Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have talked about the F-35 programme at length before. I am usually happy to go back into that debate, but as my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity, I would prefer to comment further on the impact of displacement in Lebanon, which is different in some respects from the impact of displacement in Gaza. As many right hon. and hon. Members know, there is a complicated, multiconfessional balance within Lebanon, and displacing a quarter of the population, often over long distances, has a significant impact on the stability of the country. Exactly as my hon. Friend says, forced displacement is a war crime, but to displace so many people will also have a deleterious impact on the stability of Lebanon in the long term, so it is all the more important that the practice is reversed and that we return to a genuine and sustainable ceasefire. To give one small note of optimism, we welcome the talks that the United States has been convening between Israel and Lebanon, including the talks today, and we want to see them progress.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Hezbollah has made south Lebanon into an armed camp and a massive arms dump in which it stores rockets and drones that have been used to attack Israeli towns and cities, kill civilians, cause billions of pounds worth of damage, and displace a large part of the population. Does the Minister agree that it is not disproportionate for any Government to take action to defend their own citizens? That can be done only by going into the area the enemy is firing its weapons from and causing that destruction. Would he not agree that Israel does not want to occupy Lebanon and take over territory, but that the answer is to eliminate and disarm Hezbollah, and then there will be real peace in that area?

[Mr Falconer]

Perhaps the right hon. Member has been to southern Lebanon, as I have recently. I can assure him that it is not an arms dump; it is a place where people are living, where children are living, and where people are displaced. I saw for myself villages that had literally been flattened to the ground. There is no military operation that ends up flattening entire villages to less than the height of this Dispatch Box that does not prompt the question, “What on earth were you trying to do with that operation?” It is absolutely clear that Lebanese Hezbollah must be disarmed. It continues to strike northern Israeli communities, which is absolutely and completely unacceptable. The responsibility to prevent that must be with the Lebanese Government and armed forces, and we must see a genuine and sustainable ceasefire.

Of course the Israeli Government will react with understandable total fury if their nationals are targeted from another state, but as the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, Israel has attempted before to occupy southern Lebanon for long periods of time, and it did not lead to safety among northern communities in Israel. We must all support the Lebanese Government to do what is necessary to disarm Hezbollah, but we must ensure that civilians in southern Lebanon are protected in doing so.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have set out on a number of occasions very clearly the risks to the operation of the base; they were well understood by the Opposition, in particular by those who served as Ministers in the previous Government. It has consistently staggered me that the Opposition attempt to gloss over all of that, as well as the risks posed to our operations and the capabilities that keep us and our allies safe. I think they will look on the political point scoring they have been doing with regret in future years.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I doubt whether many people across the nation are watching the Parliament channel at the moment to see this statement. The Minister started off saying that this space is critical to our national security, allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability in global trade, is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and abroad. Anyone watching this debate might then ask why the devil, if we owned it, we were giving it back to the Mauritian Government to then lease it for £35 billion from a Government who are more interested in some of the states that are hostile to our interests in the area. Does the Minister not agree that if the nation is listening to this debate, it will be totally confused, or else think that this must be one of the most incompetent Governments ever?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply must thoroughly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our national security and that of our allies has been paramount in putting forward this treaty and this deal to secure the Diego Garcia base not only for us, but for our allies and our Five Eyes partners. That is why they all welcomed it. It is why the treaty has gone through extensive processes in this country, in the United States and with other partners. I will not apologise for that. The duty of this Government is to protect the people of this country, our partners and our allies. That is exactly why we have proceeded on this basis and why this treaty is needed.

Strait of Hormuz

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, I have been baffled at times by the position of the Conservatives, let alone Reform, who yet again are not here in the Chamber. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is focused not only on the international aspects but on the domestic aspects. That is why he set out very clearly today the measures to support British people who are worried about their energy bills. Whether it is the energy price cap, addressing the heating oil issue, investment in energy security in this country or fuel duty cuts, the Prime Minister set out very clearly what we are doing to support people here at home.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has insisted that he does not want to get drawn into a wider war, but with the targeting of our civilians and bases and our economy being strangled, how much wider could the war get? Does he not recognise that Iran has been able to close off the strait of Hormuz as and when it wants to, using its proxies and its geographical position? It is only once Iran learns the lesson that that tactic will not be accepted and that blackmail will not be accepted that that will not be repeated. What is this reluctance? Is it because we do not have the ability or we just do not have the political will?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting our policy should be, but I can tell him that the Prime Minister has been very clear about the decisions he has made. The defence of our allies and our interests will always be at the forefront of his mind, as indeed will measures to support citizens who are affected by these issues, including those in Northern Ireland and those who are reliant on heating oil.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country.

Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent. Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here.

The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against. Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

There is never any justification to kill the number of civilians that have been killed. This is a genocide, and it is not just the ICJ that said it. What about the UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, the UN commission of inquiry, and Amnesty International? What about Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the 600 senior lawyers in the UK, including Lady Hale and Lord Sumption, and many others who call it a genocide?

[Sammy Wilson]

Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances.

My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been clear throughout that the national security of our country comes first—and the national security of our allies and partners—which is why the previous Government were engaging to do a deal. They recognised the threat to the operations of the base. We concluded that deal. We have a deal that secures the future operations on Diego Garcia well into the next century. That is the most important thing in this whole process.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Unusually, the Minister has resorted to bluster today, accusing those of us who are opposed to the treaty of being “irresponsible” and “toying with” the security of the country. Does he not accept that it is the Government who are toying with the security of this country by ignoring the views of the Americans who use the Diego Garcia base, the fears of the Chagossians and the drain on public finances? Are the Government not using their majority and their Members as pawns to push through a deal that they know is wrong, unfair and dangerous for the country?

[Stephen Doughty]

I should clarify that I was referring not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the irresponsible procedural game playing by Opposition peers in the other place. Many people, including those who oppose the Bill, have raised serious, considered comments on and criticisms of the Bill which we have tried to engage with in good faith. I do not recognise his comments about the cost. This is a priceless national security asset, and the deal compares well with what other countries pay for their bases, such as France’s base in Djibouti. This is a crucial deal for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies. We will never compromise on national security and on protecting this country from terrorism and hostile states. That is absolutely crucial. That is why we are doing this deal.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam]

The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed.

The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination.

So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender.

Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.

If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests.

Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial.

The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.

[Alex Ballinger]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is not just a question of ensuring that the 24-nautical-mile exclusion zone prevents spying and everything else; the area would still be left environmentally damaged, and there would still be a threat to the military base.

Thirdly, the Government have refused even to consider the Lords amendment about cost. At a time when we are looking for every penny, so that we can supply the citizens of this country with the services that they require, the Government are turning their nose up at an amendment that would ensure that if the base cannot be used, we will no longer pay for it. The Minister has talked about the cost. He has told us all the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated, but he has not actually told us what the cost is. Is it £3 billion? Is it £10 billion? Is it £37 billion? The difference between those figures is significant to our constituents.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The £35 billion figure has been cited the most today. This is taxpayers’ money that should be funding schools, hospitals and other much-needed infrastructure. The deal is not only a shameful surrender of national sovereignty but a waste of taxpayers’ money.

[Sammy Wilson]

Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty.

The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.

Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.

That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

Iran

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that—rather belatedly, two weeks later—the Government have made a statement to the House about the situation in Iran, giving particular attention and praise to the women who have, at great personal sacrifice, led the opposition to the regime, which directs its ire at women in particular. This should stand as a warning to the people who wish to promote sharia law and sharia courts in this country. The Foreign Secretary has highlighted the impact of the Iranian regime on our citizens and our interests. What discussions has she had with the Iranian opposition, to ensure that there is a transition from this repugnant regime to a friendly, democratic and peaceful regime there?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not think that Members quite understood what I said earlier. Questions must be short.

Venezuela

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

It is fundamentally wrong to draw any kind of equivalence between what is happening in Venezuela and what is happening in Ukraine—they are fundamentally different. The US is playing a hugely important role in pursuing a peace process for Ukraine and in the discussions around security guarantees, which are immensely important. The hon. Member raises the issue of Ukrainians living in the UK. As he may know, we have a Ukrainian family continuing to live with us and I take this issue extremely seriously. He will also recognise that this is now a matter for the Home Secretary, and not for me, as the Foreign Secretary.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right that no one should shed any tears at the end of Maduro’s rule. Does it surprise her that Sinn Féin, first of all, defended the fraudulent election as being electorally robust, and then attended the President’s inauguration event in order to show what it said was “solidarity” with him? That highlights once again how it is still wedded to criminality and terrorism.

There is an opportunity, now that the Americans have done good for the Venezuelan people by removing the corrupt cancer that so damaged their country. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps our country can take to ensure that democracy is restored in Venezuela? From her discussions with the Americans, can she say how much they will co-operate with us in that venture?

[Yvette Cooper]

No one should be defending the Maduro regime. I have talked specifically to the US Secretary of State about the transition to democracy. The US has said that this is important, but we need to ensure that those conditions are in place, starting with the ending of political repression.

Budget Resolutions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I, on behalf of the whole nation, thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement over the last few weeks? I do not know what she hoped to gain by that—she may have hoped to make it more palatable—but I am afraid that the leaks have not made it any more attractive today than when they came out of the Treasury and, in fact, we are seeing a repeat of last year.

In last year’s Budget, we were told that there was a black hole, that it was all down to the Tories and that we would have to have all the tax increases that we have had over the last year to fill it. Well, like some kind of fiscal JCB, the Chancellor seems to have dug another one and now she is back again, looking for more tax increases. Labour Members might say, “Yes, there is pain to be taken, but at least we are now getting the target right and going after the wealthy.” I have heard that so many times today, but let us look at the facts: the real tax increase here is the freezing of the thresholds.

What does the OBR say? As a result of the freezing of the thresholds, we will not drag dead rich people into the tax brackets. Instead, we will drag into the tax bands three quarters of a million people who are currently not paying tax because their income is so low, along with people on modest incomes who will be dragged into the top tax bands. Let us not fool ourselves that this will be financed by rich people, because the only evidence we have been given about rich people is the council tax on big mansions, which will generate only £400 million of the extra tax that is required and will not do so until 2031. This Budget still hits those who are working.

[Luke Akehurst]

If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the Budget book, he would see that the graph that shows the progressiveness of this Budget shows that, in every decile, it is redistributive. He might be correct about the impact of the specific measures he has spoken about, but the overall impact of the Budget is that the poorer people are, the better off it makes them, and the richer they are, the less well-off it makes them.

[Sammy Wilson]

Some of that redistributive impact is the result of taxes being taken off people who are on modest incomes for welfare increases. This is a figure that the Chancellor has quoted in the House time and again: one in seven under-25s is now fully reliant on benefits and is not in work. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from people who are working on a daily basis and, in many cases, for not a great deal of money, but who will be dragged into the tax system.

This is an unfair Budget, because it still relies on taking money from working people who are not mega-rich to pay for some of the Government’s grandiose schemes. Some people may argue that if it works, it is worth doing, but let us look at the record of the previous year. The OBR tells us that the outcome of the Chancellor trying the same tactic last year has been that investment is now predicted to fall as a percentage of GDP. Output growth is going to fall by a sixth, productivity is going to fall from 0.4% to -0.4%. Consumer expenditure is down by 0.5%. People are receiving less and profits for companies are going to fall from 12.5% to 10.75%, all of which will affect investment and economic growth, and undermine the very objective that the Chancellor says she is seeking to achieve.

Of course, many people will argue that that is fine, but we have levels of expenditure that we have to finance, so how do we pay for it? Let us look at some of the decisions that the Government have made over the last year. Welfare payments are going to go up quite substantially to £58 billion over the period of this Parliament. On net zero, environmental taxes are going up by 60%, affecting the profitability of companies, and the renewables obligation next year is going to cost us £3 billion. So net zero, the impact of which we are all experiencing on jobs, is going to lead to further costs. I think many people would question whether those are the kinds of things we should be spending money on at a time when we have an abundance of fossil energy in this country.

Tax avoidance has not been dealt with. I have heard tax avoidance being mentioned every time we have a Budget, including under the previous Government, but it is never dealt with. The Googles and Amazons of this world still sell goods here but do not pay taxes in this country. The budget for welfare in relation to immigration is now predicted to go up to £15 billion. Also, we have had debates in this House time and again about the bases in the Indian ocean that we had possession of. We gave them back to Mauritius and we are paying Mauritius for that. What is Mauritius going to do with the billions that we give them from taxpayers here? It is going to cut its own taxes. We are putting up our taxes in order to allow taxes to be reduced in another country when we did not even need to do it. So there are ways in which the money could have been achieved.

I welcome the announcement about the loan charge. As a vice-chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, I trust that we will now see the Government treating the ordinary people who are affected by the loan charge in the way in which they treated big business. Businesses were given a concessionary payment of 15%, while some of the ordinary people who were affected were being charged nearly 100%. I hope that the McCann review leads to that being sorted out.

As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I welcome the Barnett consequentials and I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will spend the £370 million wisely—

[Tom Tugendhat]

That is unlikely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

It may well be very unlikely, but I am expressing a wish that he does that.

Some £17 million has been set aside for the cost of the protocol. The protocol and the Windsor framework are costing the Northern Ireland economy dearly, and the money that has been allocated today does not replace the cuts in the trader support system and the movement assistance scheme. Without that support, Northern Ireland suppliers are increasingly finding themselves cut off from their main market of supplies here in Great Britain, and that is something that the Government need to address. I do not think that the £17 million is going to address it. It is a token, and an acceptance that there is a problem, but the problem has to be properly dealt with. Only when we have the same lawmaking arrangements as the rest of the United Kingdom, to which we belong, is that going to be dealt with.

The other issue—I noted the wording—is that while welfare changes will be funded by the Government in Westminster, because the annually managed expenditure is funded from here, when it comes to the concessions about reducing electricity bills, it simply says that the Government will work with the Executive. The Chancellor needs to give clarification. Will the Northern Ireland Executive be expected to fund the reductions in electricity bills while they are funded through Great British Energy in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Lastly, we have no vested interest in seeing the Government fail, because we will not be an alternative Government, but I do not believe that this Budget will deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. I believe we will find the Chancellor back with the same problems next year.

Gaza and Sudan

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to take the view that Palestine must be led by Palestinians; that is immensely important. It is therefore important that the Palestinian Authority has supported and welcomed the resolution that was passed by the United Nations, and that the resolution provides for the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority alongside the west bank. We have also pressed for the Palestinian committee to be set up as swiftly as possible as part of the transition arrangements, so that, again, that Palestinian voice and expertise is heard.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Foreign Secretary is right: peace is fragile in Gaza. The Israeli Government have agreed the 20-point peace plan and the UN resolution, and—despite what she has said—have allowed more than 20,000 truckloads of aid into Gaza since the ceasefire, while at the same time Hamas have refused to accept the resolution, continue to terrorise individuals in the Gaza territory, stockpile weapons and have refused to give up their own weapons. What can she do to ensure that Israel is encouraged in its path towards peace, and Hamas are discouraged in their resolve to continue the conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the right hon. Member has said, we have a 20-point plan that both the Israeli Government and Hamas signed up to. It includes the decommissioning of weapons, an issue about which the UK Government feel strongly. It also includes ensuring that Hamas do not play a role in the future governance of Gaza or of Palestine and the Israeli Government ensuring that humanitarian aid is properly restored to Gaza, and also that the IDF can withdraw fully from Gaza. This is an ambitious 20-point plan. We know that there will be difficulties in implementing it, but we also know how incredibly important it is. Only through the international community coming together, and the Israeli Government and Hamas respecting the commitments that they have signed up to, will we make progress, and keep the desperately needed peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike.