(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Gentleman raises significant points about the important security, intelligence and defence relationship that we have with Israel. I will be clear at the outset that the measures that we have taken very much relate to our dispute about the actions of this Israeli Government, not of Israel, and certainly not of the Israeli people. With regard to his Jewish constituents, I absolutely recognise the significant concerns and fears about the threats that Jewish communities in this country and across the world face, particularly from rising antisemitism and violence. Of course, we have marked some very sombre events in recent weeks—I have heard that reflected from my Jewish constituents—and I can absolutely assure him that the Government engage closely with representatives of the Jewish communities in this country. He will also recognise that a range of views have been expressed about the Government’s announcements last week. I want to be clear that the British people, including those with ties to the region, want the suffering and violence in the region to end; a path to peace; and a two-state solution restored, in which a safe and secure Israel exists along a sovereign and viable Palestine. That is within the context of recognising the very real threats that Israel faces, including from Iran and its proxies.
The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.
The concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises are very serious, and he can be absolutely assured that the Government want to root out antisemitism in all its forms in this country, and indeed in every walk of life, whether in the health service or in education; I have heard very concerning examples of antisemitic incidents in schools and universities. That is why this Government are investing not only in the security of Jewish communities in this country, but in specific measures in public services. I take very seriously any concerns that he raises; of course, he has distinguished medical experience himself.
It is also important to recognise that next month will mark three years since the atrocity of 7 October, which was, as the Foreign Secretary said,
“a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 879.]
It was designed not only to cause death and destruction in Israel, but to instil fear across the world. This was the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and I want to be clear again that there is no justification for the actions of Hamas, or their rejection of the peaceful co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians. They can play no part in that future, and they must disarm.
We avidly and continuously support the 20-point plan, and the efforts to bring about peace and a secure future for the people in Gaza and across the whole of Palestine. I also want to make it clear, as the Foreign Secretary did, that we reject those who make any attempt to de-legitimise Israel, or to support the so-called BDS— boycott, divestment and sanctions—movement. Our disagreements are with the Government of Israel and their actions, not with Israel, and certainly not with the Israeli people.
(1 week, 4 days 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
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are in ongoing conversation about exactly that. I thank him for his visit; I cannot stress enough to the House how deeply Falkland Islanders appreciate it when people come to visit and can then impress on this House our unified position that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so.
Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues to see whether naval assets might at least pay a visit to the Falkland Islands, with a significant platform?
Kirsty McNeill
As I stated previously, we are confident that our defensive forces in the south Atlantic are equal to the task. In terms of conveying resolve, it is incredibly important that an absolutely united message is sent from this House to partners in all capitals and to the Falkland Islanders that we are resolute in their defence.
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberObviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.
Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?
That will be the responsibility of British businesses and other businesses that want to import into this country. I want to underline this point. That is the point of the sanctions regime we are bringing in. Just to develop the point a bit more, it is likely to be based on the postcodes of where the settlements are. Companies will have to say that the goods they are bringing in do not come from those areas.
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberWe raise all cases with authorities in line with the appropriate consular protocols. I am happy to speak with my hon. Friend about the case involving his constituents and see what further we can do.
I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place? What more can be done to advise discretionary travellers on the risks they run when travelling to some of these exceptionally challenging locations, and particularly to advise them in advance of the finite nature of any consular support that may be forthcoming if they get into trouble?
I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for Alistair Burt. He held my position in the past, and commands immense respect across this House; it has been a pleasure to work with him so far. I certainly will welcome his challenge and review of the most complex cases—as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of these cases are incredibly difficult. He rightly says that prevention is crucially important. We provide FCDO travel advice, as well as tailored advice in some cases, but we absolutely want to make sure that British nationals are aware of the full range of risks of travelling to a number of locations, and we attempt to make those risks very clear in advance.
(2 months, 2 weeks 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
Mr Falconer
I will not speak for the American Government; they have set out their position on their concerns about annexation quite clearly. We have discussed throughout this afternoon just how significant the E1 development would be, and I think that that is understood in Washington DC.
I share the Minister’s frustration about our appearing to be on the sidelines as this Israeli Government divide up the west bank, making a two-state solution nigh-on impossible. What is happening is contrary to the fourth Geneva convention, Oslo II and all the rest of it. However, does he agree that his capacity to influence what is happening is finite? If Israel, under Netanyahu, is not listening to the Trump Administration, it almost certainly will not listen to the Administration that the Minister is part of. However, he can do something in this awful situation: he can at least protect those in this country who will suffer the consequences of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who are the butt of a lot of the violence in this country, namely the Jewish community. What will he do to ensure that they do not suffer the consequences of what is going on?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, for his question, and for the opportunity to comment on antisemitism. Before I do, I just want to say that this is a delicate period in Israeli politics. I hope the result of the Israeli election will be a set of Israeli policies that are much closer to the wishes of this House. He is, of course, right to say that my ability to influence developments on the ground is finite—if it were not, we would not be in this situation—but we will continue to use all our leverage to try to ensure change. During this period, we can perhaps hope that the Israeli political process will deliver results more akin to a policy that this House would like to see.
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberWe took a very different view from that of the US and Israel at the start of this conflict, and we were right to do so, and also a very different view from that of the Conservatives. However, we also believe in working internationally to bring this securely to an end, to support the further negotiations that are now needed, and, alongside France, to lead efforts to establish a defensive multilateral maritime mission to reassure international shipping and support the mine clearance to enable the reopening of the strait.
Iran has demonstrated that it can close the strait at will, and it probably will threaten to do so in the future when it wants something, so what can we do with international partners, particularly in the region, to engineer alternative routes that will allow oil, gas and fertiliser to exit the Gulf overland, thus neutralising the strait?
The right hon. Member makes a really important point, because economic security is something that all countries need to take much more seriously. The UK needs to take it more seriously. The Gulf countries are certainly taking it much more seriously and looking at ways to develop new infrastructure to provide different kinds of supply lines and opportunities. We are keen to work with them and we have been involved in discussions with them on that, but we also need to ensure that the strait of Hormuz opens. It is in line with international maritime law to open the strait fully, with no restrictions and no tolls, keeping it open for all.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government are clear that part of what we are doing with this package of additional sanctions is targeting businesses and organisations that are facilitating the operations in the illegal settlements. We believe that the sanctions regime needs to be strengthened to allow us to go further in different areas, and we need to work with other countries on that. It is obviously important to distinguish between what is happening in the illegal settlements, and trade right across Israel; the specific issue we are targeting is about settlement goods and the illegal Israeli settlements. Other countries have been looking at that and have found some of the practicalities challenging. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made, and the concerns raised around this issue. We continue to look at what more can be done, and to work with international partners.
Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?
China and India are not part of the multinational maritime mission. We have been doing two things to maintain the principle of freedom of navigation. With France, we have been developing the multilateral mission. There are other countries ready to provide assets, some of which have been set out and some of which will be announced in due course as they are needed. We have also convened countries—including the 40 that I convened before Easter—to raise the consensus around and continue to defend the principle of freedom of navigation. The Chinese ambassador also attended a similar event in Paris, chaired by President Macron and the Prime Minister, so we are engaging with those countries on the principle of freedom of navigation, but the maritime mission is a much narrower group of countries, predominantly—but not entirely—European.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI do not know if my hon. Friend missed my previous answers, but we have very publicly spent the past 30 years voting against the very thing he is complaining about. We have not supported the embargo in the international space where these decisions are taken and that has been the position for successive Administrations.
In trying to understand what America has been doing in its own backyard, what assessment has the Minister made of Cuba as one of the largest foreign contributors to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine? What are the Government doing to better understand the position of Cuba as a potential hub for hybrid warfare in the area, inspired by Russia and as Russia’s entry point for its malign activities in the wider Hispanic region?
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise those issues. The work in this space continues. We work with the US Administration, as our closest ally, on defence and national security. We will continue to challenge in this space and work with Five Eyes and other security partners to ensure that that work does not move away from the fact that there are still those economic and wider social challenges for the Cuban people. National security remains an absolute priority for us, as it should for all Governments.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Mr Falconer
To be clear about the position, I think my hon. Friend is referring to the 2020 Israel-UK road map, which is suspended. However, on the very important question she raises about arms exports, as I have told this House on a number of occasions, we take our obligations under international humanitarian law incredibly seriously. That is why we conducted the review we did when we became the Government, and why we took the action that then followed, which has been discussed in this Chamber on a number of occasions.
I am sure the Minister understands that there can be no sustainable ceasefire for as long as there exists in Lebanon an Iranian terrorist proxy that has as its war aim the complete, final and irrevocable destruction of the state of Israel and the Jews who live there. So we are faced, are we not, with trying to mitigate some of the actions of this terrorist organisation. Would he agree with me that the only viable way of doing that, given this situation, is to do everything in our power to strengthen the Lebanese army, which he will know is a credible organisation, and to support the UN Secretary-General in his stated intention of renewing UNIFIL and making sure it is fit for purpose, rather than simply an observer, as is currently the case?
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Mr Falconer
I think I addressed those questions earlier, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to treat the situation with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not going to trail further announcements from the Dispatch Box, but we obviously keep all these matters under close review.
The behaviour of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir brings shame on all of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Israel. Given that the joint comprehensive plan of action was not working and Iran continued to advance its plans for a nuclear weapon, how would the Minister have de-fanged the regime? While he is right to claim some credit for the FTA with the gulf states, will he give credit, too, to his predecessors, who did a lot of the heavy lifting, and will he at least concede that the whole thing would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union?
Mr Falconer
It is very difficult to have one’s predecessor ask in Parliament for credit to be given to his predecessors. In the spirit of the bipartisanship we have shown this afternoon, I acknowledge that talks on the GCC FTA were indeed started under the previous Government—