G7
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
In the light of the vast global challenges that we are all witnessing, there is much ground to cover in this statement. First, we continue to support Ukraine in this fight, and to support the freedoms and values it is defending —democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. It is very welcome that US military aid and intelligence sharing has resumed, and it is vital that the US and Ukraine continue to work together in the face of this appalling conflict. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary hold with US counterparts about the impact of the suspension of intelligence and military support, and what is his assessment of its consequences?
While we await further details of the proposed 30-day ceasefire, Russia’s response shows exactly why the Euro-Atlantic community must be resolute in the face of Putin’s aggression, and that Putin will seek to pursue long-held strategic objectives that he has not achieved on the battlefield through hypothetical negotiations. That means that we must be robust: Britain must apply maximum pressure on the Kremlin, boost defence production, and maintain our support for Ukraine’s battlefield efforts. We must also use our convening role to work with allies who have other types of equipment that could plug capability gaps and to broker extra support packages.
In the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement, there is a commitment to use
“extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets”.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether this means that the UK will go further than the £2.26 billion loan already announced off the back of the profits from sanctioned assets, and can he give an update on when proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club will be in the hands of those most in need?
Over the weekend, we heard the Prime Minister say that his planning for his potential peacekeeping initiative is now moving into an “operational phase”. Is the Foreign Secretary able to explain what this means in practice, especially for our armed forces? What planning is under way? What will our contribution to peacekeeping consist of? Over what timeframe would deployment be launched, and how will our armed forces be supported? Which allies in this coalition of the willing have expressed interest, what will they offer, and what discussions are under way with the US on deterrence and security guarantees to ensure that an invasion like this can never happen again?
Turning to the middle east, we are absolutely united on the position that the Iran-backed terrorists Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but what have the Government done to pursue an end to that brutal regime, and what discussions has the Foreign Secretary held with middle eastern counterparts on their proposed plan for the future of Gaza? Now is the time for maximum pressure on Hamas from the international community. They must release every single hostage. Is the UK directly involved in discussions to drive action in a positive direction?
On Syria, was there discussion about the ongoing status of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a proscribed terrorist group? Following the Government’s lifting of 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime, does the recent violence change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting these kinds of sanctions?
We understand from the BBC that the UK did not directly participate in the US airstrikes on Houthi targets at the weekend, but that our armed forces provided routine refuelling support to the US. Can the Foreign Secretary share with the House what the precise nature of the UK support was, particularly given that the UK conducted multiple joint airstrikes with the US last year against Houthi militant targets to degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation? Can he explain why on this occasion it was decided that we would not deploy our own strike capabilities? Does he assess that there has been an increase in threats to freedom of navigation in the Red sea and to British vessels and personnel? If so, what is the Government’s overall approach to this threat and to the Houthis? Are hard power options still on the table, as they were last year? Will the Government ramp up sanctions and pressure on the Houthis and importantly on Iran, the malign force in the region that continues to back them? What steps are the Government taking to interdict weapons flowing from Iran to the Houthis? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his American counterparts on the US approach to Iran more broadly, and where does the UK fit into that?
The G7 statement also made reference to the range of challenges posed by China. Our key partners are alert to the threat China poses, but this Government seem oblivious to it. As China threatens global security and our national interests and puts bounties on the heads of Hongkongers living here, we have seen the Energy Secretary following the kowtowing of the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Communist party, and the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, who are responsible for national security, are now the cheerleaders for the Chinese super-embassy planning application. Will the Foreign Secretary disclose in full all contacts and communications between his Department, Downing Street, the Chinese authority and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about this matter? Does he recognise the anxiety that this planning application is causing to the groups threatened by China? Will he accept that the threats and risks mean that China must join Iran on the enhanced tiers of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Finally, was the Chagos surrender deal discussed with the Foreign Secretary’s US counterparts? Will he commit to present a draft treaty to the House before it is signed? How can he justify handing over billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, instead of defending our sovereignty?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful in particular for the cross-party nature of what the Secretary of State for the Opposition said—I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am a little jetlagged. I got off a plane at 6 am, and I hope the House will forgive me. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the manner of her remarks, particularly on Ukraine. There were a number of questions, which I will seek to deal with.
The right hon. Lady is right that Zelensky has made it absolutely clear that he is committed to peace. She asked me about the US decision on a pause in military aid and intelligence aid. I am pleased to say that our assessment is that that pause, as she will know, was for a short period, not an extended period. It therefore has not had a material effect, but we were pleased to see that aid resume. We were pleased to see what flowed from Jeddah: the United States, European allies and President Zelensky and Ukraine absolutely square with the need for that ceasefire. It is for Putin to accept unconditionally that ceasefire: the ball is in his court. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with Secretary Rubio over the course of the three days at the G7, and with Vice-President Vance yesterday morning at his residence in Washington.
The right hon. Lady rightly asks about Russian assets. Let me make it clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing Ukraine. I am delighted that the first £752 million of the UK’s £2.26 billion loan—to be repaid by the profits generated on Russian sanctioned assets— has been paid, but she knows that there is rightfully a discussion about moving from freezing to seizing. If we were to move in that direction, it would be important for there to be unanimity among the G7, and a way forward within the European Union for the most exposed countries. As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are discussing those very issues apace.
The right hon. Lady asked about UK troops on the ground. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine, but the collective security of our continent and, therefore, Britain’s direct national interest. That is why the Prime Minister has said that Europe needs to step up, and the UK is, of course, prepared to consider committing British troops on the ground; but there must be a US backstop. There will be a further meeting in London this week to continue to get into the operational detail.
The Prime Minister and I are pleased, alongside the Defence Secretary, that the coalition of the willing is growing. It is right that we consider carefully what would be required on the ground, but the right hon. Lady will know, too, that the exercise of monitoring what is put in place is very important. No doubt she, like me, will have seen the operation that was run by the OSCE. I saw it in January 2022, just before the fighting began in the February. That would not be adequate this time round, so, rightly and properly, we must get into the granular detail of what would be required—as the European family, of course, but also involving nations such as Canada. I received a commitment from Minister Mélanie Joly that Canada was willing to step up to be part of that coalition, but there will be others in that coalition of the willing, and we will look at these issues in detail over the coming days.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Gaza and the middle east. Let me make it absolutely clear that we were all united in saying that there could be no role for Hamas. We welcome the work that has been done by the Arab Quint as a direction of travel. The United Kingdom wants to continue to work with the Quint on strengthening that proposal, particularly on the security guarantees that the Israelis would rightfully need—their assurance that 7 October can never, ever happen again.
The right hon. Lady raised the situation in Syria. The awful clashes during the weekend of 8 and 9 March led to the deaths of more than 1,000 people. We condemned the violence at the time, and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), updated the House on 10 March. It is critical for the interim Administration in Syria to respect and protect all Syria’s minorities, which is why it was heartening to see the agreement last week between the interim Administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces, particularly in north-east Syria. This was obviously a topic of much discussion.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the strikes by the US. Since 19 November 2023, the Houthis have targeted international commercial shipping in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden and attacked British and American warships. That cannot go unchecked. It is totally unacceptable, and it must be dealt with. We do not, of course, comment on other nations’ military operations, but I can confirm that, while we did not take part in the strikes over the weekend, we are in close touch with our US friends on the need to act in respect of the Houthis and what they are doing in the Red sea.
The right hon. Lady talked about the Government’s approach to China. I can assure her that there will not be seven different approaches to China from this Government, which is what we experienced under the last Government, who were ping-ponging about over the course of those 14 years. As for the calamity of a United Kingdom Prime Minister having a beer with the leader of the Chinese Communist party, I can give her a guarantee that that will not happen under this Government. Quite properly, as the right hon. Lady knows, I and the Home Secretary made representations to the planning process about the security issues that must be kept in mind as the proper procedures are followed for China’s application. She also knows that we, too, have concerns about our embassy in China and its proper operation.
Syria
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough. It is deeply alarming that, in recent days, we have been witness to some of the deadliest violence in Syria since the beginning of this dreadful conflict. The Opposition have been raising questions, written and oral, about the Government’s approach to Syria throughout the year, so it is with some disappointment that we have had to wait this long—and, to be quite frank, for these events—for a Minister to give an update.
Reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including Alawite civilians, is troubling. The Syrian people have suffered 14 years of conflict and decades of oppression. The country is now at a fork in the road, but these terrible events are a stark reminder that a better future for the people of Syria—for all groups and all minorities—is far from guaranteed. We should be clear that those who have ratcheted up the appalling situation in recent days should pull back from the brink, not jeopardise that better future.
The Labour Government have decided to establish contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with interlocutors, and if so, whether the Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations for how the temperature should be taken down and stability restored? Can he also confirm whether there has been any direct engagement between Ministers and HTS leaders at any point, and what is his assessment of HTS’s response to this violence and the threat posed by remnants of the disgraceful Assad regime?
We note that the Government have announced they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Minister lifted those particular sanctions, did he consult US and European allies as well as partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive these decisions?
On the Minister’s visit to Turkey last week, he said the UK is committed to working in partnership with Turkey
“to support Syria’s transition to an inclusive and peaceful country”,
but what exactly does that mean in practice, and what does he see as Turkey’s role? On security issues specifically, can he confirm that there remains no change to the Conservative Government’s very firm position on foreign fighters—that they must not come back to the UK? What is his assessment of the Syrian state’s ability to counter any ISIS cells in the east of the country, and has he seen any progress on securing borders in the region and the prevention of smuggling people, drugs and weapons?
The Government are right that Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles need to be secured and destroyed, and that needs to be verified by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. However, is the Minister confident these weapons will indeed be destroyed? We acknowledge that the Government have put more funding into the OPCW’s Syria missions following the fall of Assad’s regime, but we still need Syria to meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention in full. We need concrete actions as well as words.
Turning to the humanitarian situation, where does the Minister judge the need is most acute, and how is he mobilising UK aid to ensure that it is safely distributed and is genuinely reaching those innocent civilians in need? With the reduction of official development assistance to 0.3%, can the Minister confirm that Syria will continue to be a priority and that funds will be made available, given the security and strategic issues?
Finally, on the transition to representative and inclusive governance, we note the launching of the non-binding national dialogue conference by the interim Government of Syria, but does the Minister believe that this process will yield the kind of results we all want for the people of Syria, and has he discussed this through the channels he has established with the interim Government?
Mr Falconer
I will try to answer as many of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s questions as I can. As she knows, we have had senior-level contact with the new HTS leadership. Our Foreign Secretary met the interim Foreign Minister on the margins of the Paris meeting. We have not yet sent Ministers to Damascus, as many of our partners will. We keep these issues under close review.
On whether we are consulting the Europeans on sanctions and other things, the Europeans have taken steps on sanctions slightly in advance of us. I cannot remember the precise date, but they relaxed their sanctions before we did. I can confirm to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we keep all decisions on sanctions under very close review.
The 24 entities for which sanctions were lifted on Friday are very much focused on the economic function of Syria. As the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well, Syria is in the midst of a very significant economic crisis—the Syrian pound has lost 99% of its value—and we want to protect the Syrian people from the consequences of that crisis. The relaxation of sanctions is very much focused on allowing normal Syrians and humanitarian actors to get on with their lives, but we will keep all further sanctions under close review.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about HTS’s progress on borders and countering terrorism and drugs. She is exactly right to say that we must judge HTS on its actions, not its words. HTS has made some very welcome commitments on a range of questions. For example, we have seen a welcome commitment from the new interim authorities to work with the OPCW. The interim Foreign Minister has engaged with the OPCW, which has now visited Damascus. That is to be welcomed, but the shadow Foreign Secretary is right that actions, not words, will be how we judge our Syria policy.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the many speakers in the debate, and in particular the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been a long-standing advocate for development aid. I have had the great privilege of working with her, and I thoroughly understand her commitment.
I will pay tribute to a few other colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has been a long-standing, dedicated and passionate advocate not just for 0.7%, but for the effective use of that funding, and for working with the private sector, which he and I have both had the enormous privilege of doing. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for her commitment. I have had the privilege of working with her as well, and during her time in government she was professional and committed to her brief. Of course, last week the Government sent her here to defend Labour’s indefensible Chagos surrender deal, which uses money transferred from the aid budget to defence to pay for the lease of a site that we have sovereignty over.
Priti Patel
I will not give way because I do not have time.
To spare the blushes of the Minister, I will not relitigate the debate. I am glad that he is in his place because there is a lot to cover. He will speak passionately about development aid and assistance because of his background and experience. I would like to ask him a question about the British Indian Ocean Territory and which budgets the lease costs will come from. Will it be from the FCO, defence or ODA budgets? We still need an explanation of that. I thank the Minister, because before the debate started I received a flurry of answers to some of the questions I have been posing on this issue. However, just for the record, I still do not have clarification, so there will be more.
I want to speak about defence spending and ODA. The Government were right to follow our calls to redirect some ODA funds to support the defence budget at this critical time.
Priti Patel
I will not give way as we are very short on time. I hope that the hon. Member will respect that.
The threats that we and our allies face necessitated that decision, and there is consensus across our respective Front Benches on that. Importantly, it shows our enemies and adversaries that we as a country are serious about dealing with the malign influences and challenges we face. The Minister knows the implications, but we must always look to increase our defence spending and resources. We will work collectively on that.
We all recognise, as I think the debate has shown, that many of the decisions on ODA are difficult. There are strong views in this House on the choices that have been made, including among those on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) pointed out some of the choices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) spoke about how we must still champion media freedoms, about some of the real pressures that exist and about the key values that we will stand up for.
As a former Secretary of State for International Development—I have been there and I understand— I know the benefits and the impact of UK aid: how we stand strong in the world, the use of soft power and the way in which we save lives. Whether that is through the Global Fund or Gavi, we know those funds very well. We have been a huge supporter of them, and Britain has saved and changed lives around the world. We are all proud of that; there is no question.
These points have been made already, but I ask the Minister: where will the Government take the lead—on which development programmes in particular? We know about Sudan—the Prime Minister has referred to that—but there are so many other areas of conflict in the world. They include Yemen, and I am afraid to say that I have not heard Yemen mentioned in this House for too long. Where will we be on the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund? I know Ministers will say that they will wait until the spending review, but given that ODA spending will still be pegged to a proportion of GNI, will the Minister give a commitment on the potential for published plans?
We want to know more about the split of ODA between Government Departments. Home Office spending of ODA on asylum has already been raised several times, and I know that the Minister will want to speak about that. We also want to know more about the integrated security fund and the decisions and choices that will be made on that. What clarity can be given? Similarly, CDC was mentioned. Can there also be clarity on its role and that of British International Investment, and some of the opportunities that exist there?
I want to briefly touch on Ukraine, and some other areas too. It is quite clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. They are on the frontline protecting the very principles that underpin our way of life: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Can the Minister say, particularly with the forthcoming changes in defence spending, whether the Government will turbocharge the work following the summit the Prime Minister led at the weekend? Importantly, the Americans have already spoken about pausing military aid and intelligence sharing. What work will we do now to make sure that that does not happen in the headline ways that we have heard? How will we respond to that? Are we having constructive dialogue with our friends in the US Administration to safeguard key intelligence and security assets? This is a defining moment.
I want to touch on the middle east as well, and particularly on some of the discussions we had in the urgent question yesterday on Gaza and the ceasefire. We must ensure that we always stand strong when it comes to standing up for the hostages. New discussions have taken place in Cairo. When plans are forthcoming, what role will we play as a country in some of those areas?
I must raise the issue of Iran. Our diplomatic and security efforts obviously have to ensure that we address that malign influence. I welcome the Government’s actions, which were undertaken yesterday, on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. However, I want to press Ministers to go further and have a consistent and serious approach to security and defence across Government, because this is a whole of Government effort now.
We have heard day after day in this House about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and China, which continue to cast a dark shadow over freedom, democracy and our national interests. We have to stop going cap in hand to China. We have to do much more, and I hope the Minister will reflect upon what I consider to be the Government’s reckless approach in kowtowing to China. What will we do to ensure that the vacuum that will now be created in some parts of the world will not be filled by China? How will we stand up to it?
Finally, it is pretty clear that we live in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. The threats are increasing and growing. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has one of the world’s greatest privileges, which is to stand up and look after our security, defence and freedom using soft power and all its levers. We urge Ministers, within the scope that they have now, to tackle the real threats and challenges that we all face globally, while also giving voice and representation to many of the issues that colleagues have spoken about today in the House.
Gaza
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released.
The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel.
I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip?
Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly?
Catherine West
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for emphasising the effect on families on both sides of this terrible conflict, but particularly on the British families whom the Prime Minister has met, and on Emily Damari, and their dignity and grace. She also mentioned all those who want a home, want security in the region, and have been affected by this most horrendous of wars. She evoked the terrible images of hostages being released while the most macabre of pantomimes went on behind them. That cruelty is utterly unacceptable, and the UK has made that very clear to interlocutors, both at ministerial and Foreign Secretary level.
The shadow Foreign Secretary has talked about phase 2. There have been stops and starts in this peace process, as there often are in these very difficult situations. Our role is to continue to speak very closely with the US and with Steve Witkoff to push for practical, day-to-day solutions. She asked about British aid and what negotiations we are undertaking. We are in daily contact with the region, and are pushing for discussions, conversations and dialogue, so that aid can get back in. Following this urgent question, we undertake to contact the Red Cross, one of our partner organisations, with the message that this House wants that aid to re-enter the area, and to save lives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
My thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Gaza and the appalling suffering they and their families are facing. The world has seen the brutality inflicted by the Iranian-sponsored terrorists, Hamas, who are a major obstacle to bringing about a sustainable and just peace in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary has previously agreed that there cannot be any future whatsoever for Hamas controlling Gaza. Can he provide an update on the actions he has undertaken to put an end to Hamas control and ensure we get to the third phase of the ceasefire? Will he discuss this issue when he goes to America with the Prime Minister to meet the President of the United States?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that I discussed this issue with Ron Dermer from the Israeli Government last week. I discussed this issue with Arab leaders—the so-called Quint—the week before. In the end, we cannot have a Gaza run by Hamas. All roads lead back to Hamas. I think the world has looked with horror at the scenes of armed men wearing bandanas, seeming to glorify murder and hostages who have been held. Of course, we will act with international colleagues to make sure that Hamas have no role to play in the future of Gaza.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was
“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.
Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal
“was so bad that we said, no way!”
and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?
Stephen Doughty
The fundamentals of the deal remain the same, and the overall quantum remains unchanged.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This House stands united with the people of Ukraine. In the light of Putin’s brutality towards the people of Ukraine, what discussions will the Foreign Secretary be having with allies, including his American counterpart, on the international effort to prosecute Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and the sheer barbarism it has inflicted on the people of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising the issue of justice and accountability. As she knows, this work was begun under the previous Government, when we led the world in ensuring there were sufficient funds in Ukraine. The Foreign Office supports lawyers working in Ukraine to gather evidence; I will never forget the scenes that I saw in Bucha and the victims I stood with. The UK will not let up on justice. When it comes to accountability, Putin should pay—not the British and European people.
Priti Patel
Russia, Iran and China all pose threats to Britain, and they go out of their way to do us harm. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government have yet to implement the foreign influence registration scheme, which the previous Government legislated for, and can he confirm when it will come in and whether China will be on the enhanced tier?
Ukraine
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The House stands united with Ukraine on this grim milestone. Three years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict: the civilians mercilessly killed in towns such as Bucha and Irpin and in the east, the young Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, the families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline, all those with life-changing injuries, and those who have lost their homes and possessions.
When the war started, the UK led global efforts to back Ukraine and, rightly, to punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil and donating Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, to being part of an unprecedented international sanctions response that has deprived Putin’s regime of $400 billion and one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with that multibillion-pound, multi-year funding pledge in military aid, the UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to hold the line.
We must never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia’s Black sea fleet has been pummelled, and it is likely that by summer Russia will have incurred 1 million casualties, with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for troops and to Iran for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Russia’s economy is in dire straits. There have been uprisings against Putin’s regime, and the central pitch of his leadership—that he was the great restorer of Russia’s stability—lies in ruins.
The British public continue rightly to stand resolutely with Ukraine, and they expect us as politicians across the House to do so. I thank again the many thousands who have so generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war, including through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have genuinely showed the best of our country, the best of Britain.
Although there has been much debate about the course of the conflict in recent days, the war continues to rage. I urge the Government to continue giving Ukraine everything it needs—all the hardware it needs and the diplomatic support to strengthen its hand. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister, will do that in Washington this week. There must be no let-up whatsoever.
We welcome today’s announcement on new sanctions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions when he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States in that policy, will he assure us that he will update Members on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, in either military aid or humanitarian support, in the coming weeks?
As the Foreign Secretary has said, now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide its own future. We should be very clear that it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself, to decide its own future, and that is peace through strength.
We want this terrible war to be brought to an end and, like President Zelensky, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. However, the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression, because the lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. We must ensure that an illegal invasion like this can never happen again. We need a stronger deterrent. We recognise that the Prime Minister has commented on the options and the security guarantees in recent days, and I can assure the House that His Majesty’s Opposition stand ready to engage with the Government at every single level.
We must lead our NATO allies in Europe. In the long-term, collective defence and planning must be co-ordinated to back Ukraine in its fight for freedom. As the Government know, there is already a fully-funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, as set out by the previous Government. I strongly urge the Government to at least look at a minimum plan to match that commitment. We will work with them on how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other NATO countries to follow and to fire up everything we can on defence production.
The US knows that the UK has an influential role in NATO, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be discussing that this week. The target to spend 2.5% of GDP is not a goal in itself, but an important step on the journey to increase the strength of our defence spending. Given the threats that our nation faces, I urge the Government and the Foreign Secretary—because the issue is within his purview and Department—to review and repurpose some of the 0.5% currently spent on official development assistance to further our national defence, safety and security.
Finally, the moral and economic case for mobilising sovereign assets of Russia to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about that already, but I urge the Government to do more. Mr Speaker, we stand united as one House. Slava Ukraini.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the unity she demonstrates once again in the Chamber on the subject. I confirm for her that, of course, all hardware and military support, all diplomatic support and all humanitarian support continue. We continue to discuss those issues with our European partners, particularly at meetings at the Munich security conference and subsequentially, and we will continue to do that, to ensure that we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the British casualties during the last few years. Some 17 British nationals who served as members of the armed forces of Ukraine have been killed in action, and we remember them on this day.
The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned our continued solidarity with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions with our European partners. Just as we have announced a sanctions package today, the EU, following its meeting with the Foreign Affairs Council, has announced a sanctions package too, which will all bear down on Putin’s war machine. I can confirm that we continue to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for its men and women on the frontline. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that.
The right hon. Lady rightly comments on defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition are demonstrating on the issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a bigger part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues. We have said that we will come forward with our plans shortly, and we will. In that context, as we have seen from the Secretary-General, NATO has been very clear about the burden-sharing and burden-shifting environment that we are now in.
Chagos Islands
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time.
While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt.
This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold?
Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target?
On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus? The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?
Stephen Doughty
I have to say again to the right hon. Lady that it was her Government—a Government that she was part of—who started the negotiations and went through 11 rounds of negotiations. She knows full well the reasons why. Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary for her to talk about defence and the national security of this country, when we are having to rebuild and clear up the mess that her Government made of our armed forces and our defence. I am very glad to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is this Government who are rebuilding our defence, increasing our spending, and delivering for our armed forces and national security around the world. Indeed, this agreement is a crucial part of that. A lot of the figures being speculated about in the media should, as I said yesterday, be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been clear: there is no change to the substance or the quantum in relation to this agreement.
The right hon. Lady raises inflation. I am surprised she mentions that, because indexation was there in the public statement made about the negotiations on 3 October. Indeed, it was part of the agreement from her Government, so I am very surprised that she asks that question.
Lastly, I am deeply disappointed, as are our friends in the overseas territories around the world, that constant false comparisons keep being made with our other bases and our other overseas territories. This is not a read-across situation. We are committed to our base on Cyprus. We are committed to Gibraltar. We are committed to the Falklands. We have been absolutely and resolutely clear about that. To continue to suggest that there is some sort of threat to them quite frankly undermines our national security and does not strengthen it in any way.
Sudan and Eastern DRC
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the way he has spoken about Sudan and the DRC. Both conflicts are truly shocking, and are resulting in an ongoing displacement crisis, with millions of innocent people having to flee their homes. As he has highlighted in his statement and in his discussions with the African nations and their diplomats, armed conflict in Africa continues to cause immense human suffering and, of course, greater pressure on United Nations peacekeeping. The scale of food insecurity is enormous. The most horrific crimes are being committed against civilians: systematic human rights abuses; sexual violence; torture; and mass civilian casualties.
We are deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting in eastern DRC and its humanitarian consequences. We continue to urge all parties to deliver on their commitments, which were agreed through the regional peace process. We welcome the mediation efforts facilitated by the Angolan-led Luanda peace process and continue to urge all parties to commit to further political dialogue.
In government, my party was committed to the protection of civilians in and around Goma. The Foreign Secretary will be deeply aware of the long-standing work that took place there, including through the three-year humanitarian programme for the east of DRC, which sought to deliver lifesaving emergency assistance to more than 1.1 million people and to protect and build resilience for the most vulnerable. Despite all of that, it is important that we learn more and understand what the root causes are and how we can bring greater stability and peace to the DRC.
What is happening in Darfur must also not be tolerated. The conflict in Sudan has put pressure on neighbouring countries, which are already under immense strain, and is creating a level of human misery that is totally unconscionable. Our main overreaching objective is clear, and we both agree that we need an immediate ceasefire and an end to all hostilities in Sudan.
The UK Government, working with international partners, must leave no stone unturned as they try to press the warring parties into a ceasefire. The Government must also do everything within their power to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in this conflict and we cannot stand by.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the Conservative Government applied a range of sanctions in the past on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what actions are likely to follow at the UNSC? The world can and should be doing much more, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly said, so what recent discussions has he had with other countries that could be doing much more to leverage their own influence? That also applies to the neighbouring regions. Will he provide an update on the work of Saudi Arabia and others helping with the important Jeddah process and whether that is on track?
On sanctions, does the Foreign Secretary intend to go further, perhaps following the US’s lead? Did he discuss the matter in his call with Secretary Rubio, because Sudan was not in the read-out and was not referenced at all? Will he speak more about the United Nations reform that he has just touched on? The US Administration are also reviewing all their aid programmes, so was that discussed in his call with Secretary Rubio? Beyond sanctions, is he working to identify other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and those supporting those awful war machines?
While the conflict continues to rage, we need a laser-like focus on the humanitarian assistance, and I do not just mean on the type or volume—important, though, that is. If British aid is being sent and is getting through, we must ensure that it gets over the border and is distributed to the people it is intended to help. Will the Foreign Secretary share his latest assessment of the state of the border crossing in Sudan? How much aid is getting through each day and from which crossing points? When the aid gets inside Sudan, are the safeguards there to ensure that it gets to the people who need it, and does he have the mechanisms in place to measure the impact?
On the subject of aid, this might be premature, but will the Foreign Secretary speak about the Government’s plans for the future of aid funding given the forthcoming spending review? While this dreadful war persists, what is he doing to increase efforts to collect evidence of the crimes committed so that those responsible can be held accountable and face justice?
The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days about the vile people smuggling gangs. He mentioned the matter not just in this statement, but in his previous written statements. Will further comprehensive action be taken to target those miserable, vile and evil criminal gangs? What more will the Government do to put this whole issue to an end and ensure that this destruction and displacement across these two countries comes to an end?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course, I know that she too draws some heritage from the African continent and so will take these issues very seriously. I also know the work of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) before coming to office. He did a lot on the humanitarian aid side, particularly in relation to Sudan.
The conflict in Sudan has created, as I said, the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Thirty million people—half of Sudan’s population—are now in urgent need. To make it clear to the House, that is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza and Mali combined. That is how bad the situation currently is. That is why I raised this issue with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—although, because of all the issues in front of us, it was a brief conversation, we both said we would return to the issue, and we discussed the fact that I am keen to convene a group of nations, including regional partners on this very same issue.
On sanctions, since the 2023 conflict the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. We obviously do not talk about what more we might be considering, but of course we keep that under review.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked about UN reform. I am pleased to see that the United States recently made statements—under the last Administration, but I am sure that that is a cross-party position—that Africa should be represented on the UN Security Council. That has been our long-standing view over here.
My assessment of the Adré crossing is real concern that the Government in Sudan are saying that that crossing should be closed on 15 February. We disagree with them; it should remain open. There are real issues about access, and one of the things I am pressing for with international colleagues is that the UN should be represented. Its agencies and bodies should be able to work unfettered in Sudan, and civilians must be protected. Recent events at El Fasher are very worrying indeed, but I hope that with regional partners and those internationally engaged, we can at least come to an agreement that the UN should be present and that civilians should be protected, particularly when they are overwhelmingly women and children.
I did also raise the position in the DRC with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—in fact, he raised that issue with me, and his real concerns about it. I was clear with President Kagame on Sunday that Rwanda must act to de-escalate this conflict and return to dialogue. I said that an attack on Goma would provoke a strong response from the international community, and from speaking to other nations, my sense is that that is what Rwanda can expect. Rwanda receives over $1 billion of global aid every year, including around £32 million of bilateral UK assistance. All of that is under threat when you attack your neighbours, and we in this House are clear that we cannot have countries challenging the territorial integrity of other countries. Just as we will not tolerate it in the continent of Europe, we cannot tolerate it wherever in the world it happens. We have to be clear about that.
The UK has sanctioned M23 and other armed groups through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There are currently 56 individuals and nine entities listed under UN sanctions, and again, we keep that list under review. The shadow Foreign Secretary has rightly talked about the work of the last Government in relation to humanitarian assistance, and I put on record the work that they led on both sides of this horrendous conflict. We are providing £62 million this year for programmes in eastern DRC.
Middle East
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
All Members recognise the fragile and sensitive nature of the current situation. There is a long road ahead at one of the most important moments for the middle east, which we all hope will usher in a sustainable end to the dreadful conflict in Gaza. It is a conflict that we should never forget was triggered by the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October 2023—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
We have in our thoughts today the victims of that appalling massacre: those who lost their lives, including the hostages murdered in captivity, and those whose lives have been changed forever. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginable cruelty at the hands of Hamas. Even in the midst of that unimaginable pain and anxiety, the families of those held hostage have kept the torch burning for their loved ones, with publicity highlighting their plight with such resilience and tremendous bravery.
We are joined in the House today by the families of hostages who we know will not be eligible for immediate release. I recently met Emily Damari’s mother Mandy and Dani Miran, whose son Omri is also in captivity. We all pay tribute to them all for their unceasing campaign to secure the release of their loved ones and all those in captivity. This will, of course, be a time of great emotions for them—mixed emotions—and in the coming weeks, we must continue to wrap our arms around those hostage families.
Like the Foreign Secretary, I acknowledge the important role of Qatar, Egypt and the United States in getting us to where we are today in these talks. We will all follow these developments closely in the days ahead, and we will expect the UK Government to be fully engaged and involved in the heavy lifting that is required at this crucial time to make this agreement work and last.
To that end, can the Foreign Secretary to tell the House specifically what role the UK Government have played in these negotiations and about their contribution to reaching this agreement? Can he give assurances that the UK will help Israel in any way possible to support the safe return of the hostages, which will be so critical in ensuring that the agreement endures? Can he inform the House—it may yet be too early—whether any of the Palestinian prisoners being released were responsible for the death or injury of British nationals, and about the steps being put in place to manage the potential risk of dangerous individuals being set free? On the question of humanitarian aid to Gaza, what work has he undertaken to unpick the awful bottlenecks that we have seen over months and months, while we have seen innocent civilians suffer? Will civilians now receive the vital aid that we have been told will get through to bring essential relief to communities across Gaza?
On the future governance of Gaza, we have so far heard little about the “day after” plan, but this is extremely important; I know the Foreign Secretary will come back to this House in due course, but I would welcome his thoughts on the matter. Is it the Foreign Secretary’s position that Hamas must have no role in the future of Gaza? We want to see an end to the brutality with which they have conducted themselves. Does he agree that if the Palestinian Authority do indeed assume responsibility in Gaza, in order to have an enduring and lasting peace, they must undertake the most comprehensive reform in their history, with serious shifts not just in their behaviour but on education and welfare, and that they must bring the course of democracy through to the end that we would like to see? Has he this week delivered that unambiguous message to the Palestinian leadership?
The right people must be involved to ensure that solid foundations are put in place on which Gaza can rebuild and to ensure a lasting, better future so that every generation can live their lives in peace, with the opportunities that have been denied to them for too long. In the days ahead, our focus needs to be on securing the release of the hostages, getting the aid into Gaza and working for that lasting peace.
However, there are some related points that the Foreign Secretary will also need to consider. On Israel, for example, that includes whether the changes to the approach on the International Criminal Court arrest warrants will happen and what should happen from the Government’s position; it also includes the arrangements for the future reconstruction of Gaza. He has just touched on this, but what contribution does he think the United Kingdom should make? His thoughts would be welcome. There are many complexities here. Will he also commit to inserting the UK’s enthusiastic approach to fresh discussions on the Abraham accords and the role that will play in the peace, stability and prosperity in the region?
Finally, we have seen for over a year the world’s only Jewish state being ruthlessly attacked from all sides, from the Hamas terrorists in Gaza to the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, from which Iranian-linked militias in Iraq have been directing their course of action, while Iran and its proxies have used innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields without any care for their welfare or wellbeing. We need to know that this Government will step up when it comes to addressing the root causes, which rest in Tehran. The Government, the international community and all of us will want a robust strategy towards Iran if we are to build a lasting and sustainable peace in the middle east.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks and for her tone. Doing this role, one understands the effort that one’s predecessors have put in, so I want to put on the record once again that the right hon. Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and Lord Cameron, before me, made tremendous efforts on behalf of the UK Government to get us to this point. I know that they, like me, will sincerely wish that we could have reached this point sooner. This is indeed a day on which we can be grateful for the UK’s diplomacy in getting us to this point.
The right hon. Lady asks about the role that the UK has played. She will know that it was quite right that Qatar and Egypt, with their proximity to Hamas, should be central in bringing about the ceasefire; and that the United States, with its particular relationship with Israel, should also stand alongside them. But she will know, because of our complex foreign policy relationship with all those parties, the tremendous effort that UK diplomats have put in to get us to this path. Indeed, I was with them in Israel and in the occupied territories on Monday this week.
It was very important to be with British hostage families in particular, to assure them and counsel them that my judgment was that we would get to this point, as fragile as it is—I want to emphasise the fragility—at this time, but also to be in the occupied territories, the west bank and east Jerusalem, to spend time with President Abbas, to discuss with him what now needs to happen in Gaza in terms of its reconstruction and the reform that the right hon. Lady rightly emphasises is essential for the Palestinian Authority.
The right hon. Lady knows that we have Sir Michael Barber working with the Palestinian Authority to lift up that capacity in the reforms that will be necessary to play that role—alongside others, clearly—in Gaza. When I think of others, I think about the international community as well, but alongside them it is important that the UK plays its part. I will come back to the subject of reconstruction in a moment.
The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have provided £112 million in this financial year, including £41 million specifically for UNRWA. We want to see the number of trucks increase and the figure that has been set in the ceasefire agreement met. I will say this, though: the situation will require proper governance in Gaza if we are to achieve that. At the moment, we have gangs. There is a possibility, as the space opens up, that actually we will get an increase in gangs and less aid to the people who need it. This is the first phase of the deal. There will still be hostages left after the first phase and into the second phase, and potentially into the third phase. We know that able men are not part of the first phase. They need humanitarian aid at this time and hostage families press me to ensure that their loved ones are getting access to that humanitarian aid. So this is a fragile moment and the UK is pressing for a political process, because only a political process will get not just the ceasefire, but the long-term stability that means Gazans can truly rebuild their lives.
The right hon. Lady talks about a “day after” plan. The UK is ready to play a leading role in this process, with international and regional partners. It should be predicated on tangible progress, in our view, towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the west bank united under one Government. The Palestinian Authority’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security both for Gazans and for Israel, and Israel’s security will be fundamental if we are to bring this to an end. That will take intense negotiation and discussion. There clearly will be an important role for the international community in the coming days but, in this fragile moment of phase 1, if we are to complete phase 3 then we will need that intensity in terms of negotiation. My view is very clear: there cannot be a role for Hamas. The terrorism must come to an end. Trust has to be rebuilt. There cannot be a role for Hamas.
Only with that candle that we keep alight for a two-state solution can we actually reach the normalisation that is at the heart of any building on the Abraham accords and the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel that can bring a lot of prosperity for people in the middle east.
The right hon. Lady is right that Iran remains a malign force. This week, British diplomats were discussing with Iran its nuclear programme and what needs to happen if we are not to see the snapback of our sanctions as a consequence of the joint comprehensive plan of action later this year. We will do all that we can diplomatically. This is the moment when the Iranians need to step up and do the right thing, and I know that is acutely in the minds of the incoming US Administration.
Oral Answers to Questions
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This weekend, we had the indignity of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer fleeing the financial mess that she has left at home in the United Kingdom while embracing the Chinese Communist party—Labour’s friends—and the Chinese Government in a desperate attempt to secure money from them. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how this new love-in with one of the biggest threats to our national security and freedom helps our national interests? What message does that send to Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong BNOs facing threats in our country, and others living in fear of China? Is this Government’s reset with China the cause of the delay in implementing the foreign influence registration scheme?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box with chutzpah and a brass neck after a period in which we had about seven different China policies from the last Government, who left a huge £22 billion black hole in the economy. I might remind her that President Trump has invited the Chinese President to his inauguration, and that trade between the US and China has grown. We can also protect our national security, just as the United States has done. That is why we will compete with China where we need to and challenge it where we must, but we must co-operate in important areas of trade, because we want to see growth in our economy. We are absolutely minded to move forward with that.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
All Members of the House will praise the courage and resilience of the hostage families and have the hostages in their thoughts right now, particularly Emily’s mother Mandy and Emily herself. Reports of the progress being made on the hostage negotiations are truly welcome, including the Foreign Secretary’s discussions during and after his visit to Israel. Can he give an update on what information he has received about the proof of life of those hostages? Importantly, what resources will our Government be providing to support the hostages through the release process over the period of time speculated, and to bring about a sustainable end to this awful conflict?
Mr Lammy
First, we do all we can to establish proof of life. The right hon. Lady will understand that this situation is fast moving, and even post any deal it can take some degree of time before the hostages come out. I would therefore not want to be pushed on that issue at the Dispatch Box, but I want to assure her that we are doing all we can to continue to make that necessary assessment. As I say, we are—I hope—on the brink of a deal. It will be the first phase of a deal that will probably last six weeks, and that is important to bear in mind. All of us in this House hope to get to a ceasefire and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza, with Israel safe and secure—that will be very important—so that the middle east can move forward in an atmosphere of peace.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he is surrendering the Chagos Islands and front-loading payments to the Government of Mauritius to lease back a base at Diego Garcia at a cost of £9 billion to UK taxpayers? If that is such a good deal, why is he so secretive about it?
Mr Lammy
I know that the shadow Foreign Secretary is new to the job, but I remind her that her Government did 10 rounds of negotiations on this issue and we picked it up, and that the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon believe that it is a good deal, as do the Indian Government.
Priti Patel
Following the Foreign Secretary’s meetings in Saudi Arabia and with the new Foreign Minister of Syria over the weekend, what conditions did he stipulate for the removal of sanctions in Syria, and in what kind of timeframe?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady raises an important issue. We will judge the new Syrian Government by their actions, not their words. We are, alongside allies, reviewing sanctions at the moment. I will not comment in detail on that, but we are clear that we want to see an inclusive Government who prosper. We have been pleased with what we have seen so far, but as has already been mentioned, some of what we have seen on the ground has not been good. We will judge them by their actions, not their words, and we will not go faster than she would expect us to.