British Indian Ocean Territory

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 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 status of the negotiations surrounding the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. We are now working with Mauritius to finalise the agreement, and although it is in everybody’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it, and we do not intend to do so now. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable the implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way before ratification.

I repeat that the Government inherited a situation in which the long-term future of the military base was under threat. This deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. It will protect the base on Diego Garcia, and cement the UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly disappointing that, only a day after Foreign Office oral questions, Ministers have had to be hauled back to the House to explain what is going on. Yesterday at lunch time, Downing Street briefed that the agreement between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK would give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege, has been finalised. That was not said in this House yesterday. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also issued a public statement confirming that. Despite being interrogated on this botched deal in the Chamber yesterday, Ministers gave no indication of this very significant development.

We are still completely in the dark about fundamental questions of enormous importance. How many billions of pounds of hard-pressed British taxpayers’ money will we be expected to fork out to lease back territory that we already own? This comes as vulnerable pensioners are having their winter fuel payments ripped away, and family farms and businesses are being punished with new taxes by this Labour Government. What safeguards will be in place to protect the military base on Diego Garcia from other states that may try to establish a foothold on the archipelago? Ministers have so far refused to publish even a map of the buffer zone. What happens to the vital military base on Diego Garcia at the end of the treaty, and what kind of sovereign rights, if any, will we be able to exercise over Diego Garcia in the meantime?

The Prime Minister of Mauritius says that he forced changes to the arrangements on the exercise of sovereign rights and the lease extension. Will the Minister finally confirm that the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct? He cannot simply stand here and avoid these questions. The House does deserve answers; so do the British public—the taxpayers. Put simply, the British Indian Ocean Territory should remain British, but Labour has prioritised appeasing the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interests. It is high time this deal was ditched.

Finally, there have been reports of implied military threats to the Chagos islands, a British sovereign territory—Labour Members may laugh, but this issue is fundamental to the security of our country—from the regime in Tehran. The Iranian regime has threatened this space. These purported military threats are important. We understand that, in response to such reports, there has been an unusual build-up of American bomber aircraft and equipment-carrying aircraft at the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This is very serious, and we clearly need to take these threats seriously. We would welcome clarity about the Foreign Office’s diplomatic response on this issue.

[Stephen Doughty]

On parliamentary accountability for this issue, I have answered no fewer than five urgent questions on the subject in the last six months, and I have answered 130 written questions from her and her colleagues. We discussed this twice at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the details of the treaty are finalised, it will be presented to this House, and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way. I have explained that a Bill will be brought in to put into force the important aspects of the treaty that require legislative change, and there will of course be full debates, as there should be, in this House.

I simply reject the basis of much of the right hon. Lady’s question. As I have said repeatedly, if there was not a problem, why did the Government of whom she was a part start negotiations, and go through 11 rounds of them? There is a significant challenge, and this deal is paramount for our national security. We will not scrimp on our security, and it is important that the deal is put in place, as has been recognised by all the parties.

We will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. Importantly, the right hon. Lady asked about the security provisions to protect the base. These will include full UK control over Diego Garcia, including control of the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and use of the base, as well as a buffer zone around Diego Garcia in which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism and review process to ensure that no activity on the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Indeed, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces, either civilian or military, on the outer islands. As the Prime Minister has said, the full details will of course be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security.

The right hon. Lady asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons and as a matter of policy, we do not offer comment or information relating to foreign nations’ military aircraft movements or operations. The UK, in close co-operation with our allies in the United States, closely monitors the security environment in the Indian ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to the base on Diego Garcia.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. This is clearly a difficult and dangerous moment for the middle east. A way must be found through the dreadful impasse that has led to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

As has been said time and again, the key to a sustainable end to the conflict is the release of the remaining 59 hostages so cruelly held by Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October. Their continued captivity is intolerable. The British Government should be able to bring their influence to bear, and the Foreign Secretary should be directly involved in all efforts to find a way through, working with Israeli counterparts, the US and key regional players and mediator countries. We said that in the Chamber yesterday.

The Minister stated yesterday, as he has today, that the Government are

“in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 147.]

That includes the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to his Israeli counterpart last week. Will the Minister inform the House what direct Minister-to-Minister discussions have taken place about the current military operations? Were Ministers informed in advance, and have they been given any information about the objectives that Israel is seeking?

Every week we come here to ask questions of Ministers, and it is unclear exactly what level of influence the Government have. What is the Government’s plan? What is their vision of a way through? What discussions have they had in recent days with vital interlocutors?

On humanitarian aid, does the Minister feel that he has made any progress in his efforts to try to unblock the current aid access situation? We have spoken about this many times. Will he update the House on what has been happening to British aid while the restrictions remain? Where is that aid?

It was the Conservatives’ position when in government, as indeed it is now the position of the Labour Government, that there can be no role for Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists in Gaza’s future. Will the Minister be proposing to our critical partners a road map for how this will end and how that future will become a reality?

[Mr Falconer]

These are important questions that the right hon. Lady has asked. The Foreign Secretary has been directly involved in Minister-to-Minister contact. I, too, have been talking with all those affected. I very much welcome her comments about the hostages. Of course, the whole House wants to see them all released, and I am sure that many of us will be thinking of Avinatan Or—he has a British mother—who has been held, almost certainly in terrible conditions, ever since 7 October. I know that the whole House will continue to think of those hostage victims.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked about humanitarian aid. I accept that our efforts in recent days to try to prevent the blockade from continuing in Gaza have not been effective. In the first part of this year, we saw a very welcome increase in aid going into Gaza, including UK aid. Even during that greater flow, there were still unwelcome restrictions on the nature of the aid going in, which made reconstruction, shelter, tents and sleeping bags hard to get into Gaza when they were desperately needed. So there were improvements, and we can see a route by which we might see a significant increase in the amount of aid getting into the Gaza strip, which is desperately needed. But at the current time the reports are extremely depressing; we discussed some of them yesterday.

The right hon. Lady asked about our plan for reconstruction and what discussions we are having with others. We have discussed the Arab initiative with those involved closely. We think it is a plan with real merit. It must not allow Hamas to have a role in government—we are absolutely clear on that point, and I think Arab partners are very much of the same view. That is the basic idea from which we must work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Our thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Hamas captivity in Gaza and with their families. What recent contact has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel, America and our partners in the region to secure their release and broker a way through this impasse? What steps are being taken across Government to address the threats to stability posed by Iran? How does the Minister envisage the removal of Hamas from the governance of Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

On the shadow Foreign Secretary’s important first point, we are, as she would expect, in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week. I have been in regular contact with the Qataris, who are doing important work in this file. As she would expect, we continue to be in touch with the hostage families, whose concern I know the Chamber continues to share.

On the threats posed by Iran, we speak to the relevant players in the region and to the E3. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister last week and underlined that we continue to support a diplomatic resolution to the tensions with Iran. We do not want to see Iran secure a nuclear weapon. We believe that a diplomatic solution is the best way to achieve that, but we will hold the snap-back of sanctions, and indeed many other measures, under review until we are satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The whole House continues to stand united with the people of Ukraine in their existential struggle. Although there has been much coverage of tentative steps towards a Black sea ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, with the brutal war raging on land, we must continue to constrain Putin’s war machine with every tool at our disposal? Could he update us on his plans for doing so beyond sanctions? Does he agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove whether he is in any way serious about the kind of lasting and just peace that President Zelensky wants to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Last month, the Foreign Secretary gave a speech on trade, but could not explain how much growth would follow the measures he announced, if any. What role is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office actually playing in supporting the trade negotiations with the United States? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary personally undertaken about the trade agreement, and can he confirm that this will be the comprehensive trade deal that the Conservative Government were negotiating?

[Mr Lammy]

No, because the Conservative Government badly failed in their negotiations with the US. We are engaged in intense conversations at this time to strike an economic agreement, and we are also continuing discussions with our Indian counterparts about a trade deal and with the Gulf, picking up from the last Government’s failure to land the trade deals that will deliver growth to this country. In coming into the Foreign Office, it has been essential that I position it as the international delivery arm for growth—all our missions recognise this. I have announced measures that include working much more closely with business—measures that should have been introduced under the last Government.

[Priti Patel]

We know that the Labour Government continue to cosy up to the Chinese Communist party because they are desperately seeking growth. [Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen. The Government are unwilling to stop solar panels made by Uyghur slave labour coming into the UK; they are unable to stop China putting bounties on the heads of Hongkongers living here; and they are failing to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how our economic and security interests are being served by the Labour Government’s alleged reset with the CCP Government?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Lady uses the phrase CCP almost as if to suggest that I am some sort of communist. The last Government had 17 different approaches to China. They bounced around so much—there was the Iain Duncan Smith position, the Rishi Sunak position and the Liz Truss position—that we lost count of how many positions they took. We have been clear that there are areas where we will co-operate with China, areas where we will challenge China and areas where we must necessarily compete. It is right that we engage with China. Closing our ears and pretending they are not there is no strategy. That is why the Government have changed from the strategy of the last Government.

Myanmar Earthquake

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. As she has rightly said, the thoughts of the whole House are with all those impacted by the terrible earthquake affecting Myanmar, Thailand and the wider region. It is a tragedy that over 3,000 people have already been confirmed dead and many more are injured, and that so many still remain missing, leaving families gripped by anxiety as they await news of their loved ones. They are foremost in our minds, and I join the Minister in expressing condolences to those affected.

The images of rescuers searching through rubble, digging with their bare hands, are deeply moving. We hope and pray that more survivors are found and that effective recovery and stability operations can take place as quickly as possible. We understand, as the Minister has said, that the Government have committed a £10 million humanitarian package for Myanmar in the light of the awful earthquake and that that aid is being delivered through trusted humanitarian partners—she has mentioned some of those already. Will the Minister give any details of the aid partners that the UK is working with? The Minister has explained that the package will provide food, water supplies, medicine and shelter—and quite rightly. Will she give further details of the quantities and the types of foods and medicines being provided and who they are being provided by?

The statement also refers to the release of an in-built contingency fund for partners already in the country. Can the Minister confirm how much this is worth? Is this on top of the £10 million that has been announced? What will it be used for? Can she give details of how multilateral funding is being spent in response to this earthquake? Can she also comment on any contingency planning taking place for responding to any further serious aftershocks? Are there sufficient arrangements to get aid over the border into Myanmar? Given, as she has said, that Myanmar is controlled by a military dictatorship, what safeguards are in place to ensure that British aid reaches those in genuine need?

What is the Minister’s assessment on whether deconfliction will be possible to shield humanitarian efforts from military action, given the reports that Myanmar’s military have been striking civilian areas despite the obvious need for a focus on humanitarian relief? What is the British Government’s assessment of those reports—if, indeed, they are accurate—and how do they intend to respond? Moreover, does the Minister believe that the fallout from the earthquake will affect the humanitarian situation for the Rohingya refugees? What specific assessment has been made of their needs in the light of this terrible tragedy? Will any of the £10 million that has been announced go towards support for the Rohingya, or will there be an adaptation of existing programmes to support them?

Can the Minister also update the House on whether any of the £10 million is earmarked for Thailand, or whether there is a separate package of support for Thailand? It would be helpful for the House to understand whether formal requests for assistance have been received from any of the countries affected by the earthquake, and what the UK’s official response has been, as well as whether Ministers have had any discussions with counterparts affected in those countries. We will, of course, also look to the UK Government to provide all the necessary support for British nationals who are affected in the region; that is crucial. We know that Thailand is a popular holiday destination, and she has mentioned some of the consular assistance that is taking place. We have seen various activity on social media about how the Government are ensuring that messaging is targeted, but can she provide any specifics on the nature of the support that FCDO consular teams are able to provide to British nationals in the region?

[Catherine West]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her shared concern about this earthquake and for her many points of detail. On the £10 million, that is on top of the current allocation. Myanmar is one of the parts of the region that receives the largest official development assistance funding, due to the conflict there. This is an extra £10 million.

On the aftershocks, we are awaiting more news, it being only three and a half days since the initial earthquake, but given the shallow nature of it, the assessment is that the aftershock in Bangkok is currently the worst. Should I hear more on that, I will update the right hon. Lady.

In relation to safeguarding the aid, the right hon. Lady makes the important point that it would be easy for the military regime to divert the aid away from the frontline. This is where the experience of our excellent staff on the ground plays such an important role, because we have tried and tested methods of working through grassroots organisations to provide aid into the centre of Myanmar and in and around the region of Mandalay. We have trusted ways of providing that aid, without being concerned that some of it might be diverted into the military.

On the Rohingya, that is being seen separately. We will be working a little later in the year on more support for the Rohingya. In the settlement of the Myanmar question, we hope that the Rohingya will be able to return to their part of Myanmar over the long term. Right now, the immediate support that the Government are able to provide is very much assisting with central Myanmar, but I can reassure her that we have a different strategy for the Rohingya, which I can write to her about.

On the separate package for Thailand, the current assessment is that the consular team have no extra concerns regarding people coming across the border. Our consular team is working as usual and our excellent ambassador there has given us reassurances that the team in Bangkok are operating as usual.

On our counterparts, due to the long-standing nature of the development work in Myanmar, we work closely with colleagues across the region who are helpful in Myanmar. It is complex and there are many hard-to-reach areas, so we work closely with some EU partners and some partners in the region, who have come to the aid of those suffering in this earthquake. That includes Singapore, India and other neighbouring countries.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the British consular assistance. We have an update that there are no concerns regarding missing British travellers either in Myanmar or Thailand, but I will continue to update her should that change.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 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 HM Government’s response to the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question about an issue that is very important to the Government and to many Members across the whole House.

We strongly condemn the secessionist moves by Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, which seriously threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such actions are unconstitutional and dangerous, including to those living in Republika Srpska, whom he claims to protect. The UK, as one of the signatories, remains fully committed to the Dayton peace agreement, which protects the authorities of both entities, and supports Bosnia as a sovereign and politically independent state.

On Wednesday 26 February, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Republika Srpska President Dodik guilty, in a first-instance ruling, of refusing to implement decisions of the High Representative. The UK is clear that the High Representative’s jurisdiction is indisputable, and that disregarding the independent decisions of the judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina undermines the rule of law.

In response to the verdict, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted a number of unconstitutional laws, and proposed a new constitution in clear violation of the Dayton peace agreement. These moves represent a significant escalation in Dodik’s secessionist path, and threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. As he accelerates those attacks on the state, he increases the threat to international peace and security.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has the institutions and mechanisms to respond to this crisis, and we support all efforts by domestic actors to de-escalate the situation and take appropriate action. Last week, I convened a call with my French counterpart and the other Quint partners—the United States, Germany and Italy—plus European Union institutions, in which we discussed our joint efforts to bolster security and stability. I also spoke to the High Representative last week.

In the last few weeks, I have spoken to the Bosnian Foreign Minister, Elmedin Konaković, reaffirming the UK Government’s full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK special envoy to the western Balkans, Dame Karen Pierce, reiterated that message during her visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 and 28 March, at our direction.

We welcome the decision by Operation Althea, under the EU peacekeeping mission EUFOR—the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina—to activate its reserve forces to provide reassurance to the communities most affected by the rising tensions.

In conclusion, Dodik’s actions do not serve the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those residing in Republika Srpska. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need their political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building an inclusive future, rather than exacerbating tensions and amplifying secessionist rhetoric.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. Attempts to undermine Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and by extension the Dayton peace agreements, are deeply troubling. Over many years, the UK has been a reliable supporter of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democratic and pluralistic journey, and a trusted promoter when it comes to the security of the western Balkans.

We were proud, when in government, to have appointed Lord Peach as the special envoy to the western Balkans—his work was incredibly solid and robust—and we welcome the fact that the Government have maintained that position with the appointment of Dame Karen Pierce. We, too, look forward to engaging with her.

I know that the Minister has spoken with Foreign Minister Konaković, but what is the UK doing in practical terms both to support Bosnia and Herzegovina to stay the course and maintain stability, and to defend and promote freedom and democracy in the region? For the reasons that the Minister outlined, the issue is pivotable to the security and integrity of the region. How does he envisage that the situation could be de-escalated, and can he update the House on the Government’s position on strengthening ties between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina? What is his position on EUFOR and its response in recent days?

What direct discussions has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had with leaders from across the western Balkans, including about the very concerning actions by the leadership of Republika Srpska? Specifically on the protests in Serbia, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on regional stability and security, and what assessment has he made of any Russian involvement in response to the protests there?

Finally, can the Minister share what plans he has to work with Kosovo to shore up and build on its sovereignty and independence? The western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom for so many reasons, and now more than ever given the war in Ukraine, so we must be an active player in promoting and supporting stability in the region.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her points. I am glad she raised Lord Peach because that allows me to put on the record again my tribute to him for all his excellent work as the High Representative; it was a genuine pleasure to work alongside him. I am also delighted that we now have Dame Karen Pierce, one of our most experienced diplomats, in the role. She is already playing a crucial role across the region. As I said, one of her very first visits was to Bosnia, because of the very issues that the shadow Foreign Secretary has outlined.

The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. I have been very clear about the diplomatic efforts that we are taking across the region, working with partners and allies including the United States, the European Union and members of the Quint. We continue to work with partners and engage with regional partners, who are absolutely crucial to that stability. The Foreign Secretary met Croatian Foreign Minister Radman on 24 March, and I spoke to Serbian Foreign Minister Marko Djuric on 27 March, as part of a regular series of engagements that we have been having, including through the Berlin process. The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we will now be hosting the Berlin process and that preparations for the summit are being led by Dame Karen Pierce. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary and I have had extensive engagements with regional partners. I was out in Serbia and Montenegro just a few weeks ago, and I intend to visit the region again soon.

The right hon. Lady asked about the important role of NATO, alongside EUFOR. I have referred to EUFOR already. We continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Through joint training of UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces and our support for reforms, we are helping it strengthen capabilities and enable alignment with NATO standards. We are working to invest in and strengthen the capabilities of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian armed forces for peacekeeping operations. Countries that export security are also more secure themselves. We maintain offices at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.

Conflict in Gaza

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

We all mourned the loss of innocent lives in this appalling conflict. The death of the UN aid worker and the injury to a British national are tragic, and our sympathies and thoughts are with their families. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update on the direct engagement that he has had with key interlocutors in the region to ascertain the facts of what happened? Has he been updated by the Government of Israel on their investigation?

The onward transition at the end of phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement was always going to be challenging. This is a difficult and fragile moment for the middle east, but several basic truths remain unchanged, including the urgent need to return to their loved ones the 59 hostages captured by Hamas terrorists during the atrocities of 7 October. That is vital for achieving a sustainable end to this horrendous conflict. The incredibly brave families of those held hostage remain firmly in our thoughts, and we should be very clear that the onus is squarely on Hamas. Hamas could agree to release these hostages now and avert any escalation. This is the moment for the UK Government to show leadership with the international community and exert maximum pressure on Hamas to release these hostages.

We should all fully understand who we are dealing with here: a brutal Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that seeks the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, uses its own defenceless people as human shields and has ruthlessly eradicated fundamental freedoms in Gaza. Anyone who has read the shocking report from Lord Roberts on 7 October, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, will have seen the harrowing details of the real-life consequences of Hamas’s total disdain for human dignity, utter disregard for human life, visceral antisemitism and murderous intentions: their organised brutality, murder, rape and torture, indiscriminately targeting babies, children, women and the elderly. As the Prime Minister himself once said, Hamas bear responsibility. Is that still the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s position?

It is abundantly clear that Iranian-backed Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza, and we have raised this many times in the House. What exactly are the British Government doing at this moment in time to bear down on Hamas and work with partners to put an end to this brutal regime? What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the capabilities of Hamas and the ongoing threat that the terrorists pose to peace and stability in the region? Do the Government support the US proposal for securing the release of hostages? What is his vision of the next steps? Does he believe that phase 2 of the ceasefire remains within reach, or is he considering alternative solutions?

There is too much at stake for Britain to be a bystander. We must be a proactive player with involvement. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his talks with France and Germany, but what discussions is he having with Egypt and other regional partners? We need Israel to continue seeing the UK as a trusted partner. The strength of Britain’s relationship with Israel also matters for our wider influence in the middle east. If we undermine our relationship and influence with Israel, we also lose influence across the middle east.

Careless comments do not help, including the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in this House on Monday, for which he has been rebuked by the Prime Minister. Will he apologise to the House and to Israel? The Foreign Secretary’s focus should be on securing the release of the 59 remaining hostages, and this House should be united in that. Those hostages have been held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October, and their release is important for a sustainable end to this conflict.

Let us be clear: Hamas have no respect for international law, human life or human rights. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must be unequivocal that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel? We must have no more poorly judged decisions on arms exports designed to placate Government Back Benchers.

On the question of aid to Gaza—[Interruption.] On the question of aid to Gaza, which Government Back Benchers would perhaps like to take seriously, I have said from the Dispatch Box that we expect detail about the Government’s practical response on the ground. How are the Government working to unblock the situation, and what is happening to British aid that is already in the region or en route? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli counterparts in recent days? What is his assessment of the reports of Hamas stockpiling aid and the impact this has on distribution to civilians in need? Has he held discussions recently with the Red Cross on its important work on hostage release and aid delivery? Could we be doing more to support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross?

On the region more broadly, as the parliamentary commission report makes crystal clear, we cannot ignore the role of the regime in Tehran, which has its fingerprints over so much of the inhumane suffering and bloodshed that we see today. We need action to deter Iran’s malign agenda, so what options are on the table for tackling Iran and the flow of weapons and support to its terrorist proxy? What hard power options is the Foreign Secretary considering in respect of the Houthis? I did not receive an answer to that in the House on Monday. I also asked the Foreign Secretary on Monday whether Britain is in lockstep with the United States, but he did not answer that. Now is the time for him to provide clarity and clear answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work that he and his team are doing behind the scenes on this horrific issue. It is quite shocking that the shadow Foreign Secretary appears unable to say the word “Palestinian”. As someone who used to be an international aid worker and was in Gaza, let me say that the lives of Palestinian aid workers are every bit as valuable as the lives of international aid workers. More than 170 Palestinian children have been killed this week alone, and yesterday the Israeli Defence Minister threatened the ethnic cleansing of Gaza—[Interruption.]

[Priti Patel]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to set the record straight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will assist the shadow Foreign Secretary once the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has finished her question. Please continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool and Isreal must restart the aid immediately. A lot of diplomatic activity is going on at this time. As I said, Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the middle east, has flown into the area and we are in touch with the US. I am working closely with the E3 and the EU. In fact, I will be speaking very shortly to my French counterpart. We have not given up hope. I sense that there has been a loss of hope that we can get back to the ceasefire from hon. Members in the Chamber, but I tell them now: this Foreign Secretary has not given up hope that we can get back to the ceasefire. It is my job to try and do the best to deliver that, and that is what I intend to do in the coming hours.

[Priti Patel]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is the point of order absolutely relevant right now?

[Priti Patel]

I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the suggestion—a misrepresentation—that I have not spoken about the Palestinian Authority in this House, because I have done so from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is a very sensitive and important debate. We need to ensure that language is temperate and respectful at all times. Our constituents are watching, as indeed is the world, so we must ensure that we in no way inadvertently misrepresent our colleagues. The right hon. Lady’s point is noted. We will now continue because we have a lot of people to get through. I call the Father of the House.

G7

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[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.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[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

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[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.