Black History Month
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and I could not agree more. There is some data out there. Hospital trusts collect data each year on how their staff are feeling about a whole range of things. I looked at my local hospital trust’s data and one question it asks is: “Do you feel that you have suffered more discrimination this year from patients and from colleagues and managers?” I have not looked for a couple of years, but sadly the last time I looked it was getting slowly worse.
This is definitely an issue. If people are foolish enough to think that somebody’s skin colour is going to affect their ability to do their job properly, it makes it more difficult for staff to provide care to the whole population. Black NHS staff need to have safe working environments. They encounter racism, and they should not. It is interesting that you talk about doctors—
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful for the correction, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is interesting that my hon. Friend talks about doctors, because honestly there are not that many people in leadership positions in the NHS who are black, and that is another issue that needs to be addressed.
I have used the word “racism”—as we all have—in a way that is perhaps not easy to do everywhere. I have to say, when I first started becoming aware of the huge differences there are in how people are likely to experience health services depending on whether they are black or white, I did not feel at all comfortable using the word “racism”. Sometimes when people say “structural racism” when talking about racism, people will say, “I am not a racist!” but that is not what is being talked about, so it is very difficult to enter this conversation.
I remember when I was on the council I was once on a big Zoom call with 150 people to discuss the inequalities work we were doing. A black woman talked a lot about micro-aggressions, and I asked her, “When you are talking about micro-aggressions, aren’t you talking about racism?” She answered, “Yes, yes. But you can say that. I can’t.” So I think it is incumbent on people like me—a white middle-class gentleman of a certain age—to be allies, as many hon. Friends and hon. Members here are being, and to stand up and talk about these things and name them for what they are.
We can effect change. We can do the radical thing of implementing the change that is needed, but to do that we need to have leadership that wants to actually effect the change. We have found, sadly, that black women facing poor outcomes is shaped by systemic failings in leadership and accountability as well as in training and data collection. We need senior leaders to be held accountable for racial health inequalities. That means that they need to be aware of them, which means they need the data. We need Care Quality Commission inspections to specifically assess equity in care delivery. Trust boards should be specifically responsible for monitoring and addressing disparities, and performance metrics should include equity indicators. That all sounds terribly onerous, but it is not. It can become part of the normal way of doing things; it just has to be introduced at some point. As I said, these are not radical suggestions, but to do them would be radical.
Indeed, the really radical thing to do—this came out of the Committee—is just to listen properly to the women needing maternity services. I saw a terrible programme during covid where a woman was talking about her daughter, who was 20 and had gone to see her doctor. She was talking about being in immense pain. The doctor said, “Well, black women have differently shaped cervixes, so that is probably why.” She died in childbirth. That sort of thing happens all the time; we just do not talk about it all the time. It has to stop. We need to listen to black patients.
Black patients talking to us said, “I had pain. I reported pain and I reported symptoms—I just wasn’t believed.” Their concerns were dismissed. That pattern appears not just in maternal health services but right across healthcare.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsMonday 20th October 2025
(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2025 - (20 Oct 2025)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the Prime Minister misleading—perhaps I have to say inadvertently misleading —us about the cost of this, when the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that it is £35 billion. More than that, he was suggesting in his press conference that China, Russia and others—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Member may like to rethink his words about the Prime Minister.
Graham Stuart
I bow to you, Ms Nokes. Having misrepresented—I think I am allowed to say that—
Graham Stuart
Oh, I cannot say “misrepresented”. Having inadvertently confused the £35 billion that is actually going out with the £3.5 billion he claimed was going out, the Prime Minister, equally inadvertently, Ms Nokes, made out that China, Iran and Russia were in the column—he used the word “column”—of those opposing this deal, although I think each and every one of them came out publicly to say how much they welcomed it. Can my right hon. Friend share any knowledge about that with us?
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is doing a very good job of forensically demolishing the Government’s case, such as it is. May I just correct what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box? There is a very great difference between carrying on and discussing negotiations, and doing a deal. As I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron, I can tell the House that the then Government would never, ever have done this deal. Secondly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will probe the Minister further on where this extraordinary amount of money is coming from. Is it the defence budget or is it the development budget? Since the Labour party—a Labour Government—has slashed development spending from—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is a very long intervention. Perhaps the shadow Minister should take over.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. and gallant Friend and constituency neighbour makes some very, very important points. He adds a certain weight and clarity to these discussions, and I urge Labour Members—certainly the newer Members—to listen to his wise counsel.
The House of Commons should be given a vote on the payments and that is the purpose of this amendment. In scope will also be the Chagossian trust fund, which, inexplicably, British taxpayers capitalise and Mauritius then distributes. We pay and Mauritius has total control over how it is spent. We will have no say over its governance and British Chagossians have no guarantees that they will benefit from it. How can that be right? The least this House and British Chagossians deserve is a vote on sending the money. What possible explanation could the Government provide against that?
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Bill has been before the House already, and at the moment we are discussing the amendments that have been tabled. The hon. Member will soon have the opportunity to discuss the amendments he has tabled. However, abdicating this Chamber’s decision—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There is far too much noise and many private conversations, which make it very difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Bailey
Abdicating this House’s responsibilities to a referendum is not something on which we will agree. This treaty is a vital step to secure UK interests. It puts the Diego Garcia base on a secure footing for at least 100 years. I understand that Opposition colleagues have a range of objections to this treaty, not all of which are jaw-droppingly hypocritical, however—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman the same warning that I gave the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He needs to be very careful with his language.
Mr Bailey
Not all the objections are jaw-droppingly confused, but some colleagues will vote against the Bill tonight on the basis of them. That is no reason to support an amendment that would undermine the Government’s ability to navigate the difficult and chaotic world we live in today and keep our country safe.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I will speak in support of seven amendments tabled in my name. For too long, decisions about the Chagos islands have been made without the consent of Chagossians. My grave concern is that the treaty to be given effect by the Bill fails to rectify that historical and ongoing injustice. Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection of their rights, it fails to establish a legally binding right to return or a binding programme of resettlement of the islands for Chagossians.
Turning to amendment 9, we recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that the UK was indeed right to open a process of negotiation with Mauritius—especially so given the risk that a judgment against the UK in any court could threaten our sovereignty over and security interests in Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. However, the treaty that has emerged not only falls short in addressing past injustices, but introduces new injustices of its own.
At the very core of the United Nations charter—a document that this country helped to shape—lies the right of all peoples to self-determination. Article 1(2) could not be clearer: one of the purposes of the United Nations is to
“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
Yet for the Chagossian people that right has been denied for more than half a century. They were exiled from their homeland in the Chagos archipelago, scattered across the globe, and left without the means or permission to return. It was, and remains, a moral stain on our modern history.
Stuart Anderson
My right hon. Friend makes a great point. I spoke to one of the submarine commanders from the US navy only about six weeks ago. He told me that 15 years ago he would see one Chinese ship or submarine per week, and now he sees 100 a week. The whole area is full of them. When we start looking at the security of buffer zones, we see that we cannot move in this area for Chinese submarines. The whole space is swamped with them.
We are doing a deal that will remove our ability to sit at the table where we used to have such strength. Our armed forces now would have trouble supporting our allies in any area, particularly the Indo-Pacific—[Interruption.] The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry says that is not true. We have HMS Spey and the carrier strike groups, but we have no permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific. With our current commitments, we would need a brigade strength or more to enable us to have a permanent base, to rotate troops through and to have a credible offering without burning out the UK armed forces, given the numbers who are currently on sick at the moment and the strength of the military. I want to see larger armed forces, but we do not have the ability to offer the level that we want.
We believe that the world is playing by an international rules-based order, but not all countries will do that. An international rules-based order is a set of rules set out by, normally, the largest countries around the world. When countries such as Iraq or Kosovo do not adhere to them, they expect everyone else to accept it, but the rise of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is throwing everything into the mix. I believe that this will be a huge loss for us strategically. I reiterate my point that the ceding of Diego Garcia is a monumental strategic error that, in the next decade, we will come to regret.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who has spoken with great authority about the military threat. I also commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). I agree with everything he said; he spoke with great good sense and moderation.
I wish to speak to my new clause 14—I am grateful to my friends who have signed it—which states:
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for an advisory referendum of Chagossians residing in the UK, seeking their opinions on the Treaty signed with the Government of Mauritius and the provisions of this Act.
(2) Within a month of publishing the proposals specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a debate on a substantive motion relating to the proposals.”
An advisory referendum would be a moderate and sensible proposal, and I am not sure why anybody would disagree with it. Surely we in this House have a moral duty to the Chagossian people, not to bureaucratic convenience or diplomatic horse trading. My new clause simply calls for the Chagossians to be consulted on their own future. That is not unreasonable. It is a modest and entirely proper request. After decades of exile and neglect, it is indefensible to negotiate their homeland’s fate without even asking them. Have we ever handed over a people to a foreign power without even consulting them?
Proponents of paying Mauritius to take the island cite international law, but the entire point of decolonisation was to assert the self-determination of peoples. The United Nations was founded upon the principle that nations and peoples should be free to determine their own destiny in a peaceful way. Chagossians, as we now all agree, were wronged by both the British and the Mauritian authorities. By the way, I am probably the only person sitting in this Chamber who has actually been to the islands—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I went there with the Defence Committee 40 years ago.
We kicked those people out of their homes, albeit for perfectly the legitimate reason of promoting the stability and security of the free world, and Mauritius accepted money to help look after displaced Chagossians. No one can dispute the fact that Chagossians are treated as having second-class status in Mauritius. Chagossians who have been living there are fleeing in increasing numbers to the United Kingdom. Many of them happily assert that they want the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to continue over the British Indian Ocean Territory, but they also want a right to return.
Righting the wrongs we have committed means listening to the Chagossians directly, and that is all I am asking for. The amendment would give Parliament the chance to ensure that justice is finally done for those who suffered most. Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. I repeat, Britain should not repeat the sin of dispossession under the guise of decolonisation. To hand the territory to Mauritius would not “end empire”, but merely pass the islands from one remote capital to another; from one imperial power to another. The United Kingdom must not compound historic injustice by ignoring the only people with a legitimate moral claim to these islands.
The Chagos islands are of course a linchpin of regional security for Britain, the United States and our allies in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific. Undermining that strategic position would embolden hostile powers and weaken our ability to uphold freedom of navigation. Those who call this a colonial relic misunderstand it. It is a forward defence post, not a backward-looking possession. As has been said time and again, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion carries no legal binding force and should not dictate British policy. Allowing unelected judges in The Hague to override Parliament’s responsibilities is an abdication of national sovereignty. The Government should resist any creeping judicial globalism that seeks to erode British self-government under the cloak of “international law.”
I will end on this point, and I believe it is a very powerful point: consultation with the Chagossians through a UK referendum is an act of basic democratic respect, not a legal technicality. My new clause would strengthen rather than weaken Britain’s moral standing by showing that we act with fairness and consent. We should not wash our hands of responsibility for British subjects in favour of imagined diplomatic convenience. The right course is to combine justice for the Chagossians with the preservation of Britain’s strategic obligations, not to sacrifice one for the other. Parliament should back these new clauses and amendments as an affirmation that Britain remains a nation that keeps faith with its peoples and its allies alike.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When the hon. Gentleman says “you”, he is referring to me. Perhaps he would refer to the Minister as “the Minister”.
Nigel Farage
When the Americans realise that, actually, Mauritius is not a trustworthy nation—it is bankrupt; it needs the money; it will not honour this treaty—we will be in a very different place. I do ask the question about the role of our National Security Adviser, somebody very much in the news in the last few days. He was seemingly very happy that a trial against two alleged Chinese spies, operating at times within this building, had disappeared. Not only is he honouring the Labour manifesto, which is very soft on China, but apparently he is very for this Chagos deal.
I put it to Members that this deal is un-British, it is against our national interest, and there is no upside or gain. I can assure them that a future that a future Reform Government will not honour this treaty—end of.
Graham Stuart
I refer the Committee to my interests, having observed the Mauritian elections last year as a guest of the Mauritius Labour party.
It is hard not to feel a little bit sorry for the beleaguered Minister at the Dispatch Box today, sent to defend something that is so clearly a betrayal of this country and its interests. Out of the grand total of 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament in this House, he was backed by just one—the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—who sat with his face glued to his iPad, reading the words put there by Lord knows who, and who struggled so much when he finally took an intervention and had to speak off the cuff. Indeed, he has fled now, doubtless to lick his wounds. Not one single other of those 400 Government MPs wanted to come here and defend this Bill.
The Minister is in fact a decent man, and he will know that this Bill has no defence and brings no benefit to this country. Last week, too, we had a Minister sent out to answer for the China spy case. He had never spoken at the Dispatch Box before; it was his very first outing, but he was thought the best person to defend the Prime Minister’s blushes by knowing nothing about the topic in hand and denying things—without lying—by dint of ignorance. It was indeed a triumph, of sorts.
Armando Iannucci and “The Thick of It” cast could not script something as cynical, empty and damaging as this Government’s behaviour in so many spheres. As we can see in the amendments and new clauses before us, which will doubtless all be rejected by the Minister, amidst the betrayal of first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might stay within the scope of the Bill.
Graham Stuart
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was setting the context for the amendments to the Bill that we are rightly proposing to ensure that the Government report back on the money that they plan to spend and to ensure that the Mauritius taxpayer is not the only taxpayer to benefit from this.
As I say, the amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants and pubs, and amidst the expense grifting, tax dodging, scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a stand-out disaster for this country, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know it. That is why not a single one of their 400-odd colleagues—bar one, glued to his iPad—has been prepared to come to this Chamber tonight and speak in favour of the Bill.
That is why there is no provision to allow a vote on the £3.4 billion—sorry, not £3.4 billion; the £35 billion that has now been set out. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly says, that is based on a rather small c conservative estimate of the interest, but that is what the Government themselves have said it is likely to cost. This Labour Government decided to give away UK sovereign territory and the location of a critically important military base to another country, and to pay £35 billion for the privilege.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I speak in support of new clause 1, which would ensure that this House had a vote before any money was paid to the Government of Mauritius under the treaty. I support the new clause because it demonstrates the important principle of this House asserting its rightful role as the guardian of both public money and British sovereignty. The privileges of this House have been serially insulted in the debates we have had today, which I want to mention quickly. With this new treaty we see the height of what we saw earlier: a dereliction of the responsibilities of this House and the Government. Earlier, in the urgent question on the China spy case, we heard that politicians should not be consulted—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman will keep within the scope of this Bill, and not seek to rehash urgent questions held earlier.
Danny Kruger
I understand, Madam Chairman, and of course you are quite right. The point I was making is that there has never been a Government who are so reluctant to govern as the one we have today. We have heard from hon. Members how baffling the decision is to surrender the Chagos islands. The only rational reason that could account for it is some kind of secret deal with China. I do not know if that is the case. The Government’s obeisance to international law might well trump national sovereignty, and in fact there is no rational calculation behind this decision except that of submission to their ideas of international law.
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading—[Interruption.] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives—[Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Opposition ask questions and then make so much noise—they do not even want to hear the answers.
I have mentioned the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities. I have mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. There are many examples of clear risks. I have explained before the potential under annex VII of UNCLOS—
Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent 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
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the urgent question on Iran, I remind the House that there is a criminal case currently before the courts in which the accused have been charged under the National Security Act 2023 with offences relating to the targeting of UK-based journalists. This case is sub judice, and no reference should be made to it during our proceedings.
There is also a separate case involving alleged terrorism offences in relation to a target in London. This case is not sub judice, because no charges have yet been brought, but hon. and right hon. Members will wish to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice the ongoing police investigation and any subsequent trial.
Air India Plane Crash
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the statement, may I from the Chair pass on my condolences to the family of Ketan Shah, one of my constituents in Shipton Bellinger, who was tragically killed in the Air India crash? Ketan was a valued member of the local community, where he ran the village stores, and the whole community is devastated by his loss.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to update the House on our response to Thursday’s devastating Air India plane crash. I know the whole House joins me and you in offering heartfelt condolences to all those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. The images of those boarding the flight are heartbreaking. Families across both countries, including in my constituency and yours, have been shocked and horrified. They are mourning, and we mourn with them.
Official casualty figures are not yet confirmed. However, our understanding is that of the 242 passengers and crew, 53 were British nationals, and just one has survived. Also, many people in the medical college that the plane hit died or were badly injured. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has passed on our deepest sympathies to Prime Minister Modi. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also spoke to his friend Minister Jaishankar on the day of the crash.
The Foreign Office immediately stood up crisis teams in London, Delhi and Ahmedabad. Our high commissioner in India travelled to Ahmedabad and remained on the ground throughout the weekend, visiting the local hospital and the crash site. We have increased consular assistance and are in contact with all the families of British nationals who have asked for our help. In Ahmedabad, we have set up a UK reception centre to help British nationals in person. A team of four investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch arrived on Friday to support work on the ground. That same morning, we also deployed five people from the rapid deployment team to strengthen the support that we are offering in person. We also supported the provision of a British Red Cross psychological support officer, who is now in India helping families to cope with the tragic emotional impact. We deployed specialist disaster victim identification experts on the ground; they are liaising with those involved in the Indian authority-led identification process. In the UK, police family liaison officers were deployed over the weekend to support families based here during an incredibly difficult time. We are of course in regular close contact with Air India about the support package that it is offering, which includes funding flights and full repatriation costs to bring loved ones home.
I understand how frustrating it is for families who have not yet been able to lay their loved ones to rest, and I recognise the pain and frustration that this is causing. The Indian authorities are working around the clock, with UK support, on this. Unfortunately, these processes take time, but it is important that they are done properly to avoid causing more pain for families.
At the same time, we are of course also focused on understanding what happened. The Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has accepted the UK’s offer of help, and a team of British inspectors are now on site. Our high commissioner also met Gujarat Home Minister Sanghavi yesterday to offer our support. The Government continue to work tirelessly with our Indian partners to establish what happened and support all those who are grieving.
With an India diaspora about 2 million-strong here in Britain, and with a particularly prominent Gujarati community, we feel the pain of this tragedy together. It reminds us not only of the deep personal ties between our people, but of the strength of our partnership with India—a partnership built on trust, shared values and mutual support in times of crisis. Just over a week ago, the Foreign Secretary was in Delhi celebrating the conclusion of trade talks, discussing the expansion of our strategic partnership and meeting so many people dedicated to strengthening the ties between us. In the face of such profound loss, the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with India, not only in grief but in our shared resolve to ensure that those we have lost are never forgotten. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Falconer
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her questions. She rightly points to the scale of this; it is the single largest loss of British life in an aviation accident since 9/11, and one of the single largest losses of British national life overseas in one incident in a long time. Ten years ago this month, practically, I was part of the diplomatic service on the ground in Sousse after a terrible tragedy. I know well the agony for families seeking to pick up the pieces after an incident like this.
The right hon. Lady asks an important question about the mortuary process, which can be particularly traumatic in another country. I can confirm that any British national who wants consular assistance in going through that process will have it from my officials. She rightly raises questions that have been asked by some of the families about the location of our reception centre and our presence at the hospital. Since becoming aware of those reports, I have sent officials to the hospital. We are not aware at the moment of British nationals congregating there. I have asked officials to review the signage and general arrangements to ensure that people know where our reception centre is. It is at Ummed hotel, which is close to the airport, because we though that would be the best place to receive British nationals, rather than the hospital, where, tragically, there are no living British nationals.
We keep these questions under review. As I know from my experience, in tragedies like this, it is difficult to get right the first time the assistance that British nationals need. We will learn lessons with each step. I spoke to some of the families who made those points this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Will the Minister please convey the gratitude of this House to the Foreign Office staff and the police officers who have had such difficult work to do on behalf of us all? Public service can be very hard sometimes, but we are very grateful.
Mr Falconer
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. The family liaison officers and the consular staff on the ground are trying to stand with British nationals during some of their darkest moments, and their work is very hard, exactly as she says. We will stay with those affected by this situation for as long as it takes, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked us to.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I associate myself with his remarks and those of other colleagues about our collective grief and shock at so many lives being lost in this appalling crash, including the lives of 52 UK citizens. I express my condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tragedy. It will be utterly devastating for them, and it is vital that the Government ensure that they are fully supported. What reassurances can the Minister provide that each of the families is receiving the support that they need, and is being kept updated with any and all new developments related to the crash?
Reports suggest that investigators have now recovered the cockpit voice recorder from the flight, which should provide crucial new insights into why the plane went down. British and American teams are on the ground to support India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau in the inquiry into the cause of the crash, and I thank those teams for their work. What steps is the Department taking to support them and other investigators to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for answers?
A British citizen, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, was the only survivor of the crash. I speak for the whole House in expressing our relief that he is alive, but I also recognise what a traumatic experience this will have been for him, including having to come to terms with the loss of his brother, Ajay, who was also on the flight. Can the Minister outline what support the Government are providing to Mr Ramesh and his family to enable his physical recovery and access to wider support?
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
This Air India crash was a devastating tragedy and my thoughts are with all those who were affected. Many of my constituents in West Bromwich have family in India and they are deeply shaken and saddened by what has happened. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out all the work that the British Government have done, in association with the Indian Government, to offer support at this terrible time. You have mentioned our aviation experts who are on-hand, but can you say a bit more—
Sarah Coombes
Will the Minister say a bit more about our ongoing support for the Indian Government and how we can give my constituents in West Bromwich confidence when they go to visit their family in India?
Gibraltar
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I will begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming a dame and on her trip to Buckingham Palace yesterday. I hear what she says about the CRaG process. I recognise the importance of that to the House, so through the usual channels, we will do everything that we can to ensure that there is the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and that the House can remain united and confident that Gibraltar remains sovereign, that the base is secure and that our relationship with both Spain and the EU is appropriately intact.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians.
There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations?
The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding
The Minister has heard the Palestinian people’s desperation. He has heard the desperation in this Chamber. What new pressure will he bring to bear on Israel to open the aid routes? What is the alternative plan? The Minister has asked for an independent inquiry into what went on in Rafah. Will he insist that the Israeli Government let the BBC and independent journalists into Gaza so that we know what is going on?
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Minister, if we do not recognise Palestine, it will cease to exist, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). Israel has approved another 22 settlement sites in the occupied west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. It violates international law. Minister, Louis Theroux’s incredible documentary “The Settlers”, which I will be showing today—he is in Parliament today—highlights the grim reality of the settlers’ mindset. Minister, you must agree that it is time that we have a strong debate. You cannot persuade—
Dawn Butler
The passion is overtaking me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Minister, do you not agree that we need—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. People keep addressing the Minister as “Minister”. They should be asking their questions through the Chair. The hon. Lady should say, “Does he agree?”
Dawn Butler
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that it has gone far enough, and that we must have this debate and say we will apply sanctions to Israel? No more arms should go to Israel. We must see the Palestinians as people and help them to survive.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am planning to run this statement for a further 30 minutes, but Members should think carefully about how many of their colleagues they wish to help to get in, and ask short questions—and short responses, please.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us be short and frank, then. For many of us in this House, this is no longer complicated. Time has run out for claiming ambiguity of action. Since 20 May, we have seen 22 more settlements. It is deliberately made dangerous for people to access aid, and the Israel Defence Forces have declared the roads to the aid distribution centres “combat zones”. The Minister says that the Government have raised concerns and have called for immediate independent investigations, but those have not happened—not just in this incident, but repeatedly. He will not tell us what he will do. This is on the consciences of us all, so we have to ask him to be clearer. Will he tell us what is not on the table? Will he rule out things? He has told us that he is talking about the future, but will he rule out immediate recognition of Palestine, which many of us have been calling for, the sanctions that many of us have been calling for, and a final resolution of the F-35 farce? If he does, at least we will get sense of where this is going.
Mr Falconer
I will return to this House when I have further announcements.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the announcement I have made today on further sanctions, building on the announcement I made back in October. It is very important that we send a clear message to Israel that it should allow the full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately and should enable the UN and humanitarian organisations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. She will have noted the co-ordinated statement of 27 countries, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France and many others, who came together to make their views crystal clear about what we now see happening, what we expect to see happen, and the further action that will have to take place if we do not.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I know that he, like me, has been horrified by the scenes coming out of Gaza. Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian chief, has indeed highlighted and predicted the imminent death of thousands of infants without immediate aid, and said that the amount of aid entering the strip is but “a drop in the ocean”.
Let us be clear that mass starvation will do nothing to remove Hamas or secure the release of the hostages, so I welcome yesterday’s joint statement with Canada and France. In it, the Prime Minister spoke of taking further action if Israel does not fully lift its aid blockade and draw back from its expansion of military activity. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the expanded sanctions list includes extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have advocated illegal actions to dispossess Palestinians across the occupied territories, and if not, why not? Will the Government go beyond reviewing the 2030 bilateral road map and urgently suspend it unless the Government of Israel change path? Will they now finally block the export of all UK arms to Israel?
In response to my letter to the Foreign Secretary last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), reaffirmed the Government’s position that they consider that Israel only “risks” breaching international law through its blockade. I ask the Secretary of State what more Israel would have to do to the people of Gaza for its actions to constitute not simply a “risk”, but an actual breach of international law.
The Minister also stated in his reply that the Government would only proceed with recognition of the state of Palestine at
“a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me and the Liberal Democrats that the time to recognise Palestine is now and that immediate recognition—ideally jointly with France at next month’s summit—would send the strongest possible signal about the UK’s commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will see that about 70 colleagues wish to contribute. This is an important statement and there is equally important business to follow. Members may all help each other by asking short questions. I call Stephen Flynn.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I gently suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might be bringing his remarks to a close? There are many other Members who wish to contribute this afternoon.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am doing my best, I hope as briefly as I can, to explain these technical amendments in a hugely important Bill, in a part of the Bill that the promoter has advocated for because she believes it is a safeguard. I think it is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we establish whether it is such a safeguard, and if it can be improved, how it can be improved—but I entirely take your strictures on board and I will come as quickly as I can to a conclusion.
This is not an equality of arms point—I accept that these are not opposing parties in the traditional sense—but it is really about the presentation of new evidence. Presumably the advice to someone whose application for a certificate has been refused and who has new evidence to present would be to reapply to the commissioner, but what is someone who has new evidence to challenge the basis for an existing certificate to do? Judicial review is no help. That is about the soundness of the decision already taken, which will be assessed using the evidence already presented to the panel that took the original decision.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to be flippant or to test the patience of the House, but we have just heard an important speech from a former Attorney General on some key legal points. This is still a private Member’s proposal. How can the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), respond to whether to accept amendments to her proposed legislation if she is not in the Chamber to hear the arguments? Is it not a discourtesy to the House and those who have spent some considerable time working on amendments, on both sides of the argument, for her not to be here to hear what they are advocating?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair.
I remind the House that although there is no formal time limit, many Members wish to contribute in this very important debate and it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to within the eight minutes that was suggested.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I voted in favour of the Bill, partly because I believed in the principle of it—I believe the right to choice, and in the right not to choose—and partly because I believed that we needed to have a way of checking somebody’s clear intention. At the moment, horrible deaths are happening and there are no such checks in place, so I was keen to see how this House could come up with a system that, although it would not be perfect, would be better than the terrible status quo we have now.
At that stage, we had two checks by medical practitioners, and then a third layer: the involvement of a High Court judge. Although I was pleased with a third layer, I was not convinced that it was the right way to deal with the matter. I am therefore pleased that that the Bill Committee proposed a panel of experts to make those checks, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has rightly addressed some of those points.
For me, having that panel in place is very important, and it is our job to see how we can strengthen it, so I want to speak to amendments 78 and 79. Amendment 78 would improve this provision by ensuring that there is a unanimous decision in favour of a certificate of eligibility—abstentions would not apply. That is better than what was previously drafted and is certainly better than a High Court judge. Amendment 79 would require those reasons to be set out in writing. There will be scrutiny of those decisions and we do need to have the reasons properly set out.
I appreciate that all hon. Members in the Chamber, and all those who have taken part in this process, have approached it with the best of intentions. It is not easy—it is difficult—and we have constituents giving us examples from both sides. We are doing the best we can to alleviate people’s suffering—that, I hope, is our common intention across the House.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend for her passionate contribution, but this is exactly how we make law. We take evidence and have discussions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I respectfully remind hon. Members that on Report we debate the amendments to the Bill, not the process of how law is made?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be aware that there are still many who wish to contribute to the debate. May I ask that contributions are kept to five minutes?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for putting me on the Bill Committee where, in my view, we did some excellent work. Although we have heard an awful lot of claims about the process, I think anybody objective who reads the Bill that is now being reported to the House will recognise that it is a strong piece of work that is measured and seeks to strike a balance in a difficult area of complexity, humanity, compassion and morality.
Before I discuss some of the amendments, I want to bring the House back to what we are trying to deal with: a set of people who have been told that their struggle with disease is over, that they are heading towards an inevitable death and that there is nothing more that medical science can do for them. What we are trying to do is to give them the chance to face death on their own terms. That is the simple mission that the House has been set.
The second thing I want Members to contemplate as they look at this slew of amendments is that although it is easy to look at each amendment individually and see its merits or demerits, we must bear in mind the machine we are building as a whole, and the fact that we are putting those people through this process at a time when they are facing the end of that struggle. They are thinking about what the nature of their death will be like and they are talking to their friends and family, putting their affairs in order, and being concerned about when that awful day is going to come. We have to have some compassion in the process as well as compassion in the purpose.
When Members consider some of the amendments I will highlight, I ask them please to keep in mind that we will have to put these people through a possible two-month process at a moment when their time is severely limited, very often to less than six months. For example, new clause 7 and amendment 50, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), would restrict the number of patients that doctors can deal with in any 12-month period. That will severely restrict access and may mean that patients who are partway through the process have to change suddenly because their doctor is time limited, pushing them out, notwithstanding the multiple safeguards we already have in the process.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) gave an interesting speech about amendment 47. Again, in that amendment, he would be creating another step, another delay and another set of problems for the dying person to overcome or issues for them to address. In his amendment—I am sure he is a much better lawyer than me—I found it odd that he would effectively be creating an inexhaustive list of individuals who could be called upon in any circumstances who might be “properly interested” in the welfare of that individual. To me, the person who should be the most interested in their future is the person themselves. Any step we take that cuts across their privacy, their autonomy and the alacrity with which they can seek this solution to their impending or perceived agony seems a step too far. I do not understand how, practically, the commission is supposed to ascertain who those individuals are—are they neighbours, friends or just family? What is the definition of family? We need to put that contemplation and how they want to handle their death squarely in the hands of the dying person.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it was a compelling point made in Committee and is certainly one that we recognise. That is why the amendments on training that she tabled in Committee were adopted—specifically to ensure that everybody involved in the process is sensitised to detecting those issues and to make clear that any doctor in the process, and indeed the panel, might want to know why family are not being informed. That is specifically why a social worker was put on the panel: to understand the psychosocial environment in which the person is taking that decision. Fundamentally, in the end, if I am facing my death in a matter of weeks and decide in my capacity that I do not want to inform my family, that is my choice. That is my decision. I may have to explain my reasons to the doctors, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. On that point, I remind Members that we are very short of time.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be swift.
That is my choice, and this Bill is rooted in the need to give autonomy to those facing death who have capacity. We should take care to tread carefully upon that right.
On the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), new clause 16 says that somebody cannot be “substantially motivated” by certain considerations. I do not really understand what “substantially motivated” is meant to mean. To me, this misunderstands the complexity of what it must be like to be told that you are dying. The things that might run through your head—the affairs you might have to deal with, the news you have to break to your family, the impact it will have on your small children—form a cocktail of motivations. But the one thing I have learned over the last 10 years from campaigning for and spending lots of time with dying and bereaved people is that towards the end of their life, they have absolute clarity about what they want, because it becomes clear to them towards the end what their death will be like. At the very least, they want to have this card in their back pocket to play if they require it. Remember: these are people who are facing death, who are struggling with death, and we have to give them the power to advance over it.
Kit Malthouse
Sorry, but I am conscious of time.
Finally, amendment (a) to new clause 10, which we might divide on this afternoon, is difficult. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As sponsors of the Bill, we are clear that there should be a conscientious objection clause to allow individuals to opt out, and that is strengthened by new clause 10. But allowing an employer—any employer—to say that any employee in their employment cannot participate if that is what they decide seems to me a step too far, and it could prove to have unintended consequences. First, the board of every healthcare trust in the country will become a battle for control between those who oppose and those who do not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, people may suddenly find that they have to uproot themselves, after years of living in a care home, and relocate to get the kind of death that they want. In effect, the amendment prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying. As I said on Second Reading, in my view, as they face their end, we should prioritise the rights of the dying.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had intended to speak about new clauses 1 and 10, but I will restrict myself to new clause 1 for the sake of time. New clause 1 says:
“No health professional shall raise assisted dying…unless that person has first raised it.”
If the patient does not mention the issue and specifically ask for it, the doctor would be entirely prohibited from even mentioning it. That is problematic for many reasons. It goes against good medical practice, and is actively opposed by the British Medical Association. For me, the new clause would undermine the hard-won rights of people to be fully informed of their medical options, and would make the application of the Bill unfair and unequal, to the detriment of marginalised people in particular.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Just this week, the Health and Social Care Committee heard from vulnerable service-users who talked about white coat syndrome—that people are more likely to be pushed into options when given them by medical professionals. That is the concern behind the amendment. I do not know how I will vote on the Bill, but I am minded to support the amendment because of what I have heard from people from vulnerable communities.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will expand on this, but that is exactly why good medical practice requires all options to be on the table. Patients should not be influenced by the opinions, whether philosophical or medical, of a doctor; they should be able to give full and informed consent. I believe that new clause 1 would chill those discussions, and limit the option of an assisted death to those already in the know, those who are the most medically literate, and those who are often the least marginalised in society. It would result in unequal access to a legal process, and flies in the face of good medical practice, which has moved away from the paternalism that harmed patients and took away their individual control. After many years of fighting, mainly by women and marginalised communities, it is now established that good healthcare practice means patients having full information to make their own decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I urge the few remaining Members who will get in to keep their remarks brief, please.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
As I thought about today’s debate, I asked myself, “What more can I say than I said in the previous debate?” Yet there is much more, because as the Bill made progress through Committee, its intentions were exposed over and over again. Commitments, safeguards and kind words championed in this place have been set aside. On Second Reading, we were told that the Committee considering the Bill would be balanced and representative, yet its make-up did not reflect that intention: 55% of MPs voted for the Bill on Second Reading, but 61% of the Committee supported it.
The mask has slipped time and again. One of the biggest blows to the Bill, which the public listening today need to know about, relates to the need for approval via High Court judges. On Second Reading, that was laboured as the strongest safeguard, but that safeguard has been removed at a stroke. What is now being legislated for is a panel of psychiatrists—and a voluntary panel, at that. Impartial judges have been replaced by a voluntary panel, which could well be made up of enthusiasts for assisted dying, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has now said that there are not even sufficient psychiatrists for such panels.
I want to be absolutely clear: this Bill is immoral. If it is passed at a future date, it will create a publicly funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service. That means that the state will have the ability to give a legal drug to end a life. It is immoral, and it goes against my strong Christian faith, and that of many of my constituents in Upper Bann and people across the United Kingdom.
Dame Meg Hillier
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people have put in to speak today, and we appreciate the huge challenge to you, chairing this debate, and for the Speaker’s Office. It is normal for private Members’ Bills that the debate continues in an orderly and proper fashion so that everyone can have their say. We appreciate that that is much more challenging in these circumstances, but we have heard many times that we are running out of time, Members are not taking interventions because of concerns about time, and the informal time limit has dropped to five minutes. I am aware that the Front Benchers still need to speak. It is in the power of the Chair, of course, to refuse any suggestion of a closure motion. I would like to ask you whether there is any thinking going on about whether this debate can continue. Many of those who have tabled amendments have not yet been called to speak, and I, for one, would like to hear their points of view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She would not wish me to anticipate any decision on a closure motion at the current time, I hope. She makes a valid point that many Members who wish to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, but she will also know that there will be further debate on the second group of amendments.
Dame Meg Hillier
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concern is that this is the last debate on these amendments. It is in the control of the Chair whether to grant a vote on a closure motion. I simply make that point, as I am sure you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I reassure the hon. Lady that I have heard her point. I repeat that I will not make a pre-decision on any closure motion that has not yet been moved.
Dr Opher
I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of the need to fit in as many people as possible.
I will address a few issues on the assessment of capacity under new clause 9. One key point about assessing capacity as a doctor is that in most cases it is very clear cut: someone either has capacity or they do not. That is quite easy and quick to establish. With a very small number of patients, it is more difficult. By amendment to the Bill made in Committee, we must now refer such a person to a consultant psychiatrist for an assessment by a specialist. They are then in the best position to assess those very difficult points of capacity. That very much strengthens the Bill.
I will speak very briefly to new clause 1. As doctors, we must, under our ethical obligations, give options to patients. If we are absolutely forbidden to do that—new clause 1 would make it a crime, so we could be convicted for doing so—that totally wrecks the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and unworkable.
Sarah Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. On that point, I have particular concerns—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I just clarify whether the hon. Gentleman was giving way?
Sanctions
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.
We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.
Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.
Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.
This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups.
All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine.
On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House?
Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion.
Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets?
Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future.
Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable.
We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions.
DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.
As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.
The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.
The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.
The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.
The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.
There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade.
Middle East Update
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
From the Father of the House to the 2024 intake, we are hearing across the Chamber—from Labour, Conservative, Green, Plaid and Scottish National colleagues—a consensus about what the Government need to do on behalf of the British people. We need our Government to recognise the Palestinian state, we need to make sure that the hostages are returned home, and we need to stop the killing of innocent Palestinians who are now faced with starvation. Minister, on behalf of this House of Commons, I plead with you and the Government to take action—
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Over and over again, from all parts of this House, we witness grandstanding against mass migration and the most vulnerable in any society—refugees and asylum seekers—while knowing all too well that refugee crises are not born in a vacuum, as attested to by the situation unfolding in Gaza before the eyes of the world. Refugees have no choice; they are forced out of their homes and thrust on the world, looking for somewhere safe to seek asylum. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to get to his question very quickly.
Mr Hussain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister pledged to the British public that he would go harder on the issue of migration. Given what the Israeli Government are now saying, I ask the Minister whether his Government will come down harder—through action, not mere condemnation—to ensure that the world is not faced with a new and devastating refugee crisis.
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the most painful elements of this crisis has been that even those Palestinians in Gaza who wish to leave have not been able to do so. Regrettably, we have already discussed forced displacement many times this afternoon, so I will not rehearse the point, but I can assure him that in the face of potential further escalation in the conflict, we will redouble our efforts to secure the ceasefire that I know everybody in this House wants to see restored.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Israel is starving Gaza to death. I am sorry, Minister, but when Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed before our eyes, mere words of regret or condemnation from the Government are simply not good enough. We in this House will be judged in history for failing the Palestinian people, so I urge the Minister to listen to the consensus that is being built across the House today and act. We do not need words; we need action for the Palestinian people.