Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this debate. There is no more important topic; the world would be a much better place if there could be peace in places today torn by war, with the damage, destruction, and the violence that brings. I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord said about the opportunities for the United Kingdom with our great diplomatic skills, the reach of our diplomatic service, the experience we have gained over many decades and centuries of intervening around the world and, where we could, trying to find resolution of conflict, and with our own experiences bringing peace out of the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. But, as the noble Lord referred to at the end, one of the reasons the United Kingdom does have a role in the world and is taken seriously is that we have serious and important defence forces. It is most important that they are used with a view to promoting peace where we are intervening, or to right wrongs that can be righted relatively easily by the judicious use of force. That has not always been true in the interventions that we and our NATO allies have made in recent decades in different parts of the world.

I hope the Government, as they go through a rather long defence review and discussion about how best to spend the money that is clearly needed, will have at the forefront of their mind how those forces can be used to deter violence and the outbreak of new conflicts, and how they can be used for expeditionary forces that can make timely interventions where necessary, particularly where those interventions can help create a peace, or where they are needed to police a peace which has been brought about by diplomatic process.

I am sure all of us agree that talking and diplomatic compromise are usually better than conflict extending into aggressive war, and that we would all agree that you only get a war when diplomacy and politics have failed. We all here believe that politics, particularly democratic politics, should be a benign force channelling the conflicts and disagreements into words and arguments and resolving them by compromise or votes. But that will not always be possible in different parts of the world, and that is why we need to choose to spend our money on defence wisely, and to see how we can best help the world through those places where we have power: through the United Nations, through our senior membership of NATO and through the Commonwealth and all the associations that brings.

Looking at defence priorities, it is most important that the Government do not forget that the main priority is to be able to defend these islands and to show that these islands are so well defended that they would be a very hostile environment should any external force wish to intervene. That must mean strengthening our sea forces and our ability to respond to drone and missile attack, and to know how to police our waters when we see possible hostile powers looking enviously at our cables and pipes that are such an important part of our economic progress. So, will the Government please make sure that that is all beefed up and the best modern technology adopted?

When it comes to expeditionary force, we have in the past shown that we have that expeditionary capability, and at times it has been very successful. The Falklands are only free today, and the people of the Falklands are only safe in their wish to be British, because we had enough expeditionary force on our own to drive out the Argentinian invader and restore order. It is most important that we now keep enough force available in case anybody has changed their minds in Argentina about what they might wish to do to try to gain control of islands that are clearly British. British forces were also very successful alongside the American allies leading the operation when Kuwait was liberated, which was a very good example of a sharp use of overwhelming force to right a very obvious wrong where a country had been badly invaded.

Today we have two very big conflicts, which are damaging in themselves—particularly damaging for those involved with them, with too many deaths and too much destruction of property—but also very damaging to the rest of us economically, and because we are morally offended by how they originated. Those are the conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East.

We need to hear from the Government a bit more about how they wish to proceed. If we take the case of Ukraine, the war has dragged on for so long and we keep Prime Ministers for such little time that there have now been five United Kingdom Prime Ministers who have had to respond to the difficult situation in Ukraine. They have shown complete unity of understanding and purpose, they have all condemned the Russian invasion and the atrocities that have resulted and they have all wished to offer sensible support to the very brave Ukrainians defending their country. But they have all been very clear that we are not going to declare war on Russia, commit British forces or drag NATO into a conflict with Russia. That would greatly worsen the position and is much against everybody’s interests, including those of the Ukrainians, because it would intensify the exchange of barbarity with all the extra firepower it would bring to the conflict.

That means that we in the West have a dilemma: we are not going to offer a military coalition to beat the Russians, and the Ukrainians, fighting very bravely, have not yet been able to evict the Russians from their territory. I would be interested to know what the latest government thinking is about when and if there is going to be any chance for talking to replace war-fighting and for the two belligerents to be brought to the table in a way that might produce some kind of diplomatic answer. It is not obvious how you do it. President Trump has been much criticised for trying to do it; people thought he was being too kind to Russia, which is not something that people want. It would be interesting to know what the United Kingdom and the European Union position on all this is, and whether there is any way through. I think we all feel that five years of war is excessive and that the awful problems it is creating for the Ukrainian people are unacceptable, difficult though it is to see a way out.

In the case of the Middle East, the United Kingdom does not have a big role to play because it appears that we do not really have serious forces to offer to try to police the sea-lanes and to deal with some of the attacks on our allies in the Gulf. America has the near monopoly of power that can be committed to that, and in that sense it is America’s war. We all rest upon what happens in the exchanges between the President of the United States of America and those now leading Iran.

I would be interested to know whether the Government feel there is anything we can do by way of helping our allies in the Gulf, and whether they can see any way forward, which is more likely to be led by local interests there, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, very sensibly said. We too are friends of the UAE, Qatar and so forth—the places most likely to be able to help. It would be good if we could get our defence forces into a shape where we could play a more significant role in trying to help the restoration of normal shipping in the Gulf and Red Sea area. Clearly, energy prices, interest rates and other things globally have been driven up by the extent of that conflict and by the interruptions to trade. In a world that should have plenty of oil and is in transition to using less of it, we find ourselves short of it because of a very nasty war.

I would hope that the defence review would come up with good answers on that combination of defending the home base, which needs more defence, and the appropriate expeditionary force for policing commerce and sea-lanes and going to the aid of allies. It would be very useful to know from the Minister how the Government can extend the skills and the experiences we have had diplomatically and in governing places that are subject to these conflicts. The world desperately needs peace, particularly in those two centres of warfare at the moment, and we would all be better off if that could be brought about.

Russian Shadow Fleet Vessel Leruo

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Earl raises a vital aspect of hybrid warfare. It is fair to say that anyone who is following European politics, British politics and national politics across the European continent will know that there has been not just a strong, galvanised effort in the last two or three months to focus on hybrid attacks, including the challenge of undersea cables and the particular dependence we have on certain undersea cables, but a strong attempt—which I am proud to say the UK is leading—on sharing information across countries. President von der Leyen recently talked about the need to develop a Europe-wide capacity on disinformation, but also on hybrid threats. We are working closely with our European allies on these things.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government speed up work on our naval vessels that are in home harbours, pending work on them, so that we have more naval vessels available to police our seas?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

We continue to do the maintenance, repair and support work that we need to do for our fleet.

Falkland Islands

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The message that will be heard today from this House reiterates our position. Our position is clear: the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable as far as the UK Government are concerned. That is a clear message. I have every confidence that that message will have been heard.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her well-deserved new post. Will she update the House on where we have got to with the important investment in the oil field 140 miles north of the Falklands? Is that not also going to be transformational for the people of the Falklands, who rightly wish to remain British?

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. With regard to the oil field and the investment there, that is decided by the Falklands Islands people. It is their investment. We are absolutely supportive of the decision that they have made in that regard.

Sudan

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady has raised that specific case with the Foreign Office. I will undertake to ensure that efforts are renewed. The answer to her underlying question is that an international ceasefire is essential.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What actions are the UN and neighbouring states taking to make provision for the refugees? Is there an up-to-date statement on how big a problem we think that is, given the current state?

[Mr Mitchell]

If there is no ceasefire, the problem will be enormous. I can tell my right hon. Friend that the head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths, is in the region and is looking at precisely those issues. I will keep my right hon. Friend and the House informed of the answer to that question as it develops.

Sudan

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. Of course, through the pooled funding arrangements that we have, often that sort of work with the military can take place. I can tell him why he got that answer about Sudan last year: because all our efforts were bent towards trying to support the peace process and the negotiations that were going on to achieve a return to civilian rule. Sadly, all that is now very much on the back foot. But the aim, if we can get a ceasefire, is that those political negotiations should start so that there can be a civilian Government in Sudan.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Government advise nationals in difficulties to stay indoors, but what if they run out of food, what if there is no power, water or other utilities, or what if there is fire in the local area? What is the advice and message of hope for them then?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The only advice that we can give through the Foreign Office—the only advice—is to stay indoors, because of all the reasons that I have given during the statement about the jeopardy on the streets outside. We have changed the advice today to say that although we think that people should undoubtedly remain indoors if they can, if they do not, it is at their own risk. But they must make their decisions on the ground. Of course, there are those who know the situation around where they live extremely well and may well be able to exercise their judgment, but they do so at their own risk.

Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend makes an important suggestion with which I absolutely agree. He is not totally right about the way the WHO works, of course. A simple majority of member states can approve the new regulations, and a two-thirds majority can approve the treaty. Even if we objected to it, it could still go ahead. We would then have the opportunity to opt out, which is what I suggest we do.

I will come to why we absolutely should opt out. I am challenging the proposed regulations and treaty, because they are wholly and fundamentally wrong, and they represent an assault on our freedoms. We should object. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is absolutely right: fundamentally, Parliament needs to exercise its own responsibility and duty to oversee what we are going to do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

To colleagues who like this treaty, is the easy answer not that we will, of course, remain members of the WHO, read its advice and accept that advice where we wish? Why should we have to accept advice when the WHO may get it wrong, and we can do nothing about it because it decides, not us?

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. We have the opportunity to say no, and it is an opportunity we need to take. Once we have said yes, we are then under the obligation to introduce, potentially, terrible infringements on liberty. I will make some more progress and then let Members intervene.

My final concern about the proposals is that they set the WHO up as the single source of truth on pandemics and responses to pandemics. There is a legitimate and understandable need to challenge misinformation and disinformation—there is a real danger there—but surely Members should recognise that there is an opposite danger as well, whereby a single supranational agency becomes the sole source of information on what is true. These are the people who said that covid-19 definitely did not come from a lab leak at the Wuhan institute, as now seems likely. These are the people who said that lockdowns would only be short and temporary, rather than lasting the best part of two years, and who said that vaccines stopped transmission, rather than having next to no impact on transmission. They said that vaccines would only be for the vulnerable, rather than everyone—including little babies. They said the vaccines would be voluntary, rather than mandated as they were in many countries, including, very nearly, our own. I do not have confidence in the WHO and its satellites to be the single source of truth on either the science or the response.

I will finish with some observations. As I mentioned, the international health regulations are an existing legal instrument, so they need only a majority of member states at the World Health Assembly in order to come into force. We then have six months to opt out of them. A treaty would require the support of two thirds of member states. I am concerned about the Government’s response to this petition, which said that they

“support a new international legally-binding instrument”.

The Government are therefore in favour of something along the lines of the proposed treaty. They went on to say:

“Not every treaty requires implementing legislation and it is too early to say if that would apply here.”

At the moment, we do not have a commitment from the Government that they would bring the proposals to Parliament, which is very concerning.

Margaret Thatcher warned in a speech in Bruges in 1988 that the UK had not helped to defeat the Soviet Union just to subject itself to a new supranational arrangement: the European Union, as it became. We did subject ourselves to the EU until our current time, and I suggest that we did not leave the EU just to subject ourselves to a new supranational arrangement in the form of the WHO. Some may find that comparison ludicrous, as they find any defence of national sovereignty ludicrous—accept in the case of Scotland. They say that in our interconnected world we need less sovereignty and more co-operation, which means more power for people who sit above the nation states. I say that in the modern world we need nation states more than ever, because only nation states can be accountable to the people, as the WHO is not. Only nation states can temper their policy to the particular circumstances of the people, as the WHO cannot. Only nation states have the legitimacy and agility to adapt to the huge threats and opportunities of our times, as the WHO cannot.

I firmly believe that the treaty and the regulations are another, greater threat to parliamentary sovereignty. It is not clear whether the Government will submit the treaty and the regulations to parliamentary approval, but I believe they should, and I hope the Minister will commit to that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees that we needed better parliamentary scrutiny and more options for the handling of the pandemic but, given that that is the case, how on earth does it make sense to give away powers to an international quango, which will then instruct future Ministers to do these things, with Parliament being told that it has no right to talk about it or to vote on it?

[Justin Madders]

If that was how it was going to proceed, I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that is the case. Any Government Member concerned about parliamentary sovereignty and scrutiny would not have voted for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has put thousands of laws into the hands of Ministers without any parliamentary accountability.

Let me return to the question of how the last pandemic was dealt with. There were other examples of decisions being made seemingly without any evidence to back them up—the decision to close pubs at 10 o’clock is a good example—and there was also the lack of coherence about why people were allowed to meet in groups of not more than six and why certain establishments could reopen and some could not. It was a fast-moving and unprecedented situation but, given the draconian nature of the regulations, we needed to be better at parliamentary scrutiny than we were. The release of the WhatsApp messages of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), has certainly given me food for thought. Perhaps not all the decisions were made on a scientific basis.

If we find ourselves amidst another pandemic in which measures that affect people’s daily lives are proposed, this place’s ability to openly scrutinise and question Government on decisions before they are made, as well as its access to the full scientific advice, will be vital. If decisions are taken transparently and—dare I say it—if everyone is seen to be following the rules, we stand a much better chance of maintaining public confidence that the measures are necessary.

There has been a bit of talk about vaccine harms today. I do not want to be seen as unfairly critical of those who have raised those concerns. I understand that sometimes there is a deep desire for a rational explanation for the sudden loss of a loved one. I also believe that we should be able to ask legitimate questions about vaccines: it is perfectly reasonable to debate who should receive a vaccine and how often they should receive it. It is also legitimate to scrutinise Government decisions, particularly ones that impinge on individual liberty. But there is a world of difference between doing that and descending into the dark world of conspiracy theories that suggest that vaccines do more harm than good. That risks pushing people away from potentially life-saving interventions and, over the long term, damaging the public’s perception of the importance of a tool that has been used to eradicate diseases that frequently ruined lives. From smallpox to tuberculosis and polio, vaccines have saved millions of lives over the years. We cannot now abandon the importance of that work because of a few videos on YouTube. We need to be able to challenge and question, of course, but we should not ignore what decades of experience have shown us about the value of vaccinations.

The treaty has nothing to do with Bill Gates, and it is not the first step in creating a world-dominating authoritarian state. I do not believe that it will even impede our sovereignty. It will enable the combined efforts of our brilliant researchers, medics and scientists jointly to tackle the increased threat that we face from pandemics. We achieve far more as a species when we work together. The far bigger risk to our continued existence on this planet is not the so-called great reset, but a descent into paranoia and distrust, such that we avoid using our brightest and best, they end up working in silos, and they do not share their knowledge and efforts collectively. We want to avoid that. From pandemics to climate change and eradicating global poverty, we face many challenges as a species, some of which are existential. If we do not seek to work together to meet those challenges, we will ultimately all be the worse off for it.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We are taking this action to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and political stability to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the function of the agreement and of power sharing. It has created fractures between east and west, diverted trade and meant that people in Northern Ireland are treated differently from people in Great Britain. It has weakened their economic rights. That has created a sense that parity of esteem between different parts of the community, an essential part of the agreement, has been damaged.

The Bill will address those political challenges and fix the practical problems the protocol has created. It avoids a hard border and protects the integrity of the UK and the European Union single market. It is necessary because the growing issues in Northern Ireland, including on tax and customs, are baked into the protocol itself. Our preference remains a negotiated solution, and the Bill contains a provision that allows for negotiated agreement, but the EU has ruled out up-front making changes to the text of the protocol.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her very patient and good diplomacy. Will she confirm that this very moderate measure is completely legal and essential to the peace and good will of Northern Ireland?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can absolutely confirm that this Bill is both necessary and legal, and the Government have published a legal statement setting that out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I will not; I will make some progress.

The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.

[John Redwood]

The protocol makes very clear the primacy of the Good Friday agreement for peace in Northern Ireland and says that the EU will respect our internal market. The EU is doing neither. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to persuade it to do so?

[Mr Lammy]

Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.

As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

I thank all Members who have spoken on Second Reading. I will attempt to respond to as many of the points raised as possible, perhaps leaving out the choice of sandwich that the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) has been talking about this evening and in various interviews. There have been a huge number of thoughtful and insightful speeches and a wide range of views have been expressed across this House. That shows the interest and the support, certainly from the Conservative Benches, for ensuring a resolution to the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland protocol, while agreed with the best of intentions, is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, significant costs and bureaucracy for traders. It cannot be right that it is easier to send goods from Great Yarmouth to Glasgow than to Belfast—still a part, and an important part, of the United Kingdom. Everybody in the United Kingdom should be able to access products and goods in the same way.

Political life in Northern Ireland is, as it has been, built on compromise and power sharing between communities, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) outlined, but the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. As a result, we are seeing both political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the lack of functioning of both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as rightly outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland).

It is clear that the protocol has become a major political problem, and it is putting a strain on the delicate balance inherent within the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is worth noting, and it might be forgotten from what some Opposition Members have said today, that all party leaders in Northern Ireland, at some stage or another over the past few months, have been clear that there is a need to change the Northern Ireland protocol. This legislation is about preserving the wider social and political stability in Northern Ireland, finding a more stable and sustainable solution, and ensuring that the frictions faced by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on goods coming from the rest of the United Kingdom are removed.

It remains the preference of the UK Government to achieve these benefits through negotiations. These are negotiations that have been conducted by the Foreign Secretary and predecessors over the past 18 months. The lack of flexibility that we have seen from the EU, as rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), has led us to the point where it is right that we make a decision about taking forward a solution that works for the people of the United Kingdom and, within the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland.

This Bill will enable us to implement a successful negotiated settlement as well. It is important to recognise that that will require a significant change in approach from the EU Commission, as a number of hon. Friends have outlined. I am afraid that that change has not yet been forthcoming. The scale of problems and the depth of feelings aroused by the protocol unfortunately, if anything, have been exacerbated, rather than eased by the current EU approach—whether it was through triggering article 16 over crucial vaccine supplies to Northern Ireland in January 2021, launching infraction proceedings following emergency easements to ensure the movement of food and parcels to Northern Ireland in March 2021, or repeatedly failing to show pragmatic flexibility in more than 300 hours of negotiations over the past nine months and continuing to insist on processes that would add to, rather than remove, the burdens currently felt by businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland.

[John Redwood]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed how Labour always takes the side of the EU, even when, as in this case, the EU is damaging the Good Friday agreement and diverting trade expressly against the legal provisions of the protocol?

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. He will know from attending oral questions to the Northern Ireland Office that I have regularly had to listen to the hon. Member for Hove at the Dispatch Box taking the side of the EU—but then, the hon. Member wants to rejoin the EU, so I suppose we should not be surprised.

We should also be clear about the reality, when we hear about the flexibility of the European Union and the offer it has made, based on its October offer. That would be a backwards step from the current situation, which is already not working for businesses and people in Northern Ireland.

Executions in Saudi Arabia

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

As I have said, we were deeply shocked by the executions of the 81 individuals on 13 March. As I have also said, no aspect of our relationship with Saudi Arabia prevents us from speaking frankly about human rights, and we regularly raise our concerns about human rights with Saudi authorities through diplomatic channels, including Ministers and our ambassador, and at the embassy. Saudi Arabia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, particularly because of the use of the death penalty but also because of restrictions on women’s rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.

I am not going to speculate in respect of the Prime Minister’s visits.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does not this bad news reinforce the urgency of the UK producing more of its own oil and gas to reduce dependence on these powers? Could not that include onshore gas where the local community of people are willing? Would not that be speeded up if they were given a royalty?

[Amanda Milling]

It is important for all partners to work together to ensure that there is stability in energy markets, and OPEC also has a key role to play in this regard.

Sanctions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I assure the hon. Lady that we have a hit list of oligarchs and Duma members—those key personnel we are talking about. We will be announcing those as we build the evidence and case against them, but we need those cases to be legally watertight—that is what is important—so that when we hit them, the hit sticks.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Government now allow and encourage more domestic production of oil and gas, to help reduce the cruel dependency of Europe on Russian energy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We certainly are committed to using the UK’s oil and gas fields. Energy independence is vital. We also need to invest more in nuclear, which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is working on.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she and the APPG are doing. She raises a really important point. It is a practical point, but one that will only exacerbate people’s fear and anxiety, particularly if they are disabled or from an ethnic minority, as she described. I urge her to send me and the Home Secretary any papers or recommendations that the APPG has.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the way in which the Taliban have taken a lot of NATO equipment to strengthen their hold on the country, how could we send aid in without the Taliban using or abusing it for their own purposes?

[Dominic Raab]

We will not give aid to the Taliban. The Taliban have a choice and a set of decisions that they have to make about whether they want to preside over the wholesale economic and social collapse of the fabric of the country. If not, they will have to give certain assurances. I think that will particularly apply to the permissive environment we would need for aid agencies in order to continue our aid. Again, that falls within the category of early tests for the Taliban, which is why we will engage with them without recognising them.