State Threats Response
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
For years Iran’s intelligence services have planned and conducted dangerous, potentially lethal, operations in the United Kingdom and across the world, targeting innocent citizens and undermining our sovereignty. Despite our clear warnings to Iran that this activity is reprehensible, the Iranian threat to the UK persists.
Between March and May, across Europe and in the UK, there were a series of attacks against Jewish communities, journalists and Israeli interests. The criminal group Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, otherwise known as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyah, have publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities, and Persian-language media, including the antisemitic arson attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March.
Sitting behind IMCR were members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force who almost certainly directed IMCR attacks across Europe.
The repeated targeting of innocent individuals and communities in the UK and across Europe is deplorable and shows the desperate lengths to which Iran is willing to go to intimidate and silence those it sees as opponents.
We have consistently raised unacceptable attacks directly with the Iranian authorities, who have denied our claims and given no credible justification or alternative explanation. Given the range of growing and evolving threats from states and state-backed groups, we have strengthened the powers available to our world-leading police, security and intelligence agencies through the National Security Act 2023.
Last March we went further to tackle the Iranian transnational threat, placing the entire Iranian state, including the IRGC and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, on the enhanced tier of HM Government’s new foreign influence registration scheme. We also strengthened policing and intelligence responses, as well as sanctioning more than 550 individuals and organisations linked to the Iranian regime.
We will continue to ensure that our police, security and intelligence agencies have the powers and tools they need to stay ahead of those who seek to threaten the UK’s safety and security. The National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 8 July 2026. By implementing the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in the report I commissioned as Home Secretary, this landmark legislation provides law enforcement and the intelligence agencies with additional powers to disrupt and deter foreign power threat activity directed against the UK and its interests.
Alongside our international partners, we remain committed to calling out and countering Iran’s hostile activities here in the United Kingdom swiftly and forcefully. We have summoned the Iranian ambassador to raise this issue in the strongest terms, and will be setting out further measures in the coming days.
The protection of the United Kingdom and its citizens is our foremost responsibility. We will not tolerate threats to our security or to the safety of those who live here. Iran’s actions are irresponsible and unacceptable. They will not be tolerated.
[HCWS220]
NATO Summit
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the NATO summit in Ankara, on the building of a stronger Europe within NATO with major increases in European—including UK—defence investment, on our continued and unwavering support for Ukraine, on our discussions with Gulf partners about the strait of Hormuz and on the opportunity that the Prime Minister and I took to raise with other leaders and Foreign Ministers the issue of Sudan. These are all issues that directly affect our national and economic security in the UK.
The NATO summit took place at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous than it has been for decades, and we have a war in Europe that has now been going on for longer than the first world war. Drones and missiles are changing the nature of warfare and there are continuing threats to the security of NATO allies, including cyber-threats, hybrid threats, sabotage, industrial scale misinformation, attempts to interfere with undersea cables and drone incursions. Just this week, we have seen Russia engaging in reckless and dangerous activity around our British aircraft carrier, which is on NATO operations in the north Atlantic. Three weeks ago, I went to see the concrete trenches and anti-tank defences being prepared by Polish troops along the Kaliningrad border, a sign of how seriously they take the importance of deterring Russian threats.
NATO has been the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security for over 75 years, protecting more than a billion people, but to ensure it remains as strong for the next 75 years, it needs to respond to changing threats. NATO is a defensive alliance, but we maintain our strength and security through deterrence and holding the capabilities to deal with any threat we may face. As the summit made clear, that means building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.
The United States remains an indispensable and fully committed ally in NATO, but the burdens must be shared. In response to increased threats in Europe, Europe must step up. That is what allies committed to last year in The Hague, and what we are delivering this year in Ankara. European and Canadian allies are spending $140 billion more on defence this year than the year before, a rise of 20%. The UK is the third biggest cash contributor to NATO, including crucial specialist capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent. Now the defence investment plan involves the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the cold war, spending almost £300 billion over the next four years. As the Defence Secretary has set out, that means new capabilities, a new hybrid Navy, investments in digital and autonomous systems, and enhanced strike and air defence capabilities.
In Ankara, we brought together 12 allies to lead a European initiative to step up funding for deep precision strike capabilities, an initiative set to invest more than £37 billion over the next 10 years. We are working jointly with Norway on new frigates, with Italy and Japan on the next generation of fighter jets, and we are strengthening our maritime partnership with the Netherlands, with new amphibious transport ships. We agreed a new security and defence partnership with Turkey, and we discussed the importance of strong collaboration across our defence industries, which support tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. We are also bolstering UK leadership in NATO by appointing General Nick Perry to head up Joint Force Command Norfolk, which leads the protection of the High North and the US eastern seaboard.
NATO met at a critical moment for Ukraine’s resistance against brutal ongoing Russian aggression. Over the last week alone, Russia has launched two of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians overnight last Wednesday and at least 26 civilians overnight on Monday. Throughout this conflict, Putin has underestimated the strength of Ukraine and the solidarity of Ukraine’s friends. As a result of Ukraine’s resistance, Putin now faces deteriorating conditions within his armed forces, on the battlefield and in his economy, suffering a net loss of territory for the first time since 2023. Some 500,000 Russian soldiers have now been killed since the start of the invasion.
Ukraine is stepping up attacks deep inside Russia and occupied Crimea, causing Russia’s worst fuel crisis in decades, with queues at the petrol pump and prices rising. This is underpinned by continued sanctions by the UK and our allies against Russian oil and gas, and through action against the Russian shadow fleet. Despite that pressure, Putin still deludes himself that he can outlast Ukraine, and outlast NATO allies in our support for Ukraine. That is why it is so important that our support for Ukraine is enduring.
Since 2022, the UK has provided almost £25 billion in support for Ukraine. Two weeks ago, I announced £500 million in support for Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, alongside our military investment. In Ankara, we and allies have together pledged €70 billion in support to Ukraine in 2026, and at least equivalent levels in 2027, so that Ukraine is in the best possible position to negotiate a just and lasting peace.
On Tuesday, NATO Foreign Ministers also met with four of our Gulf partners, under the Istanbul convention initiative, to discuss the situation in the strait of Hormuz and in the region. The House will be aware that on Monday night, despite having made a clear commitment that the strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran attacked three commercial ships close to the Omani coast. Those attacks are a breach of the memorandum of understanding, a violation of Omani sovereignty and a contravention of the law of the sea. These are international shipping routes that commercial shipping has a right to pass. The United Kingdom condemns unequivocally the recent Iranian attacks on commercial shipping, including on Saudi and Qatari vessels.
No country has the right to hijack international shipping or to hold the global economy hostage, so we also condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian attacks on sites in Bahrain and Kuwait. We stand in solidarity with our partners across the region. Iran must halt these attacks on international shipping, support the reopening of the strait and return to de-escalation and diplomacy.
The UK stands ready to support a return to talks, because Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon and we need the full reopening of the strait of Hormuz. That is why, alongside France, the UK has established a multilateral maritime mission to support the de-mining of the strait, verification and reassurance to shipping, and ultimately to support the global economy, and ease the cost of living back home.
While in Ankara, I also raised directly with our allies the urgency of sounding the alarm on El Obeid in Sudan. I am deeply fearful that the Sudanese city is at risk of mass bloodshed and civilian casualties, with signs of plans for an assault by advancing Rapid Support Forces that are already encircling the city, as they cut off supply routes and unleash repeated drone attacks on fuel, infrastructure and storage sites. Strikes have already killed civilians and humanitarian workers. An estimated 500,000 civilians are now at risk, many of them women and girls who have already carried an intolerable burden throughout this three-year conflict. Last year, El Fasher became the site of unspeakable violence and suffering, atrocities that the UN’s fact-finding mission concluded bore the hallmarks of genocide. The world must not fail the people of Sudan again.
Last week, the UK convened an urgent debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A UK-penned resolution condemned atrocities, called for an urgent UN fact finding inquiry and urged the RSF to comply with international law and halt this attack, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to accept proposals that have been put forward for a truce. We are calling for an end to the external support and arms flows from other countries that are extending this conflict and fuelling this horrendous suffering. The United Nations arms embargo does not cover El Obeid, so it must be extended. We are urging all our allies and countries from across the world, as we discussed in Ankara this week, to maximise the pressure calling on all sides to protect the people of Sudan.
Effective foreign policy is domestic policy. Championing freedom of navigation supports UK energy security. Preventing bloodshed in Sudan speaks to our values and our interests. Supporting Ukraine’s security is supporting our own security. Strengthening NATO is how we make our country safer, our economy stronger and our people more secure. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days.
The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war?
The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions.
I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said:
“The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans?
As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission?
It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries.
There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour:
“You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”.
In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way.
The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, particularly her support for the commitments made in Ankara and the continuing condemnation of the Russian strikes. It has been an important part of the cross-party debates in this House and across the whole country that we have stood united behind Ukraine and in solidarity with it, and long must that continue.
The right hon. Lady is right that we will need to maintain the pressure on Russia. We see that as being about increasing sanctions; continuing to apply pressure through sanctions and maritime services bans; continuing with our military support for Ukraine, both directly and in partnership with our European allies, including through the loans for Ukraine that we continue to provide; and, crucially, providing energy infrastructure support and resilience—Ukraine needs the resilience to get through the winter, which we know is when Russia most heavily targets the civilian population. We will maintain that support. In fact, it is because of our commitment to the long-term future of Ukraine that we have signed a 100-year partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine in the spirit of solidarity.
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of Iran’s behaviour. It is telling that, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States, Iran seems to persist in the view that it has the right to control the strait of Hormuz, which is an international shipping route, and to attack commercial ships in Omani waters. That is a violation of Oman’s sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea. That is why we have been so strong in our condemnation and in seeking to mobilise countries across the world to put pressure on Iran and to get it to recognise the importance of the whole world’s support for freedom of navigation, the law of the sea and getting the global economy moving again.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of defence investment. She will understand that we are increasing investment in defence at a rapid pace—at the steepest pace since the cold war—and have made commitments to go further, but I should point out that it was her party that cut defence spending by 20%.
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary says from a sedentary position that times have changed. She is right: times did change. Times changed when Russia invaded Crimea. That was the evidence that the post-cold war peace dividend had gone, and yet it took her party 10 years to recognise that defence spending needed to increase. [Interruption.] For most of that period—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. My constituents and, I am certain, everybody’s constituents will be very interested in what the Foreign Secretary has to say.
Yvette Cooper
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For most of the period before the election, defence spending was nearer 2% of GDP. That is just too low, which is why we are increasing it; we have already increased it from 2.3% to 2.7%, and we have committed to go further. That has involved some difficult decisions, including on official development assistance and other areas. I hope the whole House will support that increased investment in defence, because ultimately, it underpins the security of our country and the security of our future.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The alliance is growing stronger by the week, but it is clear now that national security rests on economic security. Can she update the House on what conversations she had about how the allies will come together to build and enlarge an arsenal of democracy for the 21st century, whereby we collaborate on defence industrial policy and defence finance strategy on a wholly new scale that is fit for this new age of insecurity?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. There are links between our national security and our economic security; they are closely intertwined. That comes from the fact that if our economic security is jeopardised, including through things such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz, it has an impact on our national security and particularly on supply chains for critical minerals, for example, which may be crucial to our defence. As we increase the demand and procurement for and investment in defence, it is crucial that our supply chains and our defence industry collaboration across allies can keep up. That is why we had a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ankara specifically about how we can better collaborate and integrate aspects of our defence industry. That is what supports tens of thousands of jobs here in the UK, but we need to do it in collaboration with other countries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. As we have come to expect of all major international summits, NATO’s meeting in Ankara was taken over entirely by Donald Trump’s tantrums and threats. He restated his claim that Greenland should become American, threatened the withdrawal of all remaining US troops from Europe, and once again lambasted allies for not joining his and Netanyahu’s calamitous war in Iran, which has upended the world economy and worsened a spiralling cost of living crisis for millions across Britain. That is no way to conduct international diplomacy. Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Donald Trump that his threats against Greenland are totally unacceptable?
However, there were some positive moments from the summit. NATO allies reaffirmed support for Ukraine, and the Prime Minister announced plans for the development of a new deep strike capability with our European partners. Will the Secretary of State outline how exactly the UK will provide its share of the £37 billion of funding for that capability?
Even before that new commitment, as has been pointed out, the Government’s own defence investment plan delivered only just over half of what military chiefs deem necessary for our national defence. Together with the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will she consider how defence bonds could be used rapidly to support the UK’s contribution to that initiative, bolster the confidence of our allies and send a clear signal to our adversaries? Have these plans been drawn up together with the Ukrainians? They have shown with incredible effect how deep strike capability can be developed fast and much, much more cheaply than £37 billion.
On defence funding, the Prime Minister discussed the possibility of collective financing and procurement models as a critical way to generate cheaper loans for military programmes and support greater interoperability. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether any progress was made at the summit to bring together the existing Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and our own multilateral defence mechanism into a single European rearmament bank?
Finally, the Secretary of State mentions El Obeid in Sudan and the thousands of lives at risk. The UK has the power to act, so will she proscribe the RSF, as has just been done with the IRGC? Will she suspend all UK arms sales to the UAE, given its role in arming the RSF?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues. In terms of the areas of agreement and disagreement, there will be areas where we continue to disagree with the President of the United States and have said so, including in our continued support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, which we have always made clear. That is why we worked in NATO and with the support of the United States for a new Arctic Sentry in NATO. The UK carrier strike group is operating as part of that. That is an important way of having a multilateral and shared defence of the High North, which is about protecting Canada, the United States, Norway and the western flank of Europe, including the United Kingdom, as well as the whole of Europe. That is the way in which we approach our Arctic security. That has strong agreement from the United States, which I think is a reflection of the way that we have worked to deal with those issues.
On the £37 billion for deep precision strike, we have allocated £3 billion over the first four years from the defence investment plan. That will help to fund some of the work we are doing with Germany and some separate work we are doing with France and Italy as part of a series of programmes all about deep precision strike, which we have brought European allies together on.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism. He may have seen that the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister put out a joint statement over the last couple of days to set out how we seek to work together to ensure that those initiatives, which do slightly different things, can combine and collaborate to ensure that we get the best possible impact.
On Sudan, we continue to raise the issue of arms flows, and we take that immensely seriously. That is exactly why we want to extend the arms embargo and believe that that needs to continue across the whole of Sudan. That is also why I have raised this issue with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are members of the Quad, and we will continue to pursue it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of proscription. He will know that that is a matter for the Home Office, but we believe that there should be a full arms embargo on Sudan.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the work that she and the Prime Minister have done at the NATO summit. May I register my huge concern, and that of my constituents, that the ceasefire between the US and Iran appears to be over, due to the egregious breaches by Iran? The situation has escalated, with the US taking military action. May I ask for reassurance that those who helped to bring about the first ceasefire, including the UK, by working very closely with allies behind the scenes, will now do everything to try to bring about a new ceasefire, so that we can get a deal in place that will lead to a permanent peace? That will be good for the region and much better for the UK and the world economy.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need to see an end to Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping in the strait. Crucially, that means Iran must give up its claim that it somehow has the right to control international shipping routes and Omani waters, because it does not. We want to see a return to talks, and we want the ceasefire to be sustained. We have offered to support the technical talks around preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and the reopening of the strait through our multilateral maritime mission.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said in her initial statement, particularly the point that we live in a more dangerous world than ever—I also agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, obviously. The point is surely this: there is no point apportioning blame between us. We are where we are now, in the most dangerous position that we have ever been in. Will the Foreign Secretary take away this thought in her talks with the new Prime Minister? Will she say that Members on both Front Benches, including the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should co-operate in meeting our NATO defence commitments in full? That means no black holes or creative accounting. We should pay for them by curbing the spiralling welfare bill, which is out of control. It is a win-win situation; we defend the nation, get people off benefit dependency and work together to save our country.
Yvette Cooper
We agree about the nature of the increasingly dangerous world we live in and the importance of us being able to defend ourselves and maintain our security. We have committed to reaching the 3.5% commitment on defence, but that is part of a 5% commitment that was made to cover broader defence and security intelligence. The Father of the House will know that the UK invests substantially in our intelligence capabilities, which are unrivalled. That is why, if we combine that with the broader measure, the assessment is that we are already over 4% and on the trajectory towards the broader NATO figure of 5%. That is important. In addition to continuing to increase our investment in defence, we need to ensure that we are investing in wider intelligence, resilience and defence issues. That is how we will keep our country safe.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her focus on Sudan at the summit. The world has never been in a more dangerous place, with Russia playing a dangerous game in and around our waters and harassing our carrier strike group. I welcome the £70 billion for Ukraine pledged at Ankara. What difference will that make to Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression?
Yvette Cooper
This is partly about the immediate support that Ukraine needs, both in terms of its military capabilities—we provide support, but we also learn from Ukraine’s phenomenal innovation and strength, and the way in which it is using that investment and support—and its resilience, including civilian and energy infrastructure resilience. Perhaps most importantly, however, the fact that we have made a long-term commitment is also crucial to Ukraine’s defence. It is because Putin thinks he can outlast Ukraine and its friends that he continues with his war and will not come to a peace agreement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could the Foreign Secretary say anything about the bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, and can she shed any light on the discussions they had about the United States sharing its Patriot missile production licences with Ukraine? What can the Government do—apart from welcoming that, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will—to facilitate that exchange and ensure that it happens? It could be crucial.
Yvette Cooper
I can certainly tell the hon. Member that we support what I think were very positive bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, which included the range of support they discussed, as well as the progress that Ukraine is making and the strength it has shown. I do not have further details for the House on the next steps, but we strongly welcomed the commitment that the US President made regarding licences for Patriot missiles.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Recent events have underlined the need for us to co-operate much more closely with our European allies and partners, so what discussions did she have at the summit with her European counterparts on joint procurement between British and European defence industries, which I think will ultimately make our country safer and stronger?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We know that no one country can do this alone, especially for some of the most advanced capabilities; we also know that if we want really effective interoperability, joint procurement with our closest allies is hugely beneficial, and it helps our defence industries and jobs as well. One of the best examples of that is our joint procurement of new frigates with Norway—we are effectively procuring the same frigates for Norway and the UK, so we will have full interoperability as well as our combined strength in the procurement process.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly highlighted the UK’s unwavering commitment to our ally, Ukraine. Her Estonian counterpart recently said that
“Russia wages war not only with missiles, but with narratives.”
With that in mind, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian children’s TV show that is on ITVX and which Netflix has recently picked up. Funding from that show makes its way back to the Russian state, funding Putin’s illegal war. We have also recently seen the International Olympic Committee allow Russia potentially to participate in the next Olympic games, and Eurovision has said that Russia may return to the stage, so what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with UK colleagues and international counterparts to ensure that we stop allowing Russia to use the world stage to push its propaganda and its narratives?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of challenging Russia in every sphere. Not only does it attempt to use different spheres for its narratives and its misinformation, but it has used misinformation on an industrial scale to seek to undermine democracies, which is why we have imposed sanctions in that regard. As the hon. Member knows, we have strongly condemned the IOC’s decision on the Olympics —we strongly disagree and believe it is the wrong thing to do. I will pass on the points that he has raised to the Culture Secretary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am really pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were able to discuss Sudan at the NATO summit, because it is the biggest humanitarian crisis the world is facing. However, did she also have the opportunity to discuss the situation in Gaza and the west bank? It is nearly two years since the ICJ gave its advisory opinion and recommended that all states refrain from entering into economic or trade dealings that support illegal settlements. During business questions this morning, the Leader of the House confirmed that those settlements are illegal, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should follow countries such as Spain, our NATO ally, in giving full effect to our obligations under international law?
Yvette Cooper
I did take the opportunity to discuss the situation in both the west bank and Gaza with some of our allies and partners. I am deeply worried that last year’s 20-point plan for Gaza—which was hugely important and which we supported, as did the whole world—is at risk of running into the ground. The humanitarian crisis there is not yet eased. I am also deeply worried about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, as well as the increase in settler violence that we are seeing, some of which is effectively settler terrorism. That is jeopardising the two-state solution that we strongly believe in. We are looking at what stronger measures we can take in this area, including working with allies; we are looking at restrictions on trade with illegal settlements, but also at the strongest sanctions regimes. We will continue to work on those issues with partners, because we need a two-state solution that supports the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike—it is the only way to ensure that.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to Sudan, and I am very pleased that she is shining a spotlight on El Obeid. However, although I recognise how difficult it is to work closely with our Gulf allies on the situation in Iran while at the same time having to condemn them for their activities behind the scenes in Sudan, surely the lesson of El Fasher is that unless we take a robust approach with those Gulf allies, we will not be able to prevent another El Fasher in El Obeid.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of preventing another El Fasher. That is exactly why I raised the issue directly with a series of European allies and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and why the Prime Minister raised it with President Trump and President Macron—we have raised the issue across the board. We want concerted diplomacy across our allies, but there also has to be pressure on all those who have the potential to influence the warring parties. Some of those are countries that have influence, while some of them are involved in arms flows—we believe that around 12 countries are involved in arms flows that are supporting the different warring parties. That is why we want the arms embargo to be extended, and it is why I am having intense discussions with a series of nations, all of which have potential influence in Sudan. I will continue to shine a spotlight on what is happening.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the Foreign Secretary’s responses to questions about the defence, security and resilience bank and the multilateral defence mechanism, can she flesh out how the UK envisages those initiatives working more closely together, in practical terms and maybe in financial terms?
Yvette Cooper
That work is under way, and has a joint commitment from our Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister, who have been responsible in parallel for beginning those initiatives. The multilateral defence mechanism focuses mostly on the joint procurement side, while the defence, security and resilience bank focuses particularly on support for small and medium-sized businesses. They are effectively complementary initiatives, so we want them to be able to operate together, and to look at how we build a much stronger link between those initiatives and take them forward. That work is under way at the moment, and I am sure we will provide my hon. Friend with regular updates.
Jeremy Corbyn
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global arms expenditure has now reached $2.8 trillion, with the USA, Europe, Russia and China spending the largest amounts. At any time during the NATO summit was there any strategic discussion about the way the world is spiralling out of control, with massive levels of expenditure on armaments, increasing wars, cuts in overseas aid by almost every country, and attacks on welfare budgets in every country as well? We are becoming a world that is increasingly at war, with increasing poverty at home. I realise that none of these issues is simple, but surely there needs to be some strategic look at what we are doing, or is the history of the 21st century going to be how we allowed the world to burn and spiral into war while increasing poverty at home in every country?
Yvette Cooper
As I have said, our security since the second world war has very much depended on the NATO alliance, which has always been a defensive alliance that has built its strength through deterrence. Deterrence is immensely important. When we reached the end of the cold war in 1990, there was at that point a substantial peace dividend. Many countries, including our own, saw reductions in investment in defence and more money went into other things in that period. Sadly, since then, what we have seen, including in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, is the end of that post-cold war peace dividend.
When we see growing threats to our security, we have to maintain the defensive alliance that NATO has always been and make sure that NATO has the capabilities to respond to any threat that might come in our direction. That is how we deter those threats, whether that is through our deep precision strike capability that we have been talking about or through other increased capabilities, such as matching the technical capabilities that Ukraine has demonstrated in anti-drone warfare. We have to ensure that we have all those kinds of capability, including air defence capabilities, so that we deter the threats against us and maintain our security. It is troubling that we now live in a more dangerous world, but we have to rise to that threat and ensure that we can keep our people safe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
While it is always great to see the Foreign Secretary, it is convention that the Prime Minister comes to the House to give the statement after a NATO summit. When she goes back to Downing Street, perhaps she can remind the Prime Minister that the country expects him to govern as Prime Minister for the 11 days he still has in the role, and this House expects him to come to the House on important matters such as the NATO summit.
What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with her counterparts on improving missile defence for Ukraine, whose hard-pressed civilian population are still being bombarded every single day? In particular, Patriot missile systems may not be available, whether through cost or availability, given their redeployment to the middle east, but are there not systems in Japan and South Korea that could be used? Although there are some issues around the Japanese and South Koreans exporting some of that technology, where there is a political will, a way can be found to help the Ukrainian civilian population.
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were extensive discussions at the NATO summit about air defences for Ukraine and the potential to mobilise a wide range of different partners and allies from across the world who may have other capabilities which could provide immediate and short-term support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed to see me at the Dispatch Box. I saw the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in a series of meetings, bilaterals and in the main NATO council, too. He was continually raising the importance of our 100% solidarity with Ukraine, our support for NATO and our commitment to these long-term defence partnerships for the future. He was also seeking to raise at the highest of levels the issues around Sudan, which are about our values and our interests. I pay tribute to everything that the Prime Minister has done over the past two years to put the UK back on the world stage.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having criticised successive coalition, Conservative and Labour Governments for inadequate defence spending, may I yet again remind the Foreign Secretary that during the 1980s we successfully came through the height of the cold war by spending between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was without creative accounting? On a more positive note, did she detect the seeming shift in the attitude of the American President towards the Ukraine conflict? Is that because he just wants, as always, to be on what he perceives to be the winning side, or is it a sign that the depredations of the killer in the Kremlin are finally getting through to the occupant of the White House?
Yvette Cooper
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for being liberal in his criticism of all Governments—I accept that point. The US assessment of what is happening recognises Ukraine’s strength and resilience and the fact that, despite all the initial expectations that Putin would win the war easily, the opposite has been the case. It is also recognition of some of the links between Russia and Iran and their shared technologies and support, and how those relate to the security threats we face. It recognises the breadth of the Russian threats to NATO allies, but in particular Russia’s failings in Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine’s response and the willingness to support Ukraine in that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive. In a remarkable display of overreach, they have blundered on to the world stage and refused to put vital public funds into defence firms that have legitimate commercial relationships with our ally Israel. What can the Government do about a fifth columnist First Minister in Edinburgh, John Swinney, who is damaging British security and thereby NATO, too?
Yvette Cooper
Defence and foreign policy are rightly reserved matters, because they relate to the security of the whole United Kingdom. Scotland plays a crucial role as part of that—not just as part of our armed forces, but by having crucial parts of our defence industry. We must continue to support that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which had vast portions of positivity and good news within it. While the £70 billion Ukraine package and the 5% spending target by 2035 sound impressive, our constituents want to know just how well those declarations translate into safety on the ground. Russia continues its brutal onslaught. As was rightly pointed out at the summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression are incredibly worrying, too. How will the Government ensure that all NATO countries are fully playing their part and that every pound coming from our taxpayers will be matched by fellow NATO countries and their taxpayers?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.
Yvette Cooper
I agree that we need to go further. The defence investment plan has set out a plan that takes us from 2.3% up to 2.7%. We have made commitments to go to 3% and then to 3.5% on core defence spending, so we of course need to go further. We need to ensure that as we increase investment, we also increase our capabilities and expand our defence industry. We must do so collectively, and with the most modern technology and capabilities. We must also show leadership, because it is not just about investment. As we work with our partners, those crucial UK capabilities and leadership are what keep our people safe.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned the interests of council tax payers in Tendring district. I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it says that I am a council tax payer in Tendring district.
Gaza Departures: Government Support
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Today, with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Education, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I am making the following statement.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains deeply concerning. The Government are committed to providing practical support to those most affected by the conflict and to contributing to the longer term recovery of Palestinian society.
Student departures
The UK Government have confirmed renewed support for high-achieving students from Gaza to take up fully funded scholarships at UK universities for the 2026-27 academic year.
This will build on support already provided by the Government in the current academic year, through which we have enabled over 100 students from Gaza to travel to the UK to pursue their studies. The Government will continue to prioritise students who hold fully funded and verifiable scholarships, and who meet the requirements of the immigration rules.
This targeted approach ensures that students supported will have the financial means to study and live in the UK. Eligible dependants will be supported in line with the immigration rules.
This also includes eligible Chevening scholars, who will be supported to take up their places at UK universities where possible, recognising their leadership potential and the important role they can play in the future of Palestinian society.
The Government will work closely with devolved Governments, universities, international partners and relevant authorities to facilitate departures and onward travel. However, departures from Gaza remain highly complex and dependent on factors outside the UK Government’s control. As such, travel and timelines cannot be guaranteed.
All individuals travelling to the UK under this route will be subject to robust security and immigration checks, including the provision of biometric data prior to travel.
This programme reflects the UK’s enduring commitment to education as a driver of opportunity, stability and future leadership, and forms part of broader efforts to support the development of a future Palestinian state.
Medical evacuations (MedEvac)
The Government have also confirmed the resumption of UK-supported medical evacuations of critically ill and injured children and their immediate families from Gaza, following a pause due to the regional conflict.
In 2025, a cross-Government effort supported the evacuation of 50 children, alongside their immediate family members, to receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. Building on this, the Government will now facilitate further evacuations for those identified as in need of urgent medical care.
Patients will be identified through established processes, including collaboration with the World Health Organisation to match children with specialist care teams within the NHS.
Recognising the severe degradation of healthcare provision in Gaza, this programme enables access to specialist treatment that is not currently available locally. It also reflects the compassion and expertise of the NHS in supporting some of the most vulnerable children affected by the conflict.
Individuals arriving under this scheme will be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK, including access to appropriate healthcare and support. All arrivals will be subject to stringent security screening, including biometric checks, in line with standard requirements to protect the public.
Conclusion
Together, these measures demonstrate the Government’s continued commitment to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, while supporting the longer-term resilience and recovery of Palestinian society through education and healthcare.
A policy statement setting out more details will shortly be published on gov.uk. The Government will keep these arrangements under close review in light of ongoing developments.
[HCWS144]
Oral Answers to Questions
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I stand and look at the shield to Jo Cox above us today, and I add my personal tribute to Jo. She was a fellow West Yorkshire MP and a passionate and committed internationalist, as well as somebody who brought communities together here at home. We think of Jo’s family and especially of her sister Kim who is keeping Jo’s legacy alive.
The US is our deepest security and intelligence ally, our biggest trading partner and our top export market, and I saw again the strength of our people-to-people relationship when I joined His Majesty the King on the state visit to mark 250 years since the declaration of independence.
Vikki Slade
I regret that I never had the chance to meet Jo Cox, but the Secretary of State is right: her sister is doing her very proud.
As well as being the year in which the current US President was born, 1946 was the year in which the UK-US special relationship was formally cemented in Winston Churchill’s “Sinews of Peace” speech, and was credited by Russian historians with marking the start of the cold war. That war ended in the 1980s, but the relationship between western allies and Russia is distinctly chilly again, with threats appearing close to our shores even this weekend.
I welcome the progress on an Iranian ceasefire, but over the three months for which the US and Israel have been at war with Iran, the conflict has made many people rich, and it has been reported that Russian revenue from oil and petroleum has increased by 39%. Given that the actions of the United States appear to be helping Russia rather than supporting Ukraine and NATO, does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that that is causing further damage to a special relationship that has endured for 80 years?
Yvette Cooper
The Prime Minister is discussing the importance of support for Ukraine at the G7 today, and the G7 has had meetings with President Zelensky about the importance of maintaining the economic pressure on Russia. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the risk that Russia will become a beneficiary from the conflict in Iran. It is crucial that we ensure that that is not the case and also maintain that pressure, which we are working with the US to do.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I echo your words, Mr Speaker, and those of the Secretary of State about Jo Cox? I am sure that everyone in the House is thinking of her today.
Our special relationship with the United States is about more than just the President; it is about a deep connection with the American people, and I think we should always remember that. I am very proud of my Prime Minister’s actions with regard to the conflict in Iran, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is hugely important for us to continue to have that special relationship with the United States, not just with the American people but with American businesses such as Raytheon in my constituency of Harlow?
Yvette Cooper
I thought for a second that we were not going to get to the mention of Harlow, but eventually we did, with my hon. Friend’s final word. I welcome his question. He is right: the UK took a different view from the US at the start of the Iran conflict, and I think we were right to do so, but our countries continue to engage in close security and economic co-operation—and, having met representatives of many of the businesses most closely involved in that relationship during the King’s visit, I know that my hon. Friend’s businesses in Harlow will continue to do so as well.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I echo your sombre words about Jo Cox, Mr Speaker. Her memory and her family are in our thoughts today.
The United Kingdom’s long-standing strategic, security, defence and intelligence relationship with the United States is crucial for us and for our allies. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what role Britain has played in the negotiations between the United States and the middle east in relation to Iran, given our historic links to partners in the region? Have the Government seen the US-Iran agreement, and what is Britain’s role in shaping future foreign policy and the security architecture in the middle east?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary has made an immensely important point. I spoke to Secretary of State Rubio on Friday about the final stages of the discussions that were taking place before the memorandum of understanding was agreed. It is just the start of many further phases of work, negotiations and discussions, including discussions on nuclear power—we are clear about the fact that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and we stand ready to support those detailed and technical talks—and on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. We have engaged in discussions not just with the US but with France, with which we have been building the maritime mission, and also with partners in the Gulf, so we can ensure that freedom of navigation is restored as swiftly as possible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The settlements in the west bank are a fundamental barrier to peace, and a flagrant breach of international law. We condemn the rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence that we have seen over the past year. Last week I announced a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence, which is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Government.
Mr Betts
Let me add a few words about the murder of Jo Cox. I was a friend and colleague of Jo’s, and I still remember the numbness and shock that I felt on hearing the news. Quite simply, no Member of this House should fear for their life because they speak out on behalf of their constituents.
The west bank is illegally occupied by Israel. The settlements are illegal and have been expanded through extreme violence by settlers, supported by the Israel Defence Forces. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that, in May, the Dutch Government decided to ban trade in goods from settlements. They did so because they wanted to put pressure on the Israeli Government. The Dutch Foreign Minister made it very clear that the Dutch Government acknowledged that enforcement would be difficult and that they carefully weigh up these matters, but they decided in the end that doing anything was better than doing nothing. May I suggest that might be an appropriate course of action for our Government? We ought to be seen on the right side of this, and finding reasons why we cannot act is not right. We ought to be acting on this matter.
Yvette Cooper
Let me respond to my hon. Friend’s important point. We are clear that action is needed, and we are acting. This Government have done more on this issue in the last two years than any Government have done for many decades, because we are so concerned about settlement expansion and settler violence. We have not only had the recent sanctions against settler violence but sanctioned two Israeli Cabinet Ministers, because we take this issue so seriously. However, I think my hon. Friend and I agree on the principle that the settlements are legal. No one should be profiting from them, and we do not want businesses to be trading with them or operating within illegal settlements. A number of countries have explored legal bans but have also had challenges with them, and we are looking at what they have done.
Jeff Smith
There have been over 760 incidents this year, resulting in casualties, property damage and 57 deaths, so it is clear that diplomacy and the action we have taken so far are not moving the dial. I appreciate that we are only one voice in the international community, but we clearly need to be seen to be doing absolutely everything we can to make a difference on this issue. What will it take for the Government to take further action, and to go further on sanctions and settlement trade?
Yvette Cooper
Last week, we did take further action and set out a new wave of sanctions. On Friday, I went to Paris for a meeting with other Foreign Ministers, and also met civil society organisations and community organisations from across Israel and Palestine. Last week, we launched the international peace fund with Australia and Canada in order to support the community-level building of the foundations of a two-state solution. Later this week, I will go to Egypt to have similar discussions. In the end, we will only make progress through concerted international diplomacy and working in partnership, because no country can do this alone.
Luke Murphy
May I echo what hon. Members have said about Jo Cox?
One Palestinian child has been killed every week in the west bank since January 2025. Hundreds remain in detention, and many more face significant disruption to their education. What steps are the Government taking with international partners to improve the safety of children in the west bank and to ensure that they can enjoy an education free from violence?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the plight of children in the west bank. I would add to that the terrible plight of children in Gaza, where there is still not sufficient humanitarian support—that has gone backwards too. He is also right to say that some of this is about the impact of violence. Some of the targeted and ideologically driven violence against Palestinians on their own land is settler terrorism, and we should call it that. We are continuing to provide support for children in Palestine, including by providing additional funding for the Palestinian Authority so that it can pay the salaries of teachers and keep schools going.
Alex McIntyre
Last week I signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary, along with 140 colleagues, asking the Government to take further action in response to settler violence and the rhetoric used by two far-right Israeli Government Ministers. Over the last two years, I have heard from hundreds of my constituents expressing their deep concern about the Israeli Government’s actions in the west bank. Will the Secretary of State commit today to banning all trade with illegal settlements, and if not, why not?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The expansion of Israeli settlements and some of the violence circulating in them is a deliberate attempt by hardliners to undermine any possibility of a two-state solution and to pursue in many areas what is effectively illegal annexation—that is their intention. We agree on the principles that no one should be trading with illegal settlements. That is different from long-standing legitimate trade with businesses across Israel, which we continue to support. A small number of countries have explored legal bans, but they have had challenges with them. The most effective impact we can have on all these issues is to work internationally with other countries to provide new energy behind the two-state solution, as we had last year.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s use of the term “settler terrorism”. She is absolutely right; the phrase “settler violence” does not do justice to what is happening. She will be aware that settler terrorism is often enabled and encouraged, or at best a blind eye is turned, by both the Israeli police and the IDF. She will know the damage perpetrated by that terrorist activity. If Israel wishes to remain the villa in the jungle it has always wished to be, can she at least remind her Israeli Government counterparts of the importance of the rule of law and the separation of the duties of the IDF and the police when it comes to protecting the citizens of both Israel and Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
We continually raise these issues with the Israeli Government, because we cannot have what we have seen: property damage, intimidation, farmers’ olive trees burnt down, families’ water disconnected and mobs rampaging. That is why we have introduced the scale of the breadth of sanctions, including on organisations such as the Farms Association which have been supporting them. It is also why we need to challenge any culture of impunity. There has to be accountability for what are, effectively, criminal acts.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Secretary of State says she is looking at options and that she wishes to work in partnership in the international sphere. She must accept that the UK has significant history and responsibility in this region. Does she not listen to the words of her Back Benchers? It is incumbent on her to take action now—not simply to look at things and to seek partnership—to have real effect on this appalling, continuing outrage.
Yvette Cooper
I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the action we have already taken has a stronger impact than many of the other measures he is talking about. That includes imposing sanctions on individual members of the Israeli Cabinet, which very many other Governments have not done. We encourage other Governments to do what we have done. It also includes the work internationally to seek to find new energy behind the two-state solution. That includes the 20-point peace plan in Gaza, but must include the west bank as well. Tomorrow, when I travel to Egypt, I will be meeting the new Palestinian National Committee that will be operating in Gaza. It is that concerted international effort that we need to have an impact.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last week Amnesty International published a report entitled “Erasing Anything Palestinian”, which shines a powerful light on Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the west bank. It makes clear that what is happening is not driven by rogue settlers or a few extremist Ministers; rather, it is state sanctioned and state financed. Yet to date the UK’s response has been largely performative and, unfortunately, fairly inconsequential. Do the Government accept that this is state-enabled ethnic cleansing? If they do, should they not be doing much, much more to prevent it and to punish the perpetrator?
Yvette Cooper
Once again, I point out the strength of the action we have taken; we have brought together countries from across the world—and gone further than most countries. What is being driven here is deeply disturbing: both the level of violence, and the deliberate attempt—with the E1 settlements in particular—to undermine any possibility of a two-state solution. That is a long-term thing, and it has been supported by many people across the Israeli Government. It is a deep challenge for everyone, which is why we need international action. In the autumn, we had the international consensus and energy to deliver the 20-point plan for Gaza, which nobody expected would be achieved. We need to pull that energy together again. That is why I was in Paris on Friday, it is why I discussed this issue with Australia and Canada, as well as European colleagues, and it is why I will go to Egypt—to the middle east, where the energy on many of these things has come from—in order to try to make progress on it again.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to start by joining you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House in paying tribute to the memory of Jo Cox. Her words about seeking what we have in common, and working to counter the politics of division, are today more relevant than ever—for all of us.
The Secretary of State set out piecemeal and entirely inadequate measures last week in relation to west bank settlement activity. It was raised with her then that the UK would be hosting the Great Israeli Real Estate Event at the weekend, and she undertook to look into it. That event took place, with properties in illegal settlements being marketed on British territory—the Government have been sent the evidence. How is it that this Government fail even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country? How is it that they still fail to take action? The Secretary of State continues to tell us about the meetings that she has had, but what we want is leadership. The UK has a particular responsibility, so will she step up and ban trade with illegal settlements?
Yvette Cooper
We have been very clear not only that no businesses should be engaging in trade or marketing around the illegal settlements, but that they certainly should not be doing so on UK soil. We take this issue so seriously, which is why the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have raised it directly with the Advertising Standards Authority. We have asked the authority to urgently look into the matter and reassure us that, if there is any evidence of the advertising or promotion of property in illegal settlements at that event or any others, it will uphold the law, regulations and guidance that apply. It is extremely important that those standards are met in the UK, and that is exactly why we have raised the matter so seriously with the Advertising Standards Authority.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
May I associate my party with your tribute to the life and work of Jo Cox, Mr Speaker, and extend our thoughts to her family and her many friends?
The prospect of a two-state solution rests on at least two essential conditions: the protection of Palestine’s territorial integrity, and political reform within the Palestinian state. This weekend in London, we saw the selling of properties in illegal settlements. The expansion of such settlements must instead be reversed by cutting off their finance at source. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to withdrawing the licence to operate of any UK financial institution facilitating credit or services for illegal settlement activity? Given that President Abbas has now announced that legislative and presidential elections will be held in early 2027, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that those elections will be free and fair?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the points made by the hon. Member. We continue to look at what further sanctions could be needed in order to address illegal settlements, the activity linked to them, and settler violence. We are also looking at whether and where we may need to strengthen our overall sanctions regime, as well as at individual sanctions issues.
We support the reform measures around the Palestinian Authority, including the free and fair elections, which are crucial. We are also providing direct funding to the Palestinian Authority, including to pay salaries, and, through Michael Barber, we are providing expertise to support the modernisation of the Palestinian Authority, because that is a fundamental part of having a Palestinian state. Whether in the west bank, in Gaza, or in East Jerusalem, it is crucial that Palestine must be run by Palestinians.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The closure of the strait of Hormuz has hit the global economy and prices at the pump here at home. No country should be able to hijack the global economy in this way. That is why we welcome the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, and why the UK has been leading diplomatic work across the world to maintain the consensus behind the crucial principle of freedom of navigation and international maritime law, without tolls, restrictions or the threat of attack in the strait of Hormuz.
Ian Lavery
They say the devil is in the detail. While we await the full details of the US-Iran agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that, had we followed the calls from Opposition Members to rush into war, it would only have prolonged the conflict and caused more financial misery to our constituents? Despite the noise and bluster, is it not the case that the only boats Opposition Members have stopped, through their cheerleading of the US aggression, are those left anchored between Iran and the Gulf states carrying oil bound for Britain?
Yvette Cooper
We took a very different view from that of the US and Israel at the start of this conflict, and we were right to do so, and also a very different view from that of the Conservatives. However, we also believe in working internationally to bring this securely to an end, to support the further negotiations that are now needed, and, alongside France, to lead efforts to establish a defensive multilateral maritime mission to reassure international shipping and support the mine clearance to enable the reopening of the strait.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Iran has demonstrated that it can close the strait at will, and it probably will threaten to do so in the future when it wants something, so what can we do with international partners, particularly in the region, to engineer alternative routes that will allow oil, gas and fertiliser to exit the Gulf overland, thus neutralising the strait?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member makes a really important point, because economic security is something that all countries need to take much more seriously. The UK needs to take it more seriously. The Gulf countries are certainly taking it much more seriously and looking at ways to develop new infrastructure to provide different kinds of supply lines and opportunities. We are keen to work with them and we have been involved in discussions with them on that, but we also need to ensure that the strait of Hormuz opens. It is in line with international maritime law to open the strait fully, with no restrictions and no tolls, keeping it open for all.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The terms of the US-Iran deal that have been briefed to the press look like a huge win for Iran. Above all, Iran has strengthened her position by showing the impact of closing the strait of Hormuz. This spectacular failure of Trump’s foreign policy has made us poorer and less secure, so what plans does the UK have to work with reliable allies to contain Iran’s malign influence, and will Ministers back the Liberal Democrat amendment to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, which would ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is proscribed without delay?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we are taking action to strengthen the legislation on state-backed threats in the UK, and that I have been strongly involved in that and have strongly championed it. We have to ensure that any attempt to restrict or put tolls on the strait of Hormuz is never agreed to. It must be a fundamental principle that international shipping should be able to move through an international waterway. That is what we do in the strait of Dover; it is what needs to happen in the strait of Hormuz.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I have made violence against women and girls a priority for the Foreign Office. Last month, I had the privilege of launching the international coalition to end violence against women and girls, working with Spain, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Jamaica, Morocco, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We know that countries can work together and learn from each other on this crucial issue, which affects women worldwide.
Anna Dixon
I was moved to hear about Jo Cox’s life and the impact of her work on women globally in last week’s debate. She was a strong advocate for women’s rights and overseas development aid. Will the Secretary of State assure me that recent cuts to aid will not have an adverse impact on projects such as those I saw in Zimbabwe last year, which are helping to reduce the incidence of violence against women and girls?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. Jo was a tireless champion for women’s equality and opportunity in the UK, but she carried that with her all around the world, standing up for women’s opportunities and tackling issues internationally. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have been clear that as part of the changes to overseas development, we will maintain and strengthen the priority of women and girls, so that by 2030 at least 90% of UK bilateral aid will support issues relating to women and girls.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
A UN report from March last year laid bare the evidence of Israel’s systematic use of rape and sexual violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israeli settlers are committing sexual violence in sight of Israeli forces, according to a recent report by the West Bank Protection Consortium. Given the Government’s commitment to the safety of women and girls, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a response to both of those reports?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that we take the abuse of and violence against women and girls in situations of conflict immensely seriously. That includes looking at issues that have been raised with us, including those relating to the west bank and other parts of the world. The UK was responsible for the UN resolution on women, peace and security 25 years ago; we are putting new energy behind that and raising it in every area of conflict.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
What steps are being taken to investigate Daesh fighters who have returned to Britain and prosecute them for their crimes, including sexual violence and rape against the Yazidis and others? Given the importance of ensuring that there is accountability and reform of institutions to root out the risk of exploitation from the UN, charities and even the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what is the Government’s response to the suspension of Karim Khan from the International Criminal Court for allegations of sexual misconduct?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary will understand that I cannot comment in detail on individual cases, but we do take allegations extremely seriously in any institution. I can also tell her that we expect to see accountability for crimes of sexual violence, whether that is by individuals who come to the UK or issues across the world. We are also supporting expert evidence gathering, including in areas of conflict, so that there cannot be impunity for crimes against women and girls.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I want to formally welcome the fact that an agreement has been announced between the United States and Iran. We should be clear that this is an important diplomatic breakthrough, but it is still just the beginning of further discussions and negotiations that will be important to de-escalate tensions, restore regional stability and reopen the strait of Hormuz. I commend the Government of Pakistan, alongside Qatar and others, who supported the mediation.
Now there must be full implementation and further work, including the restoration of toll-free freedom of navigation through the strait, where the UK stands ready to provide support. We also stand ready to contribute to vital technical work to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon and that there can be containment that restores regional security. It is vital that alongside this, all sides support a ceasefire and peace in Lebanon. We will work tirelessly alongside regional and international partners, including through the G7 and the United Nations and with our European partners, with sustained UK diplomacy to restore regional security and support for the global economy.
John Whitby
At COP29, an agreement was reached to provide $300 billion of international climate finance annually to developing countries by 2035 to help them pursue green growth pathways, access clean energy, reduce deforestation and so on. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that this commitment is delivered in full by our international partners, and will the Government press for that finance to be provided predominantly as grants rather than loans to avoid increasing debt burdens on developing countries?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of this issue. Tackling climate change across the world helps in those countries, but it also helps us here at home. That is why we are supporting climate finance internationally, because we can multiply the impact we have by working through international climate finance and funds. As well as the billions of pounds of investment that the UK will be providing, we are mobilising billions more in finance from the private sector. We will continue to engage internationally with all countries so that they do their bit.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
China’s human rights record is appalling. Did the Foreign Secretary know, while she was enjoying the hospitality of the Chinese Communist party earlier this month, that Chinese slave labour is being used to supply solar panels across UK schools and hospitals to meet Labour’s net zero targets? How has the Foreign Secretary allowed this to happen, and does she think it is acceptable for her Government to be turning a blind eye to Chinese slave labour and these awful human rights abuses?
Yvette Cooper
I can be clear that this Government maintain high standards across our supply chains and are strengthening action against abuse within supply chains. While in China earlier this month, I raised issues around human rights and security. China is our third biggest trading partner and a permanent member of the Security Council. That is why we also discussed with it global security, and I think that the right hon. Lady should agree that it would be wrong to simply refuse to talk to China.
Priti Patel
The Foreign Secretary will know that a secret camera was found in an office block where the plans for the Chinese spy hub super-embassy were approved. No one knows yet where the camera came from, but it raises serious questions for the Government about their approval of this Chinese spy embassy. Can she say whether this act of foreign espionage will be investigated, and does this incident not once again highlight why China must be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary and I are both former Home Secretaries who take any security threats immensely seriously. That is why the Government are strengthening the legislation on state-backed threats—because we take security issues so seriously. As she will know, the UK has plans for new embassy facilities in Beijing, because it is important that we have international standard and secure facilities in order to be able to engage, including on security. That is why we have to talk to the biggest countries in the world.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
I met with European partners and others in Paris on Friday to discuss the importance of providing new energy behind not just the two-state solution but, specifically, the Gaza 20-point plan. That is why we have announced the international peace fund, but we need that new commitment, because there is a serious risk that the 20-point plan is going backwards and into the ground. We need that international commitment.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently visited Chad with the all-party group for Sudan and South Sudan, and in that connection we will shortly be registering an interest. Like the Foreign Secretary, I was moved by Chad’s willingness to accept 1.3 million refugees, but disturbed by the horrific scale of the crisis. Will the Prime Minister be raising the Sudan crisis at the G7, because it must be raised at every international gathering? Is the UK advocating for countries such as Chad to be included in international talks?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my right hon. Friend visiting Chad and raising this issue, and I assure her that I have already raised it as part of the G7, when the G7 Foreign Ministers had a significant discussion. We will continue to raise the issue at every level, and pursue the possibility of comments around what is happening in Sudan at every level, including G7 communiques.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistani security forces have fired on peaceful demonstrators who were standing for human rights, and the right to food and proper security in their area. More than 30 people were killed, and more than 200 injured, including British nationals. What action has the Secretary of State taken to call in the Pakistani high commissioner and say not only that that is unacceptable, but ask what action is being taken to protect innocent bystanders?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State join me in recommending that people visit the “06:29AM—The Moment Music Stood Still” exhibition that I and colleagues visited this morning in London, which shows examples of what happened on 7 October, so that we may all get more rounded information on why there is such a scale of horrendous murder in Israel and the middle east more generally?
Yvette Cooper
We continue to condemn the horrendous attacks on 7 October, which were an act of the most barbaric terrorism by Hamas and left deep scars for families who lost loved ones. Huge trauma was instigated as a result and it was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. We remember with sadness all those who lost their lives.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Every year, billions of pounds never make their way to the Treasury coffers because of British tax havens, such as the British Virgin Islands. The upcoming illicit finance summit offers us a real opportunity to tackle tax evasion and dirty money in these havens. Ahead of the summit, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that these havens finally throw open their books, and that tackling tax dodging must be top of the agenda?
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The incarceration of Jimmy Lai and the persecution of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom by China is deeply wrong and disturbing. Will the Secretary of State set out what action the UK will be taking to ensure our concerns are heard and action is taken to protect Hongkongers living in the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai during my meetings in China and we will continue to raise the case, because it is immensely important to us and we believe that he needs to be released as swiftly as possible. My hon. Friend will know that we take the safety of Hongkongers across the UK immensely seriously, and we will always stand firm against any kind of transnational repression.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Watching coverage of the football in America, it may be difficult to believe that a great number of Scottish football fans were refused ESTAs—the electronic system for travel authorisation—at the last minute, after they had previously been approved, costing them thousands of pounds in cancelled airfares and hotels. Will the Minister tell us whether there have been conversations with the American authorities about how this has happened and how to avoid it, and will she impress on them the economic loss that they will face from all those missed alcohol sales?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for raising the case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal during her recent visit to India. Will she update the House on whether her discussions were positive? Are we any closer to securing Jagtar’s release and return home to West Dunbartonshire?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. I raised this while I was in India, and I know how much he has been championing his constituent’s case. There is concern about the length of time without a resolution, and we will continue to raise it.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The world has failed Sudan. We know that the international fact-finding mission has noted evidence of a genocide following the fall of El Fasher. What is the UK doing as penholder at the UN to ensure that the belligerents responsible are being held to account, as well as the state actors aiding and abetting them?
Yvette Cooper
I continue to raise Sudan in every international forum. We have to keep a spotlight on what is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. That includes shining a spotlight on international arms flows—more than a dozen countries are involved—and it involves pressure on the parties involved to agree some kind of ceasefire or humanitarian truce so that we can get humanitarian support in and start to build a better future for Sudan.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Anniversary of Air India Plane Crash
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Tomorrow marks one year since Air India flight 171 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad en route to London. This tragic accident claimed the lives of 260 people, including 52 British nationals and 113 others who lived in the UK—one of the largest losses of British life in any air accident. The continued heartache of the families and loved ones of those who died is impossible to imagine, not least for those who still have questions about the tragedy and the aftermath.
The thoughts of the whole Government remain with all those affected by this tragic accident. When I visited New Delhi last week, I joined Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar in commemorating the tragedy. I also raised the importance of closure for all those who have been left bereaved, as we continue to wait for the full accident investigation report, and as some families still wait for answers regarding their loved ones’ remains.
The UK Government response to the crash was both immediate and long lasting. Following the crash, officials initiated our crisis response to provide direct support to bereaved families and address the needs and welfare of all affected British nationals. Our high commissioner, Lindy Cameron, travelled to Ahmedabad on the day of the crash and has continued to support the UK deputy high commission team in the city. Trained consular staff were deployed to Ahmedabad to support families through the immediate period following the crash, along with experts from disaster victim identification, Red Cross and the UK air accidents investigation branch.
UK police family liaison officers also supported the families of deceased British and foreign nationals who were residents in the UK, and the FCDO continues to provide support to each family in need of help, including through dedicated consular caseworkers to hear feedback from the families and their representatives. As the Indian air accident investigation continues, AAIB family liaison teams have provided support to affected families. We also continue to engage with Air India and Indian Ministries to resolve outstanding issues that families have raised.
At every level, from family liaison officers to Ministers, what we have heard constantly from those who lost loved ones a year ago is that they want information and answers, to help them understand how a tragedy like this could have happened, and to know for certain what happened to their loved ones remains in the aftermath. Not knowing what caused the crash can only add to their sense of grief and frustration, and I hope that the accident investigation report, when completed and published by the Indian authorities, will answer some of their questions. The UK Government will continue to provide all the help and support we can as they seek answers to the rest.
In the meantime, my deepest sympathies remain with all those who lost their lives a year ago, and with all those who continue to mourn that loss today.
[HCWS108]
Middle East
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I will make a statement on the middle east—first on the Iran conflict and Lebanon, and secondly on the situation in Palestine. May I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to you and to the House for the delay in sending across a copy of the statement?
This weekend, we saw worrying and dangerous escalation, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing to fire into northern Israel, Israeli strikes against southern areas of Beirut, and the direct exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel, presenting one of the most dangerous moments since the fragile ceasefire was agreed. Over the last 48 hours, we have made clear the need for urgent de-escalation, because a resumption of conflict is in no one’s interest. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Sunday evening to convey that point directly.
Both Israel and Iran have indicated that they have ended their strikes, which is welcome, but there was some reporting, just before I entered the Chamber, of strikes again this morning. It is vital that we have a diplomatic way forward to end the conflict in Lebanon, reopen the strait of Hormuz, restore regional stability and prevent Iran from ever developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As we have previously made clear in the House, Israel’s recent escalation in Lebanon was reckless and disproportionate, and it deepened the humanitarian crisis that has already seen more than a million Lebanese people driven from their homes and thousands killed. We strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, including its northern communities. At Iran’s instigation, Hezbollah—a proscribed organisation—is dragging Lebanon into a war that is against the interests of its people and its Government. It must end these dangerous attacks and disarm. The US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon must be properly observed by all parties.
We want to see a swift and successful conclusion to the ongoing talks between the US and Iran. We need an agreement that gets the strait fully open with no tolls or charges. Last week, I discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China and Foreign Minister Jaishankar in India. Every country has a stake in freedom of navigation, and the UK will continue to speak up for that across the world. In partnership with France and other countries, we stand ready to play our part once agreement is reached to support de-mining and provide reassurance to shipping through a multilateral maritime mission. With cost of living pressures at home, we need a lasting settlement that delivers peace and stability in the region and the full restoration of global trade.
Let me turn to Palestine. Nine months ago, at the UN General Assembly, I confirmed the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. We did so, alongside partners, in recognition of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and to defend the viability of the two-state solution. We did so as part of a wave of international diplomatic energy in support of peace in the middle east. It was a crucial moment of hope that we could end the violence and suffering and begin to build a better future of lasting peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the wider region, but today the situation is bleak and the viability of the two-state solution remains in grave peril.
Let me turn to Gaza. The ceasefire remains formally in place, but it is being regularly violated. Since October, more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Some 1.9 million Palestinians remain displaced and dependent on humanitarian aid, and aid is down this year, not up. Some 90% of water and sanitation infrastructure has been destroyed and not rebuilt. There are families without shelter and a public health crisis, with rodent infestations and communicable disease, and we are currently at barely half the level of the 4,200 trucks a week promised in the 20-point plan.
Israel’s registration law continues to severely restrict the operations of international non-governmental organisations, while key crossings remain closed. It is a total moral outrage that children are still going hungry while food that they need rots on shelves because aid agencies cannot get it in. Meanwhile, Hamas decommissioning has not yet started, and they retain a tight hold on areas of Gaza. Instead of the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, Gazans are restricted to just 40% of the territory and are unable to access their land beyond the yellow line.
We urgently need new international energy, new pressure and new action to resuscitate the 20-point plan. For the UK, that means pressure in three priority areas. First, increased aid is urgent and must be unconditional. Despite all the challenges, UK aid is making a difference on the ground. Last year, we provided more than £80 million of humanitarian and early recovery funding, with funding protected again this year, enabling 650,000 people to receive food and improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene for 300,000 people.
UK support for mine clearance has enabled 45 acres of land to be made safe for community use and helped to clear 24 key sites, including medical facilities. Today, I can announce a further £1 million to support mine-clearance efforts, but some UK aid is still stuck in warehouses, including in Jordan and Egypt. Humanitarian support is a fundamental right—it cannot be bartered against other aspects of the peace plan. The Netanyahu Government must recognise their urgent humanitarian responsibility to open crossings and end the arbitrary restrictions so that the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and international non-governmental organisations can fulfil their lifesaving mandates.
Secondly, we continue to press for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons to get under way. Hamas must destroy their terrorist infrastructure and weapons production sites as a first step towards full demilitarisation, and we have offered UK technical expertise to support this. Meanwhile, Israel must deliver on its commitments to withdraw.
Thirdly, we need practical support and the access that was promised for the transitional Palestinian National Committee. There are still too many obstacles in its path, and it is still not operating within Gaza itself, which makes it easier for Hamas to retain their hold. We have offered practical support to the committee as it endeavours to fulfil its mandate, and we will lead international calls to support it in co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority, because Palestine should be run by Palestinians.
That brings me to the west bank. Following the ceasefire agreement, I warned that sustained peace would not be possible without a comparable effort to protect the viability of Palestinian statehood and rights in the west bank. Instead, we have seen the opposite. Last week, a seven-month-old baby—his name was Sam Abu Haikal—was killed in his mother’s arms after the Israel defence forces opened fire on a family car in south Hebron. The UK supports the calls for an immediate and transparent investigation and robust accountability. Over the weekend, a gunman in Israel opened fire, with one killed and five injured—an attack that, shockingly, was applauded by Hamas.
We have also seen rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence, with Palestinian families and communities driven from their homes, brutally beaten while farming their own land. There have already been 950 violent incidents this year; in April, settlers shot dead two Palestinians while attacking a school, one of whom was a boy of 14. The UK condemns this shocking violence that terrorises Palestinians, and many Israelis are horrified by what they are seeing from settler extremists. The Netanyahu Government have condemned some settler violence, but that rings hollow when there is scant accountability and when the agenda of the hard-line settlers has now become intertwined with the approach of this Israeli Cabinet.
As such, let me set out what new action this Government will take. First, I am announcing a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence—organisations including the Farms Association, which fundraises for illegal outposts that act as strongholds for settler aggression; Ahavat Gilad, which serves as the Farms Association’s financial conduit; and Artzenu, which has fundraised for military equipment for armed settler squads. This is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Labour Government. We have targeted some of the most notorious individuals, the most significant settler entities, and the extremist figures in the Israeli Cabinet who are inciting these acts. Today’s measures mean that the UK is second to none among international partners in targeting those who are facilitating and inciting settler violence.
We are also going further. On 22 May, the Prime Minister led a group of other world leaders in warning businesses not to bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. However, this is not just about construction contracts, so today, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous that British citizens and businesses should not conduct any economic or financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, I have also written today to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, requesting that it open an investigation into evidence of UK charities having links to illegal settlements. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will meet the commission’s chief executive officer tomorrow, because no UK charity should be supporting or enabling these breaches of international law.
The principles we are acting on are, I believe, widely supported across this House. We believe that settlements are a fundamental barrier to peace and a flagrant breach of international law, and that violent settler groups should not be profiting from the land they have seized from Palestinians. We also believe that we must continue to distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel, trade that reflects long-standing and important ties between our countries and communities. We will continue to co-ordinate our approach with close allies and look at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security.
Finally, let me address our support for Palestinian governance. We are keeping up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to deliver their vital reform commitments on education, welfare payments and elections. We are expanding direct practical help to the PA to reform and deliver effective government for their people, drawing on the deep expertise of the UK envoy for PA governance, Lord Michael Barber.
However, the PA face an enormous fiscal and healthcare crisis because the Israeli Government have a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, including by withholding $5 billion of Palestinian tax revenue. That means that schools and health facilities struggle to stay open for more than one or two days a week. An effective PA is directly in Israel’s interest, so it is both utterly wrong and incredibly short-sighted for the Netanyahu Government to seek to undermine them at every turn. The UK has stepped up our efforts in support, alongside our support for reforms. This year, we provided the PA with funding that helped 5,300 health workers to sustain frontline services. Today, I can announce that we will provide at least £10 million further to support the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries over 2026, bolstering their ability to function and helping dedicated health professionals to do their essential work across hospitals, clinics and maternity services. Our focus will be to build more effective, more democratic and more accountable governance, and to reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine.
International pressure and partnership on the ground have been vital over the past 12 months, so later this week, I will travel to Paris along with other Foreign Ministers in advance of the peacebuilding conference. That conference will bring together Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups alongside international partners dedicated to advancing the two-state solution, because the momentum of last year must be reinvigorated for the sake of peace and security for all.
I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.
No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?
It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?
As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that
“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]
He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?
More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?
The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?
Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she
“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”
Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?
There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?
Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.
Yvette Cooper
Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.
The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.
It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I share the Government’s condemnation of the illegal settlements that are systematically destroying any prospect of a Palestinian state. Of course, settlements do not build themselves; they require money, insurance and trade, and I therefore welcome the changed guidance to British citizens that they should not conduct any economic or financial activity in the settlements, but the question really is, “What happens if they do?” Currently, the truth is that British companies are bankrolling annexations one settlement at a time. If the Government can recognise that settlements are illegal, why do they not just issue a ban on all trade in goods and services with the settlements, rather than more guidance? Are we in danger of doing too little, too late?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear about the fact that settlements are illegal and are undermining peace. We do not want trade with illegal settlements, and we want to deter support for those settlements. Such support includes financial engagement, and it also includes the charitable organisations that should not be engaging either. That is why we have set out new sanctions today, and stronger business advice. Of course we distinguish between illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel, and we will also continue to work with allies across the world on this. I recognise the points that my right hon. Friend has made, and I know that countries that have looked at this have also found it hard to deal with some of these further issues in practice, but we will continue to work with allies to establish what practical arrangements can ensure that we stand up for international law and against the illegal settlements that are endangering peace.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
The steps announced by the Government today are important and right. British businesses and charities have to know that engaging with or sustaining settlements in the west bank is illegal and unacceptable. The updated business risk guidance is therefore correct, but it is overdue—the Dutch Government issued a similar discouragement notice in 2006, 20 years ago—and also insufficient. The Government should have used this moment to announce specific sanctions on British firms that enable or finance the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Will they move to review sanctions much more regularly and bring new packages to the House every month, and will the Foreign Secretary finally heed Liberal Democrat calls to ban all trade in goods and services with the illegal settlements?
Last September, the Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was the right thing to do, and a step that Liberal Democrats have been advocating for almost a decade. However, the Israeli Security Cabinet is moving fast to expand legal rights for land purchases in the west bank, while settler violence towards Palestinians continues. The UK’s complicity in enabling the growth of illegal settlements runs deep. On Sunday, the Great Israeli Real Estate Event is coming to London. Properties in illegal settlements in Gush Etzion are being marketed alongside properties in Israeli cities. This is Palestinian land being advertised, bartered and sold on the streets of our capital. Will the Government intervene to ban the event unless assurances can be given that no properties in illegal settlements will be advertised?
Let me return to the subject of the wider region. Hezbollah has continued to strike northern Israel, but the latest exchange of fire between Israel and Iran following Israeli strikes on Beirut shows just how precarious the regional ceasefire is. Talks on moving towards a peace settlement cannot be derailed. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that actions by the Israel Defence Forces in Lebanon, directed by Netanyahu, are materially undermining the chances of reaching a wider peace settlement? What actions are the Government taking to address that?
Liberal Democrats have long called for the proscription in the UK of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Government have now committed themselves to legislating during the current Session, so will they engage with Members on both sides of the House to see whether this legislation can be put forward immediately and fast-tracked into law?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, including his comments on the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. We should always be clear about the fact that there is no alternative to a two-state solution if any peace and security are to be established in the region, which is why it is crucial that we work to maintain the prospects of such a solution now.
The hon. Member referred to the sanctions regimes. We are not just looking to continue to increase the number of targeted sanctions, but looking at potential ways in which to strengthen the overall sanctions regime. We have been one of the leading countries in the world in respect of sanctions relating to the illegal settlements. As the hon. Member will know, we are one of the few countries that have sanctioned individual Israeli Cabinet Ministers who have been inciting the extremist behaviour and supporting the settlements. In recent weeks we have also seen the most shameful behaviour on the part of one of those Cabinet Ministers, involving the Gaza flotilla and the treatment of people there.
The hon. Member raised the wider issue of going further in respect of the trade issues. Let me repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry): we have made it very clear that we do not believe there should be trade with the illegal settlements. We have given clear and extremely strong advice, and we will continue to work with allies across the world on the most effective way to maintain this. It is also important that we differentiate between trade with illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel.
As for the threats from Hezbollah, it has been devastating for the people of Lebanon to see Hezbollah, as an Iran-backed proxy, hijack their chances of peace. However, we—including my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, who has raised the matter in the House as well—have also expressed our deep concern about the Israeli escalation in Lebanon, and the dangerous impact of that on the Lebanese people. We want the settlement between the US and Iran to be swiftly reached, and no one should be undermining or destabilising the prospects for that settlement.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned state threats in the UK. I can tell him that we are moving at a rapid pace to address that. As he will know, this is something about which I personally feel very strongly, having commissioned last year the advice from Jonathan Hall which led to the recommendation that we need new legislation to protect us against state threats. We will be introducing that legislation swiftly, and will be seeking to work with other parties to try to get it through Parliament as rapidly as possible.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last week, tenders for the expansion of the unlawful E1 settlements were launched, involving nearly 3,500 housing units, directly flouting international law and also putting the viability of a Palestinian state at risk. Moreover, as we have heard, on the 14th of this month there will be a real estate deal in London, which is about marketing the purchase of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank, including the Gush Etzion settlement—again, flouting international law, in this city. I welcome this morning’s updated and strengthened guidance warning businesses not to engage, and I welcome the additional sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but we know that at least 43 businesses have been previously engaged in the expansion of settlements. What will be the consequences if they decide to ignore the guidance, and go ahead with becoming involved in these illegal expansions?
Yvette Cooper
I would warn any businesses against associating themselves with potential breaches of international law, and also against becoming involved in a process that is undermining peace and security for the region. As for the operations in London, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), we will pursue any issues that we can raise relating to anything that might be in breach of the law. However, I think that organisations, including businesses—and particularly charities, in respect of which we have additional enforcement powers—have a moral responsibility not to support the illegal settlements that are not only in breach of international law but are undermining regional security and peace.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I agreed with the Government’s decision, which I supported from day one, to stay out of this totally counterproductive war. I hope that we have all learnt our lesson and that we are never going to listen to liberal imperialists or neocons, with their endless wars over regime change in the middle east, all of which have been a disaster—Syria, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.
What influence do we have on the Trump Administration? They are the only people who Netanyahu cares about. I can see the wonderful Justice Secretary, a chum of the Vice President, sitting next to the Foreign Secretary. Is there any way the Foreign Secretary can convince the Trump Administration in her conversations with Secretary of State Rubio that, although we are not naive about Hezbollah and Hamas—we know they are horrible organisations—we could at least start to detach the Palestinian people from these organisations if the Trump Administration were absolutely firm that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the west bank must stop now? We have to stop the total destruction of Gaza and the appalling suffering. We have read this very day about people in Gaza getting cancer and dying in agony. What influence do we actually have on the Trump Administration?
Yvette Cooper
The Father of the House is right. We took a different view to that of the US and Israel at the start of this conflict, and we did not get drawn into offensive operations against Iran. We did take defensive action to support Gulf partners when they were under attack from Iran, but we took a different view at the start of this conflict, and I believe that was the right thing for the UK to do and was in the UK’s interest.
The US remains a close security partner and ally, and I have many conversations with Secretary of State Marco Rubio about a whole range of different issues, not just in the middle east but across the world. We were involved in many discussions with the US in the run-up to the adoption of the 20-point plan and the Gaza peace process last autumn, and it was US leadership that got the final agreement to the 20-point plan. However, the plan is at risk of falling apart right now, which is why we are engaging with not just the US but partners across the world. We will be having the peacebuilding conference in Paris on Friday, because we need to restore the energy and commitment to the 20-point plan, which is being flouted repeatedly and dangerously across Gaza every single day. We urgently need humanitarian aid and support for families in Gaza, but we also need the restoration of energy behind the 20-point plan.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has announced today, but I want to come back to her strong advice to businesses that we should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, rather than having an outright ban. We know a ban is possible, because we did it for illegally occupied territories in Ukraine, and we know it is the right thing to do, because when it comes to trading in ivory, firearms or narcotics, we ban it outright. We know that anything less than a total ban risks the UK aiding Israel’s repeated violations of international law. Is it not time to move beyond strong guidance and advice by taking meaningful, proportionate action and having an outright ban?
Yvette Cooper
We share the view that the settlements are illegal and undermine peace. We want to prevent trade with illegal settlements and discourage anyone, including UK businesses as well as those from around the world, from supporting those settlements. That is why we are using our sanctions regime to target some of the issues around the settlements, and why we are looking at other ways of strengthening our sanctions regime. We will continue to work with allies across the world on this matter. Other countries have also looked at these issues and what more can be done, and have found that some of the practicalities are complex in this area, but we will continue to work with allies.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
President Trump spoke to the BBC yesterday and said that his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu was such that:
“If I tell him to do something, he does it.”
It is all very well for the British Government to make contingency plans, such as with the multinational planning conference at Permanent Joint Headquarters Northwood at the end of April, but that will be a mere displacement activity if there is no peace deal. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to encourage Washington to demand restraint from Tel Aviv in Lebanon, to help bring about a peace deal and an end to the blockade of the strait of Hormuz?
Yvette Cooper
We have continual discussions with the US Secretary of State, and we have continual engagement with the US Administration on the support for reaching a peace settlement. That includes the full and unconditional reopening of the strait of Hormuz and, of course, preventing Iran from getting a settlement. We have also discussed with the US the importance of the ceasefire in Lebanon, and of not allowing what is happening in Lebanon to destabilise the wider peace agreement. I have had those discussions with the US Administration, and it is notable that the US brokered the ceasefire in Lebanon. That continues to be violated, but it is essential that the ceasefire is respected and holds in order to make it possible to get the wider settlement in place.
The multinational maritime mission is explicitly designed to help restore global shipping as rapidly as possible; it is not a substitute for a peace settlement. We need to get the settlement in place and commitments to the reopening of the strait, but then we need practical measures, including reassurance on shipping and de-mining, to make sure that it opens.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Israeli Ministers have reconfirmed what we have all known: it is their intention to settle Jewish settlers in southern Lebanon, as they have done in the west bank and are doing in Gaza. The E1 project will bury the idea of a Palestinian state forever. This is something that many of us have known for a long time, and we are seeing—in real time—ethnic cleansing and war crimes being committed as part of the greater Israel project.
This Sunday, there will be a real estate event on UK soil that will openly sell land in the illegal west bank settlement. It is really sad that the shadow Foreign Secretary talked a lot about Iran but did not have a word of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Can we please put an outright ban on trade with settlements, stop selling arms to Israel and strengthen the International Court of Justice? Its judges are routinely being threatened by the US Administration.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that the Justice Secretary brought in new restrictions on arms sales to Israel because of our concerns about ensuring that we always stand up for international law. We have been one of the world’s leading countries in introducing sanctions, including on individual Israeli Government Ministers. She refers to some of the concerns about expanding illegal settlements, and I agree with her about the dangers of the E1 project, which is clearly illegal and damaging to peace.
I am also troubled by some of the comments that we have heard, including from Prime Minister Netanyahu, about Israel trying to take over 70% of Gaza and having a permanent divide there. That would fundamentally flout and overturn the 20-point plan that Israel signed up to, alongside Hamas and countries across the world. It is vital that the Israelis respect the 20-point plan and withdraw from Gaza as part of the agreement. That is why we want to restore the international effort and energy to implement the 20-point plan.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Those clinging to life in Gaza and scratching an existence in the west bank merely occupy different circles within the depths of the inferno. Any relief is dependent on the policy of Israel, and that in turn would require pressure from its principal ally, the United States of America. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of any prospect of that?
Yvette Cooper
We need Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza. It is just horrifying that families are going without the food and medical support that they desperately need. I have discussed this many times, including with the US Administration and of course directly with Israel. Immediately after the 20-point plan, there was an increase in aid as a result of the international commitment, but since the start of this year that has plummeted again. That is why I believe we need the international energy restored behind the 20-point plan and the commitments made as part of it to get aid back in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I want to thank the Minister for the middle east for agreeing with me last week when I referred to the forced displacement of people by Israel as a war crime, and I am grateful for that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her sterling work in raising the issue of charities, which was reflected in the statement.
I want to press the Foreign Secretary when she says that
“businesses should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements.”
There must be consequences for that. Those activities are criminal, and we have the architecture in this country with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are giving guidance to their members? Importantly, what conversations is she having with the National Crime Agency, because until such time as those companies are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes, I am afraid this is not going to bite?
Yvette Cooper
We have clearly set out the strengthened business advice, but we are also strengthening our sanctions regime to directly target organisations, including international organisations, deliberately facilitating and funnelling resources to illegal settlements where we have seen really disturbing settler violence. We are looking at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, and we will go further in setting out new sanctions and pursuing sanctions enforcement.
We will also continue to work with allies across the world, because this is an issue that no one country can tackle alone. We have been leading on action across the world, but given that this trade is very often international in scale, the more that we can build international consensus around this, the more impact we can have.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I do not seek to offend the Foreign Secretary, but how can we lecture businesses in the United Kingdom about morality when we are witnessing a genocide? Even if they are considering only the risk of a genocide, the Government should take steps to prevent that, such as cutting off all trade, and we still supply components to the F-35 programme. We recently witnessed five British citizens being tortured, sexually assaulted and dumped in Greece. A seven-month-old child was murdered in the hands of his mother, and no doubt an investigation will conclude that that child was a shield. Why does she not sanction the leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what will the Government do to prevent this show business sale, in London on Sunday, of illegal properties there?
Yvette Cooper
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), we will pursue any angle we can against operations taking place here in the UK. It is important to be clear that we have very much led the way with the sanctions that we have imposed. Most countries obviously do not sanction individual members of the Israeli Government, but we have done so because we were so appalled by the incitement by those individuals.
As the hon. Member will know, one of those Ministers was involved in the shocking flaunting and just the most disgraceful promoting of what were really disturbing ways of treating human beings on the flotilla that did not meet the basic standards of humanity. He also referred, as I described in my statement, to the really distressing case of a baby just seven months old being killed. That is why we will continue to pursue sanctions, and we will continue to pursue other options with allies across the world.
The other thing we need to do is build the same sense of international consensus that we had in the autumn on the 20-point plan for Gaza. There was only partial consensus on the west bank at that time. We and other countries recognised the state of Palestine as part of that, so there was that strong commitment, and the 20-point plan refers to the transition to the Palestinian Authority and links with the future state of Palestine. However, we need to strengthen the international consensus built in the autumn to cover a much wider area—not just Gaza, but also the west bank—with a broader regional security framework. We have seen the power we have when we get international consensus together, but individual countries acting alone do not have such an impact.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the dedication and commitment of the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east in trying to advance this issue in line with the will of this House. Only too sadly, it is no surprise to many of us that, while the eyes of the world have been largely focused on Iran, we have seen the abuses continue and get worse in Gaza and the west bank. That is a deliberate strategy of the Israeli Government. We often talk about settler violence, but this is state-supported settler violence, not the acts of individuals alone. So I welcome the advanced package put forward today, including in relation to the Charity Commission, but also in moving our sanctions from individuals to groups.
This is not just about aid going in, but about justice for Palestinians and for the west bank and about building a wider peace. What judgment will the Foreign Secretary make about whether the sanctions go far enough, and when will she come back to the House and tell us whether we will go further? Does she agree with me that this is a cause for justice, and one whose time needs to be taken more seriously?
Yvette Cooper
I do agree with my hon. Friend. What is going on is being talked about as, in effect, annexation of parts of the west bank. It is not simply about a small rogue group going against the intentions of the Israeli Government. The E1 settlement has been authorised and promoted by the Israeli Government, yet it is illegal. It goes against any prospects for peace and security in the region. Frankly, it is ultimately damaging for the security of Israel as well as for peace, security and justice for the people of Palestine. That is why we will continue to pursue this issue.
However, I think we have to combine two things: what we can do with our own sanctions regime, working with our closest allies on such measures and on applying pressure; and promoting the wider international consensus and energy that we briefly had in the autumn—it had built up over many months—and that we must rebuild now.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that repeatedly saying that a terrorist group must do something does not make it happen? When she says that Hezbollah
“must end these dangerous attacks and disarm”,
does she expect this to happen voluntarily, and if not, how does she expect it to be brought about?
Yvette Cooper
Hezbollah is a dangerous terrorist organisation. It is undermining the security of the people of Lebanon. We support the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces in taking action against Hezbollah. We are providing them with direct support, including funding and capabilities support, because we believe it is hugely important that they should be able to do this with international support. We also think, frankly, that Iran should be putting pressure on its proxies, rather than using proxies to escalate tensions and to escalate activity, so we are putting pressure on Iran to put pressure on Hezbollah.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Frankly, the measures announced today, while necessary, do not go anywhere near far enough. They will not stop the genocide in Gaza, they will not stop the war crimes in Gaza, and they certainly will not stop the continuation of illegal settlements. What real, concrete measures can the Foreign Secretary announce here today? She stated earlier, to a number of colleagues who asked the question, that she wants to see an end to trade with illegal settlements. Well, that is in her gift, because she can stand at the Dispatch Box today and announce a ban on trade with all illegal settlements. Why will she not do that?
Yvette Cooper
We are announcing these sanctions, which go further than ever before in targeting the organisations that are effectively facilitating, promoting, encouraging and developing illegal settlements. We want to continue to go further on sanctions and look at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, so that we can go further and can put on additional pressure. Look, individual countries can take particular action on things such as sanctions in different ways—the trade issues we have discussed and so on—but the biggest impact will be made by building an international coalition and consensus. That is what happened in autumn around Gaza. That has been lost or reduced since then. We must rebuild that again, but this time we must ensure it includes the west bank as well as Gaza.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I was recently on a cross-party visit to Israel and Palestine. We met the Norwegian Refugee Council and talked about the issue of dual use items, where the Israeli Government do not let certain items into Gaza because they argue they can be used for terrorist purposes. That includes situations where young children are able to leave Gaza to get hearing implants in countries such as Jordan, but are then not allowed back into Gaza because the component parts are considered to be dual use items. What pressure can the Government bring to bear on the Israeli Government to prevent the weaponisation of this issue against the Gazan people?
Yvette Cooper
We have raised exactly this issue many times directly with the Israeli Government, the Civil-Military Coordination Center and the US Administration, because the hon. Lady is completely right: we are ending up with basic medical equipment being turned down because somehow it could be treated as dual use, or tent poles for basic shelter being turned down because somehow they could be dual use. That is deeply damaging and they are different standards to the ones that applied even 12 months ago. Even when there were previous ceasefires, we managed to get a lot more aid and support through. That is why it is crucial that aid is not weaponised. It is a basic human right and we will continue to argue strongly for an increase in humanitarian aid.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the new package of important sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary. As I raised with Government Ministers last week, and as I discussed with the Foreign Secretary last night, last week I submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about 32 UK charities that have over the past five years funnelled some £28 million to illegal Israeli settlements. The research into that was conducted jointly with Israeli human rights organisations. They include UK Toremet, which currently has a live donation page to Artzenu, which the Foreign Secretary has just announced sanctions against. I welcome the fact that she has raised this issue with the Charity Commission. I would say that it was made aware of these issues in July 2025 but has done nothing so far. Can she be clear that we are not just looking for an investigation, but a ban? In reference to the letter that I and 140 other Labour colleagues sent her this week, on a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, can she also now say that we will look to move towards a ban, on top of the guidance that she has issued?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done on how charity systems are abused to funnel support to illegal settlements. She has rightly raised that issue not just with me but with the Culture Secretary and directly with the Charity Commission. The Minister for the Middle East will be meeting the CEO of the Charity Commission tomorrow to pursue exactly this issue to ensure there is a thorough investigation. Some evidence suggests that rules are being broken. We should not end up with UK gift aid being funnelled to illegal settlements. That clearly breaches all the standards that anybody across the UK would expect there to be, as well as the Charity Commission rules, which is why it is essential to look at this. On the wider issues around trade, we do not want trade with illegal settlements. That is why we will continue to look at strengthening the sanctions regime and work with allies across the world.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We welcome the new sanctions, but the issue of illegality goes much deeper than these now-sanctioned organisations. The illegal settlements in the west bank are state sponsored, state financed and state protected. That is also the case for the settler violence that inevitably follows, which is carried out with almost complete impunity. Why have the Government chosen to sanction these particular organisations, but decided not to take further action against the Netanyahu regime in the face of its state-sponsored illegal settlement policy?
Yvette Cooper
As I set out earlier, the UK has introduced sanctions against individual members of the Netanyahu Government, something that very few countries across the world have actually done. We believe that is the right thing to do because of the seriousness of what they have done and the seriousness of the situation around illegal settlements. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is about international law more widely, but also, specifically, the peace and security of the middle east. We know that there is no alternative to the two-state solution, but ultimately, to make progress on Gaza, as we did for a brief period in autumn, we need to build up international consensus and not just look for what individual countries should do.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Let us just imagine that, this weekend in our capital city, there was a “great Russian real estate event” selling off Ukrainian land. Quite rightly and without hesitation, the Government would move to ban such an illegal event. This weekend in London, there is the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, openly advertising the illegal sale of land in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. Given that the Government rightly recognised the state of Palestine, surely we should now move to ban this event, which is selling off land illegally in Palestine.
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that particular event. If we find any cases where there are breaches of UK law, we will also pursue them. The wider issue is that nobody in the UK should be advertising illegal settlements. Nobody should be pursuing illegal settlements. No businesses or organisations should be getting involved in them. We have shown our willingness and determination to impose sanctions on organisations that do, just as we have set out today. We will continue to do further sanctions where we have the opportunity to do so, because support for illegal settlements is wrong.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the most depressing things about these statements is the profound damage that they do to British national interests and our standing in the world through their pathetic delusion. On Gaza, could the Foreign Secretary confirm that she is aware that in the last two weeks Israeli Ministers have made clear their desire for the mass emigration of Palestinians from the territory, and that we should see the stranglehold they have imposed in that context?
Could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that the meagre sanctions that the previous and current Government have imposed so far have had absolutely no impact on the conduct of anybody in Israel, let alone the Israeli Government, and that the current wave of what she is calling sanctions are not actually sanctions but asset freezes? That means that unless the organisations or individuals targeted have assets in the UK, the measures will have no impact. In fact, the regime that she has chosen to bring them in under does not even include goods and services, so as we are all still free to sell those organisations or individuals bricks and mortar, corrugated iron or insurance, the measures are unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on what is going on in the west bank.
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear that having an impact on what happens in Gaza and the west bank depends on building international consensus and taking multiple actions. The right hon. Member complains about what this Government have done, but he should consider for a second the things that we have done that his Government refused to do. We have restored and increased funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, suspended arms licences for use in Gaza, dropped the challenge to the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and introduced four packages of sanctions on violent settlers, including sanctioning Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir—leading the first group of countries to do so.
This Government have led diplomatic efforts at the UN, launched a medevac scheme for sick Gazan children and their families—helping to get students into the UK—and supported UK field hospitals in Gaza, treating hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We are funding mine-clearance operations and providing more than £129 million in humanitarian assistance this year—and then protecting that in each year of the spending review. Most importantly, we took the historic decision, which his Government refused to take for years, to recognise the state of Palestine as part of the inviolable right of the Palestinian people. That was the right thing to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We know that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, and 21,000 have lifechanging injuries. We made a commitment that will bring around 300 children to the UK to have urgent surgery to aid them. Last week, I met two of those children. They had two specific pleas. First, we should expand the scheme and bring over the 4,000 children who are waiting and need our medical care. Secondly, children can bring only one parent; they want both their parents to be with them. Having their family around them will help with their healing. Can we ensure that their families can come too, so that those children are safe, mentally as well as physically, as they get the support they need?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her representations around the medevac scheme, which I strongly support. I know of and have looked at cases where children have been able to bring more family members than that. If she has individual cases, then she should raise them, but I know there are many cases where children have come with both parents from Gaza. We will make further announcements in due course around the medevac scheme. There are also many children who may not have the most life-threatening conditions but who still desperately need medical treatment and support that they are not getting in Gaza. One of the greatest priorities is to rebuild healthcare facilities in Gaza and to treat as many children as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
At the moment, the Palestinian people are allowed to occupy only 40% of the Gaza strip, and that figure will go down to 30% next month if Netanyahu has his way. Israel is bombarding—through settlers and its own violence—the people of the west bank, and it is also now occupying a large part of southern Lebanon. The House needs to know exactly what the nature of the security relationship is between Britain and Israel. What information is shared, what weapons are supplied, and why are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets knowing full well that those planes are used in acts of genocide against the Palestinian people?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that after the election we introduced new and strong arms export controls to cover anything that could be used in operations in Gaza, including anything that might breach international law. We have been clear about that.
The right hon. Member raises the issue of the yellow line in Gaza, which I am deeply troubled about. We have heard Prime Minister Netanyahu talking about trying to seek 70% control of Gaza, when the 20-point plan involved full withdrawal. I am worried that there are attempts under way to make that yellow line permanent, and to condense the land available for the Palestinian people in Gaza into an ever-smaller area. That fundamentally goes against the agreements in the 20-point plan, which were endorsed by Hamas, Israel and countries across the world. That 20-point plan needs to be upheld, and it includes the withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza as part of its implementation.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement confirming that she has strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clearer and unambiguous. To labour the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), however, we know that settlements are illegal, so why are the Government only publishing guidance to businesses? We do not simply issue guidance to stop businesses trading in ivory, illegal firearms or narcotics—we ban them, as we have banned businesses from trading with illegally occupied Crimea. The Foreign Secretary stated that it was complex, but why is guidance enough when it comes to illegally occupied Palestinian land, but not illegally occupied Ukrainian land? Will she please be clear and unambiguous in her response?
Yvette Cooper
The Government are clear that part of what we are doing with this package of additional sanctions is targeting businesses and organisations that are facilitating the operations in the illegal settlements. We believe that the sanctions regime needs to be strengthened to allow us to go further in different areas, and we need to work with other countries on that. It is obviously important to distinguish between what is happening in the illegal settlements, and trade right across Israel; the specific issue we are targeting is about settlement goods and the illegal Israeli settlements. Other countries have been looking at that and have found some of the practicalities challenging. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made, and the concerns raised around this issue. We continue to look at what more can be done, and to work with international partners.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?
Yvette Cooper
China and India are not part of the multinational maritime mission. We have been doing two things to maintain the principle of freedom of navigation. With France, we have been developing the multilateral mission. There are other countries ready to provide assets, some of which have been set out and some of which will be announced in due course as they are needed. We have also convened countries—including the 40 that I convened before Easter—to raise the consensus around and continue to defend the principle of freedom of navigation. The Chinese ambassador also attended a similar event in Paris, chaired by President Macron and the Prime Minister, so we are engaging with those countries on the principle of freedom of navigation, but the maritime mission is a much narrower group of countries, predominantly—but not entirely—European.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Once again, British citizens taking part in the Global Sumud Flotilla—a peaceful aid mission to break the illegal blockade of Gaza—have been severely mistreated by the Israeli Government. This is beyond dispute, with video evidence of a far-right Israeli Minister mocking activists while they are bound and on their knees, as the Foreign Secretary referred to earlier. The Italian Government have opened an investigation into the incident and the EU is expected to vote on sanctions next Monday; I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that British nationals deserve the same protections and robust response. Will she therefore confirm her earlier response that the offending Minister remains under sanctions, and will she set out what further actions will be taken specifically to stand up for those British citizens?
Yvette Cooper
Like my hon. Friend, I was appalled to see how people were being treated in that video. It did not meet the most basic standards of humanity and respect for other human beings. It is particularly shocking that not only was that mistreatment happening, but it was being promoted and flaunted by an Israeli Government Minister. I can confirm that the Minister, Ben-Gvir, is sanctioned by the UK Government; we were one of the first countries to sanction him, and we will continue to do so. The behaviour shown in that video evidence, as well as other things that he has said and done, provides clear justification as to why we are right to do so.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench, most right hon. and hon. Members condemn the appalling and murderous actions of his far-right regime. However, the Foreign Secretary surely recognises that Netanyahu is laughing behind his hands as Israel easily bypasses the flimsy trade and arms sanctions that the UK Government have introduced. She talks about building an international consensus, but is it not time to take stronger action and, in building that consensus, to propose the introduction of international peacekeepers into Gaza to ensure the peace, stop the bloodshed and get the humanitarian aid in?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will know that the 20-point plan included the development of an international stabilisation force that was effectively about bringing peacekeepers into Gaza. That has not yet happened, partly because there simply has not been enough progress in certain areas, as well as in respect of the humanitarian aid, which is just basic.
We have promoted the argument that the decommissioning of Hamas’s weapons needs to reflect the experience in Northern Ireland. Some of the processes are not simple, but we need to get them started—it is essential to get that started. We also need a practical approach to allowing the Palestinian committee to start to operate in Gaza, and to providing the support and training for Palestinian police to be able to operate in Gaza. We have to get those security conditions right so that we can bring in the ISF where other countries have said they would be willing to do so, but getting to that point requires more commitment and energy, particularly from the Israeli Government, but also more broadly, as part of the 20-point plan, so that we can reach the point the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the fourth package of sanctions against the groups supporting the extremist Israeli settlers. I also welcome the strengthened guidance that no UK businesses should have any financial or economic links with illegal settlements—although many of my constituents would prefer to see an outright ban, because they are seeing the continued expansion of illegal settlements. Just last week, Minister Smotrich announced more than 2,000 new homes in and around Jerusalem, Nablus and Hebron. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute violation of international law and that it does nothing to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The expansion of the illegal settlements is not only deeply wrong, because Palestinians are being forced from their own land, sometimes in the most brutal of circumstances, but deliberately designed to try to make it impossible to ever get to a two-state solution. That is the purpose for some of those involved, and we should be very clear on that and call it out for what it is. That is why it is so important not only to strengthen the condemnation of the illegal settlements and the expansions, but to be clear that we cannot stand back and allow what could effectively become an annexation. That needs to be linked to the 20-point plan. My point has always been that we will not sustain the ceasefire in Gaza that was rightly brokered by the US in the autumn, or achieve peace and security for Palestine and Israel, if we end up with such devastating consequences for the west bank and if we do not have a track to get to a two-state solution.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because we are so deeply concerned about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the responsibility of the Israeli Government to uphold the 20-point plan, which is not happening at the moment in Gaza, to withdraw from the illegal settlements in the west bank and to lift their chokehold on the Palestinian Authority that we have taken action, including sanctions and leading the way internationally. We are one of the few countries in the world to have sanctioned individual Israeli Government Ministers, including for the way they have argued for incitement and effectively encouraged the expansion of the settlements.
We are going right to the heart of the Israeli Government with the actions we have taken, alongside other measures, including financial and development support for the Palestinian Authority and recognition of the Palestinian state for the first time, which was historically the right thing to do. If we are to deliver results, the other thing we need to do is build international consensus. That international leadership and action is what delivered the 20-point plan in the autumn, and that is what we will do again as part of the peacebuilding conference in Paris this week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Earlier this month, an Israeli soldier shot dead a seven-month-old baby, Sam Fahd Abu Haikal, and wounded his parents in the occupied west bank. UNICEF reports that, far from being an accident, violence against Palestinian children has reached levels not seen in decades. Given the difficulty that even the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has in restraining Netanyahu’s actions across the middle east, when will the Government bring in stronger measures, including sanctions, and do more to ensure that those committing war crimes face accountability under international law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend rightly raised the deeply distressing case I mentioned in the statement of a seven-month-old baby killed in his mother’s arms. He was also right to highlight the number of Palestinian children who have lost their lives. The problem is that even where there has been either investigation or condemnation by the Israeli Government, there is often impunity and a complete lack of accountability. It is vital that where there are such cases and issues, there is proper investigation and accountability.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As I mentioned to the Minister for the Middle East last week, not all of the Shi’a community in Lebanon support Hezbollah or Iran, and the majority do not support violence; they want to live in peace like all of us, whatever country we are in.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the Amal movement is a Shi’a political movement. While it is not a benign movement, it is probably a better interlocutor than Hezbollah to work with in rebuilding the whole nation of Lebanon—subject to conditions—which will of course include the important Shi’ite community. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity building of political parties and movements that want to move away from armed violence and struggle?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is right that we need an inclusive process in Lebanon that brings all groups and communities together but excludes Hezbollah, Iranian-backed proxies and terrorist and extremist groups. The group that he mentioned is led by Speaker Berri, who met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East as part of his recent visit. We will continue to engage with that movement and more widely with the Lebanese Government about the importance of bringing all communities together so that the Lebanese people are not exploited by Iran.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A prohibition must be brought in to finally deal with British firms such as JCB, which for decades has been involved in settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian homes. The Secretary of State has not confirmed why a full ban on settlement goods has not been brought in. When she says that the practicalities are too complex, the British public see only a Government dragging their heels. Will she clarify what those practicalities are? Once again, why is it possible to have a full ban for occupied Crimea but not for the occupied west bank?
Yvette Cooper
Today, we have introduced new, strong sanctions against organisations that are operating, fuelling funds or trading in the illegal settlements. We have different sanctions regimes, including geographic and thematic regimes. We believe that the regimes need to be strengthened, and we are looking at ways to do that that give us more flexibility to respond to different circumstances.
Obviously, in the case of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we want to be able to target the illegal settlements and the trade and activity there, but we do not want to impact on the long-standing, legitimate trade that runs right across Israel with organisations and businesses and provides links between communities. Other countries that have looked at how to do it, and what mechanisms to use, have found it challenging and raised different practical issues, but we continue to look with our international allies at what measures could be strengthened to address exactly those issues and to promote the cause of peace and security.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What exactly are the Brits going to contribute to the multinational maritime mission in terms of hardware? Has Ukraine offered up its two Sandown-class mine-clearing vessels and crew, which are currently in Portsmouth?
Yvette Cooper
The multinational maritime mission is led by the UK and France. We have set out and been looking at particular assets that can be provided as part of the mission. It is, of course, multilateral—the point is that it needs to include a range of different countries. We have had discussions with Ukraine, as have many Gulf countries, because of its particular expertise in drones and modern technology in terms of air defences, and support has been provided for some of the Gulf partners.
The precise assets used in practice will depend on what is needed at the point at which—we hope—settlement will be reached. One of the points discussed as part of the settlement is whether Iran will do the de-mining, which would clearly be most effective because it laid the mines in the first place. We would like Iran to do it first, if that is possible.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and in particular the fresh wave of sanctions she announced, as well as the new measures against British businesses and charities that fund and support illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. This morning, I and other MPs met former members of the Israel Defence Forces who served in Gaza, and they gave us some pretty shocking testimony. They told us that their rules of engagement were to allow the killing of more than 20 civilians for every Hamas commander targeted—sometimes up to 300 civilians per commander. They also said that they were given shoot-to-kill orders for any adult male of military age within a designated area, including unarmed men, and that there was a systematic demolition of civilian homes. What role can the UK play in amassing evidence to hold Israel to account for what are clearly war crimes in occupied Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The account that my hon. Friend provides is deeply disturbing. We know that there has been systematic disregard for civilian life. We have seen the huge numbers of people killed in Gaza, including huge numbers of children. At different stages in the conflict, we saw people shot at while queuing for the most basic food. People who were desperate to feed their families ended up being shot at and losing their lives. There has to be accountability and there have to be investigations. There also has to be peace and stability. We must ensure that as part of the implementation of the 20-point plan, we get back on track so that Palestine can be run by Palestinians. That, in the end, is the best way to keep them safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State in her statement—in her own words—talked of Netanyahu’s condemnation of settler violence as being “hollow”. Will she allow the Great Israeli Real Estate Event to proceed on UK soil this weekend? If she does, could she not be accused of the same thing?
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that issue. We do not want any illegal settlements to be advertised in the UK and we do not want any businesses to be engaging with that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions and guidance that the Secretary of State has set out. Given the scale and pace of settlements, can we ensure that the sanctions are regularly reviewed? I agree with colleagues that a ban on settlement trade should be looked at again.
The London property conference sounds really concerning. What sanctions will be put in place if property is being sold on occupied land?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to keep all our sanctions under review and to build on the sanctions regimes we have in place. We have led the world on sanctions and done more on this than most other countries around the world. Wherever possible, we have built partnerships to involve and include other countries to get them to sign up to similar sanctions as well, because, frankly, that is the best way to have an impact.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
A constituent wrote to me as he was deeply concerned that the British public had been misled about the UK’s involvement in the US conflict with Iran. His sister lives next to RAF Fairford and reported 24/7 use of the base by US bomber flights in May after the ceasefire. Residents were experiencing constant aircraft movements and noise, with little or no respite. Constant use of the base does not appear to be consistent with facilitating
“specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities”.
Will the Foreign Secretary reassure both the House and my constituent that RAF Fairford was used exclusively for defensive strikes against Iran, that no RAF planes or drones have conducted reconnaissance over Palestine or Lebanon and shared that intelligence with Israel, and that the truth here is not being concealed from the British public?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that RAF Fairford is a US base. We were clear at the beginning of this conflict that we would not support the use of the base for offensive action against Iran as part of the conflict. Once Iran started to strike Gulf partners, including their civilian infrastructure—their airports and other assets—and to put lives at risk, including those of British citizens, we provided support for air defences directly. UK assets provided that support and we enabled basing support for US operations. That was the right thing to do to defend our partners who were facing Iranian strikes. There is a difference between the offensive approach and the defensive approach, which is the one we have taken.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, Israel continues to violate international law with total impunity. I welcome the Secretary of State’s actions against individuals and networks that enable settler violence, but it just does not go far enough. Why will she not at least commit to banning all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and introduce a comprehensive sanctions regime against the Israeli state?
Yvette Cooper
We have strongly distinguished between the illegal settlements and the Israeli state. We also distinguish between the illegal settlements and businesses in all parts of Israel that have long traded across the world, including with the UK, many of whose owners or investors may strongly disagree with things that the Israeli Government are doing or with illegal settlements and settler violence. It is important to separate out Israeli businesses more widely and the specific issue of illegal settlements.
We do not want to see trade with illegal settlements, we do not want to see UK businesses operating within those settlements, either in financial or economic activity, and we certainly do not want to see them supporting construction contracts for the E1 settlement. That is why we have introduced this new wave of sanctions to target the organisations that have been most strongly linked with facilitating and funding those most linked with settler violence.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is grave and that renewed international energy and focus are required if the level of humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza is to be increased with the urgency the situation demands. With that in mind, will she ensure that increased international co-operation and immediate action to ameliorate the situation will be a key priority of the discussions held in Paris later this week?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, that will be a priority for discussions in Paris. The other thing that the Paris event will seek to do is to bring together Palestinian and Israeli civil society groups. As well as trying to reinvigorate the international coalition and energy behind the peace process for not just Gaza but the west bank, the event seeks to bring together civil society groups from Palestine and Israel to stand together for peace.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Though I appreciate that the ban on trade with illegal settlements may be complicated, it is our moral duty to overcome those complications. Conflict creates very serious issues for some of the poorest countries in the world, which cannot withstand the energy and food crisis shocks, and that creates a risk of further conflict and instability—for example, in sub-Saharan Africa. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken with international allies to address those risks, and might she give us an update on the situation in Sudan, where further atrocities are taking place?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that the closure of the strait of Hormuz is having an impact on oil across the world, as it is on fertiliser, including for sub-Saharan Africa. Some states, according to their level of dependency on different supply chains, are particularly heavily affected by that impact on the global economy. We are closely monitoring which countries are affected and directly raising that with the World Bank and other organisations, while making sure that our official development assistance and aid support reflect those issues. On Sudan, we continue to work closely with the international community and we will be having further such meetings shortly, because this continues to be the most horrendous humanitarian crisis and we need that international energy around Sudan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary will know that the ongoing violence continues to take a horrific toll on civilian populations across Lebanon, Gaza and the wider region. Given our legal obligations under the strategic export licensing criteria, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of UK-supplied components being used in violations of international humanitarian law? Will the Government publish those assessments so that they can be properly scrutinised? Will they now take the decisive step to halt all arms exports to Israel?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we make ongoing assessments. We take immensely seriously our obligations relating to strategic export licences under international humanitarian law and ensure that assessments continue to be made. That is one of the reasons we suspended arms exports to Israel in a series of areas soon after this Government came to office—it was exactly because we took that so seriously—and, as I understand it, why we also published legal advice at that time.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I add my voice to others across the House in urging for stronger actions on Israeli war crimes. Fertiliser is a key issue, not just in my constituency but across the world. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers who are deeply concerned that not only do they feel the pinch already, but that that will shortly pass on to UK consumers and drive up the already spiking cost of living. Will the Foreign Secretary outline some steps that she is taking to make sure that more fertiliser is available in our part of the world and, indeed, across the world to combat global hunger?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he is right to champion the farmers in his constituency. The closure of the strait of Hormuz risks impacting on the cost of living right across the globe. That is why we have made the reopening of the strait central to what needs to be achieved in a peace settlement. It has to be full and unconditional, and not just a partial reopening, because it is so important to get the fertiliser, the oil and the different commodities flowing again. We must also look further at our economic security and supply chains more widely, because we should be seeking, internationally, to avoid choke points where any country can hold the global economy to ransom in the way that Iran has done.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am sorry to say that the sanctions and actions announced today will not prevent Israel from continuing to act with impunity and committing one war crime after another. On Friday, I received a reply from the Foreign Office to a letter that I sent three months ago on the UN commission of inquiry findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. In that reply, the Minister for the Middle East stated:
“as soon as this Government took office, we ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which has continued to conclude that Israel is not committed to upholding IHL in Gaza.”
Why, in the light of that assessment, are the Government still limited to giving statements of concern, rather than taking meaningful actions to prevent further atrocities and breaches of IHL?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of that review, which was commissioned immediately after we came into government, that we suspended a whole series of arms export licences. We took practical steps, just as we have done in providing additional aid and support, and in introducing whole swathes of sanctions—this is our fourth round in this area—and we will continue to do that.
To get overall impact, however, we need an international coalition; no one country can do it alone. The impact that was felt in the autumn to achieve the 20-point plan for Gaza took countries from around the world coming together. That is what we need again, and that is why we need to drive this through international diplomacy and activity, as well as through the actions that we in the UK take.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need to help the Palestinian Authority is the opposite of the approach that she has rightly outlined for British companies, individuals, organisations and charities regarding the illegal west bank settlements? By that I mean that we need companies, individuals and others to be encouraged, and indeed empowered, to help the Palestinian Authority with rebuilding, economic development, governance and more. As she has said, that would “reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine” which would be in support of the global alliance to implement a two-state solution, which I hope she can reiterate that we support.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points, because in order to have a state of Palestine, we need to support the Palestinian Authority to become a functioning and effective state. That includes funding, but it also includes pressure, because the Israeli Government are currently withholding Palestinian money, and that money needs to be restored to it. We need to be able to support the Palestinian economy as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the update on the new and co-ordinated sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary today. According to the United Nations, its figures show that violent incidents perpetrated by illegal Israeli settlers in the west bank reached an all-time high last autumn—for the shameful reason that the attacks reach their peak when there are fresh olive harvests to destroy. This behaviour is state sanctioned, and settlements are state sponsored and state financed. This Government accept that the settlements are illegal, so why have they chosen not to end trade with illegal Israeli settlements once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of our deep concern about the illegal settlements, and also about the escalating scale of settler violence, that we have introduced the new sanctions, which go after the organisations that have the greatest impact in terms of funding and organisational support for the settlers, where we have seen these serious problems. We have also strengthened the issues around business, because no businesses from the UK should be trading or engaging in economic activity in these illegal settlements. We will continue to work with international allies on what more can be done, both around illegal settlements and around the wider peace process. I say again that we will make progress on this wider peace process only in conjunction with our allies and partners.
Bill Presented
National Security (State Threats)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Jo Stevens, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of bodies involved in foreign power threat activity; to create offences relating to bodies designated under this Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Oral Answers to Questions
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Mr Speaker, may I join the tributes to Her late Majesty the Queen?
The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that over 2,500 Palestinians have been displaced by evictions, settler violence and demolitions this year alone. The UK is clear that Israeli illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Ruth Cadbury
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a full ban on all forms of trade and economic activity with those illegal settlements it long overdue, so that UK businesses, the public sector and charities are prevented from having any dealings with them?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that goods from illegal settlements are already not entitled to tariff preferences under the UK-Israel agreement, or the agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We are deeply concerned about reports of the decision to establish 34 new settlements, which would be added to the 68 settlements established since the Netanyahu Government came to office, and by the E1 settlement proposals, which are completely wrong. We will continue to work with our partners internationally to keep pressure on the Israeli Government on this issue.
Jeff Smith
Tariff preferences are one thing, and I know we cannot solve this problem alone, but we must do whatever we can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to stop. The Israeli Government are using the fog of war in Iran to make a Palestinian state unviable by an expansion of these settlements. What more do they have to do before we take action and ban settlement trade?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related to settler violence in the west bank, including measures against Cabinet members in their personal capacity, for their incitement of violence. We continue to look at the issue of sanctions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is fundamentally about the two-state solution, and it also risks undermining the Gaza peace process. The UK recognised the state of Palestine in September directly to support the viability of a two-state solution, and that continues to be at risk.
Mr Foster
After the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of in excess of 72,000 Palestinians, it is evident that the Israeli Government have turned their attention not only to Lebanon and Iran, but also to the west bank. In the west bank there are now daily reports of extreme violence and death, as well as the forceful eviction of Palestinians and the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. That is not only immoral, but yet further evidence of illegal Israeli Government-sponsored activity. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence in the west bank must stop immediately, as must the continued expansion of illegal settlements? Can she assure the House that despite the continuing conflicts in Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan, the Government are very much still focused on Gaza and the west bank?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of settler attacks has reached new heights, and there were more attacks in 2025 than in any year since the United Nations started recording such incidents more than 20 years ago. These attacks are horrendous, and they must stop. I have continued to raise the issue directly with the Israeli Government and our international partners. I also agree that in the end, all the work that is rightly being done to get progress and talks in Lebanon, and to find stability elsewhere in the middle east, will be badly undermined and will topple over if there is not action over the west bank.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Alongside what is happening on the west bank, in Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been forcibly displaced. The Guardian has reported that Israeli strikes on medical facilities in Nabatieh have killed health workers and ambulance crews; it notes that such incidents are becoming increasingly common. The UN is clear that the forced displacement of civilians and the targeting of civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. What concrete measures are the UK Government putting in place to ensure that Israel ceases targeting civilian infrastructure, and stops forcible displacement in Lebanon?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we called for the ceasefire to be extended to Lebanon, and we condemned the escalation of Israeli airstrikes. We have also strongly condemned the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, which must stop. The issue exposed clearly at the beginning of this conflict was that Hezbollah was simply being a proxy for Iran, and is not in any way the representative of the Lebanese people. That is why talks between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government are so important. The ceasefire is also incredibly important, but the huge displacement has devastating humanitarian consequences. That is why the UK is providing additional funding. People must be able to return safely to their homes in Lebanon.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Government have put in place a series of measures that include introducing sanctions against Cabinet members in the Israeli Government. We have taken action around sanctions and arms sales. We have been maintaining continuous international pressure, working with allies, including around the negotiations on Lebanon. We have been pressing strongly for those negotiations, including directly with the Israeli Government, the Lebanese Government and the US Government, who have hosted those talks.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While atrocities are being committed against Palestinians in the west bank every single day, including the killing of hundreds and hundreds of children, it is disgusting to learn that British citizens are being offered Palestinian land, which they can purchase with virtually the same ease with which they do their everyday online shopping. Declassified UK has found that Israeli charity Shivat Zion is helping British citizens to move to illegal settlements. That breaks international law; and, to rub salt in the wound, British taxpayers are implicated, as the charity claims UK gift aid. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will look into the matter urgently and sanction any organisation, charity or otherwise, complicit in Israeli illegal land grabs?
Yvette Cooper
No one should be building illegal settlements on the west bank. It is essential that everyone abides by international law. We would expect any organisation in the UK and people living in the UK to abide by international law. We maintain our position that these settlements are illegal under international law.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The brutal suffering of Palestinians on the west bank remains unchallenged, and the Norwegian Refugee Council has now exposed that depraved sexual violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers is rampant against Palestinian women and girls. That is abhorrent. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what she is doing to take a firm stand against this cruelty, and will she commit to holding Israel to account for its heinous crimes against innocent Palestinians?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has raised with me the Norwegian Refugee Council report, and crimes around violence against women and girls. We have made tackling violence against women and girls, including those in conflict, a priority for the Foreign Office. We will take the matter immensely seriously. It is a crime, and the use of this violence as a weapon of war, which we have seen in conflicts across the world, is horrendous. We will continue to pursue the issue.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated that it is this Government’s stated objective and aim to recognise the Palestinian state, yet there are Members of the Israeli Government who say that it is their policy to expand illegal settlements in order to undermine a viable Palestinian state. Will she take firm action, ban the trade in settlement goods, and look at further sanctions on members of the Israeli Government and Members of the Knesset who promote these illegal policies?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady knows, we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related specifically to the settler violence on the west bank, including sanctions against Cabinet members. She will appreciate that we do not discuss sanctions in advance, but we continue to look at the issue of sanctions, and to take immensely seriously the expansion of settlements. The decision that the UK took in the autumn to recognise the state of Palestine depends on progress with the peace process in Gaza, and on ensuring that the west bank can be a viable part of a Palestinian state.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents have shared with me their concern that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet is committing international war crimes in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, under the cover of the war that he launched with Donald Trump. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, the Government were right to finally recognise the state of Palestine, yet the actions of the Israeli Government on the west bank are explicitly intended to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. I am deeply concerned that what the Foreign Secretary has laid out today is not enough to show the Israeli Government that this Government are serious about prohibiting that. Let me ask again: will the Foreign Secretary do everything in her power to ban all settlement goods from the UK? Will she look again at measures to prohibit all UK individuals, businesses and banks from enabling illegal settlement?
Yvette Cooper
We expect UK organisations, charities, businesses and individuals to abide by international law. We also expect them to recognise that the settlements on the west bank are illegal; in particular, the E1 settlement is blatantly breaking the law. We expect UK organisations to abide by the law. There are already restrictions to prevent goods from illegal settlements benefiting from tariff preferences, and we take immensely seriously engagement with those illegal settlements by UK businesses.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I returned overnight from a series of meetings across five countries in Europe, the middle east and Asia, and I spoke directly with more than a dozen of my Foreign Minister counterparts, as well as joining the 50-country summit hosted by the Prime Minister and President Macron. This is a critical diplomatic moment. The agreed two-week ceasefire runs until Thursday, and we need it to be extended. We need the negotiations to reach a comprehensive conclusion to this conflict, and we need the reopening of the strait with no conditions and no tolls. Our work is to maintain and build the biggest possible consensus around the rapid opening of the strait.
Naz Shah
Following reports that the Israeli military has published a map designating south Lebanese territory as a buffer zone, and given Israel’s refusal to confirm whether displaced Lebanese families will be allowed to return, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific representations the UK Government have made to Israel to ensure that this does not become a de facto annexation? Does she agree that any permanent occupation of Lebanese sovereign territory would not only violate international law, but actively undermine the US-Iran talks being mediated by Pakistan?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is completely right. Lebanese people need to be able to return to their homes. These are their homes, and it is a humanitarian disaster that so many people have been displaced from them. I have raised this issue directly with the Israeli Government, and we have made continued representations and raised this matter in international forums. We have also raised it with the US, which has been hosting the talks between Israel and Lebanon. It is hugely important that those talks progress, the ceasefire is maintained and Lebanese people can return home.
Sarah Edwards
My constituents in Tamworth are already paying the price for the blockade of the strait of Hormuz, with fuel costs soaring. My logistics sector is also facing the brunt of those fuel costs, which ultimately will be passed on to consumers. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s refusal to drag Britain into the United States’ reckless war, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the reopening of the strait and to bring down costs for my constituents and for the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We did not get involved in the start of this conflict, but we will work to bring it to a close and do everything we can to get the strait reopened. It is affecting the cost of living back at home in her constituency, across the country and across the world. No country should be able to hijack international shipping lanes or hold the global economy hostage. We have held repeated summits and meetings on the reopening of the strait, and we will continue to argue across the world for no tolls.
Steve Witherden
While energy giants and Wall Street banks cash in on the war, ordinary people pay the price. In the first month of the US-led war with Iran alone, the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies made more than $30 million an hour in unearned profit. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor on the merits of introducing windfall taxes to directly fund a cost of living support package, making life more affordable for people and businesses across the UK?
Yvette Cooper
The Chancellor will be making a statement later this afternoon, because she has been focusing in particular on the cost of living and the importance of supporting people and businesses across the country during this global crisis. Another concern is that Russia is seeking to benefit from this conflict, which is yet another reason why we need to get the strait open as rapidly as possible.
Mr Dillon
Given President Trump’s latest threats to destroy bridges and power plants—attacks that would be against international law—has the Foreign Secretary made representations to her US counterpart that threatening war crimes is not the way to achieve peace or to open the strait? More importantly, if Trump does start to attack civilian infrastructure, will she withdraw US access to British bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear from the start that UK bases could be used only for defensive operations, not offensive operations. There is currently a ceasefire in place, although it runs only until Thursday and we badly need it to be extended. As part of the G7 discussions, which included the US, we raised the importance of not attacking any civilian infrastructure. That was included in the G7’s agreed communiqué and reflects the importance that we attach to those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of what impact the conflict is having on the horrendous humanitarian situation in Yemen? Given Iran’s continued support for the Houthis, does she believe that in discussions to end the conflict there will be some opportunity to make a positive impact on that conflict?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has met the Yemeni Prime Minister in recent days, to engage with the Yemenis, to express our support and to ensure that they can address humanitarian issues. There is obviously a particular issue with Yemen, where Iranian proxies have been mobilised in the past, and it is important that does not happen now. It is another example of how vulnerable, low-income and conflict-affected countries are the most heavily affected by the restrictions on the Gulf and the strait of Hormuz.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary’s push for consensus is to be welcomed. Hopefully, the strait of Hormuz will be open shortly, which will lead to short and medium-term progress. In the longer term, does the Foreign Secretary agree that a lasting peace in the middle east will be more easily secured if we can take action against neighbouring states and elements within those states that threaten the absolute annihilation of the state of Israel?
Yvette Cooper
Israel’s security needs to be protected, and so does the security of Gulf countries that have been attacked as part of this conflict. We need security right across the region. The hon. Gentleman says that we hope the strait will soon be open. We have proposed that, as an immediate confidence-building measure, the Iranians should agree to the International Maritime Organisation’s proposal to start moving the stranded ships and the stranded seafarers. It could get on with that right now, even while negotiations are continuing. We need to get those ships moving and those seafarers home. That is what the IMO has proposed, and we have been building international support to pursue that as an immediate step.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The difficulty of ships passing through the strait is leading to fears across all sectors and supply chains, including food production, so the price of food is at risk as well as the price of oil. Increasingly offensive and bizarre social media posts by President Trump are bound to be making diplomatic efforts more difficult, and make us worry whether anything he says can be taken seriously. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that all parties are coming to the table in good faith?
Yvette Cooper
I met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in the last few days, and the hon. Lady will know that Pakistan is leading the mediation work as part of this effort. I have also spoken frequently to the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and we have been engaging with a whole series of countries. Over the last few days, I have met more than a dozen Foreign Ministers and counterparts to ensure that everyone is pressing the same messages as part of this process. We need the ceasefire extended and a swift resolution, but we must have the strait opened and we must have no tolls. Proposals for tolls have been circulating, but that would be deeply damaging and would go against the law of the sea.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), was in Beirut at the end of last week, where he pressed those exact points and engaged with the Lebanese Prime Minister. We need an urgent ceasefire, and we need to support the work of the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese Government. That is why we have directly provided £30 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon since the beginning of this crisis. I believe that makes us one of the biggest donors to Lebanon, but we must continue to provide support.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A huge proportion of the global fertiliser market works its way through the strait, which is obviously going to impact on food security and food prices in this country, but it could also cause devastating famines in many countries in Africa and Asia. Research from the University of Minnesota shows that 762,000 people have died as a direct result of US aid cuts since January last year, and some will undoubtedly have died because of our decision to cut our aid budget too. Is this the moment to do the right thing by increasing our spending on international aid and protecting people from the calamity of famine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know from our statement that we have focused our support on fragile and conflict-affected states. We are also working, including with the World Bank, to monitor the states most heavily affected by shortages of fertiliser, and of food and oil supplies, which are having a huge impact.
I just want to correct the point I made about the additional funding we have provided for Lebanon being £30 million from the beginning of the crisis. As I understand it, the figure is £30 million since the beginning of this year and £20 million since the beginning of the crisis. However, Lebanon is one of the countries we have ensured we are protecting by continuing to invest and by providing humanitarian support.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the fact that UK Security Vetting recommended against granting vetting of Peter Mandelson, and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office instead took the decision to grant the vetting. The Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and I should have been told that there was an issue and I am very troubled that we were not. The result is that Parliament was not given all the information it should have been given. As I informed the Select Committee over the weekend, I have commissioned a review of all the information provided and I will write to the Chair further on that shortly.
The permanent under-secretary is no longer in post, and I want to recognise Sir Olly Robbins’ many years of dedicated public service, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. I also want to pay tribute to the FCDO and the incredible staff who work not just here in the UK but across the world promoting UK interests and values at an incredibly unstable time. That is what has made it possible for me to travel through five different countries in the past six days, pursuing international diplomacy. The scale of global insecurity impacting our economy and our national security will rightly continue to be the central focus of the FCDO and this ministerial team.
Naz Shah
As the conflict in the middle east has fundamentally demonstrated, modern warfare has evolved. Ballistic and hypersonic missiles are capable of overwhelming traditional air defence systems, and energy supplies, food security and critical goods are increasingly weaponised as instruments of coercion. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the Foreign Office is taking, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the United Kingdom is prepared for those threats, to protect our people and our country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the changing technology, geopolitics and security threats. We now face very different threats to our country. That is why we are increasing both the defence budget and the Foreign Office’s work around a range of hybrid threats, including cyber and others, and we will need to continue to do so. I suspect that we will need to accelerate that work, too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.
Yvette Cooper
The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.
Priti Patel
Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?
Yvette Cooper
I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
This morning the Foreign Affairs Committee learned that officials in No. 10 put pressure on the FCDO to find a job as ambassador for Matthew Doyle, a close friend of a convicted sex offender. Does the Foreign Secretary see a pattern here? Does she find it incredible that No. 10 told FCDO officials not to tell her predecessor about this proposal? Will she commit to investigating and publishing all records held by the FCDO about this proposal from No. 10? Is she concerned that political decisions by No. 10 about FCDO staffing have grossly eroded trust and morale among her hard-working civil servants?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, I was the Home Secretary at the time that I understand that took place, so I was not involved and do not know the circumstances. I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the Foreign Secretary. As for the case that the hon. Member raised, I can confirm that it would also not have been an appropriate appointment.
Let me respond to the wider issue. As I said in my opening statement, I pay tribute to the phenomenal dedication of the people who work right across the Foreign Office. They work with me every single day at a time of immense global instability, and they are continuing to work with huge dedication on pursuing UK interests and UK values, because that is what makes us stronger at home.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises this issue. In Berlin last week with my German, French, US, EU and African Union co-hosts, we called for an urgent ceasefire, a humanitarian truce and humanitarian access. It is deeply distressing that this conflict is continuing. Participants also pledged over £1 billion to support the humanitarian response, which includes £146 million of UK humanitarian funding this year for Sudan and an increase in the support given to local aid groups. However, it is desperately urgent that we get a ceasefire, because it is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Yvette Cooper
As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we believe that Ministers should have been informed that the UK Security Vetting recommendation was against granting developed vetting to Peter Mandelson. That is significant and important information. It should have been disclosed to the Prime Minister at the time, and it should certainly have been disclosed to me at the time when I was answering specific questions from the Select Committee that were particularly about security concerns and what the response had been to them. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, he spoke to Sir Olly before making the decision.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The most immediate, urgent thing we need to do internationally is get the strait of Hormuz reopened. That is what I have been pursuing in a series of diplomatic meetings over the last few days across five different countries with 12 different Foreign Ministers. On the domestic issue, the Chancellor will be making a statement shortly.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
We discussed this issue directly at the Berlin conference. I agree with the hon. Member. To be honest, I think that the international community has failed the people of Sudan. The war continues in the most horrendous circumstances. We have urged anyone who can to put pressure on the RSF and the SAF, and they must allow humanitarian access to people who desperately need it.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency including trailer manufacturer Indespension are labouring under a mountain of repetitive, costly and unnecessary paperwork because the last Government failed to negotiate a regime for mutual recognition of conformity assessments. What progress has the Foreign Secretary made, with the Paymaster General, in removing the Brexit barriers to trade that are holding back British businesses abroad?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?
Yvette Cooper
I know that my right hon. Friend has been taking evidence on that issue and that she has raised issues around security. We take the issue of security extremely seriously. She will know that there is a police investigation under way, which raises some of those issues. She will appreciate that I do not want to say anything that would cut across that, but I am happy to discuss the matter with her further.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan and the failing international response, will the Foreign Secretary consider further economic measures and sanctions, including against the nationals of the countries that support the belligerents? Will she encourage the Prime Minister to prioritise Sudan in his international engagements so he can show the leadership that she has shown?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are continuing to raise matter this as well. We assess that around a dozen countries are providing different kinds of arms flow support to the warring parties. That is an extremely serious concern and we are raising it with a range of countries. We also continue to look at the issue of sanctions.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a ceasefire in Sudan is a key priority. In the light of the Berlin conference’s shortcomings, can she detail the diplomatic, economic and political levers she is using to bring an end to the violence, particularly with the UK’s allies, including the UAE, with direct stakes in the war?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that as well as discussing this matter intensively at the Berlin conference, I discussed it with the UAE Foreign Minister, whom I met a couple of days ago. I also discussed it with the other members of the Quad—the US, Saudi and Egypt. We are continuing to work not just with the Quad but much more widely to engage all countries in pressure to get to a ceasefire.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?
Yvette Cooper
The House was not given the full information. It is important that it should be given the full information, and I have undertaken to write to the Select Committee ensuring that full, as well as accurate, information is provided.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In the UK, we pride ourselves on allowing people to practise their religion freely. Can the Minister update the House on what he is doing with any new regime in Iran to protect the rights of Christians to worship openly there?
Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong: 1 July to 31 December 2025
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is attached. It covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2025. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and I commend it to the House. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-january-to-june-2025
Attachments can be viewed online at:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/commons/2026-03-26/hcws1483/
[HCWS1483]
Official Development Assistance Programme Allocations 2026 to 2029
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In recent years, the world has been reshaped by global instability. Faced with growing global security threats the Government last year took the decision to increase spending on defence by reducing official development assistance to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. The UK will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
Our commitment to international development is as important as ever—it reflects UK values, supporting those in conflict and extreme poverty, and is also in the UK national interest because in an interconnected world, crises and instability across the world undermine our security and prosperity at home. Over the past year we have taken the time to review our priorities and redefine how we work. We are modernising and improving our approach to development to have the greatest impact abroad and secure the best value for money for taxpayers at home.
The spending review 2025 set the FCDO’s ODA budget from 2026-27 to 2028-29; it will no longer be automatically adjusted for unforeseen changes to the ODA budget. The new cross-Government ODA delivery and impact board chaired by the Minister for Development will ensure all departments work coherently together. This means we have been able to set three years of ODA programme allocations, providing teams with the predictability required to effectively manage the transition to 0.3% of GNI. All future plans are subject to revision as, by its nature, the Department’s work is dynamic. Programme allocations are continually reviewed to respond to changing global needs, including humanitarian crises and other ODA allocation decisions.
In the attachment available online, see table 1: cross-Government ODA programme allocations.
Priority themes
Our priorities remain humanitarian, global health, and climate and nature, underpinned by economic development. We are prioritising support for fragile and conflict-affected areas and linking it to conflict and atrocities prevention. We will ensure that women and girls are central to development decisions.
The UK plans to spend approximately £1.4 billion each year in the places with the highest humanitarian need over the next three years, in addition to our planned commitment to the UN and Red Cross for humanitarian work. Over the next three years, the UK will spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance. We will balance support between mitigation and adaptation and maintain a focus on nature. By using different instruments and levers, we will aim to generate an additional £6.7 billion of UK backed climate and nature positive investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance.
We have fully protected central programme spending on violence against women and girls, women peace and security, and preventing sexual violence in conflict. We are strengthening our approach to mainstreaming gender equality across the FCDO’s work and have raised our ambitions, committing that at least 90% of FCDO bilateral ODA programmes will contribute to gender equality by 2030.
Multilateral ODA programming
We are increasing the share of FCDO’s programme ODA which we spend through multilateral organisations, targeted strategically towards the most effective multilateral organisations. We have already confirmed we will honour our pledge to IDA’s 21st replenishment, an increase of 40% from our previous contribution. We are pledging £650 million to the African Development Fund, as the largest donor to a record replenishment of $11 billion.
We have already pledged £1.25 billion to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We also announced in November our commitment of £850 million from 2026 to 2028 for the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We will continue to support the World Health Organisation and UN Population Fund in delivering vital support on reproductive and maternal health. To prioritise the most effective investments, we plan to end our funding to the pandemic fund, the global polio eradication initiative, and support these objectives through other investments. We will match our current pledge for the 2027 to 2030 period to Education Cannot Wait, delivering an effective humanitarian response to education in crisis settings. In due course, we will set out our multilateral plans on climate and other education multilateral organisations when negotiations are further advanced.
In the attachment available online, see table 2: planned multilateral ODA programming.
Country and regional ODA programming
FCDO bilateral ODA allocations are reducing as a proportion of our ODA budget. We will prioritise our country and regional ODA where humanitarian needs are most acute—to reach those in greatest need and reduce the harm caused by violence and atrocities. The proportion of spending in fragile and conflict-affected states will increase by around 13 percentage points to over 70% of all country and regional spending by 2028-29.
Set within the UK’s 100-year partnership with Ukraine, we remain committed to providing vital humanitarian, development and economic support to Ukraine. We have protected Ukraine’s bilateral ODA allocation at £240 million per year. In addition, FCDO will provide $2 billion of loan guarantees through the World Bank to help meet Ukraine’s 2026 financing needs. FCDO has also allocated over £109 million ODA over three years to Ukraine from the integrated security fund and British International Investment has committed £250 million over five years. The UK remains ready to play its part in fully supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s illegal aggression, provides for its population under constant bombardment, and rebuilds its economy and society. The UK will explore financing options to Ukraine to ensure support remains durable and as effective as possible in addressing Ukraine’s most pressing needs.
We are limiting our reduction of bilateral aid to humanitarian crises across the middle east. We are fully protecting our allocation to Palestine. The UK is committed to providing lifesaving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, supporting Gaza’s early recovery, and strengthen Palestinian institutions, governance, accountability, and civil society, including reform of the Palestinian Authority. In Lebanon, we will protect funding at current levels during the ongoing crisis. The UK’s humanitarian programme in Lebanon provides lifesaving support, while strengthening national disaster preparedness and shock responsive social protection systems, in turn reducing the drivers of irregular migration.
We are fully protecting our allocation to Sudan. UK ODA is responding to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis alongside making progress towards ending hostilities and laying the foundations for a political process and civilian-led transition, protecting civilians and mitigating regional threats.
In a range of countries, we will transition away from spending high levels of grant ODA, but our ambition and effort will remain high, delivering through modernised partnerships, and making the most of what the whole UK has to offer. We will also make the shift to investment and mutually beneficial partnerships and phase out FCDO bilateral country allocations to G20 countries, except in Turkey where we help to share the burden on account of their hosting of refugees.
This approach means that the proportion of FCDO country and regional ODA allocated to Africa will reduce. However, we are pivoting our multilateral ODA even further towards the African continent including the African Development Bank and the World Bank’s International Development Association, which delivers two-thirds of its financing in Africa. The UK’s new Africa approach recognises that delivering strong partnerships requires looking beyond aid, consistent with our modern international development approach. It is a shift towards modern, equal partnerships based on shared interests—growth, security, climate, and global reform—using the full range of UK tools, not just ODA.
As we rethink and reset our approach, we will shift from donor to investor and providing expertise rather than grants. We will support systems capacity building rather than service delivery and support local solutions. Areas where partnerships are in place, but bilateral funds have been substantially reduced, will have the opportunity to draw on the communities of expertise, central funding and mobilise British International Investment and climate finance.
In the attachment available online see table 3: planned country and regional ODA programme allocations.
Thematic directorates
To support our international development reset, FCDO’s ODA programming managed from headquarters has been restructured to focus on: the delivery of effective multilateral programming and reform of the international development system; programmes that support financial leverage and private capital mobilisation, and the provision of a responsive offer to partners in areas where the UK can add value or broker expertise. Communities of expertise will help our posts bring the most innovative and practical thinking to joint problem solving with their hosts. Financial transactions will fund investment in developing economies.
We will prioritise our ODA-funded research and development where high-quality evidence, science and innovation can deliver the greatest impact for people most in need, and where the UK has a clear strategic role to play. Through the global research and technology development portfolio, we will invest in high potential R&D to tackle shared global challenges, focusing primarily on fragile and conflict affected contexts in Africa and south and west Asia, where poverty, insecurity and climate risks are increasingly concentrated.
In the attachment available online, see table 4: thematic directorates.
Arm’s length bodies, public corporations, private sector investments, subscriptions
In addition to the regional and thematic directorate programming set out above, the FCDO delivers through arm’s length bodies such as the British Council, public corporations such as the BBC World Service and through the UK’s development finance institution, British International Investment, which will deliver on the UK’s shift from donor to investor.
This Government will increase ODA and non-ODA funding for the BBC World Service, providing an additional £33 million in total across the spending review period, or £11 million per year for the next three years. That means this Government have increased its contribution to BBC World Service funding by 42% since coming to power, showing how highly we value it. This Government are also providing a non-ODA uplift of £40 million across the spending review period to the British Council. This supports our objective of a financially sustainable British Council for the long-term.
In the attachment available online, see table 5: arm’s length bodies, private sector investments, subscriptions.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-19/HCWS1425/
[HCWS1425]
International Development
Yvette Cooper Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Alongside the written ministerial statement published this morning, I want to update the House on the Government’s revised approach to international development and official development assistance allocations. National security is the first duty of Government, and this country faces the most serious security situation for a generation. For too long under previous Governments our defence investment was cut back, so last year this Government took the necessary decision to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—the importance of that a decision has been demonstrated again in recent weeks as UK jets fly defensive operations in the middle east while our carrier strike group has been preparing to head to the High North.
In order to fund the additional defence spending, we had to take the hugely difficult decision to reduce our development budget over the next few years, moving to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. That was set out by the Treasury in the spending review last year. Allies such as Germany, France and Sweden have made similar choices. This, for us, is not an ideological step; it is a difficult choice in the face of international threats. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed that it is our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.
Our country has a strong, long history of leading on international development across the world. Let me be clear that our commitment to international development remains a central part of our foreign policy and a reflection of both our values and our national interest. It is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger and to support those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate change.
We know that preventing conflict, instability and crisis, displacement and migration, as well as supporting security, economic development, growth and trade, and building global partnerships are all the right things to do. They are also directly in the UK national interest, because as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, instability and crises across the world have a direct impact on us here at home. We have looked hard at what we prioritise and how we work, using the challenge of a reduced budget to find solutions that increase impact, focusing on what secures best value for money for taxpayers while reflecting UK values and the UK national interest, and what will seize new opportunities to bring real change to people’s lives.
First, we will prioritise support for countries and communities facing the worst humanitarian need—those affected by wars and crises. We are committing £1.4 billion a year to tackle human suffering in some of the worst humanitarian crises. Seventy per cent of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict-affected states. That includes fully protecting funds for Ukraine, where people were left in freezing conditions this winter; for Palestine, where civilians continue to suffer immensely in Gaza; and for Sudan, where we see the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. In the light of the current crisis in the middle east, this week I have taken the decision to add Lebanon to the countries whose funding will be fully protected next year.
That does mean that direct bilateral aid funding for other countries will be reduced. We have taken the decision to withdraw from traditional bilateral funding for G20 countries. Countries such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan will remain humanitarian priorities. They will see direct grant reductions, although we will continue to support multilateral programmes that operate in those countries. Countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique will remain development priorities, but their direct grant funding will be significantly reduced. Instead, we will run partnerships for investment that include growth funding through British International Investment and investment to tackle climate change, or lever in direct UK expertise to help them improve capabilities and raise funds directly themselves.
Secondly, we will focus on areas that maximise impact, transform lives and build stability—creating jobs and economic opportunities is the path out of poverty—as well as saving lives and improving health through backing proven global partnerships with which the UK has strong engagement and expertise. For example, we have our partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, where we will be investing over £1.2 billion, which will save the lives of millions of children around the world. We are investing £800 million in the Global Fund, which is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives and avert up to 22 million new cases of HIV, TB and malaria. We are investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises. Over the next three years, the UK will aim to spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance, covering mitigation, adaptation and a focus on nature. Using different instruments and levers, we will aim to deliver an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance. That includes measures to help countries to recover when disasters hit. For example, risk insurance in Jamaica enabled rapid payouts following Hurricane Melissa.
Thirdly, we will support women and girls, and we will invest in line with our values, even where other countries have changed their development approach. I have taken the decision to make support for women and girls not just a priority for development, but a central theme across the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That means work to prevent violence, to champion women’s political and economic participation and to keep children learning even during conflict. We will continue support for things such as help for the survivors of horrific rape and sexual abuse and the kind of dedicated funding I announced recently in Sudan for women who have endured the most appalling and traumatic experiences. At least 90% of our bilateral ODA programmes will have a focus on women and girls by 2030. In an age of disinformation, we will also increase our funding to the BBC World Service by £11 million extra a year.
Fourthly, we will support and help reform international institutions to unlock greater finance for development and the innovation that can go far beyond UK aid and traditional grants. That means backing the most efficient and effective bits of the multilateral system to multiply our investment, because multilateral development banks are the largest source of development and climate finance and can lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each pound that we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and to which we have increased our contribution by 40%. We are also working to double the amount of money that multilateral development banks can provide, listening to partners and backing Africa’s institutions to raise far more money at scale.
Our £650 million contribution to the African Development Fund will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time. We will use our shareholder role and our seat at the table to press for innovation and reform, increasing the voice and representation of low-income and vulnerable countries and pursuing debt relief too, because the global financial system needs to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries and their citizens. The UN must continue to play its indispensable role, but also be more efficient, effective and coherent, so we will refocus on core priorities in line with the UN80 reform initiative.
Fifthly, we are transforming how we work, responding to the clear need for partnership, not paternalism. My noble Friend Baroness Chapman, the International Development Minister, has set out a series of shifts in how we work. We will be an investor, not just a donor. Our partners want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid. Through British International Investment, our finance institution, we are driving growth and innovation and unlocking private capital. That is why I signed a joint agreement in Ethiopia earlier this year for energy transmission projects worth £300 million, enabled by a British International Investment company that delivers UK investment across Africa. That is the kind of partnership that also helps Ethiopians find work at home, rather than considering dangerous international migration overseas.
We are also making reforms to strengthen systems rather than providing services, so that countries can thrive better without aid. For example, our partners want to educate their children themselves, rather than having us try to do it for them, so we are helping to support teacher training and curriculum design. We are moving from providing grants to providing expertise, drawing on the best of British know-how and mobilising UK strengths from inside and outside Government, whether that is from world-class universities, specialists in the tech sector, the City of London, the Met Office or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For example, tax expertise helped Ghana generate an additional £100 million in revenue to invest in education, health and priorities. Finally, we are backing local solutions rather than remote international approaches, because organisations locally know their populations best and are closer to those in need.
Allocating a reduced budget inevitably leads to hard choices and unavoidable trade-offs, so we are focusing aid on the people and places that need it most, and we will still be a major player. We expect to be the fifth-biggest funder in the world. We will still use international leadership, such as our 2027 G20 presidency, to shape the global agenda for development. We will continue to use other policies and levers so that lower income countries benefit from trade and growth. We will tackle flows of illicit finance and dirty money, which harm developing countries most and fuel crime on everyone’s streets.
This modernised approach to international development and our allocation of ODA reflect our values and our interests, because our driving force has been and continues to be working for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet. We are clear that prosperity and stability in lower-income countries matters for outcomes here at home, whether that is the cost of living, the security of our borders, the resilience of our economy and upholding our UK values across the world. We are also clear that the UK’s sustained commitment to international development is about delivering both at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded.
We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test.
The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development?
The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK?
I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale?
Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller?
The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that?
Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed?
The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners?
There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion.
This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady obviously has a set of questions, but it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation we are in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010, who failed to respond to the end of the post-cold war dividend, and who left our overall public finances in, frankly, a perilous state by the time we reached the 2024 election. That situation left us with difficult decisions and choices to make. We are having to reverse some of the cuts they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending, and we are having to make difficult decisions to fund that.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions on particular areas, but I gently point out that she said nothing to explain what her approach would be under the Conservative party’s policy to reduce development spending to 0.1% of GNI—a two-thirds reduction in the funding we are setting out. There was no explanation of whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, vaccines or global health support.
I say to the House that we are honouring our commitments, such as those to the World Bank’s International Development Association programme. The ICAI will continue, and we are increasing funding for the British Council, but that will come from outside ODA funding. That will come from additional funding, because we recognise the hugely important role that the British Council plays across the world.
The new approach we are taking to support investment and to shift from donor to investor was encapsulated in the “new Approach to Africa”, published by my noble Friend Baroness Chapman before Christmas. That set out the equal partnership and respect that underpin the new framework for our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries.
On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are providing support that helps refugees in places like Chad, because we know that providing that support in region also prevents people from making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs. There are areas where we are reducing direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but we are working to increase investment in those areas through things like the World Bank and other programmes. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need and continue to champion international development.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly.
This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate.
I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences.
I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs.
Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity.
Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially?
I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for the points she has made and for being such a strong champion for international development and its wider purposes. I also thank her for the extensive work and scrutiny that her Committee does in this area.
My hon. Friend mentioned the interaction between development work and security across the world, and I agree with her that those issues are strongly linked. We have decided to prioritise some fragile and conflict-affected countries exactly because those development and security issues are so strongly interlinked. Our purpose is to better link the direct aid we provide with conflict and atrocity prevention.
We are linking those policy approaches in, for example, Sudan. We are fully protecting the funding for Sudan because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but we are linking that to much stronger policy interventions, including for the women and girls facing such crises, and the work to support a ceasefire. The honest truth is that, if we could achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, that would have more impact than any humanitarian aid funding we can provide because, frankly, the humanitarian funding too often cannot get in because of the conflict. We need to join up strongly those policies with aid support.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the equalities impact assessment, which is being published today. Our intention had been to publish it by this point, but I understand it is being uploaded at the moment. I will be giving evidence to her Committee, but I can tell her that we looked at earlier assessments and adapted our decision making on the basis of that analysis to ensure that we are, for example, doing more to support women and girls and taking account of equalities issues.
I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues are interlinked, which is why they must continue to be linked as part of our foreign policy. We have to both defend our security and support international development, because those things are fundamentally linked: this is about both our values and our national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I start by asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain’s commitments overseas is being announced on a Thursday, when most MPs are not here? Is it perhaps because the Government are ashamed of these cuts and want them to slip out unnoticed?
Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour Government cut the foreign aid Budget more deeply than Donald Trump or the last Conservative Government. This shameful moment is not only a moral catastrophe, but strategically illiterate. The cuts to the bilateral aid budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain’s long-term interests, to our influence and our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest, and to growth in new markets, leaving a vacuum for Russia and China to fill.
The Foreign Secretary makes great play of defence, but when the world is on fire we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and will therefore need more defence spend down the line. If she does not believe me, she may like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax.
Does the Foreign Secretary not see the contradiction between her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet and these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership that previous Labour Governments and the coalition Government showed to the poorest in the world? Where has the Government’s full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour party’s values, where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? When and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI target enshrined in law by the coalition Government?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I gently remind the Front-Bench spokesperson that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition that cut the UK’s defence budget by £12 billion. She wants a more independent defence policy, but she has no serious plans to pay for it and she has never confronted the difficult choices that responsible Governments must take. On the Thursday issue, it is a working day in Parliament and she ought to take it seriously.
As a result of all these changes, we expect to be the fifth largest funder of international development, which is a sign of how seriously we take it. Many of the reforms that we are leading are driving greater impact of decisions and policies for other areas and countries to follow. Through more partnerships, with a greater focus on investment, we are increasing capabilities in and strengthening countries across the world. We are increasing our work on conflict prevention at a time when conflict and atrocities have escalated across the world. We are making a substantial, multibillion-pound investment in climate and nature, along with international investment. Prioritising reforms such as those to the World Bank will allow it to substantially increase its investment in some of the lowest-income countries in the world by multiple billions of pounds, which will help improve development, jobs and opportunities. We are also working in partnerships with countries.
There are difficult choices to be made, but a responsible Government cannot shy away from those difficult choices, and that is why we are supporting and championing international development alongside increasing investment in defence.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As a former shadow International Development Minister, I know that one issue our nation has not grappled with is that 90% of the usurious levels of debt repayments for the poorest nations across our planet are governed by English law through the City of London. We could raise millions out of poverty without spending a penny, by introducing a debt justice law as called for by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and other agencies. Has the Foreign Secretary given that any consideration?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that the UK—certainly under previous Labour Governments—has a strong history of looking at debt relief, which was championed by Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Prime Minister. I recognise the strong work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and in championing these arguments. We are pursuing further reforms to debt relief, which is an important issue because countries should not be held back economically by unacceptable debt repayments that make them more fragile and end up in a vicious cycle. We are looking at further reforms in that area.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision that the UK will once again co-chair the global Media Freedom Coalition, but will she match that with financial support for independent media organisations and journalists in the growing number of countries where media freedom is under attack and US support has largely been withdrawn?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and we do champion media freedom worldwide. That is why we have become a co-chair of that organisation, and the partnerships in different countries can look at these issues. It is also why we are increasing the funding for the BBC World Service. In Iran, for example, the BBC Persian service has been crucial to providing information for communities across the country. It has also proved vital in other areas as an independent voice that can counter misinformation and maintain the open debate and freedoms he mentions.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is aware of the impact of humanitarian aid and how it saves lives in the midst of the most horrific situations that humans experience on this earth. She will also be aware of the vital role that UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, play in co-ordinating humanitarian actors in the midst of these crises. Will she set out the impact of these changes on humanitarian aid and on UN agencies? May I also say that her recognition of and focus on women and girls really matters, and many of us strongly support that?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done over many years, and continues to do, on development and support for those in conflict and crisis who face the greatest poverty and suffering. She is right to highlight the importance of the UN and, more broadly, multilateral aid institutions. There are institutions that need to be reformed to be made more focused and efficient, but we also need to continue to support those multilateral institutions, because that is what allows us to multiply the effect of any investment we put in. That international architecture can go far further than any one country alone, which is why we have been working to protect funding for some international and UN agencies. There are reductions in many different areas, but we have still sought to keep that focus on international institutions, where other countries have chosen not to and have pulled out.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I support prioritising hard power over soft power to protect our national security. In her statement, the Secretary of State drew a direct link between additional defence spending and reducing the development budget, but that was the exact opposite of the position put forward by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. In Hansard, on 13 July 2021, when the previous Government were reducing aid from 0.7%, he made the exact opposite case, saying that reducing overseas aid made us less secure and that we needed to continue with 0.7% to keep us safe. Does she accept that this is yet another example of the Government saying one thing in opposition and doing the exact opposite in office, ignoring the concerns raised by the Chair of the International Development Committee and others about the trade-offs that are quite normal to make in government?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I would gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have had to deal with a defence investment programme that was hollowed out by his party in government. We have had to deal with that, as well as the difficult fiscal circumstances they left us with. It is right to increase defence investment. We have had to take difficult decisions to do so, but those decisions were set out by the Prime Minister over a year ago and then confirmed in the spending review. We are reforming how we do development so that we can maximise and increase the impact of every pound we spend. We are choosing not to do what the right hon. Gentleman’s party is proposing, which is to reduce international development to 0.1%. That would damage important programmes that we need for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this development reset. I support the Government’s decision to invest in our country’s security now and our ambition to support development more in future. On Yemen, given the conflict and the overall fragility in the region, how do the Government ensure that UK aid spent there does not fall into the wrong hands?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for raising Yemen. This is a complex situation. We know there is immense humanitarian need, but there are also malign actors and huge risks around security, as well as that humanitarian crisis. That is why we have been working to ensure there are sufficient safeguards, but also working closely with international organisations and agencies in Yemen. It is important that we ensure that the investment we put in gets to those who need it most.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Yesterday, I and my colleagues on the International Development Committee met staff from Action Against Hunger, who had just returned from Lebanon, to hear about the horrors they have seen on the ground there. I am grateful for the added support that has been talked about, but when we and the people of our country see, in real time on our phones and our TV sets, a world on fire in Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Palestine, and across the Gulf and elsewhere, it is surely madness to cut our aid budget—our soft power of hope and help—at this time of conflict and climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we would gain respect by doing the right thing and restoring the 0.7% now, which would be worth its weight in gold not just for the people of those troubled places but for ourselves in the months, years and decades ahead?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member rightly mentions Lebanon, where as we speak there is a huge humanitarian crisis. That is why in the past two weeks we announced an additional £15 million this year, particularly for Lebanon but also for some of the nearby areas, to provide urgent additional humanitarian and crisis support this year. It is why we have added Lebanon to the list of countries—alongside Sudan and Palestine, which he also raised—where we are protecting the funding next year as well, because this is so important. He talked about the scale of conflict. It is also why it is right that we target the aid we spend—the grant funding—on those areas that are in the greatest crisis and conflict, but also for other countries where they have Governments that we can work with. For example, we can help them to raise more taxes of their own, as we are doing in Ghana, or work with British International Investment, where we can put investment in growing their economy, which also helps them to raise revenue. We take different approaches for different countries in different circumstances. The aim is still the same: to provide support for people and their lives and the long-term economic development they need, but it does have to be done in different ways in different countries.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Over 220 million children worldwide are not in education. The UN sustainable development goal 4 is unlikely to be met by 2030. What investment is the UK making to support global efforts to help those children?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend raising the issue of education. There is a particular issue with girls not being in education. It is also an issue in conflict areas, such as Sudan or Ukraine, where children’s education has been held back. That is why we are continuing the funding for Education Cannot Wait, because it provides the crucial funding in conflict zones and crises, particularly for refugee families in need of support. In other areas, we think the crucial need is to work with those Governments. In some countries we need to work in partnership with the Government concerned, because there are schools, there is provision and there are services, but for different local policy reasons too many people, particularly girls, are excluded. We want to work both internationally and bilaterally to support education.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about aid match and how we can ensure that we help to use UK Government funding to lever in additional donations and support from huge numbers of people across the country, including through philanthropy. There is a strong commitment to that support. We will continue to have aid match agreements and arrangements in different areas, just as we did on Palestine over the Christmas period. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I recognise how difficult today’s statement is—it is not a position that any Labour Government would ever want to be in. I welcome the commitment from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to return to 0.7% as quickly as possible. I particularly welcome the protection and focus on women and girls, and on LGBT activity where other countries are withdrawing. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for aid match, will she continue to work with me to look at areas of expansion and ensure that generous people across the country have an opportunity to support and double UK efforts, particularly in fragile and conflict states, and on women and girls, and LGBT issues, where we are continuing the funding?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s considerable work on the aid match programmes and on how we mobilise that support from communities across the country. She is right to highlight that there are particular issues, including in some of the most serious conflicts and humanitarian crises. That includes areas affected by the climate crisis. After Hurricane Melissa, for example, there was huge backing from communities across the country wanting to support aid for Jamaica. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and others who want to support aid match programmes, including those for women and girls.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The UK was once regarded as a world leader in international development, yet today UK aid cuts are the steepest, deepest and most brutal of any G7 country—astonishingly, they are going further and faster in withdrawing support from the world’s most vulnerable people than even Donald Trump’s US Administration. It is utterly shameful. We are not hearing today how deep and where specifically those cuts are, but we know that they will deny children education and prevent access to lifesaving medicine, while also hitting those who live in extreme poverty hardest. In short, they are death-sentence cuts. With no separate Department now, or even an elected international development Minister for us to scrutinise and ask these detailed questions, how can the Secretary of State expect anyone to seriously believe that this Government remain committed to international development in an era of acute global instability?
Yvette Cooper
I have set out very strongly the priority that we are giving to the countries affected the worst by conflict. In fact, the most extreme poverty is now in those countries affected by conflict. For example, there is substantial risk of famine in some areas of Sudan as a result of the ongoing conflict and crisis there. We have to combine providing and maintaining the investment to support Sudan with working to deliver humanitarian corridors to enable UN organisations to get into the country and pursue a desperately needed humanitarian truce. Those things are all linked.
There are important but difficult decisions that have to be made. I know that some people want to walk away from development altogether—and some people want to walk away from defence altogether. This Government are clear that we need to champion international development and increase support for defence together.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and particularly welcome the increase in funding for the BBC World Service, which is so crucial in delivering accurate and trusted journalism in this age of misinformation and disinformation. I also welcome the prioritisation of countries affected by war and crisis, particularly Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. Will she confirm that the support for Ukraine will cover the tracing, rescue, return and rehabilitation of the 19,951 Ukrainian children who have been forcibly deported by Russia?
Yvette Cooper
I can confirm that we are increasing the investment for the BBC World Service by £11 million. That comes on top of the increase that we have already made this year to support the World Service because we recognise the vital role it plays. I can confirm that in Ukraine we will continue to back efforts to support the lost and kidnapped children, and their families, who have been through horrendous experiences, and some of whom I have met when visiting Kyiv. I also pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that she has been championing this issue relentlessly, year after year, and has been recognised not just by this Government but by the Government of Ukraine. I thank her.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the continued commitment to combating terrible diseases such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, but the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned polio. After many years of investment, we have almost got to the point of eradicating the disease. If that programme ceases, the risk is that polio will come back in a big way. In areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan the disease still seems to be rampant, and they are involved in a conflict, as she will know. Will she confirm that funding for the programme will continue, so that we can eradicate polio once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for global health and the impact of the commitment. However, we are not continuing the direct funding around polio. That is a difficult decision. What we are doing is insisting that polio is covered as part of the Gavi funding. We are funding more than £1.2 billion in investment in Gavi and the vaccines programme, and their work is now expanding into polio. Given the multiplicity of different programmes in some of those areas, we think the important thing is not to have overlapping programmes but to focus, particularly through Gavi and the Global Fund, on vaccines and on eradicating those diseases.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Beyond aid, our party has a proud history in this area, from debt relief to immunisation finance and leveraging capital investment in programmes such as the World Bank’s International Development Association fund. Will the Secretary of State give us an idea of how much of a priority that will be for the UK’s G20 presidency? Given that Ukraine now represents one of our biggest humanitarian budgets, what message does she have for my former constituent, Roman Abramovich, who has missed the 90-day deadline to pay the more than £2.5 billion he owes from the sale of Chelsea football club, which could be used for humanitarian needs right now in Ukraine and could alleviate some of those budgetary pressures?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on debt relief and the World Bank’s IDA programme, which we are increasing by 40% because it is such an important programme. I can confirm that those issues will be an important part of our G20 approach and plans for next year. I also strongly welcome what he said about Roman Abramovich and the need to get that money from the sale of Chelsea. It should be going to support families and for humanitarian support across Ukraine. That is where that money should be, not held up by someone’s refusal to follow the obligations that he committed to.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Secretary of State referred to the link between overseas aid and our security. Preventing conflicts, promoting stability and reducing migration is a classic example of when prevention is not only better, but cheaper, than a cure. Does she accept that cutting aid undermines our national security? What assessment has she made of the longer-term consequences for this country of these short-sighted cuts?
Yvette Cooper
We have to both increase our defence spending and champion international development in order to maintain our security here at home. That means focusing in particular on the areas where conflict is greatest. I worry that continued instability in Sudan, for example, allows extremist groups to flourish, which creates regional instability and increases migration. That is why we are continuing to support refugees in the region and in places like Turkey. Again, that is to prevent migration and instability. We are focusing our development funding and our policy measures on a lot of that prevention work. It is also important that we see this as investment and policy measures going hand in hand, and that we do not look at them in isolation.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Later today I am meeting Inclusion International, which supports people with learning disabilities throughout the world. The focus on women and girls that my right hon. Friend referred to is welcome and important, but there is great concern among disability organisations over the impact of widespread cuts to international aid for millions of people—millions of disabled people—affected by conflict. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she and her colleagues in Government will work with international aid organisations so that initiatives providing lifeline support to disabled people, often facing poverty, can continue?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to work with international organisations on this; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), is due to have meetings on disability issues later today. We looked at this issue to ensure that there would not be a disproportionate impact, particularly with regard to equality impact assessments. We recognise that there is a difficult impact from reductions in aid budgets. That is why this has been such a difficult decision to make.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady’s party wants to walk away from NATO, which would actually make our defence more expensive and more difficult, rather than ensuring that we can support both defence and international aid. This Government will still be the fifth largest investor in international development as a result of these changes. It is challenging, but it is also about being able to support both our values and the national interest.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Holy Scripture tells us that we should never walk by on the other side, and I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s statement that she agrees, even if she used other words. She is right to talk about value for money for taxpayers and the values that we hold close as Brits. I particularly welcome the commitment to Gavi. With that in mind, and as we work to make “Global Britain” mean something, will she update the House on the work of the Soft Power Council in recent months? I also urge her to use the Commonwealth to advance the values that she set out in her statement today. Will she meet me to discuss my thoughts on how we can do just that?
Yvette Cooper
The soft power strategy is being worked on with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as we speak. Both the BBC World Service and the British Council—both areas where we are increasing investment, not simply through overseas development but through other budgets—are important parts of soft power.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am proud to have been part of the 2010-15 Government, when Michael Moore and others took us to 0.7% spending for aid. I think my Labour-voting constituents will be utterly stunned to hear the contents of the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. I do not understand the disconnect between this Government and the Blair and Brown Governments, whose aim it was to make poverty history. Could the Foreign Secretary say when she believes her Government will return to 0.7%, as she mentioned earlier?
Yvette Cooper
I would point out to the hon. Lady that the 2010-15 coalition Government cut our defence budget by £12 billion, which is what has placed us in the difficult situation we are in now—at a time when we face huge security threats. We will be the fifth largest funder of international development, exactly because we are continuing to champion it. Having been part of the previous Labour Government—which made priorities of debt relief and tackling global poverty, hunger and hardship—is exactly why I am so clear that we need to continue to champion international development, especially in relation to women’s and girls’ issues, and we will continue to do so.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have alternative plans for funding defence, because the plans being laid out today put Britain and the world at risk. The World Bank says that climate change could drive 200 million people from their homes and the World Health Organisation has said that climate change is the biggest threat to human health. The Government’s own national security assessment on global ecosystems, which they tried to suppress, could not be clearer:
“Ecosystem collapse is highly likely to drive national security risk.”
Why are the Government choosing to ignore the evidence and their own security experts by slashing international climate and nature funding, which protects people at home and abroad?
Yvette Cooper
The investment that I set out in the statement includes £6 billion of climate finance for climate change and nature, and a further £6 billion in UK-backed investment, including more support to bring in private sector investment and extremely innovative approaches to climate finance. We will be able to tackle these issues globally only if we work in partnership and have a strong voice on the international stage. This is about policy and funding operating together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has been given a challenging statement today about issues that we all consider. I very much welcome the prioritisation of women and girls in conflict zones; that is essential. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to ensure funding to stop the radicalisation of young men? Training young men to work and find a fulfilling role is worth the investment to halt the breeding grounds of anger and despair, and to bring hope. Does the Secretary of State agree that we all have a responsibility in this regard? What will she do to help those young men by stopping them being radicalised and turning to violence and, instead, giving them hope?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have discussed with Foreign Ministers across the world the importance of combining opportunities for young people with strong security measures to prevent radicalisation and extremism. That is about security in different regions, but it is also about our security at home.