(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the 75th anniversary of the rebuilding of this Chamber and the tribute to democracy.
I know many people will have concerns for family and friends in Jamaica in the face of Hurricane Melissa, and I will make a further statement on the UK’s response during topical questions.
On Sudan, I strongly condemn the escalating violence in El Fasher and the very grave reports of civilian casualties and suffering. It is estimated that between 200 and 300 civilians are in the city, at grave risk of atrocities, following the advance of the Rapid Support Forces. I have held meetings and discussions, including at the UN General Assembly, and since then with a series of countries including the United Arab Emirates and members of the Quad as we call for a desperately needed ceasefire.
Charlie Maynard
It has been widely reported in the press that the United Arab Emirates is arming the RSF in Sudan. The RSF is one of the two warring factions in Sudan, and it was found by the UN to be responsible for crimes against humanity including murder, torture, enslavement, rape and sexual violence. As per UK Government export data, the UK exported nearly £750 million-worth of arms to the UAE via standard individual export licences between 2019 and 2023. If the UAE is indeed arming the RSF, the UK is breaching its arms export licensing criteria, specifically criteria 1f, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Importantly, those criteria look beyond considering whether UK-exported weapons ultimately reached Sudan, and they instead consider the UK’s international obligations. Given this, what steps have the UK Government taken to verify whether the UAE is arming the RSF—
Charlie Maynard
My apologies, Mr Speaker. Will the UK cease all arms shipments to the UAE until it is proven that the UAE is not arming the RSF?
Let me make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question. First, as he will know, the UK has extremely strong controls on arms exports, including to prevent any diversion. That remains important, and we will continue to take that immensely seriously.
Secondly, we need all countries with influence in the region to push the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to ensure the protection of civilians. There are real, deep concerns about atrocities in Sudan, including sexual violence and the use of rape as a weapon of war. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new work being done through the Quad countries—the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt—which have condemned the violence and called for an end to external support for the warring parties. We are pressing for the urgent implementation of that work.
As penholder at the UN Security Council for both Sudan and the protection of civilians, the UK has a special responsibility following the fall of El Fasher and the appalling reports to which the Foreign Secretary referred. Will she call an emergency session of the Security Council focused on the protection of terrified civilians in Darfur, given recent events? She talked about the Quad. That statement was before the appalling events of the last three days. Will she push every country in the Quad—the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE—to act now to prevent further massacres?
I agree with my right hon. Friend that Sudan, the escalating violence and the humanitarian crisis must be on the agenda for the Security Council. We are pressing for that meeting to take place as soon as possible, and to ensure that the protection of civilians is at its heart. There was already a humanitarian crisis in Sudan, with huge numbers of people at risk of famine even before the escalating violence. I also agree on the urgent need to press all parties to cease the violence and to ensure that humanitarian aid can get through.
The news overnight from El Fasher in Darfur is truly dreadful, with evidence of summary executions and undoubted ethnic cleansing. Given the pivotal role that Britain plays, as set out by the former Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), will the Foreign Secretary urgently review everything that we are doing, in order to prevent El Fasher from becoming another Srebrenica?
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the grave nature of this crisis and the seriousness of the violence taking place in El Fasher. I agree that we need to put on every possible pressure through both the United Nations and directly through the Quad. We need urgent action to get a ceasefire—the humanitarian truce called for by the Quad—as well as humanitarian aid and the crucial protection of civilians in place. He will know that the UK doubled aid for Sudan and has continued to protect that, but the aid is unable to get through as long as this terrible fighting is taking place.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
As we have heard, about a quarter of a million civilians, including 130,000 children, are trapped in the city of El Fasher, following a brutal siege that has lasted 18 months. This is a critical moment amidst the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan. What can the UK Government do, with our allies, to ensure that we get humanitarian exit routes out of El Fasher for those civilians?
I agree with my hon. Friend that getting civilian pathways out of the city to safety are urgently needed. We are urging for a ceasefire to take place. We need all sides to pull back from this escalating and incredibly dangerous violence. We are seeing the scale of atrocities at risk of taking place, but the most immediate and urgent thing is to get a safe way out of the city for civilians.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The ceasefire agreement in Gaza, as a result of President Trump’s peace initiative, is a profound moment of peace and hope, but it needs to hold and to become a lasting peace, after two years of the most horrendous suffering. Our immediate priority is ensuring that unconditional humanitarian aid is flooded into Gaza, where more action is needed, but we are also working with partners to support the implementation of phase 2 of the peace plan, including the disarming of Hamas, the establishment of a Palestinian committee as transitional government, and a pathway to two states living side by side.
Jacob Collier
We are grateful to the United States for its co-ordination. This must not be a temporary peace that fades away. As the Foreign Secretary says, the ceasefire remains fragile, with both sides accused of violations, and fighting on the occupied west bank continues. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the UK will continue to play an active role in supporting the peace plan and holding all parties to their commitments?
My hon. Friend is right. Given the horrendous suffering that we have seen over the last two years, we need to ensure that the ceasefire holds. Part of that involves getting the humanitarian aid into Gaza. We are urging for more crossings to be opened and for restrictions on humanitarian aid to be lifted, and we are working on some of the crucial next steps, in conjunction with the US, Arab states and many other states that have been involved in supporting the ceasefire, including through the disarmament of Hamas and the development of new governance arrangements.
Warinder Juss
Despite the most welcome peace plan, we have already seen breaches in the form of Israeli air strikes, with the restriction of lifesaving supplies entering Gaza. What are we doing to ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid can get through to end the famine swiftly, and that the Israeli leadership is held accountable for violations of international law, so that we can finally see an end to the conflict, with no more innocent Palestinian or Israeli lives being lost?
It is important that all sides hold to the ceasefire and implement all the steps committed to as part of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan. That involves getting the humanitarian aid in place and maintaining the ceasefire. We are working with the US and other countries to support an effective monitoring arrangement so that there can be a proper process in place to ensure that all sides hold to the ceasefire and keep moving forward.
Over two weeks into the ceasefire in Gaza, Israeli forces are still killing Palestinians. Many are being shot at as they attempt to return to their homes near a yellow line marked by Israel—a line that Israeli media are increasingly calling a new border. What will the Government do to ensure that this supposedly temporary yellow line does not become a permanent border and effectively cut Gaza in half?
We have been clear that not only can we not divide Gaza, but that this first phase has to be part of the journey to a two-state solution that includes Gaza, east Jerusalem and the west bank. That is the only way we will get a just and lasting peace. Transition arrangements are set out as part of the 20-point plan, but it is really crucial that we not only maintain the original ceasefire agreement—the first phase—but that we keep making progress on the rest of the points in the 20-point plan and the second phase.
Thankfully, the living hostages have been returned to receive medical attention and go back to their families, but, very sadly, the bodies of the deceased hostages have not all been returned. That is a key element in this ceasefire treaty. What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that Israel is supported—and, if necessary, that the Palestinians are supported—to identify the bodies of the deceased hostages and that those bodies are returned, so that there can be closure for the families?
The hon. Member makes an immensely important point. We will all have seen the incredibly moving scenes of hostages returning after the most horrendous captivity, and being returned to their families, but there are those who have lost loved ones—those whose loved ones were taken in that barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October—and are still waiting to have their remains returned. I have spoken to families whose loved ones were lost and who have had the remains returned, but I know how difficult this is and that people need to be able to grieve and pay tribute to their loved ones. We are continuing to press for all the hostage remains to be released. We have also offered support—for example, demining capabilities, where there are concerns about ordnance that might prevent the recovery of remains.
How will the United Kingdom help to ensure that the Gaza peace plan includes measures to restore access to clean and plentiful water? The main source of fresh water in Gaza is the coastal aquifer, which is contaminated by sea water, sewage and chemicals. Up to 97% of Gaza’s tap water is unfit for human consumption. Surely the Foreign Secretary agrees that there can be no just peace amidst thirst and squalor.
The hon. Member is right to highlight water as a crucial humanitarian aid and support. I have spoken to Tom Fletcher, who is co-ordinating much of the UN support, and to the Egyptian and Israeli Foreign Ministers about the importance of ensuring that the crossings are open so that water can be provided and critical infrastructure rebuilt. That will require financing, and my hon. Friend the Middle East Minister has already been involved in looking at ways in which we can finance reconstruction for the long term.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her responses. The peace plan can succeed only if Hamas are not part of it. Hamas need to return the dead hostages to the families, and they need to be disarmed. We also need to ensure that they are not carrying out summary executions of fellow Gazans, as they are currently doing. If we are going to have a peace plan that lasts, Hamas need to be removed from the situation—we can then have peace.
The hon. Member will know that I have always described Hamas as a barbaric terrorist organisation, and that remains the case. Crucially, we have seen the Arab League condemn and reject Hamas, and join us and other countries from across the world in being clear that Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza or of Palestine. The UK has particularly been offering support on the decommissioning of weapons and the disarming of Hamas—a crucial part of the peace process—so that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and security.
As the Foreign Secretary knows, Hamas continue to terrorise the people of Gaza, carrying out summary executions and depriving people of aid. Terrorist tunnels and their infrastructure remain in place, so what role is the Foreign Secretary playing in negotiations and dialogue about the elimination of Hamas? What is the Government’s view on how the international stabilisation force will operate, and will the UK be playing a role in the board of peace alongside her former leader and friend, Tony Blair?
The shadow Foreign Secretary is right to highlight the importance of the disarmament and decommissioning of Hamas. That needs to involve the tunnels as well as weapons and the whole infrastructure of terror that was built up over many years. That is why the UK has been proposing different ways in which we can help in the process of decommissioning and disarming Hamas, using expertise that we have built up over very many years. That will be a central part of maintaining this peace process for the sake of a just and lasting peace. The shadow Foreign Secretary will also know that further discussions are under way about what the governance processes need to be for the Palestinian committee and the board of peace that were identified as part of President Trump’s 20-point plan. Those further details are still being negotiated, but we are clear that whatever the arrangements, we will continue to play a crucial role in supporting this peace process.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I echo the Foreign Secretary’s words about Hurricane Melissa, and our shared concern for the people of Jamaica and the British citizens on that island.
At this hopeful but fragile moment for Gaza, all sides must fulfil their ceasefire obligations. That includes Hamas, which must return the remaining hostages’ bodies, and Israel, which must reopen all aid routes into the strip. We must also preserve the conditions for a two-state solution; this Gaza peace plan is not sufficient to deliver a lasting peace between two viable and secure states. Last week, the Knesset voted in favour of annexing the west bank—a move that would undermine Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The strong criticism from US Secretary of State Rubio was notable and welcome, so will the Foreign Secretary work with the American Administration to bring forward a UN Security Council resolution that unreservedly condemns that vote and reaffirms the illegality of seizing territory by force?
As I hope I have been clear, the future of Palestine needs to include the west bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza. We have always strongly condemned any proposals to annex the west bank, as well as illegal settlements in the west bank, and it is significant that not only Secretary of State Rubio but President Trump and Vice-President Vance have made clear their condemnation of the proposals for the annexation of the west bank. In order to have security and peace for Israelis alongside security and peace for Palestinians, we ultimately need to work towards that two-state solution—two states living side by side.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
On Friday, I welcomed President Zelensky and the coalition of the willing to a meeting at the Foreign Office chaired by the Prime Minister, to demonstrate our continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Since I set out in this House new, stronger sanctions against Russia’s two largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, I am pleased to say that the US has followed suit, and the EU has also introduced further sanctions. We need to tighten the economic vice on Russia in order to bring Putin to the table and get a pathway to peace.
Patrick Hurley
I welcome the UK’s leadership on the issue of Russian sovereign assets. What further conversations is the Foreign Secretary having with her international counterparts to accelerate that work and ensure that Russia pays for its illegal war?
The issue of Russian sovereign assets is an extremely important one. Both I and the Chancellor have had many discussions with our counterparts, particularly in Europe but also through the G7. We want to be able to mobilise those sovereign assets in order to support Ukraine. The EU has set out proposals for reparation loans, which we think are the sensible way forward, because fundamentally, Russia needs to pay for the damage it is doing to Ukraine.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Russian frozen assets. She will possibly agree with me that the US is an increasingly unreliable partner for Ukraine. Can she tell me what discussions she has had with European counterparts about securing Ukrainians’ long-range missiles with European partners so that they can better defend themselves?
This issue was discussed as part of the coalition of the willing, where NATO was present, as well as many countries from Europe and across the world. Those discussions were about continued military support to Ukraine, as well as this crucial economic pressure. The US package of sanctions that has now been announced, which is similar to the package that we announced on Rosneft and Lukoil, is extremely important, because we need to choke off access to the market for Russian oil and gas.
I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the civilian attacks that we have seen, including the most horrendous attack on a kindergarten in Ukraine. She is right that we need to ensure that these assets are mobilised. Obviously a lot of that needs to be done in conjunction with the European Union, where many of the assets are currently held. The EU has had a series of discussions and made significant progress through the work done by the EU Commission. Many of the other individual nations are pressing to go further, and we are working closely with them to do so. We need to get this investment mobilised to support Ukraine.
The US President was willing to meet the Russian President in Budapest, in spite of the fact that we gave assurances in Budapest in that 1994 memorandum that have since been ignored. Although that meeting will not now go ahead, can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s latest thinking about future security guarantees for Ukraine?
Security guarantees remain an important part of our support for Ukraine. One reason that the coalition of the willing was brought together was to set out what those security guarantees would be. That will continue to be the case, working with the US to do so. The most immediate issue is to ensure sufficient economic pressure, particularly on oil and gas, to bring Putin back to the table. While President Zelensky has said that he is willing to negotiate and support an immediate ceasefire, President Putin is simply escalating the war.
Russia’s war in Ukraine is fuelled by oil export revenues sustained by third-country refineries in India, Turkey and China. They process and re-export Russian crude as refined products, often to sanctioned states. These countries are fuelling Putin’s war chest. Last month, President Trump called on Turkey to halt Russian oil imports. Did the Prime Minister follow President Trump’s approach and demand that his Turkish counterpart stops the Star refinery and Tüpraş from buying Russian oil?
We have these discussions with countries across the world, urging them to support sanctions or to reduce their dependence on Russian oil and gas, which will reduce those imports and help us choke off the supply of Russian oil and gas from the market. That is why we have also begun to sanction designated refineries not just in Russia itself, but across the world.
The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out to Parliament earlier this year the full spectrum of threats posed by China, including espionage, cyber-attacks, transnational repression and support for Russia. We challenge China robustly in relation to all those threats. China is also our third-largest trading partner and a country that we need to work with intensely on international issues such as climate change. We need to challenge China on security and compete and co-operate on economic and global affairs.
In her former role, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Planning Inspectorate raising no objections to the Chinese super-embassy application. She did not mention any concerns about the secret basements—some people describe them as dungeons—on the application, and she raised no objection to the proximity of the application to key data cables in the City of London. In her new role, does she now regret her previous lack of action?
The hon. Member will know that the Government take action to ensure that security measures are in place, and we do so through a series of different routes. He will also know that the planning process is independent, and will follow its course.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
When it comes to the UK’s relations with China, it is not a simple binary choice between national security and growth—national security must always be our non-negotiable red line—but subject to that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that when there are specific sectors where economic engagement with China promotes growth, we should be open to that?
My hon. Friend is right. We already have substantial trade with China, there is also investment from both the United Kingdom and China, and we have always been a trading nation that works and trades with countries across the globe, but as my hon. Friend says, national security must always be the first priority. That is why, wherever there are national security threats, we take them immensely seriously and will always challenge China on them.
Speaking of challenging China, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the recent threats made by the Chinese Government towards Britain over the embassy application, the spy case and Taiwan, and will she tell the House whether there have been any meetings with the Chinese Government, British Ministers, Jonathan Powell and other officials in which they have discussed the now collapsed spy case? Has China at any point requested that the case be dropped, and will she now apologise for backing the embassy application?
The shadow Foreign Secretary has perhaps forgotten the position that her Government have previously taken towards China on a range of issues. We have made it clear that the planning process in the UK is independent and has to involve the normal planning processes, as is appropriate. We also ensure that security measures are always taken immensely seriously, and we have a range of different ways of doing so. As for the China case to which the right hon. Lady has referred, I remain extremely frustrated about the collapse of that case, and my view remains that the kind of activity that was alleged should face the full force of the law. That is why I supported the strengthening and updating of the law in this area, to make prosecutions easier, and it is a shame that the right hon. Lady’s party took so long to do it.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Hurricane Melissa is expected to make landfall in Jamaica shortly. It is potentially the most severe storm ever to hit the country. Sadly, seven people across the region have already reportedly lost their life, and thousands are in shelters as they wait for the storm’s arrival. Many people will be thinking of family and friends in Jamaica and the region.
I spoke with the Jamaican Foreign Minister yesterday to offer the UK’s full support and solidarity. We are prepared to mobilise resources at their request. The FCDO stands ready to help British nationals 24/7. We have set up the crisis centre in the Foreign Office, including with support from the MOD. We are also positioning specialist rapid deployment teams to provide consular assistance to British nationals in the region. Any British nationals who are there should follow our travel advice and the advice of the Jamaican authorities.
We are closely monitoring the hurricane’s path. Melissa is forecast to impact Cuba next, and potentially the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Bahamas. Ministers have spoken with the Governors of the overseas territories in the region, and we hope that these islands are spared significant damage. The UK Government are also preparing to deliver humanitarian assistance to affected areas, with a focus on meeting the immediate needs of those who are most vulnerable. We send the people of Jamaica our support and solidarity today.
James Naish
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that update on Jamaica and the diligence of the FCDO in preparing for events there.
Tomorrow I am hosting Hong Kong Watch in Parliament as it releases its latest report on the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy. The report highlights how Beijing has increasingly sought to dismantle Hong Kong’s autonomy while exploiting the privileges of Hong Kong’s special status. This is increasingly having an impact on business operations in Hong Kong, and is something that is well understood by the Government, but has yet to be fully recognised, including in last week’s FCDO six-monthly report. Will the UK consider additional steps to push back against these violations of China’s international treaty obligations—
Order. Can you help me to help everybody else to get in? In topicals, we have to be short and punchy.
We strongly condemn China’s non-compliance with the joint declaration, as described in the latest published six-monthly report, which details the continued deterioration of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. We have continually pressed China to uphold the rights of Hongkongers; its non-compliance is one of the reasons we remain steadfastly committed to the British national overseas visa route.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham traces its roots back to the barbaric terrorism of al-Qaeda, which caused death and destruction, and harm to our allies. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why her Government have de-proscribed HTS, and does she believe that it is no longer a terrorist threat to the world?
Both of us know from our former role as Home Secretary that the proscription process is very detailed and considered, and it draws on a range of security expertise. That process no longer assesses HTS to be an alias of al-Qaeda, after extensive consideration and a full assessment of the available information. As the right hon. Lady knows, that was the grounds on which it was proscribed. We will ultimately, however, judge them on their actions, not their words, but the new Syrian Government have conveyed their strong commitment to working with the UK.
Does the Foreign Secretary believe that this decision will lead to the destruction of all chemical weapons in Syria? She said that HTS will be judged on its actions. Will she look at putting conditions in place if it does not step up its actions, in the same way that America has done, with the sanctions that were lifted?
The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has raised this issue directly with the Syrian Government, and we continue to raise these security issues with not just Syria but other parties in the region, because the right hon. Member will know the importance of regional Governments working together on the security issues that she raises. This is about the historical terrorism threat we have faced from the region, but also the responsibility on Governments to maintain stability in Syria, and the impact that has across the region. We will continue to take these security issues immensely seriously.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to increase the economic pressure on Putin. We need to choke off the supply of Russian oil and gas into international markets. Our package of sanctions, including on the two biggest Russian oil producers, is a substantial step forward. It is welcome that other countries, including the US, are now doing the same. It is only through international action that we will have that impact.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Hurricane Melissa is of huge concern internationally, to those who have friends and family on holiday in Jamaica and to those of us of Jamaican heritage here in Britain. Will she give an assurance that in the horrific aftermath of Melissa, we will give every possible help and support to the people of Jamaica?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House. There are 50,000 dual nationals who live in Jamaica and up to 8,000 British citizens who may be travelling or on holiday there. We have very strong links between our communities—between the people of Jamaica and the people of Britain. That is why I spoke to the Jamaican Foreign Minister yesterday to offer our solidarity and support. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we have not just the rapid deployment of consular staff, but humanitarian staff being pre-positioned in the Caribbean. We discussed this matter in the crisis centre this morning, including what we might be able to deploy on request from the Jamaican Government. We stand ready to help and respond.
Can the Foreign Secretary help with the context of the middle east conflict? I have been endeavouring to establish an independent verifiable number for the rocket attacks into Israel that were carried out in the 12 months before 7 October and the 12 months after 7 October to give some context to what has happened since. Is she able to assist?
Members might not be aware that the FCDO has given notice to the Insolvency Service that 1,885 jobs are at risk due to the 25% reduction in the workforce that follows the ODA cuts. This is a massive drop in staff numbers and it is bound to have a real impact, particularly on smaller departments such as conflict prevention. Will the Foreign Secretary please comment, being new in post, on how this will impact on her ability to shape the Department as she wants? The forward plan for the Department is still not finalised. How can she operate without the staff to do so?
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee will know that the Government have taken the difficult decision to reduce the aid budget in order to fund the defence resources that we need at a time when there are significant security pressures. She will also know that we are working to find different ways, including private finance and new investment, to maintain not just the multilateral investment that is so important but crucial aid programmes in areas such as Sudan and Gaza. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these details further and—
Order. I need the Foreign Secretary to help me here. Members are desperate to get their questions in, and the only way I can get them in is by speeding up. We have to get on with the Opposition day at some point.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The British public are under no illusions about the level of resources needed for humanitarian aid in Gaza and the rebuild of Gaza, and they want to play their part. Have the Government considered aid-matching each £1 of public contribution with £1 of Government money to increase the proportion of British aid and rebuilding that can happen in Gaza?
We are looking at different ways to ensure that we can get sufficient resources into Gaza—that will require not just immediate humanitarian assistance but long-term reconstruction aid—and we are continuing to work with our allies and here in the UK on doing so.
Last week I met Nada, an Oxford plastic surgeon who told me horrific stories of the children she has been treating in Gaza. I believe that the Secretary of State has met her, too. The most concerning thing is that if these wounds do not have care, they will lead to life-changing disabilities. Medics are calling for a humanitarian corridor between Gaza and the west bank so that those Palestinian children can stay in Palestine. What discussions has she had on the matter?
I have met the doctor to whom the hon. Member referred. Her work is inspiring, and she deals with the most terrible stories of suffering. We agree that we need to be able to get humanitarian corridors in place and to treat children, especially in the region, but, as the hon. Member will know, we are also medevacing children to the UK for treatment.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Last month, ahead of the UN General Assembly, I had the honour of welcoming Vlad, Valeriia and Roman: three young children who were injured and abducted by Russia during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister for taking time out of your busy days to meet those children and to hear at first hand the horrors they have been through, as well as their inspiring stories. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions were held at the UN General Assembly on the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children? What further support is being provided to Ukraine to aid their recovery?
The Government’s position seems to be that communist China can and does pose a wide range of serious threats to the United Kingdom but is not a threat itself. How can that possibly make sense?
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me set out very clearly the threats that China poses to our national security, including those of transnational repression, support for Russia and espionage. He will know that range of threats and that is why it is deeply frustrating that the prosecution has not taken place. He will also know that China is a trading partner and that we continue to have strong economic relations. It is possible for both those things to be true.
Despite a ceasefire being in place for almost a year, Israeli forces struck UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon just this weekend. What work are the Government doing with the Lebanese Government and in particular the Lebanese armed forces to shore up our crucial ally in the region?
British national Jimmy Lai is currently in solitary confinement in a prison in Hong Kong. He has been there for five years. He is 78 years of age, he is in ill health and his trial will come to an end very soon. Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit, what representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the White House to ensure that when President Trump meets President Xi, the case of Jimmy Lai will be raised, as it has been in the last 36 hours by a cross-party group of 38 US Senators?
We continue to be deeply distressed by this case and continue to make representations, discuss the case with the US and stay in contact with Jimmy Lai’s family.
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsThe latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is available as an attachment online. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2025. The report has been placed in the Library of each 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 I commend the report to the House.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-10-23/HCWS988
[HCWS988]
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberWith your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest situation in Ukraine, on the recent strikes against Kyiv, on our continuing support for Ukraine, on our response to continuing Russian aggression, and on a major new package of sanctions against Russian oil and gas that I am announcing today. It is a pleasure to do so on the same day we have welcomed Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, to the House of Commons—a sign of our strong and continued friendship.
It is a reflection of the importance of Ukraine’s security to the Government and to all of us here in the UK that my first statement to the House from the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary is on Ukraine, just as Ukraine was my first visit when taking up the role a month ago. Let me also thank and pay tribute to my predecessor in this role—the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—for his work in representing our country on the world stage with great principle and distinction, and in showing such strong and continued leadership in supporting Ukraine.
Three and a half years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has failed in his war aims. He is failing on his military objectives, on the economy and on his political objectives for both Ukraine and Europe, thanks to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people and the support and determination of Ukraine’s friends. As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK. President Zelensky stands ready to hold talks for peace, but President Putin seeks only to escalate war. He will not succeed.
Now is the time not just to continue with our steadfast support for Ukraine’s defence, but to substantially increase the pressure on Russia’s economy and on Putin’s war machine. Major new UK sanctions against Russia’s biggest oil companies and shadow fleet and new concerted actions with our partners will choke off oil and gas revenues and hit at the heart of Putin’s economy and war machine. We are determined to support our Ukrainian friends and to stand up for our own security.
What was clear to me in Kyiv a few weeks ago, and what is clear to everyone visiting Ukraine, is the enduring courage and unbreakable spirit of the Ukrainian people. I saw at first hand the damage from an Iskander missile on Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers building just 10 days after the British Council offices were also damaged. I met families whose lives had been uprooted, their homes destroyed and their children’s education torn apart. I also met up with two teenagers who lived with us in Castleford during the first year of the war and who have now returned. Despite the drones, the bombardments and the disruption to their lives and their schooling, they continue to train as international standard ballroom dancers. Like Ukrainians across their country, they will not let Russia destroy their dreams.
That is what Vladimir Putin will never understand about the Ukrainian people. For three and a half years—indeed, since 2014—he has questioned their resilience. For three and a half years, he has doubted the commitment of their allies. For three and a half years, he has been proven wrong. Everywhere I went in Kyiv last month, I saw a nation resolute in its fight.
Despite the huge Russian mobilisation efforts in the last three years, Putin remains as far away from achieving those military goals as he has ever been. In this war that Putin started, Russian losses are now 20 times higher than Soviet losses in Afghanistan. In this war that Putin continues to pursue, Russia is now struggling to equip its forces. In some areas, stocks are so low that they have resorted to using military kit from the 1950s. As a result of this war that Putin refuses to end, the International Monetary Fund has revised down Russian growth forecasts and military spending now outstrips social spending for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We know, however, that with increased desperation comes increased danger. In recent weeks, Putin has engaged in provocative and reckless violations of NATO airspace in Estonia, Poland and Romania, and NATO stands together against that action, resolute and ready to act. His recent bombardment of Ukraine has seen some of the largest attacks in Europe since the height of the second world war. Civilian casualties have risen nearly 40%, with children killed in playgrounds, hospitals and schools destroyed, and civilian energy infrastructure targeted. Just yesterday, a UN aid convoy was hit delivering vital assistance to a frontline community.
While we continue to strive for peace in Ukraine, we must be steeled for the war to continue, and that means focusing on four priorities. First, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to stand up to this latest onslaught. In my meetings with President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Sybiha in September, I reaffirmed the UK’s ironclad support. We are providing £4.5 billion of military support for Ukraine this year—more than ever before—with over £150 million-worth of air defence and artillery delivered in the last two months alone. We have used our co-chairmanship of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to galvanise partners, raising over £2 billion through the UK-run International Fund for Ukraine to support the most urgent military needs. During that Kyiv visit, I announced £142 million in UK aid to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That will include our largest emergency energy support package since the start of the war to restore and repair water, heating and electricity systems.
Secondly, we will ramp up the pressure on Russia to ensure that their escalation comes at a clear cost. I am today setting out a further and new set of sanctions—among our strongest so far—to tighten the pressure on Russia’s economy. This will be the second set of sanctions I have announced in a month and I am ready to go further still. This will take the total UK-imposed sanctions on Russia-related individuals and entities to over 2,900.
At the UN Security Council last month, I told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly, shortly before he walked out of the chamber, that
“we will target your ailing economy, your oil and gas revenues…the defence industry making your munitions, because we know for Russia, the price of war is piling up.”
With immediate effect, we are sanctioning Russia’s two largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, the two biggest Russian energy firms ever targeted by UK sanctions. That is part of an extensive new sanctions package of 90 targets that include refineries around the world that are responsible for importing Russian oil, suppliers of drone and missile components and 44 shadow fleet vessels, further disrupting the network of tankers that transport Russia’s oil.
The UK has now sanctioned more shadow fleet vessels than any other partner, taking billions of dollars-worth of Russian oil off the market. We are sanctioning not just Russian individuals and companies, but organisations in third countries that continue to support the Russian war effort with all the damaging consequences not just for Ukraine but for Europe’s stability. The sanctions stop UK businesses and individuals from trading or transacting with the actors that we have targeted. Importantly, we are also strengthening our co-ordination with the EU, which is finalising a new wave of sanctions. We urge countries across the world to go further, working with us in targeting Russian oil and gas.
President Zelensky has made clear in recent months that he supports a full, unconditional ceasefire and is ready to meet Putin for talks to achieve a just and lasting peace. President Trump has urged peace and ceasefire talks. Instead, President Putin seeks only to escalate the conflict. That is why this co-ordinated economic pressure is so urgent and important to get him to change course.
Thirdly, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the financial support it needs to recover and that Russia is the one to pay. The whole House will be aware of Ukraine’s acute financing needs, both now and in the long term, so we are pushing at every level to ensure that frozen Russian assets can be used to meet those needs. They were on the agenda of the G7 Finance Ministers when they met on 1 October, and the Chancellor is in Washington today, again pressing for progress with her counterparts, as I have done directly with our European partners. We will continue to argue that the full value of Russian sovereign assets must be used to support Ukraine. The EU has developed a proposal for reparations loans for Ukraine, which we welcome. The Prime Minister discussed this with Chancellor Merz and President Macron on Friday, and we expect and hope that further progress will be made in the coming weeks.
Finally, while we are prepared for this war to continue, we must also keep working and preparing for peace. We have seen in recent days what is possible when the international community builds a consensus for peace. We know too the huge international co-ordination that has come behind the US peace initiative in the Middle East and the huge international effort that will be needed to ensure it is implemented. Those same principles on international co-ordination and effort over time are important for Ukraine. That is why, together with France, the UK Government has convened over 30 countries in several meetings of the coalition of the willing, encouraging contributions towards a multinational force that would stand ready to deploy to Ukraine upon a ceasefire or peace agreement to help regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces so that Russia is never able to attack again. We are also implementing the 100-year partnership signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in January, making real our commitment to stand with Ukraine not just today or tomorrow, but over many decades to come.
While Ukraine continues to show its endless reserves of strength, Vladimir Putin continues to show his endless depths of depravity. Time and again he has shown his willingness to threaten the security and sovereignty of other nations, to threaten democracy and undermine the world order and to kidnap tens of thousands of children. From cyber-attacks in Moldova to the deployment of mercenaries in the Sahel, Russia’s actions seek to topple Governments, fuel conflict and spread instability far beyond Europe’s borders. That is why the UK continues to support Ukraine—not just to help brave people to defend themselves, but to make clear that aggression does not pay and that Putin does not win, that force will be resisted with strength and that criminals will be held accountable. Ukraine’s security is our security, and I commend this statement to the House.
Order. As the Foreign Secretary, with prior agreement with the Chair, was allowed to speak a little while longer than the allocated time, the same will be allowed to those on the Opposition Front Benches. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. I would also like to welcome her to her place in her new role. We meet again at the Dispatch Box; we have shadowed each other in many roles, and this time around it feels like she is following me in this portfolio.
On the occasion of the visit of the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament to our Parliament, it is right that Britain should stand with Ukraine on what will soon be the eve of the fourth winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s relentless efforts to obtain the territory of a sovereign European state by barbaric levels of force have undermined peace in Europe and the established international order. In recent months, we have seen European and NATO airspace brazenly and deliberately violated by Russian fighter jets. From Poland to Estonia to Romania, such aggressive provocation must yield stronger deterrence against Russia.
The same applies to the intensified aerial bombardment of Kyiv. The hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian Shahed drones attacking civilians represent a cruel attempt by Putin to psychologically torture Ukrainians, but the bombing will not break their resolve. From Russia’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children to the daily bombardment of propaganda and bombs, Britain must stand firm to level the playing field for Ukraine so that it can repel those attacks. We must continually refuel our country’s ability to support Ukraine, and never stand still.
Is the Foreign Secretary brokering more packages, here at home or across NATO, to support Ukraine’s air defence? The 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine must be leveraged to support innovation in defence technology and production within Ukraine right now, while we also learn from Ukraine’s successes in these fields. The way the Ukrainian people have conducted themselves and continued to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the face of the barbarity and savagery that many of us thought was confined to a bygone era will go down in history. We must ensure that Russia’s defeat goes down in history, too. To do that, Britain must lead all allies to raise the price of Russia’s aggression by cutting off Russia’s financial lifelines, which continue to fund Putin’s war in Ukraine and fight against our democratic values.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements today of the new entities, including the ships that have been sanctioned as of today. She will know that China, India and Turkey have become the mainstay of Russian oil exports, together purchasing around $380 billion of Russian crude. This provides Putin with a lifeline to fund this illegal war and invasion, at the cost of around $1 billion per day, so in addition to the new sanctions announced today, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether she or the Prime Minister have had any discussions with India, Turkey and China about refineries in their own countries purchasing Russian oil and then re-exporting it? Is the UK in a position to spearhead a direct challenge and get this stopped? Will the Foreign Secretary challenge European countries who are still importing Russian liquefied natural gas to phase this out far more rapidly? I recognise and appreciate her comments about EU countries and the sanctions package.
Further to the new banking sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced, will she commit to review what we can do to limit Russia’s banking sector, including its regional banks? On the mobilisation of frozen assets, we need to go beyond just offering Ukraine loans from the revenues of the sanctioned assets and find a new formula under the law that mobilises the assets to fund Ukraine’s defeat of Russia in the immediate term. London is home to our world-class capital market, and the City of London must be deployed to help find solutions that our diplomats can then sell to our allies, because this needs concerted action. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the coalition of the willing, convened in February this year, is as determined as it was then not just to stand with Ukraine but to work to find solutions to these major issues?
The UK must commit to spending 3% on defence by the end of the decade. This is a vital step on our route to the higher sustained spending demanded by the new NATO targets. In her new role as Foreign Secretary, is the right hon. Lady in discussions with the Chancellor about this? Britain must be ready for continuous tension with Russia with effective deterrents against sub-conventional threats such as hybrid warfare, sabotage of infrastructure, disinformation, election interference and killings. If we do not put up boundaries now, Russia will come closer, but it is stoppable.
We have seen positive developments in recent weeks, including the decisive election result in Moldova that should cement its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, but Russia’s behaviour elsewhere, from Georgia to the Balkans and including the stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus, is deeply alarming. Here at home, there are reports that the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover may have emanated from Russia. Is the Foreign Secretary able to confirm that attribution? The whole Euro-Atlantic alliance needs to be incredibly robust, because the lessons of the last 20 years are crystal clear and the outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future of European global security.
President Trump’s recent remarks were absolutely right. Our Ukrainian friends can regain the territory that is rightfully theirs, and we support them on that. Britain and our European allies must now pull out all the stops to help our Ukrainian friends to expedite Putin’s exit from their country. We should be clear that territorial concessions must never happen, as this would be a reward for Putin’s barbarism. Britain should and can lead the way in weakening Putin’s war machine with a full range of hard-hitting new sanctions and brokering new military aid packages with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities it needs to defeat Putin’s tyranny.
I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response, and I am glad to face her across the Dispatch Box again. I think she and I have probably missed each other. This time round, we agree on some things, which is perhaps a new experience for both of us.
I checked, and I think that the last time the right hon. Lady and I were opposite each other—although we were on the opposite sides of the House then—was on 5 September 2022, the day that Liz Truss was confirmed as Prime Minister. It was perhaps not quite such a good day for the right hon. Lady, who then lost her place as Home Secretary. It was also not such a good time for the country.
Interestingly, after our exchanges on that day, the next discussion was on Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), now the Defence Secretary, speaking from the Opposition Benches, began his remarks by observing that it was day 194 of a war that Vladimir Putin had expected to be over inside a week. He saluted the bravery of the Ukrainian resistance and pledged the Labour party’s full backing for every aspect of what the right hon. Lady’s Government were doing at the time. Now here we are on day 1,330, and all of us in this House are still full of admiration and respect for the Ukrainian resistance, and determined to support Ukraine in the face of the continuing Russian onslaught.
I welcome the continuation of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s cross-party support for the Ukrainian people, for the actions that we need to continue to take to support Ukraine in its defence, and for the pressure that we need to exert. I can assure her that we will continue to support Ukraine’s defences, and to look at what more we can do. The Defence Secretary has also set out new partnerships; in particular, we are working with Ukraine on developing new drone technology, learning from its technological experiences, and helping it with production.
The right hon. Lady raised issues about third countries—China, India, Turkey and other European countries that have continued to be involved in purchasing things from Russia. We want as wide a consensus as possible on economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine. I continue to raise this with many different countries, including some of those that that she referred to. Also, in our sanctions package, we are including sanctions against entities operating in third countries; we need to continue to do so.
We need to be clear that the ability to target Russian sovereign assets needs to be about mobilising the assets, and going further to ensure that there is an effective way to do that. We believe that there is, and we have been working with the EU on that. We will continue to put considerable pressure on as many countries as possible to join us in taking action on Russian sovereign assets. I think that all of us in the House—or at least the majority of the parties here, with one unfortunate exception—are clear that we need to continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, not just now, not just tomorrow, but for the future.
I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine.
I am pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary is going to take further advantage of Britain’s unique sanctions regime by extending it against Russian individuals and companies, but she knows—perhaps better than most, given her previous experience—that a regime is only as good as its enforcement, and there are times when doors need to be kicked down. It worries me that officials from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation told the Treasury Committee a year ago that they had issued only one £15,000 fine against a British business for engaging with a sanctioned individual. How many British businesses have faced financial penalties for direct or indirect breaches of sanctions on Russia or the Russian state since then, and what has been the value of those fines?
I welcome the point that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has raised, and I thank her for her considerable work and expertise, and thank the Committee for its work in this area. As she will know, the Foreign Office sets out the framework for sanctions and then works with the Treasury on enforcement. Following the publication of the cross-Government review on enforcement in May, the Government are committing to stronger action to make compliance easier, but also to deter non-compliance, and to ensuring proper enforcement.
I am advised that so far in 2025, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation penalties have totalled over £900,000, and there has been a £1.1 million compound settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In April, the National Crime Agency secured the first convictions for breaches of Russian financial sanctions, but I am happy to work with the Chancellor to ensure that my right hon. Friend has any further information that she wants on that topic.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the announcement of fresh sanctions aimed at cutting Putin’s oil and gas profits. It is vital that we make use of all the tools at our disposal to undermine his war machine, and we know that oil and gas revenues are primarily used to fund it. These measures are a further step in the right direction, but I encourage the Government to go even further.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that UK-owned or insured liquefied natural gas carriers have facilitated the transport of £45 billion of Russian gas since the start of the full-scale invasion. That means that 76% of the total export value of Russian LNG was carried on UK-owned or insured vessels. It is unconscionable that UK businesses are still contributing to Putin’s coffers, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to banning the provision of maritime services, including transport and insurance, for Russian gas? Will she engage directly with the maritime insurance sector, a large proportion of which is based in the UK, to find practical ways to implement such a ban?
I was very pleased to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to progress plans to use the full value of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s war effort. That is a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for action on for some months. The Government need to move at pace as Ukraine continues to face Putin’s relentless assault, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the timetable she is looking at for new funds becoming available from frozen assets? Can she outline how those funds will be allocated, and if barriers to seizing those assets are put in place internationally, can she commit to the UK Government acting unilaterally when it comes to seizing the assets held in the UK?
It is more than three years since Roman Abramovich sold Chelsea football club. In June, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Government were ready and willing to take legal action to finally secure the £2.5 billion generated from the sale that is earmarked for additional support for Ukraine. It appears, however, that the Government’s bark has been worse than their bite so far, as we have heard no more about how the Government intend to pursue those assets. What concrete action have the Government taken since June to secure them?
We all hope to see a just peace in Ukraine. When we do, thoughts will switch to reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State commit to provide full UK backing, including funding, to the Council of Europe’s register of damage for Ukraine?
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and his continued support for Ukraine. We are determined to tighten the restrictions much further, not simply on the oil and gas companies, although this is the first time we have sanctioned these major companies, but on the distribution networks and those who continue to profit. On 12 September, I announced 100 new sanctions, including on 70 more ships in the shadow fleet. Today, in the second sanctions package that I have announced since being appointed, I have announced sanctions on a further 44 shadow fleet ships, because we are clear that the shadow fleet is undermining the impact of the sanctions that we have set out.
On Russian sovereign assets, if what we do is to have a proper impact, both on Russia and on the market, it is right that we should work alongside partners, and we welcome the statements from President von der Leyen and the G7 Finance Ministers. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a huge priority for me and for the Chancellor, who is pursuing those exact issues about timetables, and about the final steps we need to take around Russian sovereign assets in Washington today.
The issue of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club is a priority for me personally. We must ensure that those proceeds can reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion. I am deeply frustrated that that has not been possible so far, but we are fully prepared to pursue this matter through the courts if required, while the door for negotiations remains open. Again, I have discussed this matter not just with the Chancellor, but internationally.
I thank the Speaker, the Speaker’s Office and the Deputy Speakers for the gracious welcome they today gave Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Rada. Also, seeing the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv on her first foreign visit was a real fillip for the people of Ukraine.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sanctions package, but I would like to ask further questions about the seizure of Russian assets. I am pleased that we are ready to progress the seizure of Russian assets, and that we have announced work with France and Germany, but are we working at pace with our allies to ensure the seizure of Russian assets? Ukrainians know that their best chance of winning this war will come from the move from freezing to seizing assets. Will the United Kingdom provide finance for the reparations loan that the EU proposes?
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued work for many years on Ukraine. It was certainly very good to see him at the event in Kyiv. I can assure him that we think that the new mechanism that the EU has drawn up and provided to mobilise effectively the assets that are being held is really important. We support that work, and we believe that we, the EU and other allies should try to make rapid progress now, because ultimately, the rebuilding of Ukraine and support for Ukraine should be paid for by Russia.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new role and commend her on a very strong statement. I welcome the progress being made by the G7 Finance Ministers in DC on seizing Russian state assets. It is an issue I first started working on three years ago, and I know the Chancellor has continued that work. Because of that, there is a body of clear technical analysis that has been done in the Treasury that I think shows clearly at this point, first, that there is a sound legal basis for taking these assets and using them; secondly, that there is now a practical way to use them, especially as the bonds have matured into cash; and thirdly, that by acting in concert with allies, any risk to financial stability can be absolutely minimised. I urge the Foreign Secretary to show continued UK leadership on this issue, as I know she is, especially sharing that work with our European allies, because I know she would agree that this is an urgent issue that requires action.
I welcome all the points made by the former Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the work he did both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister to support Ukraine and the defence of Ukraine—in particular this work around Russian sovereign assets, as well as finding different ways to ensure that market stability remains and that we have the proper financial safeguards in place, while also ensuring that the money can get to Ukraine. I have spoken to colleagues in Belgium and France over the last week. As the right hon. Member will know, the Prime Minister has discussed this with French and German counterparts in the last week as well. We will continue to press on every avenue to make the progress that he talks about.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and I welcome her statement. In September, the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab revealed that the number of facilities that Russia is using in its forced deportation of Ukrainian children has risen from 53 to 210. That report highlighted that 110 facilities were being used to re-educate children, and that at 39 of those facilities military training was being provided to train Ukrainian children to throw the grenades and pilot the drones that are destroying their homes and killing their families. Could my right hon. Friend outline what further steps are being taken to relocate, rescue and return those children to their families?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The forcible deportation—the kidnapping—of almost 20,000 Ukrainian children by Russia is one of the most disturbing aspects of this war. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of supporting those families. We have been supporting organisations such as Bring Kids Back UA and Save Ukraine, which are supporting efforts to return Ukrainian children. Just two weeks ago, Baroness Harman attended the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children event at the UN General Assembly. We will continue to do all we can to support the return of those children.
Fifty years ago, I was working down the corridor here for Margaret Thatcher. I make that point to give an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute, on the centenary of her birth, to the lady who won the cold war with Ronald Reagan. The other point I want to make is: why did we win the cold war? We did not fire a single bullet; it was all about economic pressure on the Soviet Union—Russia’s precursor, of course. Following the point made by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), I think the whole House is determined and united on the issue of Russian assets. I also serve on the Council of Europe, and everybody there is passing motions trying to propel this forward. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that we can make progress on this, because the way to bring down this regime and end the war is, as we did with the Soviet Union, to break them economically?
I think all of us, no matter our party, would recognise the challenging nature of the job for all Prime Ministers. The Father of the House will understand that in a coalmining constituency like mine, there were obviously very strong views against the former Prime Minister to whom he refers, but I pay tribute to his long service in this place, which he also mentioned.
There is strong agreement across this House: we have to get those assets mobilised, and get that investment and support into Ukraine. It is right that Russia should pay the price for reconstructing, rebuilding and also defending Ukraine.
It was great to see the Secretary of State out in Ukraine; I know it was very much appreciated by our Ukrainian colleagues. She will be well aware that foreign investment is absolutely vital to the economy and to the reconstruction of Ukraine. What talks has she had with ministerial colleagues and others about schemes such as the one suggested by the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce, which proposes using frozen Russian assets and/or western Government guarantees administered by the World Bank to provide greater availability of risk insurance for British investors in Ukraine?
My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at different, innovative ways of providing the financial support, and the commitment and investment, that Ukraine will need. Obviously, there are immediate issues around defence equipment and support, including support for the energy infrastructure that we are providing, but there will also be issues around longer-term investment and we should look at innovative ways to support that.
I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it. Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately.
I thank the right hon. Member for his long-standing commitment on sanctions, and on Russia and Ukraine. The impact of the sanctions is that any company or any UK company or resident that transacts with, as well as trades with, those sanctioned bodies, will therefore be covered by the sanctions as well. We will continue to look at what further we can do to keep increasing the pressure on Russia. On the Chelsea football club proceeds, I strongly agree that this needs to move as swiftly as possible, and I can assure him that it has been something on which I have focused significantly since I arrived in post. We will continue to do all we can in those areas to support Ukraine.
My constituent is a refugee from Ukraine whose home and livelihood were destroyed in Ukraine. She contacted me because of the uncertainty of her visa situation. Her three-year visa will expire in December, but she cannot apply for extension until November, which is preventing her from getting a new job and securing a new tenancy agreement. She is at risk of becoming homeless in the coming weeks. I recognise that my right hon. Friend is now the Foreign Secretary, but she knows the Home Office well. What conversations has she had with colleagues from the Home Office about reviewing the Ukrainian visa scheme so that Ukrainians can rebuild their lives in this country?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for refugees and for those who have come here on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other Ukrainian schemes. As she will know, the Government have set out provision for the extension of the visas. I think the point to which she refers is to do with the Home Office mechanism and the timings of when applications can go in. I will raise that issue with the Home Secretary.
I call a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that Speaker Stefanchuk of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—was in the Gallery earlier today. He also met members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, when he drew a parallel between western sanctions packages and versions of the Apple iPhone: it feels like we see a new one every other week. Rather than the gradual introduction of sanctions on Russia, will the Foreign Secretary work with the United States and other allies to introduce a sanctions package that will really hurt Russian oligarchs in the pocket?
I want to see the strongest possible economic pressure on Russia—from every avenue, frankly. We have discussed that issue extensively with the US and Europe. I have discussed it with my Foreign Minister colleagues and the Chancellor discusses it with her Finance Minister colleagues. We want to see the strongest package. However, it is right to continue introducing new sanctions as soon as we have the evidence ready. I do not think that we should wait until more work can be done or more agreement reached. If we have the evidence to be able to introduce another set of sanctions, we should get on with it because we need to maximise the economic pressure as rapidly as we can to put pressure on Putin’s war machine.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure?
I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today:
“Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine?
We must maintain the strongest of resolves in supporting Ukraine. I have spoken to families and children who will have to sleep in corridors or underground car parks tonight to avoid drone attacks, but will still get up for school and carry on with their lives each day. The Ukrainian people are showing resilience, and we will continue to support them.
The only thing wrong with the Foreign Secretary’s admirable statement is the fact that it was made by a British Foreign Secretary rather than by the President of the United States, given that, only a few months ago, President Trump said that President Zelensky had few, if any, cards to play. The Foreign Secretary takes a much more optimistic view of the geopolitical situation as regards the invasion of Ukraine. Has she identified any signs that the leader of the free world is coming to a more realistic view of the nature of the killer in the Kremlin?
We have discussed this issue considerably with the US. I welcome President Trump’s decision to allow NATO allies to purchase vital US military equipment for Ukraine’s defence, including Patriot missiles. President Trump called for a peace process, and President Zelensky was ready to have those peace discussions, but President Putin has done the opposite. There is a growing sense of frustration, which everybody can see, about the fact that President Putin has just ignored the requests for peace discussions and is instead seeking to do the opposite—not just in Ukraine but in attempts to destabilise NATO airspace.
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation—of which the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who is sat on the Opposition Front Bench, is deputy leader—met the Ukrainian delegation at the weekend and also heard from President Zelensky. The line that we heard time and again from them was about the need for more weapons, equipment and munitions, particularly deep-fire missiles and drone munitions. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. A lot has been said about the need to unfreeze Russian assets and use their full value. She said that work is being done on that. We in this House have on numerous occasions seen things happen quickly; things need to move at pace to ensure that the free industrial capacity that Ukraine still has, which can make those things, is funded and used as quickly as possible.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. We want progress to be made as rapidly as possible. He will know that the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, which includes £4.5 billion of military support—more than ever before—and thousands of air defence missiles and drones. We want to go further with the Russian sovereign assets process.
Several hon. Members rose—
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her appointment and welcome her remarks about the consensus on the war in Ukraine holding up well across the vast majority of the Chamber. She is a fresh set of eyes. Will she look at the efficiency of some of the aid? Might we work more closely with organisations such as the Come Back Alive foundation, or can more work be done in Ukraine? I think that the UK is doing a good job on this, but a fresh set of eyes is always welcome.
We always want to ensure that we provide aid and defence support in the most effective way and, crucially, in partnership with Ukraine, which, as a sovereign nation, knows where its greatest need lies. That is what we support.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that have been announced, particularly on oil and gas revenues. They come as Russia continues to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, including a state-run power plant last night. How are the Government helping Ukrainian homes to stay warm over winter, and will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to the Huddersfield Ukrainian club, which has continued to support Ukrainians who have arrived in Huddersfield since the conflict began?
I welcome the support that my hon. Friend’s community is providing in her constituency. That has happened right across the country. She is right to focus on the impact on families. In targeting that infrastructure, Russia is deliberately targeting the heating and lighting of families across Ukraine as they go into winter. We have just announced—I announced it in Kyiv—a £42 million energy support package that is designed exactly to keep homes warm and support the resilience of the Ukrainian people through the winter.
Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war?
As I just set out, the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, providing £4.5 billion of military support. We will need to continue providing military support to Ukraine, but we also need to encourage as many other allies as possible to do likewise. When meeting the Ukrainian Prime Minister and President in Kyiv, I was struck by how much they saw the UK as a leading ally, but they recognise the need for international partnership and support. We need to continue escalating support. That is why we also need pressure on the economic side as well as on the defence side. It is only by that combined concerted effort that we will be able to affect the course of the war.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It was a privilege to meet the Chair of the Rada today and to add my voice to this House’s shared commitment to stand with Ukraine and in defence of our democratic values. To increase economic pressure on Russia, we must sanction Russian-linked countries operating in third countries, including in the energy sector. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that she will apply maximum pressure on such companies, even when they are based outside Russia itself?
I agree with my hon. Friend. As part of the sanctions packages announced in September and this month, we are looking increasingly at entities in third countries that continue to heavily support the transit and export of Russian oil and gas, in order to ensure that those sanctions can really bite.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I have just returned from Ukraine, where I learned at first hand about the challenges that both the military and the emergency services face in dealing with unexploded ordnance; I saw its impact when I visited the heroic patients at Superhumans, the prosthetic supercentre in Lviv. There are over 60,000 amputees in Ukraine as a result of the war and the need is immense, so will the Secretary of State consider further strengthening the strategic health alliance and UK-Ukraine trauma recovery with additional funding to the £1.2 million already pledged?
Alongside our allies, we will continue to look at the different forms and ways in which our support can be provided. We have particularly highlighted support for energy infrastructure and homes, but the hon. Member is right to highlight the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian emergency services, who have to respond every morning to see where strikes have taken place, and in the middle of the night when the drones arrive. We should all pay tribute to their bravery and strength.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
All of us who have visited Ukraine will know the stoicism of the people. Despite being bombarded night after night, they continue to rebuild, often supported by UK businesses and individuals, as well as others from across the European Union. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must do more to continue to encourage businesses and individuals to support Ukraine in any way that they can, but that ultimately it is Putin’s responsibility—and his alone—to pay for the damage that he is causing to the country?
I agree. We expect Putin and Russia to pay for the damage that they are doing through the unprovoked aggression of their invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to support Ukraine and encourage everybody else to do so, but ultimately we need Russia to pay for the damage that they have done.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures that the Foreign Secretary has outlined today. Like her, I have visited Ukraine and seen the impact of the attacks from Putin and his flunkies and, like her, I have seen the resilience of the Ukrainian people. I believe, as we all do in the Chamber, that Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government would support pursuing legally those individuals responsible for the crimes, through the International Criminal Court?
As the hon. Lady will know, we continue to support international law and international court processes. She is right to say that Russia ultimately needs to pay the price and to be held accountable for the damage it is doing. I hope she also agrees that Kyiv is an incredibly beautiful city, where many people are going about their daily lives undeterred, determined not to let Russia win.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The politicians, civilians and soldiers I spoke to last month in Kyiv were unambiguous when asked what was the best thing the UK could do to help them win the war. The hundreds of billions of dollars of frozen Russian assets that they currently cannot deploy could help them bolster their military and swing the war decisively in their favour. On their behalf, will the Foreign Secretary use every power available to her to unlock those assets and put them in the service of the people of Ukraine?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for unlocking Russian sovereign assets. The Chancellor is raising that issue in Washington with international partners as I speak.
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. The experience that she brings from her previous role will benefit us all and I thank her for her answers. Putin will have watched the Israel-Gaza problem carefully, and he will know that all eyes are turning to Russia to end the unnecessary conflict in Ukraine. What further steps can we take, in co-operation with our American allies, to seize this opportunity to end bloodshed and to restore education and hope for Ukrainian children, thereby ensuring that Putin realises that he has no option other than the cessation of Russian aggression?
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I agree with him that there must be no other option for Putin than to cease aggression and that this is ultimately about hope for Ukrainian children.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the sanctions targeting the $108 billion in oil revenue that the Kremlin received last year and the progress on the $350 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor for their efforts in building a coalition with the EU and others to move from using the interest payments to using the capital. Does she agree that that recent breakthrough shows that legally this money should be treated as a downpayment on the reparations for the horrific harm that Russia has caused, which we know it will do everything to avoid paying?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The EU has set out work linking the issues around assets to reparation payments. We welcome that work and we believe that there is a strong basis to go forward. We need to do so in a co-ordinated way and recognise the importance of supporting Ukraine.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s progress on the frozen Russian assets, but it is disappointing that, as yet, they are allocated only to recovery and not military capability, because Russia is spending $40 billion more than Ukraine and her Western allies on the war in Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainian forces has brought Russia to a standstill, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that if those frozen assets were used today to close and exceed that military spending gap, Ukraine would have a path not just to stop Russia but to win?
We are already increasing UK military support, and we want to see that happen across the board. The way to put the greatest pressure on Russia will always be through a mix of different measures, including direct defence support, support for the resilience of the Ukraine people through their basic energy infrastructure and ensuring that they and their communities can keep going, and by establishing strong economic pressure on Russia, so that it is put in a position where it has to change course. All those things need to happen at once to have a significant impact on the way that Putin is behaving.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her recent decision, when she was Home Secretary, about the Ukraine permission extension scheme. Does she agree that when Putin probes weakness we must respond by demonstrating strength? Does she further agree that the post-war development of Ukraine’s significant energy resources, which may require British technical expertise, would serve the dual purpose of helping to reconstruct Ukraine’s shattered economy and increase Europe’s security of energy supply?
I agree with my hon. Friend that Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security in many different ways, including in defence and in energy. That is why it is so important that we should continue to support Ukraine and Ukrainians in the UK, who came to find safety at the beginning of the war.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Earlier this year, I joined a brilliant organisation called Mighty Convoy to drive some refurbished ambulances full of medical supplies to Ukraine. While we were there, we bumped into another organisation called FIRE AID that takes refurbished fire engines to Ukraine from the UK. That equipment is vital for the war effort, but in addition the Ukrainians we met said that it is a great morale boost to know that not only are the British Government behind their war efforts, but the British public are too. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in thanking all the volunteers from the UK who drive equipment to Ukraine to help with that war effort?
The hon. Member makes an important point about the strength of support from across the country, from communities and civil society. At a time when Ukrainians are showing such resilience and strength, it is important for them to hear about that support and to know that people across the UK have huge respect for what they are doing and will continue to support it. I welcome the work of different organisations to raise funds and provide support for Ukraine.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for extending the Homes for Ukraine scheme by two years in her previous role? I welcome her to her new role. This morning, the Chair of the Rada spoke to the parliamentary group and talked of how Russian manufacturers are using advanced electronics from white goods to build their drones. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent such vital equipment going to them through the export of seemingly harmless white goods?
The hon. Member is right to raise issues about broader technology. That is why we need to ensure that our sanctions regime is continually updating and responding. We have seen immense improvements in Ukrainian technology on different responses, particularly around drone technology and countering drone technology. We need to recognise the expertise and strength of the Ukrainian people and the country of Ukraine and to continue to show our support at every level.
That concludes the statement on Ukraine. I will allow the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the second statement.
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written Statements We have long held concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. It is for that reason that the UK was at the forefront of diplomatic efforts culminating in the joint comprehensive plan of action in 2015.
The JCPoA was designed to provide the international community with assurances around the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. However, since 2019 Iran has escalated its programme far beyond JCPoA limits, with no credible civilian justification. The IAEA’s latest report from June details that Iran has over 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium.
That is why on 28 August, the UK, France and Germany —the E3—triggered the snapback mechanism at the UN Security Council. This started a 30-day process before the eventual reapplication of UN sanctions.
This step came after the UK, France and Germany had offered Iran an extension to the snapback mechanism in July. The requirements we set for an extension—including the resumption of negotiations, Iran’s compliance with its IAEA obligations, and steps to address our concerns regarding the high enriched uranium stockpile—were not met by Iran. These measures were fair and achievable.
Our snapback extension offer remained on the table during the 30-day snapback process. We continued intensive diplomacy with Iran to find a solution, including during United Nations High-Level Week where I twice met Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi. Regrettably, Iran did not take the necessary actions to address our concerns, nor to meet our asks on extension.
The UN Security Council sent a clear message that Iran must be held accountable for its nuclear escalation by voting down two resolutions that would have extended sanctions-lifting on Iran. Following the conclusion of the 30-day UN process on 28 September, six previously terminated UN Security Council resolutions were reinstated.
On 1 October, the Government updated domestic legislation to reapply the designations and measures contained in these resolutions. This will ensure that the UK meets its international obligations as a UN member state. We would stress to other UN member states the importance of complying with the reinstated UN obligations.
The key UN obligations include: an embargo on the transfer of conventional arms to and from Iran; a ban on all enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water-related activities; financial and trade restrictions targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes; and asset freezes and travel bans on 121 UN designations targeting individuals and entities involved in Iran’s proliferation activities.
The Government have gone further by designating 71 individuals and entities in sectors which have links to Iran’s nuclear programme. This includes Iranian financial institutions and energy companies as well as individuals and entities involved in facilitating Iran’s nuclear programme.
The Government have also announced that they intend to bring in legislation to impose further sectoral measures on Iran. In line with our EU partners, this will target finance, energy, trade, shipping, software, and other significant industries that are contributing to Iranian nuclear escalation.
These sanctions demonstrate our commitment to the international non-proliferation architecture and to the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Alongside our international partners, we will continue to pursue diplomatic routes and negotiations.
[HCWS954]
(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
That completes the urgent question. I will now suspend the House for 10 minutes so that we can all read the statement, which we unfortunately did not have. It has rightly been previously acknowledged by the Home Secretary that it is totally unfair to bounce the Chamber into a discussion. In future, we must get statements on time.
Let me apologise, Mr Speaker. I did check that it had been sent at a quarter to, to make sure it was here with 45 minutes to go. If it did not reach you, I apologise, but that was the information I was given.
Not only was the information wrong, but we did not get the statement until four minutes to 4, and the Opposition did not get it until almost 4 o’clock. That is totally unfair, and Ministers need to get their act together. This should not happen. I am suspending the House for 10 minutes.
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Before I come to the statement, is the shadow Home Secretary happy to continue, or does she want me to suspend the sitting to give her time to read it?
I received the statement only at half-past. If it is possible to have a further 10 minutes, that would be appreciated, but I do not want to inconvenience the House. Unfortunately, we have become used to late statements from the Home Office.
In fairness to the Home Secretary, I understand that the statement was available; it was very late coming to me. I have not had time to look at it, and the shadow Home Secretary has not been given sufficient time. The Home Secretary said that, unfortunately, it was ready but it did not arrive at our office. I will suspend the sitting for 10 minutes to give us time to read it.
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev at the height of the Skripal crisis.
Alexander Lebedev is a well-known former KGB officer and a former owner of the London Evening Standard newspaper. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee, in response to questions from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), that he had met Mr Lebedev
“on a very few occasions”.
I understand that the Prime Minister also confirmed that he had met Mr Lebedev without officials present and that he had subsequently reported those meetings to officials as required. I do not have any information about the content of any discussions that may or may not have been held with Mr Lebedev.
All Government Ministers are made fully aware of their responsibilities to safeguard national security and sensitive information. It has been a long-standing policy of all Governments of all colours not to comment on intelligence or national security-sensitive matters, as to do so could jeopardise the very security that it is the first duty of Government to protect. In response to the Salisbury attack, the UK expelled 23 Russian intelligence officers and significantly strengthened our defences against Russian interference in the United Kingdom.
We sought this urgent question despite the meltdown in the Government because it goes to the heart of our national security. Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted to the Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee that in April 2018 as Foreign Secretary he met the former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev—the father of Lord Lebedev—in Italy without any officials and without any security. He went there straight from a NATO meeting, where the top item on the agenda was Russia, at the height of the Salisbury poisoning crisis after Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia had been attacked and before Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess had been exposed to the remaining Novichok. That was a chemical weapon attack by Russian agents on British soil that targeted two British residents, had life-changing effects for a British police officer and killed a British citizen.
On 20 May this year, Alexander Lebedev was sanctioned by the Canadian Government—a Five Eyes partner of the UK—for being one of the 14 identified people who
“have directly enabled Vladimir Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine and bear responsibility for the pain and suffering of the people of Ukraine.”
The UK has not yet sanctioned him.
The charges against the Prime Minister are about not just a lack of integrity but a complete disregard for basic national security and the patriotic interests of the country. Those charges lie not just with him but with all those who have enabled him and covered up for him on this issue. Did the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Security Service know about the meeting in advance? Was a detailed record made of the meeting after the event—there are rumours that the Foreign Secretary was too drunk to properly remember? Is that true? There are also rumours that Alexander Lebedev was trying to arrange a phone call from the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. Is that true? Did that phone call happen? The record of Ministers’ interests says that the Foreign Secretary accepted hospitality in Italy for himself and a guest, but he travelled home alone. Who was that guest? Did that put him in a compromising position?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to several meetings with Alexander Lebedev without officials. When were the others? Were any of them while he was Prime Minister? The shadow Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), has been asking for confirmation that that meeting happened for months, so why have Home Office Ministers, Cabinet Office Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers all been covering up? It is bad enough covering up for parties and breaking the law, but covering up over national security is a total disgrace. It puts all our safety and security at risk. It is not just the Prime Minister but the whole Government who are letting the country down.
Several hon. Members rose—
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend makes an important point and subtly alludes to the challenge we face at the moment. Preoccupied as we are in the House with one big issue, we should not forget that the rest of the world looks to this country to show leadership in tackling these big issues and wants us to get back on the job as quickly as possible. When it comes to freedom of religious belief, it is important to remember that terrorism is not the only issue; there is also in many countries state-sponsored oppression of people who just wish to practise their faith freely. That is why our work will look not only at what we can do to prevent such terrorist incidents, but at how we can use diplomatic levers to stand up for the right of people all over the world to do what we can do in this country, which is practise our religion freely.
I thank the Foreign Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary for their moving words, because the events and stories coming out of Sri Lanka are truly heartbreaking. To attack churches on Easter Sunday in this way, and the streets and hotels, is vile. They are right that the extremists and terrorists are seeking to divide us and that it is important to bring people together. Does this not show the importance of our international intelligence and security partnerships and our ability to use them in support of Sri Lanka and other countries in the international fight against ISIS and extremism? Does it not also show that this work is about supporting peace and saving lives?
The right hon. Lady understands this area very well, from her former role as shadow Home Secretary, and is absolutely right. We in this country are lucky to have superb intelligence services and strong intelligence relationships all over the world, which we need to keep each other secure, and I can absolutely give her the assurance that, even though these things happen under the surface, they are a very important part of our counter- terrorism effort.
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Without my right hon. Friend being more specific about the examples to which he alludes, I can only say that I think he will be aware that we are talking about two different processes. There is the one relating to Interpol, where I have outlined the way in which the National Crime Agency is able to invoke checks and balances and to ensure that article 3 is not violated. Separately, as he will also be aware, the UK has very much been leading the international efforts at the OPCW to challenge the egregious use of chemical weapons and violations of the chemical weapons convention, including the use of chemical weapons on UK soil that has been attributed to Russia. We have, as he knows, worked very closely with the OPCW to ensure that a special conference of the state parties has been held and that the state parties can now attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks in Syria and, if needed, elsewhere in the future.
Interpol’s reputation for the enforcement of international law is already being undermined by its silence over the disappearance in China of its former president, and it will be undermined further if its new president is someone who in Russia has been involved in also trying to undermine international law and abuse Interpol processes. Given that the police have given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that the Brexit process may make us more dependent on Interpol processes, databases and institutions, what is the Foreign Office doing to strengthen the Europol relationship and to look at reforms, through Interpol and through new additional processes, to strengthen the rule of international law?
I am sure that the right hon. Lady would support the UK view, which is that the issue of the arrest of the former Chinese president is very much a matter for the Chinese state. She rightly draws attention to the importance of international law and of our rules-based international order. I assure her that in all instances the UK Government will take the opportunity in international forums to support the observance of international law and due process, and, indeed, human rights. That is very much part of what the UK stands for in these international forums. We recognise the importance of upholding the precious rules-based international order on which the safety and security of the UK has been based since the second world war.
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is clear from the allegations and evidence that there is likely to have been extremist exploitation of the perfectly proper march. It is for that reason that an independent investigation must cover all aspects. Those who have contributed to extremism and deaths do indeed need condemnation.
Does the Minister not agree that the large-scale use of live fire against people who are unarmed should be strongly condemned, wherever it happens in the world and no matter what organisations might try to influence or organise protests? At a time when sober, serious foreign policy is urgently needed in the middle east and the US’s reckless and irresponsible embassy move means that it is not providing it, does the Minister agree that EU Governments should be working closely together urgently to pressurise the Israeli Government to change tack?
I fully understand the hon. Lady’s position and have already indicated our concern about the use of live fire, which has to be investigated further. On the US position, we will do all we can. The US will remain a central part of what needs to happen in Israel, but it does need to give a greater sense of understanding of some of the underlying issues than on occasions its statements suggest. We will work with our partners because they should be part of the solution. Yesterday’s timing and yesterday’s event—that split-screen—will be one of the images of 2018. We must make sure that we use what happened yesterday as a cause for peace, not as a further cause for confrontation.