Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s focus on Yemen. I reassure the House that I do remain focused on Yemen, as do other Ministers—it is vital that we see the release of the detained humanitarian workers, access to humanitarian supplies for the Yemenis, and peace and security for a country that is much benighted. I can also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we do have contingency plans in place, and I encourage Members of this House to encourage their constituents to look at travel advice. We have relaxed the travel advice in recent weeks, particularly in the Gulf region. We do our best to make sure our advice is as up to date as possible, and people should look at it before they travel. We try not to be over-cautious; we will do all the contingency planning we can, but British nationals also have a responsibility to take sensible precautions.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?

[Mr Falconer]

As I hope was clear in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are international principles in play here that go beyond simply Iran, the United States, or even the region—principles of the freedom of navigation and the global commons. That is why I sought to focus so much on those issues in my response. The hon. Lady asks what we are doing to ensure that the talks succeed. We are in close contact with all involved, which includes making points directly and forcefully to Tehran and, of course, talking to our friends in Washington. We want diplomacy to succeed, but we also must see those international principles—those linchpins of international law—sustained and maintained, both in the strait of Hormuz and globally.

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate.

It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.

[Tom Hayes]

In which case, continue.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods.

Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results.

Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to.

This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes.

But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. I thank all Members who have contributed and will do my best to respond to the points raised.

Twenty years ago, many believed that globalisation, economic growth and international co-operation would steadily drive down poverty and expand opportunity across the world. That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025—the largest year-on-year reduction we have ever seen.

As this House is aware, the Government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK ODA budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending. That was a tough decision that many Members have talked about today, and not all Members agreed with it. I understand that, but it was the right decision given the threats our country faces. Constrained ODA, though, is only part of the story. That is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap—the difference between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the sustainable development goals and the funding it can currently access—is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast, aid to sub-Saharan Africa totalled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional ODA flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, ODA can only be part of a solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible.

Low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for change for some time. They want long-term genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.

[Dr Chowns]

The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have to say, it is in complete contrast to my conversations with foreign Ministers. Some of them are exhausted by the idea that we dictate the terms of aid funding, and exhausted by the fact that we put a project in and then move away five years later with limited output.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Elmore]

I will not give way. The hon. Lady posed the question and I will answer it. When I have had conversations with Ministers globally—[Interruption.]

Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out the statement we made last year and the intensity of focus we have on these issues. I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority following concerns raised in many places, including in this House, about an event some weeks ago, and have indeed engaged with the Charity Commission following concerns being raised.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Frankly, I despair. I have lost count of the number of times that I and others across this entire House have come here to press the Minister to put in place a full ban on settlement trade and the number of times he has prevaricated. I have lost count of the number of times that he has wrung his hands, made statements of concern, expressed worry and condemnation and yet refused to do what he claims he will do, because he has talked about acting with alacrity and using all the leverage we have, and yet he does not. If E1 goes ahead, that will be the death knell for the prospect of the Palestinian state that he, all Labour MPs and so many of us are so proud of this Government for recognising last year. It is, however, worth nothing if he does not follow up with action and use every lever in this Government’s power to follow through, to put pressure on the Israeli Government and to ensure that the rights of Palestinians are upheld.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Lady is right: we have had many exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I gently remind her that over the course of these exchanges, I have recognised the Palestinian state; I have sanctioned Israeli Ministers; we have restricted arms sales; and we have led statements repeatedly on these issues. I understand that we are all appalled by the violence that continues, but that does not mean we are not taking the action that we can—

[Dr Chowns]

You’re not doing everything!

[Mr Falconer]

And no doubt you can set out your own proposals. We have taken repeated actions and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Once again, I point out the strength of the action we have taken; we have brought together countries from across the world—and gone further than most countries. What is being driven here is deeply disturbing: both the level of violence, and the deliberate attempt—with the E1 settlements in particular—to undermine any possibility of a two-state solution. That is a long-term thing, and it has been supported by many people across the Israeli Government. It is a deep challenge for everyone, which is why we need international action. In the autumn, we had the international consensus and energy to deliver the 20-point plan for Gaza, which nobody expected would be achieved. We need to pull that energy together again. That is why I was in Paris on Friday, it is why I discussed this issue with Australia and Canada, as well as European colleagues, and it is why I will go to Egypt—to the middle east, where the energy on many of these things has come from—in order to try to make progress on it again.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I would like to start by joining you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House in paying tribute to the memory of Jo Cox. Her words about seeking what we have in common, and working to counter the politics of division, are today more relevant than ever—for all of us.

The Secretary of State set out piecemeal and entirely inadequate measures last week in relation to west bank settlement activity. It was raised with her then that the UK would be hosting the Great Israeli Real Estate Event at the weekend, and she undertook to look into it. That event took place, with properties in illegal settlements being marketed on British territory—the Government have been sent the evidence. How is it that this Government fail even to prevent the marketing of illegal property in this country? How is it that they still fail to take action? The Secretary of State continues to tell us about the meetings that she has had, but what we want is leadership. The UK has a particular responsibility, so will she step up and ban trade with illegal settlements?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been very clear not only that no businesses should be engaging in trade or marketing around the illegal settlements, but that they certainly should not be doing so on UK soil. We take this issue so seriously, which is why the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have raised it directly with the Advertising Standards Authority. We have asked the authority to urgently look into the matter and reassure us that, if there is any evidence of the advertising or promotion of property in illegal settlements at that event or any others, it will uphold the law, regulations and guidance that apply. It is extremely important that those standards are met in the UK, and that is exactly why we have raised the matter so seriously with the Advertising Standards Authority.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The expansion of the illegal settlements is not only deeply wrong, because Palestinians are being forced from their own land, sometimes in the most brutal of circumstances, but deliberately designed to try to make it impossible to ever get to a two-state solution. That is the purpose for some of those involved, and we should be very clear on that and call it out for what it is. That is why it is so important not only to strengthen the condemnation of the illegal settlements and the expansions, but to be clear that we cannot stand back and allow what could effectively become an annexation. That needs to be linked to the 20-point plan. My point has always been that we will not sustain the ceasefire in Gaza that was rightly brokered by the US in the autumn, or achieve peace and security for Palestine and Israel, if we end up with such devastating consequences for the west bank and if we do not have a track to get to a two-state solution.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because we are so deeply concerned about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the responsibility of the Israeli Government to uphold the 20-point plan, which is not happening at the moment in Gaza, to withdraw from the illegal settlements in the west bank and to lift their chokehold on the Palestinian Authority that we have taken action, including sanctions and leading the way internationally. We are one of the few countries in the world to have sanctioned individual Israeli Government Ministers, including for the way they have argued for incitement and effectively encouraged the expansion of the settlements.

We are going right to the heart of the Israeli Government with the actions we have taken, alongside other measures, including financial and development support for the Palestinian Authority and recognition of the Palestinian state for the first time, which was historically the right thing to do. If we are to deliver results, the other thing we need to do is build international consensus. That international leadership and action is what delivered the 20-point plan in the autumn, and that is what we will do again as part of the peacebuilding conference in Paris this week.

Summit on Illicit Finance

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a summit on tackling illicit financial flows, but it is essential that more political priority is given to this issue and that the UK shows more leadership in this space. If the summit is to be a success, we need to put our own house in order and play a critical role in helping to clean up the global financial system. We must also clean up the influence of dirty money, which infests our politics and the fabric of our country.

The UK plays a core part in this issue, particularly due to the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating these flows. As we have already heard, if we include the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is calculated that £788 billion of illicit finance from financial crime, money laundering, corruption, illegal trade and tax abuse flows through the UK and its territories every single year. That is a huge problem.

I was particularly struck by the calculation from Tax Justice UK that the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for about a quarter of revenues worldwide lost due to tax abuse. That is extraordinary. We represent less than 1% of the global population. Our economy, depending on how it is measured—purchasing power parity or not—is between 2% and 3% of the global economy, yet we are facilitating 25% of global tax abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable. I welcome the commitment from Members across the Chamber today to tackling that. I very much hope that we will hear strong words, followed by strong action, from the Government today and in the summit.

It is crucial that we have full transparency over property ownership and beneficial ownership. It is crucial that registers are fully accessible to everybody and are not just, as has been suggested by some territories, accessible only to certain people at certain times—pre-qualified, with notifications being sent to owners that people are looking into their affairs. Transparency is a fundamental principle, and it is essential to prevent the abuses that we know the system of secrecy actively enables. I very much hope to see strong action from the Government on that at the upcoming summit.

It is also crucial that the summit recognises that tax abuse includes both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The UK economy loses tens of billions of pounds each year, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned.

[Joe Powell]

I appreciate the cross-party spirit in which this debate has been held, but it would be helpful if the Green party leader would pay his own council tax as a demonstration of leading by example.

[Dr Chowns]

I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world.

I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade. I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally.

The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world. The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Yesterday, I heard from Palestinian children about the struggles that they face. I have taken steps at every stage to try to ensure that they get help and assistance, and that they can exercise their rights in relation to both their education and the dreadful situation that I described in my statement.

I reject my hon. Friend’s characterisation of my action and that of the Government; we take this with the seriousness that it requires. The condemnation that I have heard from across the House is for a man I have already sanctioned. For the first time in British history, a British Minister has sanctioned Israeli Ministers—and not just junior Ministers but very senior Ministers. We did it deliberately and we did it in advance of our partners. Others are considering repeating our actions. I accept his strength of feeling about the suffering. I do not accept his condemnation that we have done nothing.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said:

“I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”,

but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?

[Mr Falconer]

I would take the point with more force if we were not today seeing our European partners looking to imitate things that we did some considerable time ago. I recognise the depth of feeling, which I share, about the suffering in Palestine and across the region, but it is simply not correct to suggest that the Government have done nothing. We have set out the action we have taken in relation to sanctions, arms exports and a range of other issues.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—[Interruption.] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Message received—I call Sam Rushworth.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any more interventions, because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking at her watch. The allegation simply has not been substantiated. There is pressure going on at the moment: documents are being released under the Humble Address and evidence is being given before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to wonder why the Opposition have not waited until that process has been concluded before writing to the Speaker requesting this motion.

I want to address a couple more points quickly, and I will not take any more interventions. I acknowledge that there are Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some Opposition Members, who have suggested that they are so confident that the Prime Minister has no case to answer that he should just refer himself to the Committee to prove it. I do not think that that is the way we should be using the Committee’s time. The onus is on this place to decide whether any evidence has yet come forward that suggests that there is a case to answer, and I do not think that anybody so far has shown any.

People have also referenced the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I remind the House that at the point he was referred to the Privileges Committee, it was not a case of what happened in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office beyond the Prime Minister’s knowledge. This was a case of him saying, “There were no parties in Downing Street,” of him then appearing photographed at parties, and there being a Metropolitan police investigation and a criminal conviction. I am simply not going to indulge the Opposition in their games. We all know what this is about. We all know that somewhere in Conservative headquarters right now, graphs are being prepared with our faces on them to try to play some narrative to our voters that we are all part of some big cover-up. When we behave like this, it does a disservice to all of us and to this place, and I am simply not going to play their games today.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Appointing Peter Mandelson was wrong, and, as with any debate on this subject, we should start by acknowledging the suffering of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. They have my full solidarity.

However, I have listened closely to what has been said by Opposition Members during the debate, and I think we need to call their behaviour what it is: political game playing of the lowest order. Politics is a circus for the Opposition. They thrive on the use of politics as a soap opera, because it is all they know. That is why the public grew so heartily sick of them, and it is precisely why so many of their former colleagues no longer sit on their Benches. Just weeks ago, their leader showed a catastrophic failure of leadership in calling for this country to rush to war. When she spoke then, she had no underlying strategy, and she did not focus on what was right for the country. Clearly she has learned nothing from that. Her cynicism becomes clear now, when we peel back the rhetoric and expose the lack of substance behind her arguments.

Peter Mandelson was dismissed last September, and rightly so. The Prime Minister has already acknowledged that his appointment was a mistake. Senior civil servants, including Olly Robbins, Chris Wormald and Cat Little, have all made it clear that due process was followed in that appointment. Olly Robbins has said that no one from No. 10 ever spoke to him or messaged him to apply pressure, and Philip Barton has today confirmed that there was no pressure on the substance of the vetting.

I want to deal directly with the sequence of vetting. I have been through developed vetting. I have been through security vetting numerous times, and it is completely standard procedure to make offers of jobs contingent on passing security. On this point, as on other points, there is simply no case to answer.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

No, I will make some progress.

What is more, this Government are undertaking an extensive release of documents in the interests of transparency and out of respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on the progress with the Humble Address. On top of that, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings. Alongside that, the Government have already strengthened the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I ask again: what is the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the Conservatives’ argument has changed time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) so eloquently pointed out. What we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. The Conservatives are speaking not in the public interest, but in service of political opportunism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity.

It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does.

Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that,

“No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

That is clearly not a tenable position.

Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak.

It is clear that there is a case to answer here. The decision we have to make is not whether we are definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and therefore whether this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence to deal with these issues: the Privileges Committee. As many Members have commented, the Prime Minister could and should refer himself to that Committee. It would clearly save a great deal of heartache within the Labour party. If he will not do that, all of us—whatever our party—owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I am not going to answer silly questions.

Next, on the question of pressure—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.

[Dr Chowns]

Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?

[Darren Jones]

I am trying my best, but I have answered both those questions already from the Dispatch Box. I refer the hon. Lady to my comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I notice that the right hon. Member has nothing to say to those kids, to those patients waiting in the NHS, or to the line of other people waiting for his Government to perform.

Just for me to complete going around the House, the so-called Green party is desperate to distract from Labour’s clean energy mission, from its opposition to clean nuclear power, and from its quibbling over new solar farms that—I literally could not make this up—it thinks are too big. Get real!

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

We are in an energy bills crisis and a climate emergency, and this Labour party is going to pull out the stops to serve the British people. While the Opposition parties play—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness to the right hon. Member, he has given way once already. The hon. Lady cannot stand while he is speaking; she can indicate that she wishes to intervene, but she cannot continue to hang loose like she is trying to summon a taxi.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK Government have put in place a series of measures that include introducing sanctions against Cabinet members in the Israeli Government. We have taken action around sanctions and arms sales. We have been maintaining continuous international pressure, working with allies, including around the negotiations on Lebanon. We have been pressing strongly for those negotiations, including directly with the Israeli Government, the Lebanese Government and the US Government, who have hosted those talks.

International Development

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We will continue to work with international organisations on this; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), is due to have meetings on disability issues later today. We looked at this issue to ensure that there would not be a disproportionate impact, particularly with regard to equality impact assessments. We recognise that there is a difficult impact from reductions in aid budgets. That is why this has been such a difficult decision to make.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.