fact that development is not linear.

In addition, members of the DAC have agreed to establish a process which could allow previous ODA recipients to receive short-term ODA support in the event of catastrophic humanitarian crises, such as the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean, even where their gross national income per capita would normally rule them out of receiving ODA. This is a significant and welcome step, and a clear response to the UK’s work on this issue.

We have also achieved changes that more than double the amount of our multilateral contribution to UN peacekeeping operations we can count as ODA, from 7% to 15%. This will help incentivise stronger international support for such missions. This is important because people cannot pull themselves out of poverty when they are surrounded by war and violence—and global stability helps prevent the chaos in which terrorists and extremists thrive.

Further, we have secured changes that recognise that 85% of the UK’s contribution to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank can count as official development assistance for 2016—a critical acknowledgement of this organisation’s important work to boost investment across a range of developing countries.

As a result of these changes, we have formally confirmed that over £100 million of UK Government spending will be classified as ODA this year and count towards the 0.7% target.

This set of changes builds upon an ambitious set of reforms to the ODA rules that the UK Government have already delivered in recent years. The meeting in Paris this week confirmed previous reforms that will ensure that a wider range of military activities—such as demining—can count as aid, and recognition that certain types of work to tackle violent extremism should count as aid.

Over the long term, we want to continue to build consensus for further reforms that support delivery of the sustainable development goals. We will work with the DAC to examine whether the ODA rules could do even more to better incentivise and capture the development effects of UN-mandated peacekeeping activity that creates the necessary conditions for sustainable development. The system should properly recognise the contribution of the multilateral system to poverty reduction—especially that of the Commonwealth. We would therefore support a review of both the UN and Commonwealth Secretariat’s regular budgets in order to better capture their ODA- eligible activities. Further, we believe the DAC can do more to ensure that other countries’ aid meets the same high standards on gender equality and transparency that the UK’s aid does. We will work on these issues over the coming years.

Taken together, we believe that the new steps this week—on UN peacekeeping, support to the AIIB, assisting counties hit by disasters, and re-admitting countries which fall back into low-income status, including as a result of catastrophic crises—represent very significant achievements. Combined with the important reforms which were agreed last year, these successes demonstrate that, when we work patiently and constructively with international partners, we can drive through important changes and get these rules updated. Over the coming months and years, the UK will continue to work in a patient and constructive spirit to maximise the impact of the significant reforms which have been agreed, and to secure further progress. Our commitment to maintaining the integrity of the global rules remains strong. And our objective, throughout all our efforts, will be to deliver the best possible outcomes for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

[HCWS211]

Economic Development in Africa and South Asia

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

Over the next decade, a billion more young people will enter the job market, mainly in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. There is a chronic need for jobs and better opportunities in these countries to prevent the next generation falling further into poverty, potentially fuelling global instability and insecurity.

As set out in DFID’s Economic Development Strategy, the UK Government want to support developing countries to transition into vibrant economies and become stronger trading partners. No country can defeat poverty and leave aid dependency behind without sustainable economic growth, jobs, trade and investment.

CDC is central to the UK’s approach to promoting inclusive growth and economic development in Africa and south Asia. As the UK’s development finance institution, wholly owned by the UK Government, it is a world leader in its field. It provides much-needed capital, expertise and support to businesses in the poorest and most fragile countries, helping them to grow markets and create jobs which change the lives of individuals, families and whole communities.

CDC invests for development impact, introducing much-needed capital, expertise and support to thousands of businesses, creating millions of jobs, generating essential taxes, and strengthening transformational sectors such as infrastructure, manufacturing and agriculture. Over the last 3 years—from 2014 through to 2016—companies backed by CDC in Africa and south Asia have created over 3 million new direct and indirect jobs, and paid taxes to national governments worth over $9 billion.

In agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Elizabeth Truss MP, I am pleased to set out the next step in the UK’s commitment to the growth of CDC, through a gradual capital increase over the next five years. This follows the passing of the CDC Act earlier this year which increased the limit of capital which the UK could invest in CDC.

New capital will enable CDC to build on these excellent development results to make hundreds more investments, create millions of new jobs, and make a lasting difference to the lives of people in the world’s poorest and most fragile countries, by helping individuals to find work, earn money, feed their families and send their children to school.

The decision to invest new capital in CDC comes at a critical time. There is a huge shortfall in the investment needed to meet the ambitions of the global goals agreed by the UN in 2015. The UK is rising to this challenge by using Government-funded capital in innovative ways. By investing patiently, CDC demonstrates to private investors the opportunities that exist, even in the most difficult places. This leads the way for other investors to follow, mobilising capital from a much larger pool of private investors.

Over the last 5 years, since 2012, DFID have been working together with CDC in a thoughtful and phased way to grow CDC’s capabilities, better measure its impact and identify the need for the long-term, patient capital that CDC can invest to transform the economies of developing countries.

In February Parliament passed the CDC Act, which benefitted from constructive inputs and debate from MPs and Peers from across both Houses.

In July, CDC published its new five year strategy. This strategy maintains CDC’s focus on investing in the poorest and most fragile countries in Africa and south Asia and sets out innovative approaches to maximise the transformational impact of CDC’s investments, while committing CDC to increased levels of transparency and reporting.

DFID will invest an average of up to £703 million per year over the next five years, to support CDC’s new strategy and scale up its job-creating investment activities. These funds will be drawn down as needed by CDC in response to market demand. The new capital will support investments in Africa and south Asia in priority sectors—those creating the most jobs in the hardest to reach. Capital invested in CDC is invested and reinvested time and again, to ensure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is having maximum development impact. At the same time, CDC is leading the way globally with its code of responsible investing, raising the social, environmental and governance standards of investment in the world’s poorest countries.

This investment is the outcome of extensive analysis and a detailed business case—a copy of which is available at:



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-increase-to-cdc-the-uks-development-finance-institution-to-deliver-increased-development-impact-in-africa-and-south-asia-2017-2022.

I am proud to set out this support today, which will have huge development impact for decades to come. CDC’s investments lay the foundations for sustainable and responsible businesses which create jobs, provide vital services, strengthen economies and ultimately transform the world's poorest nations, and in doing so, build global security and prosperity that benefits us all.

[HCWS163]

DFID Supplier Review

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

The UK is an acknowledged world leader in the provision of development and humanitarian aid. Our aid budget acts not only in the interests of the world’s poorest, but also in Britain’s long term national interest.

Our global leadership in development requires continuing efforts to improve value for money, efficiency, innovation and effectiveness. I am therefore introducing tough new measures to ensure that the aid managed by DFID contractors delivers the best possible results for the world’s poorest people, provides value for taxpayers’ money and upholds high standards of ethical and professional behaviour.

A tough new DFID supply partner code of conduct will cover commercial requirements, ethical behaviours, transparency obligations, environmental sustainability and social responsibility. DFID will monitor suppliers’ implementation of the code, with legally enforceable sanctions for non-compliance.

DFID will introduce greater transparency to drive down costs along its supply chains. DFID contracts will now include tough new measures to bear down even harder on costs, fees and overheads, and to provide greater transparency in contracts and throughout supply chains. These include open book accounting clauses enabling DFID to obtain, use and verify information from its suppliers to make sure we have access to full financial information on costs to enable us to fully challenge value for money. It will also include a clause which we can use if necessary to intervene to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer.

DFID will open up procurement to new entrants in the UK and overseas, simplifying documentation and processes and making greater use of digital platforms and social media to allow potential suppliers to access contract opportunities. A programme of business engagement events in the UK and overseas will facilitate engagement by new suppliers and the Department will also carry out research into the specific barriers facing by local suppliers in developing countries in accessing contract opportunities.

DFID will level the playing field for small suppliers and sub-contractors, ending the imposition of agreements which restrict sub-contractors’ ability to work for other suppliers. It will introduce new protections for small suppliers and sub-contractors operating in consortia, including contract checks to eradicate so called “bid candy” practices in which major suppliers drop sub-contractors once they have won the contract. We will continue to break up suitable tenders into manageable sizes and services to better enable smaller suppliers to compete.

A robust, comprehensive approach to supplier management will enable the Department to hold suppliers to account across their entire portfolio of work with DFID, bringing DFID into line with best practice in the private sector. This will allow DFID to challenge delivery partners more strongly on value for money, identify underlying performance problems and tap into a supplier’s wider areas of expertise.

DFID will put more information in the public domain, so that members of the public can assure themselves directly that DFID’s aid is being used effectively. This will include a policy on allowable costs in day rates paid to consultants and annual league tables of supplier performance. We will publish annual information on our commercial practices, setting out performance during the year and making further recommendations for improvement.

These reforms will complement the detailed line-by-line review of every programme in DFID’s portfolio, either already approved or in design phase, carried out by my ministerial team. They will help to ensure maximum impact from the development programmes delivered by DFID’s contractors, complementing the work done in the civil society partnership review to strengthen value for money from grants to civil society organisations, and in the multilateral development review to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the international development system.

[HCWS141]

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK aid programmes in Africa.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

UK aid plays a vital role in helping the world’s poorest and tackling global challenges such as disease migration and terrorism. In Africa, since 2015, we have provided humanitarian assistance to 13.7 million people.

[John Mann]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her announcement this week on population. Given what Mrs Gates said about the impact on migration, will the Secretary of State consider how the core funding for organisations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International can be reinstated to allow those organisations to deliver what they have been doing effectively for some years?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; these are important organisations. Of course, the United Kingdom has led the way on the whole issue of family planning, as we showed yesterday through the summit we held. We are constantly looking at how we can work with important partners on that critical issue and, in particular, on family planning and modern methods of contraception. We will of course review these programmes, too, as all programmes are always under review.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

In welcoming the fab decision by the Prime Minister to appoint a joint Minister from the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office to sub-Saharan Africa, will the Secretary of State confirm what her priorities are for driving forward Her Majesty’s Government’s priorities in Africa, rather than just DFID and FCO priorities?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to commend the fact that the two Departments are working together on Africa. There is a very good reason for that. We are, of course, one HMG—one Government—and our priorities are the same priorities when it comes to Africa: tackling the big issues of disease, migration and economic development, which is critical, and growing regions such as Africa so that they can become our trading partners.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the current humanitarian and political situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? In particular, what are the Government doing to assist in tackling the humanitarian crisis there, and also to ensure that Congo can move to democratic elections as soon as possible?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee, and congratulate him on his reappointment to that role. He is right to stress the significance of what is going on in the DRC. The situation is very worrying; there are many humanitarian pressures that we know of in-country, and the current electoral and democratic situation is not sustainable. We are of course working on the ground and with our partners to ensure that we continue to provide the support that is necessary to get the country back on track.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

14. In recent years, UK aid has played a key role in helping Ethiopia to become more resilient to crises by ensuring that people have a safety net so that they do not starve when a crisis hits. Does the Secretary of State agree that the British public can be immensely proud of all the work this Government have done?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. I visited Ethiopia again recently—just a month ago—and saw UK aid in action. There is no doubt about the fact that UK aid is keeping people alive in the humanitarian situation, with the drought taking place there. However, at the same time, we are supporting the industrialisation of Ethiopia, with trade opportunities and British firms now creating jobs in the country.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has reported that UK development assistance to Africa was down by a massive £20 million in 2016 and warned that Africa is losing out on aid spending as the Government divert money to countries in Europe and Asia. Considering that Africa has the highest proportion of population living in extreme poverty, will the Secretary of State update the House on what she intends to do to reverse the cuts and to ensure Africa does not lose out on funding from DFID?

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and congratulate her on joining the Opposition Front-Bench team in that role.

We have the 0.7% commitment, of course, which we are proud of, and 74% of that is spent on DFID programming. The majority of that money goes to Africa programmes, but it is important to recognise a couple of points. There is an enormous humanitarian crisis in Africa right now, and we have throughout the year scaled up, and led the way in calling on other donors to put more money into Africa famine relief. We are also working across all Government Departments to ensure that Africa is a development priority.

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

2. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on ensuring that the Government’s operations in Syria help to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in that country.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence and other ministerial colleagues in response to the conflict in Syria, and of course we are doing more on the humanitarian side as well.

[Carol Monaghan]

Will the Secretary of State tell us what measures her Department is taking to ensure that civilians are able to leave Raqqa safely, and what information it is giving them on escape routes?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady highlights the terrible situation of the mass conflict involved in the recapturing of Raqqa. The regional support that we are providing includes medical supplies, food and shelter—all the basics that people in the region need. She asks specifically about information. We are working with our partners on the ground, who are working in very challenging situations, to give them information and guidance as to where the safe places are for them to go.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

7. How kind! May I use this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support for Singing for Syrians? I also thank the Department for International Development for its support. As a result of all the support we have received from across the House, Singing for Syrians is now able to support not only medical aid in Syria but a school for disabled children. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that aid is always worth more when it is spent in the region, and that what the people caught up in this terrible conflict really want is to be able to stay as close to home as possible?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate her and everyone else who has been involved in Singing for Syrians. It is an incredible charity, and I commend her for her work. She is right to highlight the fact that providing support in region is what makes a difference in terms of changing and saving lives. We have led the way in this. The United Kingdom has spent more than £2.46 billion in Syria and the region, providing hope and opportunity to those who have been displaced through conflict.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is quite obvious that senior Ministers in the Government wish to expand this conflict to target actors other than Daesh in Syria. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of what that would mean for her Department on the ground, and is she being the voice of reason in cautioning against expanding the conflict?

[Priti Patel]

It is wrong to suggest that we are expanding any conflict at all. The focus of this Government, particularly from the humanitarian perspective, is to ensure that UK aid goes to the people who are suffering as a result of the bleak situation on the ground right now. Of course we are working across Government and with our partners in the region and our international partners to bring hope where there is despair and, importantly, to end the conflict.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

13. Before the conflict, about 11% of the Syrian population were Christians. The Government rightly have a programme to admit refugees from the camps on humanitarian grounds, but in the early stages of the programme, many Christians would not go to the camps because of intimidation. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, when the Government admit refugees for very good reasons, a fair proportion of them will be Christians?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are prioritising reaching the most vulnerable people across Syria, including Christians, and UK funding is distributed on the basis of ensuring that civilians are not discriminated against on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

3. Whether the Government plan to continue to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of GDP on aid to developing countries for the duration of this Parliament.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

Meeting the 0.7% of GNI target for overseas aid is a manifesto commitment. It is enshrined in law, and the Government have been unequivocal that we will continue to honour that pledge.

[Matt Rodda]

As well as committing to the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of GDP on aid to developing countries, does the Secretary of State agree that poverty reduction must be at the heart of UK aid spending?

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. He is absolutely right, and that is exactly what our aid spending does. Importantly, poverty reduction is at the heart of the definition in terms of official development assistance spending, and that is something that the Government are absolutely focused on.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The 0.7% is extremely valuable in alleviating poverty. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the important summit on family planning that she attended yesterday and tell us what it achieved?

[Priti Patel]

Family planning is an enormous issue for development and poverty alleviation. Yesterday, we convened a summit with our co-hosts, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and many representatives from around the world made big pledges and commitments to tackle family planning. The United Kingdom has led the way on the issue, but we are also working with the private sector to put more money into this area and to develop new commodities.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

What percentage of the budget will be spent on helping developing countries to tackle climate change? Will the Secretary of State follow Scotland’s example and establish a climate justice fund, or will the Government tie themselves to Donald Trump’s attitude to climate change, which Professor Stephen Hawking recently described as pushing

“the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid”?

[Priti Patel]

Let me be clear about this Government’s commitment to climate change reduction. We are a signatory to the Paris agreement, which we are committed to delivering. As for the spending percentage, it is important to stress that we have a range of spending across Departments. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on climate control and climate change, is working with DFID, because climate change issues such as drought and famine have a massive impact and cause a great deal of harm in various parts of the world.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Constituents from Chipping Barnet are coming to Parliament today to set out their concerns about Christians in Syria facing oppression and persecution. Will the Secretary of State use the aid budget to alleviate the suffering of Christian communities during their times of trouble?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and commend her and her constituents for the work that they are doing. UK aid and funding are distributed to those in need, including persecuted Christians around the world. Importantly, we are standing up for them and giving them a voice in parts of the world where conflict is happening.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as recommitting to the UN target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid to developing countries, will the Secretary of State consult civil society before proposing any further changes to or relaxation of the rules on what ODA can be spent on?

[Priti Patel]

This is an important area and I have committed to working with all partners, particularly civil society. In fact, a range of NGOs and stakeholders spent some time with me two weeks ago, and we had a constructive discussion on that very issue. The dialogue is ongoing, and I would welcome the views of many other partners.

[Kate Osamor]

With the Government’s new-found desire to reach out to other parties for new ideas, precisely which of the 13 policy ideas in Labour’s 2017 manifesto does the Secretary of State now intend to implement?

[Priti Patel]

When it comes to development, it is fair to say that we agree on the national and global commitment to the 0.7% target, hence why we are having such a constructive exchange right now. In reference to the hon. Lady’s previous question, we should be working collectively and with our international partners on ODA reform.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support people affected by (a) famine in South Sudan and (b) food shortages in Somalia and Burundi.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

This year, we are providing a package of £276 million of humanitarian support to those countries, supplying food, shelter and water to those in desperate need.

[David Linden]

What is the Department doing to encourage the Ugandan Government to engage fully in diplomatic efforts to bring the warring parties in South Sudan around the negotiating table?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. The conflict in South Sudan is abhorrent, and I saw that first hand on my visit earlier this year. I have been pressing the Ugandan Government and other neighbours in the region. They need to step up and call out the appalling behaviour that we have been seeing in South Sudan with President Salva Kiir. The United Kingdom is doing everything it possibly can to ensure that that message is being heard.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and DFID on co-ordinating the aid effort in South Sudan with other countries. Does she agree that that is yet another example of where British taxpayers’ money is being wisely spent on keeping alive men, women and children who happen to share the same planet as us?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. South Sudan is a man-made crisis that has killed thousands and forced almost 4 million people to flee their homes. UK aid is not only saving lives but making an enormous difference in a country dominated by war and conflict.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to enable small charities in the UK to access funding allocated by her Department.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

Last week, DFID launched the small charities challenge fund, which is specifically for small UK-registered charities with an annual income of less than £250,000.

[Mary Robinson]

I am particularly proud of the work that many of my constituents in Cheadle undertake for small charities, which are vital to our aid programme, as highlighted by this funding. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by providing these funds to our local small charities, we can improve the connection between our civil society and the important work of helping countries overseas?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that small charities are a crucial part of the UK’s development offer internationally. There are many extraordinary grassroots charities, and I urge all colleagues on both sides of the House to encourage their small charities to apply for this fund. There is a great opportunity to build links, both nationally and internationally, on these important issues.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give priority in allocating funds to areas of the world such as Yemen? There is a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, where 300,000 people are facing a cholera epidemic.

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I commend him for again raising the issue of Yemen, where the conflict is having a devastating impact and, of course, there is a cholera crisis. The Government are spending hundreds of millions on providing necessary life-saving support to the people who are engulfed by that awful conflict.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

12. What assess- ment has my right hon. Friend made of the remarkable voluntary charitable contribution made alongside the Government’s work to relieve the crisis in Syria? How does the Department help to facilitate that work?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. UK aid is playing a significant part supporting Syria and the region—we are one of the largest donors—and many small charities are also involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) has spoken about how UK charities are playing their part. The small charities challenge fund will help to facilitate more UK small charities to do more on international crisis and conflict.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implementation of the Government’s report, “Agenda 2030: Delivering the Global Goals”, published in March 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

Yesterday I hosted a fantastic family planning conference here in London, dealing with the population challenges of regions such as Africa, demonstrating UK leadership and UK aid in action, and helping those who do not have a voice on that essential issue.

[Neil Gray]

Will the Secretary of State commit to not changing the UK definition of international aid without consultation with and the approval of this House—yes or no?

[Priti Patel]

I have already said that I am engaging all parties, meaning not just political parties but stakeholders and international colleagues. We have very clear guidelines on OECD development assistance committee rules. We will work with all partners to make the necessary changes.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T2. If someone’s tools or land are stolen and there is no redress through the justice system, or if someone is fearful to walk to school because they have been raped and no action has been taken, development is restricted and poverty continues. What action is the Department for International Development taking to make sure that justice systems function properly in the developing world?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. Strengthening justice systems around the world, particularly in developing and poor countries, is an essential part not only of our fight to combat global poverty, but of building safer communities and countries. That is the focus of DFID and UK aid.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

What are the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues doing about the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who cannot access any UK aid because they are still under siege from the al-Assad Government?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the very serious situation in Syria and the besieged areas, where we and all other agencies are collectively struggling to get support and aid to people who desperately need it. We are working with many aid agencies on the ground and with the United Nations in particular, which is leading the way. The situation in Syria is devastating and we are working with everyone possible and all parties to see what we can do to get supplies in as and when windows of opportunity appear.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

T3. Free trade is essential if poorer countries are to escape poverty. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the steps she is taking to address that issue?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK is committed to ensuring that developing countries can reduce and combat poverty by focusing on free trade and open markets. We are at the forefront of an economic development strategy and are encouraging trade preferences with poor countries to help to trade their way out of poverty. DFID is absolutely focused on that area.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So that the whole House can benefit from the mellifluous tones of the right hon. Lady, perhaps she would be good enough to face the House in answering, and then we can always have a richly satisfying experience.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

School students from Wrexham and Leribe in Lesotho in southern Africa have had a tremendous relationship over 10 years as a result of personal contact between students in Europe and Africa. How are we going to enable that to continue?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those amazing partnerships between schools in Africa and the United Kingdom. DFID is leading the way with many programmes, including the connecting classrooms programme in schools in the constituencies of many right hon. and hon. Members. We are absolutely encouraging more of that dialogue.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T4. Trade, not aid is the route out of poverty for developing countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that leaving the EU will allow this country to lower its tariffs, and developing countries to trade with us?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a very important and relevant point. As someone who also campaigned to leave the European Union, I think he is absolutely right. Our trade preferences, which will be introduced by future legislation as we leave the EU, will enable many poor countries to leave poverty behind and get on the path to prosperity through open markets and free trade.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

With 95% of its drinking water now unsafe to drink, Gaza is fast approaching the point of becoming uninhabitable, as predicted by the United Nations. What are the Government doing to ensure that we do not reach that point and to push the EU plans to fund a desalination plant there?

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

T5. Will the Secretary of State assure me that her Department will work closely with disability-focused organisations so that the UK’s efforts to improve access to education for disabled children in developing countries are successful?

[Priti Patel]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and thank him for his question. We are committed to using UK aid to focus on disability in poor countries and, importantly, to enable disadvantaged people in some of the poorest parts of the world to access some of the innovation and great ways of working we have in the United Kingdom.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and I recently went to Jordan, where we met people on the ground who are really worried about the potential instability resulting from Jordan’s acceptance of so many Syrian refugees. Do the Government agree that ensuring stability in the host countries that are opening their doors is an absolute priority?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Like me, she will have seen at first hand the impact of Syrian conflict on Jordan and the region. As a host country, Jordan is being heavily supported by UK aid—the British taxpayer—to provide all the essentials.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T6. Will the Secretary of State ensure that her Department works with Population Matters to make sure that more women in the developing world have access to advice and support for contraception and family planning?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Yesterday, we hosted a summit on that very issue. We will continue to lead the way and to be at the forefront of standing up for women’s rights in developing countries, as well as pioneering more work on and support for family planning and contraceptives.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that recent proposals in Israel on the construction of a Gaza sea port, such as those advanced by the Israeli Labor Knesset Member Omer Barlev and discussed last month by the Israeli Cabinet, would offer a much-needed route to easing the situation in Gaza? Will he support that initiative?

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

T7. Thank you, Mr Speaker. British-funded refugee camps throughout Turkey have been saving lives and preventing illegal migration into Europe. Is it now time to operate a similar scheme in north Africa?

[Priti Patel]

We are of course providing a great deal of support and humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees in north Africa. We are working across the Government on how to deal with migration routes: we are looking at the flows of people so that, when we need to, we can send them back to their home country.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) to feel excluded.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T8. The British Government are leading the response to the famine in east Africa. Will the Minister update the House on the Department’s work in this area?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak about east Africa, where there is one of the four famines that the world faces this year. In east Africa specifically, we have led the way in humanitarian and emergency food assistance and helped more than 2.4 million people.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Humanitarian Situation in Mosul

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on my Department’s continued support for the people of Mosul.

On Monday, Prime Minister Abadi declared Mosul to be liberated, three years after the city fell to Daesh. Victory comes after three years of unimaginable oppression by Daesh—three years of fear, executions, abductions, forced marriages and the destruction of Iraq’s ancient heritage. It comes after nine months of heavy fighting by the Iraqi security forces, who faced brutal Daesh tactics, including the use of human shields and suicide bombers. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will provide the House with a more detailed update tomorrow on the ongoing military campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and the UK’s role in this effort.

The declaration that Mosul is once again free is a great victory for the people of Iraq and a great stride forward for global security. I am sure that the House will join me in commending the extraordinary bravery of the Iraqi security forces, who have put the protection of civilians at the heart of their military campaign, acting to reduce civilian casualties wherever they could and risking their lives to help to evacuate civilians fleeing the bullets of Daesh fighters. We should recognise their professionalism, courage and significant sacrifice. They have been backed up from the air by the international coalition forces, including the RAF, who have taken all reasonable precautions during the planning and execution of airstrikes to reduce the risk to civilian life.

We should also recognise the bravery of the people of Mosul: children who have been out of school for years are now back in the classroom and sitting exams; doctors who had to stop working under Daesh are once again giving life-saving treatment to their fellow citizens who were injured in the fighting; and volunteers are clearing the rubble from the streets and public buildings.

However, we must be realistic about the challenges ahead. Almost 50,000 homes have been destroyed and although 200,000 people have returned to their homes in eastern Mosul, over 700,000 people are still displaced and in need of continued humanitarian assistance. Explosive remnants of this war will be a problem for many months to come.

After winning the battle for Mosul, it is important to win the peace, and now starts the painstaking task of rebuilding and reconciling so that families can return home as quickly as possible, communities can live peacefully alongside one another once more, and citizens can start to rebuild their lives. Needs in and around Mosul will not fall immediately, even as the fighting ends.

As a global humanitarian leader, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to support the humanitarian response and will continue to stand alongside the people of Iraq in the months ahead. From the very start of the Mosul military operations, the UK has provided shelter, medical care and food to those who have either lost their homes because of the fighting or been forced to flee for safety reasons.

The UK is the largest donor to the Iraq humanitarian pooled fund and we are providing practical, life-saving support, including water in camps for over 166,000 displaced people, cash assistance to over 50,000 vulnerable people, and life-saving healthcare, including a trauma hospital to treat the victims of the fight against Daesh.

Today I am pleased to confirm that the UK will provide £40 million of humanitarian funding this year, taking our total commitment just in Iraq since 2014 to £209 million. This funding will help to ensure that displaced communities and people will receive much- needed shelter, food and medical support, and it will also provide protection services for the most vulnerable, including minorities, women and girls. Already, £18 million of this funding has been allocated to partners who are working hard to deliver assistance around Mosul.

The United Nations has set funding requirements for Iraq in 2017 at $984 million. The UK is stepping up, and I continue to call on my colleagues in the international development community—the donors—to follow Britain’s lead. The international community must continue to support the people of Mosul and Iraq.

As people return home to liberated areas, they will need support to rebuild their lives. Humanitarian and stabilisation partners are helping to re-establish basic services, including by distributing food in areas where markets are not yet functioning and providing cash assistance so that vulnerable people can buy what they most need.

In east Mosul, the Department for International Development’s humanitarian funding to the International Organisation for Migration and UNICEF has already helped to reopen health facilities and provide clean water in liberated areas, which is essential for people to be able to return home. DFID will also provide £6 million this year for stabilisation efforts. That funding will help to restore basic services and infrastructure in liberated areas, including in Mosul. Through the United Nations Development Programme, UK funding has already helped to rehabilitate the al-Qasour water plant in eastern Mosul. Over 750 schools have already reopened, allowing 300,000 children to sit exams. Our funding will also support local reconciliation, helping displaced people to reintegrate back into their communities when they return home. Across Iraq, over 1 million people have returned to their homes in areas where UK-funded stabilisation projects are working.

But ultimately, to win the peace in Iraq, the Government of Iraq will need to unite all Iraqis against extremism, address the grievances that led to Daesh’s rise and persuade all Iraqi communities that they have a fair stake in their nation’s future. The UK will continue to be steadfast in our support for the Government of Iraq’s efforts to drive forward reform, reconciliation and stabilisation.

This week’s victory against Daesh in Mosul marks an important moment in the campaign to defeat this terror group and its poisonous ideology. We join our Iraqi friends in celebrating the liberation of this historic city. The UK will continue to provide much-needed humanitarian and stabilisation assistance to those who have been affected by the conflict, and to support the Government of Iraq’s efforts to build a stable, secure and prosperous Iraq. I commend this statement to the House.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I particularly welcome the news of Mosul’s liberation after three years of oppression. It is important to defeat Daesh’s violent ideology wherever it emerges. I would like to pay tribute to the Iraqi security forces and the people of Mosul, who have shown remarkable courage in the face of Daesh’s continued oppression. I pay particular tribute to the role of the UK Government in their important work to provide critical aid and emergency support. The UK’s continued role in the coming days and weeks, and the significant funding commitments announced by the Secretary of State, which I welcome, will save lives and help to rebuild Mosul. This commitment also demonstrates the important role that UK aid plays not only in standing alongside the people of Iraq, but in contributing to long-term peace and stability.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State a series of questions about her announcement. First, although there is cause for real celebration in the liberation of Mosul, Amnesty International has identified countless human rights violations on all sides—both by Daesh and, possibly, by the Iraqi forces—in the fight for Mosul. These include the use of civilians as human shields by Daesh fighters and violations of children’s rights. Amnesty International has called for a thorough investigation of all human rights violations and possible war crimes carried out during the liberation of Mosul, and the UN human rights chief has called for a strong culture of accountability now that the city has been liberated. Does the Secretary of State support those calls and will she tell us how we can help?

Secondly, while I welcome the UK Government’s aid response to the situation in Mosul, the forced displacement of numerous refugees in and around Mosul as a result of the past two years of Daesh occupation requires widespread action, not only on rebuilding, but on the resettlement of those displaced. Will the Secretary of State update us on how we will be able to help all those who have been displaced? I thank the Secretary of State again for her welcome statement to the House.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous comments and support for what has been achieved in Mosul. I absolutely agree that we should pay tribute to all the forces involved, and also to the people of Mosul, who have suffered considerably at the hands of Daesh.

The hon. Lady is right to point to Amnesty International’s report today, which makes allegations and raises concerns about the coalition—well, Iraqi—forces and human rights violations. It is important to stress that the security forces and the coalition have made every effort to protect civilians during operations. Now that we are hearing of alleged violations or abuses, it is quite right that they are thoroughly and transparently investigated, and those found responsible must be held to account. We also welcome the previous statement by Prime Minister Abadi on this and encourage reporting on the outcomes.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the displacement of people. Hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by what has happened in Mosul and in Iraq more broadly. The focus now has to be on resettlement and the reunification of the country as a whole.

The hon. Lady will have heard me speak briefly about the stabilisation efforts which, of course, have to be the focus right now. UK aid, and my Department in particular, are working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, others across Government and the international community not only to support UN stabilisation efforts in Iraq and secure the liberated areas, clearing areas of explosives and making them habitable again, but, importantly, to provide the basics to people by putting in water facilities, power networks, clinics and schools. We also know that 1.8 million people have been displaced in Iraq since 2015 and have returned to their homes when possible, so it is important to focus on resettlement and stabilisation, and how we can bring prosperity and stability back to Mosul and the outlying areas of Iraq.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Mosul was home to one of the oldest Christian communities in the region, but religious minorities suffered dreadfully at the hands of ISIS. What can DFID do to ensure that such minorities are able to return to their place of origin?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for once again raising the issue of minorities who have been persecuted and displaced in the conflict. We know that what has happened, particularly for Christian communities and others, has been absolutely abhorrent. We are now focused on stabilisation, and also on ensuring that Iraq as a whole can be rebuilt and reunified so that all communities can come back to their homes and feel that they can contribute to a new Iraq following the conflict.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

We very much welcome the military defeat of Daesh in Mosul, but for the victory to be truly complete, it is imperative that we address the now critical humanitarian needs of the people of the city and the surrounding region. As we have already heard, Amnesty International has described the horrors that the people of Mosul have witnessed and the disregard for human life by all parties to the conflict. That must not go unpunished. Entire families have been wiped out, many of whom are still buried under the rubble today. The people of Mosul deserve to know that there will be justice and reparation so that the harrowing impact of this operation is fully addressed.

The UK Government must finally learn the lessons from Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It cannot be allowed to happen in Mosul, as it has happened in so many places before, that the cost and impact of UK military action dwarfs the relief and reconstruction efforts that follow. How are the Government working with civil society on the ground to alleviate the suffering of those in the refugee camps who lack sufficient food, water and electricity to survive the scorching desert heat? Will the Government support the creation of an independent commission, as recommended by Amnesty International, to investigate the killings of civilians by all sides in the conflict, including by air strikes carried out by the UK?

[Priti Patel]

I reiterate the comments I made to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) about the Amnesty International report, the violations that may have taken place and the need for investigations. It is right and proper that all attention is given to the investigations and that people are brought to justice in the right way, but we must also recognise that there have been horrific attacks across the whole of Iraq because of the poisonous ideology of Daesh. The conduct of Daesh, the displacement of people and the atrocities that have taken place are absolutely unforgiveable and will no doubt scar generations to come.

It is important to stress at this time when many have worked to liberate Mosul, in particular coalition forces and the Iraqi security forces, that our priority is to continue the humanitarian support we provide through UK aid to the displaced and to support the stabilisation efforts. Of course that is the focus of not just the British Government but all our international partners, including the United Nations. We will continue to stand up for those who have been displaced and work collectively to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s announcement, and in particular the extra funds the UK is giving to the wonderful people in Mosul. However, she will know that if the experience of Fallujah and elsewhere is to be followed in Mosul, the vicious tactics of Daesh will mean that every single house, street and public place will be booby-trapped and mined, and it will take many years to clear that. Will she therefore commit the Government to doing what we can to help on the technical matter of removing the explosives? Secondly, it is not the scorching heat of today that we should be worrying about; it is the cold of the Mosul winter, which will come in only three or four months’ time, by which point we must have found decent accommodation for these people.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I referred to the fact that we will spend a great deal of time, resources and effort in rebuilding not only Mosul but Iraq as a whole through the stabilisation approach that we will put forward. But there is no doubt that we will have to invest to reclaim land, and particularly to de-mine huge swathes of the country. The British Government announced earlier this year a substantial commitment to our de-mining efforts in countries that have been unstable through conflict.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that the weather conditions in Mosul will change in the latter part of the year—they will become much harsher—so all of us in the international community will have to not just step up our efforts, but focus our resources on those who will be in need in the harsh winter to come. Importantly, we need to rebuild, put houses in and start building infrastructure sooner rather than later.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and particularly welcome the additional humanitarian assistance she has announced and what she has just said about de-mining. When the people of Mosul do return, many will be deeply traumatised. What will the Government do to ensure there is the mental healthcare and support for those families when they do return?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to speak about the psychological, mental and physical trauma involved in recovering and rebuilding after what has happened across Iraq, and in Mosul in particular. I spoke about the fact that we will obviously need to rehabilitate the country at every single level—infrastructure, water, schools and health centres. It is also vital that we work with our colleagues and counterparts internationally and in the health community to ensure that the medical assistance, support and expertise of those who can give the necessary help to those who need it is provided.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The people who wish to return to Mosul have been traumatised, as we have heard from many Members, but while the ones who stayed in the area want to go home, there are very few homes to go to. What exactly is this country doing to help to rebuild the infrastructure and put a roof over people’s heads? Is the Secretary of State also encouraging other countries to support the people of the area?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the immediate needs of the more than 1.8 million displaced people in Iraq who have returned to their homes. We are working with the Iraqi Government on stabilisation, as well as with UN stability programmes in the areas where they are working to provide necessary infrastructure—renovated water facilities, power networks, clinics, schools, and also homes. The destruction that has taken place is incomprehensible to us. Vast swathes of land and homes were deliberately destroyed by Daesh, and it is our responsibility through UK aid, and working internationally with our partners, to ensure that we rebuild and rehouse the many millions who have been displaced.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of it. Tens of thousands of children have been without education in Mosul for many years, so it is good news that 750 schools have reopened, but what work is being done to assist schools to tackle the very particular and sensitive challenge of helping older children, teenagers and young adults to plug the significant gap in their education and prevent there being a lost generation?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to speak about the lost generation. There is a high level of displacement, including a horrifically high number of displaced children, across the whole region affected by conflict—Syria and Iraq. Many children have lost their education; they have been out of school for several years because of the extent of the conflict. The hon. Lady knows that the United Kingdom is an enormous supporter and big funder of the Education Cannot Wait programme, which focuses on exactly this in areas of conflict, as well as host communities—Jordan and Lebanon, for instance. We are providing resources to introduce a double-shift system of education. She also mentioned older children, and it is important, with the funding we put in through the partners with which we work, and particularly through Governments directly, that organisations provide education—they are—as well as technical and vocational training opportunities.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is obviously a man of taste.

The Government have previously acknowledged that the cutting of the food coupon in the Syrian refugee camps in the summer of 2013 led to the mass exodus thereafter. While acknowledging the UK’s proud track record on humanitarian aid, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the international community must step up to the plate on the funding of any temporary arrangements with regard to displaced people, and that we must learn those lessons?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. On lessons learned, effectively it is now about the implementation of a lot of the programmes for those in humanitarian crisis situations, in terms of food provision, water and other essentials. We have learned many lessons through the Grand Bargain work; partner organisations on the ground delivering services and provisions are working collectively, in a way that they were not in 2013, to bring vital aid and food to those who need it.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her measured and comprehensive statement. I have a friend in Baghdad who was an MP in Mosul and who was also Culture Secretary; for her, the devastation of this historically very important city will have been awful, but I am glad that the Secretary of State is focusing on the humanitarian needs right away, because as Members have said, the traumatisation, particularly of children, in the area needs to be addressed immediately.

The Secretary of State talked about the importance of peace. Of course, we all want to see peace in the region, and I congratulate the Prime Minister of Iraq on hopefully getting rid of Daesh, at least from Mosul, but Kurdistan is a very important part of the country; does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Parliament of Kurdistan, which has not met for over a year, should meet as soon as possible?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her thoughtful observations on how we need to work together to bring peace and stability to Iraq and the region. This is not something that one country can do on its own; the international community can provide guidance, support and, in particular, assistance with getting the democracy functioning again. That would be the ultimate symbol of beating Daesh and the poisonous ideology that it has been propagating across the region. She is right to highlight the fact that stabilisation, peace and, ultimately, a functioning democracy should return all over again. This is a long-term objective, and we know that it will be difficult because of the levels of conflict, instability, destruction and displacement that we have seen. Our immediate focus is on putting people, including children, first and rebuilding the country in the best way we can through the international coalition.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alec Shelbrooke]

In all my elections, I have proudly stood in support of our manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid, although many people have criticised it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in situations such as these, such a commitment is not only morally right but enables us to invest in Iraq? A lot of the situation with Daesh in Mosul came about because the residents were worried about divisions in the Baghdad Government. It is investment from this country through my right hon. Friend’s Department that allows people to be educated and ensures that that Government will work for the entire country to prevent this happening again.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for re-stating the importance of UK aid and our commitment to the world’s poorest through the 0.7%. We have been undertaking urgent humanitarian support for a number of years, but we are also looking ahead to the stabilisation that we will work to achieve collectively within the international development community. We can see UK aid making a difference to people, and bringing peace, stability and global influence to countries such as Iraq in the way that we would all expect our aid budget to do.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Following the comments from the Scottish nationalist spokesman, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), does the Secretary of State agree that the crucial difference between the actions of the British and coalition forces on the one hand and Daesh on the other is that we go out of our way to minimise civilian casualties, while Daesh does exactly the opposite? At a time when one of our colleagues is being hideously bullied and threatened over her vote in favour of the action against Daesh, do we not need to send a clear message that this House was absolutely right to take the decisions to carry out military action against Daesh, both in Iraq and in Syria?

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we did the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing by standing up to those poisonous ideologies and the conduct of those awful groups around the world. The liberation of Mosul speaks volumes about the sacrifices that the people in that community—and those who fought against Daesh—have made.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Sexual violence is one of the consistent horrors of war, both conventional and unconventional. It is a deliberate act, and a recognisable but repugnant tactic designed to shatter the cohesion of oppressed people, as well as being a grotesque example of individual human rights abuses. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will look at what DFID can do to mitigate this vile form of violence and to support the Yazidis and other fragile, damaged communities? Moreover, will she tell us what DIFD can do to deter would-be oppressors from using this form of violence in future conflicts?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the abhorrent sexual violence against women and girls, particularly in the Yazidi community. He is also right to highlight the fact that Britain has been calling this behaviour out, and standing up for and giving a voice to many people who have been subjected to horrific abuses and attacks by Daesh. In countries of conflict, it is women and girls who suffer such atrocities and acts of violence, and we will continue to stand up for them through our work with the United Nations and with our partners in other countries. In answer to his question on what else we can do, we will follow through the prosecutions of those who are responsible and hold them to account.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I visited the outskirts of Mosul last October during the conflict and met counter-terrorism personnel. I also visited six camps for refugees and internally displaced people and saw the huge humanitarian operation, which I was very impressed by. I note that on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning, the deputy commander of the coalition forces, General Jones from the United Kingdom, said that everything had been done to protect citizens. However, he went on to describe Amnesty’s report as “naive” and reckless. This is in the week in which the Amnesty report on Saudi Arabia arms sales—

[Graham Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to say that we need a new democratic settlement in Nineveh province. What are the Secretary of State’s Department, the Foreign Office and our ambassador, Frank Baker, doing to ensure that we include minorities in that settlement?

[Priti Patel]

The Iraqi and coalition forces have made every effort to protect civilians. On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, we are working with the Iraqi Government and with all partners on the ground on stabilisation and support for the rebuilding of Mosul.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Iraqi security forces and the British armed forces for their work. Will the Secretary of State update us on another humanitarian threat to the people of Mosul, namely the Mosul dam, which is in an incredibly dangerous condition and, being upstream of Mosul, threatens the city?

[Priti Patel]

That is a very serious situation and, again, we are working on stabilisation and are making every effort to provide the support required in that area. We will continue to do that; this is an ongoing situation. We are not only monitoring it but are being very active in the support that we can give.

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

Last November, I raised the plight of the thousands of Yazidi women and children who were being held in slavery by Daesh in Mosul. I asked the Government whether they would seek to provide specialist psychological care once the liberation of Mosul had been completed. Will the Minister tell me what plans the Government are putting in place, now that Daesh has been driven from the city, to tend to the specific psychological needs and physical wounds of one of the most wickedly abused communities on this planet?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the awful abuse of minorities, and of the Yazidi women in particular. I refer him to my earlier comment about the medical support we are providing. Mental and psychological support are absolutely essential, given the abhorrent nature of this conflict.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I welcome the resources that the Government are making available for the relief of the suffering following the conflict, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the international community at no stage loses focus on the politics of the settlement around Mosul? We must ensure that there is no continuation of the institutionalised marginalisation of the complex number of communities around the city, and that they all have a stake in the future.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the political stabilisation and about inclusivity in relation to the rebuilding. We will continue to work with Prime Minister al-Abadi and the Iraqi Government to ensure that this happens.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The tributes that the Secretary of State has made were right, and the ambition is commendable, but the question is: how is this going to be achieved? People talk facilely about learning the lessons from Iraq, but is it not an example of the collective failure to reconstruct the country that many Sunni families saw Daesh as their protectors against the legitimate Government, rather than the marauding killers that they were? How will things be different, and what role will the UK Government play?

[Priti Patel]

The UK Government will play their part in every way that is necessary. There are no easy solutions to rebuilding a country or to making it operationally functional again after such an abhorrent and appalling conflict. We will continue to support Prime Minister al-Abadi and the Iraqi Government and to aid in the response that is required. We will also support inclusivity and getting the politics, security and stabilisation right.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that reconstruction depends on the removal of mines and booby traps? Is she satisfied that there is adequate capacity, and that enough money has been allocated to deal speedily with that task? Is there any timetable?

[Priti Patel]

We provide support for the vital de-mining and clearing up of improvised explosive devices. The British Government have provided specific resources, and we will use various Government funds and support the UN Mine Action Service. However, the task is not easy, and the level of destruction in Iraq is absolutely atrocious. Our work is cut out for us, but we will give all the necessary support to ensure that mines are cleared and that land is returned to its former use.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The liberation of Mosul is a significant step towards the defeat of this evil terror, but does the Secretary of State agree that the rebuilding and de-radicalisation of communities are just as important as that defeat?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is right that de-radicalisation must be a feature of the stabilisation and rebuilding. Divided and fractured communities need to be brought back together. Once again, Britain will lead the way on this, providing all the necessary support to the Iraqi Government and doing our bit to bring stability and peace to the country.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The atrocities of Daesh have failed to deliver a caliph and the so-called caliphate. My right hon. Friend rightly recognises the role of the Iraqi forces, but will she join me in recognising the role played by the Yazidi fighters, especially the female fighters? What work is being done to ensure that their voices are heard during the reconstruction?

[Priti Patel]

Taking back control of Mosul has been a hard-fought battle, and all the forces and communities should be commended for their efforts. Stabilisation obviously needs to happen, but the focus must be on bringing together the minority groups from all the communities that have been divided by this atrocious conflict.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to our brave servicemen and women. I welcome her announcement about UK humanitarian aid, but what specific funding will be offered to women and girls who have been subject to the most unimaginable sexual violence of Daesh? We must do more to support them.

[Priti Patel]

I announced today that we will be providing the necessary humanitarian aid, but 46,000 vulnerable and displaced people, many of whom are women and girls who have been subject to such atrocities and violence, will also receive support through that money.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the liberation of Mosul is a vindication of those on both sides of the House who were prepared to vote to give our allies on the ground the military support that they needed, rather than those who only wanted to offer warm words and hand-wringing in response to Daesh’s advance. Does she agree that getting people back into work is vital for getting things back to normal? What specific work will the Department be doing to bring Mosul’s economy back to life?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right that the liberation of Mosul represents a great opportunity to rebuild the country and put infrastructure in place. We need to work collectively with our partners and with the companies that will go in and help to create jobs, new economic opportunities and prosperity. That is a major feature of the stabilisation and rebuilding work that DFID is leading on with colleagues from across Government and with our international counterparts.