(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): Will the Minister make a statement on the killing of 26 people in Pahalgam in Kashmir and the increasing tension between India and Pakistan?
The horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April was devastating. [Interruption.]
Order. Members must sit down, because the Minister is on his feet replying.
Our thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones and, of course, the people of India. This attack left 26 people dead, most of whom, we understand, were tourists travelling to the region. Following the attack, India has announced a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, and Pakistan has reciprocated. The official UK travel advice for Indian-administered Kashmir continues to advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city, and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.
This is a very sensitive situation, with real risks to regional and wider stability. Understandably, there has been huge interest within UK communities. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan many times over previous decades. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Modi on 25 April to express his condolences on behalf of the British people. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism and the extremism that sustains it, wherever it occurs. The Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 27 April to pass on the UK’s condolences and to express the UK Government’s support to the Indian people at this difficult time. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken over the weekend to Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.
Heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inevitably raise concerns about escalation. Effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region are essential. The UK supported the UN Security Council press statement on 25 April, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. I have three further points.
First, this is a terrorist attack of the utmost barbarity, and it deserves to be condemned by all. My thoughts are with the families of those killed. The killing took place in a popular tourist location, and most victims were tourists. Among the victims was a man married only the week before, who was honeymooning with his wife. The manner of the selection of the victims was particularly horrific, with the killers actively seeking out non-Muslims before killing them in cold blood. The Minister will be aware that the Kashmir region has been the scene of previous terrorist attacks that have claimed many innocent lives, including in Chittisinghpura, where 35 Sikhs were killed in 2000. What support can the UK provide to ensure that the terrorists are found and brought to justice, and to ensure that their networks of support are dismantled?
Secondly, there has been a significant escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, including the measures that the Minister has outlined. India and Pakistan have engaged in large-scale military hostilities in the past in the region, and there is a real risk that the nations could revert to a military conflict again. What can the UK do to encourage a de-escalation of tensions, while ensuring the eradication of the terrorist organisations and their support networks wherever they exist?
Finally, the Minister will be aware that there have been protests in the UK outside India and Pakistan’s high commissions. Those protests have been characterised by provocative language and gestures, including what appears to be a throat-slitting motion by an alleged Pakistan official. Windows have been smashed at Pakistan’s high commission in London, and an individual has been arrested and charged. Does the Minister recognise the importance of proactive work with communities across the UK to ensure that we do not see a downturn in community relations here?
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on these questions. I am sure that the whole House shares his horror at the details of this incident—the targeting of the victims and the way in which it was carried out.
First, I will address the scenes on UK streets. We are aware of reports of the video that my hon. Friend refers to; the Metropolitan police are investigating, so I will not provide any further commentary on that particular incident, but it is obviously concerning. We take seriously our responsibility for the security of all embassies and high commissions under the Vienna convention, so both the Pakistani and Indian high commissions will receive all the support of the UK state to ensure that they stay safe. As my hon. Friend has said, and as I know many in this House feel, these issues have long been discussed with passion on British streets. We call on all sides, all community leaders and all involved to call for calm at a time of tension in the region.
I thank the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) for securing the question and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who also requested a question on this topic today, for the support he has given to India.
My condolences, thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the murderous violent terrorism that has taken place in Pahalgam. I recognise that for India and the diaspora communities—those in the UK in particular—this has been a really difficult week. This was an act of terrorism, and we should call it out for exactly what it is. It is part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians, visitors to the region and minority communities, and the UK must always stand with our friends during times of this nature.
We have a series of long-standing security and counter-terrorism partnerships with India, going back to the New Delhi declaration in 2002 and including the India-UK strategic partnership in 2016, the comprehensive strategic partnership announced in 2022, and the UK-India 2030 road map agreed under the last Government. Under those partnerships, security issues have been absolutely watertight, which is why we must always be in lockstep with our friends in India.
Can the Minister tell us what information the UK Government have on those responsible for carrying out these terrorist attacks? Do the Government believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group proscribed in the UK, bear responsibility? Are the Government aware of any cross-border links to Pakistan among the perpetrators of this terrorist act? Given that attacks seem to take place at the same time as high-profile US politicians visit India—this is not the first time—do the Government have a view on whether this is a coincidence, or whether it demonstrates a pattern of targeted and deliberately timed attacks?
We know that the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, but has the UK provided any specific support in response to this terror attack or taken any practical steps to assist our friends in India? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the security implications of this attack for the UK? If Lashkar-e-Taiba or a front linked to them are responsible, it should be noted that disturbing reports are emerging that this terrorist group may have had engagement with Hamas. Have the Government made an assessment of the relationship between groups causing terror and destabilisation in Kashmir and those pursuing violence and terrorism that threaten our interests and global peace and security?
Finally, can the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to prevent tensions from escalating among communities in the UK—including protections for the high commissions, which have already been mentioned—and will the UK leverage its influence to ease tensions between India and Pakistan?
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. India is a friend to the UK, and we have been clear about the depth of our friendship in our response to this incident. She would not expect me to comment in detail on intelligence and security matters in relation to this attack, but I assure her that we are looking at it very closely. She is right that wherever terrorism is found, it is a threat to global peace and security, including in the UK. I will not comment further from this Dispatch Box on links between some of the groups that the right hon. Lady has mentioned, but I assure her that our security agencies take these matters very seriously, as she would expect.
The right hon. Lady asks important questions about the Indian high commission. As I said in my earlier answer, we will offer our full support. There is 24/7 enhanced protection outside the high commission, and it will be a top priority for the Government to ensure that no harm comes to any Indian diplomats or, indeed, any other diplomats here in the UK.
We are playing our role to try to ensure that tensions do not escalate. Many of us in this House are familiar with the tense and storied history between the two countries. We are friends to them both, and we do not want to see an uncontrolled escalation in tensions.
May I pay my respects to those who have lost loved ones in the horrific terrorist attack in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir? My thoughts are with them at this devastating time. Many of my constituents have written to me about the escalation of hostilities here in the UK. Can the Minister say what conversations he is having with Indian and Pakistani counterparts to address this situation?
This escalation is unsettling for communities within the UK. British Pakistanis and British Indians are valued parts of our community, but we look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences, not to play out the tensions between two states on the streets of the UK, and we will continue to send that message.
I associate myself with the comments that have already made, reflecting on the grief of the communities torn apart last week. Tuesday’s horrific murders were utterly devastating, and those responsible must face the full weight of the law. The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan is alarming, as are reports of incidents of fire being exchanged by soldiers at the border, and it threatens to destabilise the entire region. It is vital that leaders in both countries commit to an open dialogue and wider efforts to de-escalate. We hope that that includes India committing to reinstate the Indus waters treaty, the suspension of which threatens water access for Pakistanis, and Pakistan reopening its airspace to Indian-owned airlines.
The UK must engage with both Governments and encourage a return to dialogue and a retreat from retaliatory action to ensure that decisions taken in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific attack do not endanger more lives. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with officials in New Delhi on reinstating the Indus waters treaty and with officials in Islamabad on reopening its airspace?
It is vital that effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region exist, and we are encouraging both parties to that effect. There has been a lot of speculation about the diplomatic measures that have been announced so far. As we understand it, international agreements have been put in abeyance, rather than being rescinded. In the long term, the proper functioning of water management in the Indus water catchment area is vital for both sides of the line.
The whole House is united in its condemnation of the horrific attack that killed 26 people in Pahalgam, Kashmir. It has rightly been condemned by all in the region, and we must now see a full and independent investigation where those responsible are brought to justice. The response from the Indian Government has been somewhat concerning, with unilateral action taken to revoke the Indus waters treaty, risking the lives and livelihoods of millions in Pakistan. We are now hearing reports of crackdowns in Kashmir, with 1,500 people rounded up by the police and bulldozer tactics used on households. Hard-line groups have issued statements promising reprisal attacks, death threats and action against every Muslim in India. Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint between the two nuclear neighbours, so does the Minister agree that the international community must now seriously focus on de-escalation and long-term peace in the region? Can he also set out what the Government are doing to ensure that Kashmiris do not face further persecution or oppression?
This is clearly a time of heightened tensions, which inevitably invites concern both in the region and here in the UK. We are, as I said, engaged with both states to try to find the most effective way to prevent these terrible incidents from ever being repeated, but also to ensure continued stability in the region.
I asked at business questions last week for a statement on this issue this week, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for making sure that we have that statement through this urgent question.
The reality of this terrorist attack, which was well organised and well co-ordinated, is that, despite the Minister’s words, these 26 men who were murdered systematically by being shot in the head were either Hindu or Christian. This was a deliberate Islamist attack on those tourists who were just going about their business in a peaceful manner. These terrorists were well equipped, and they were well co-ordinated.
The sad reality is that while the Government may offer expressions of condolence and support to the people of India, the terrorist bases that exist along the line of control in the part of Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan continue to operate across that line of control. Will the Government commit to full support for India in apprehending the terrorists responsible and bringing the backers of those terrorists to justice? Will the Government take all steps to support the erosion and elimination of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir?
The hon. Gentleman has come to have an argument, but I am not sure which part of the statement he did not like. Until the investigation is concluded, we should not speculate on the nature of the attack. I say to him that will do everything we can to ensure that those who committed this horrific attack are brought to justice, and India will have our support in that.
I share in the comments made in this House. We are horrified by this terrorist attack, and my thoughts are with the families, the victims and those in India. We have seen worrying scenes play out in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) mentioned. We cannot let the situation escalate on to UK shores. We all bear a responsibility to help de-escalate tensions. What steps is the UK taking to support international bodies, especially the United Nations, in their calls for a de-escalation in tensions?
As I have said, we have spoken at the senior level to both states, and we have made clear the importance of maintaining stability in the region at this time.
I echo the words of condemnation over the horrific terror attacks in Pahalgam, which took the lives of 26 innocent tourists. I express my heartfelt condolences to all those who have been affected. The rapid escalation of events following this tragedy has been deeply worrying. India’s unfounded claims against Pakistan are a dangerous and irresponsible reaction to the tragedy suffered in Kashmir. The unilateral and illegal decision to suspend the Indus waters treaty threatens to cut the lifeline of 200 million people in Pakistan, and it cannot stand. Will the Minister join me in expressing concern over the knife-edge position that these two nations are in and call for adherence to the guidance set under international bodies of law? Will he make a plea to calm the situation? If it is exacerbated, it will have severe consequences that spread much further than that region alone.
I think I have set out our views on the importance of stability in the region already this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member that it is critical for all actors and international partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system.
I welcome the statement from the Minister today. In light of the awful terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, what work are the Government undertaking to consult the Kashmiri diaspora here in the UK and identify their concerns?
Both the Foreign Office and other UK Government Departments engage regularly with the British Kashmiri community—who are an important part of so many communities across the United Kingdom—and will continue to do so.
I am sure the Government recognise that the strategic aim of this sort of terrorist atrocity is to provoke indiscriminate retaliation and undermine peaceful relations between neighbouring countries between which there may be some history of hostility. Will the Minister impress on the Indian Government the necessity of focusing on the actual perpetrators and not on the wider community, and will he impress on the Pakistani Government the importance, in good faith, of tracking down those responsible?
Too often in the region for which I am responsible, and indeed in this country, we have seen terrorist attacks designed to have exactly the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has described, namely to provoke tension, intercommunal hostility and a breakdown of law and order. As he says, a proper, law-enforcement-led response based on a focus on the actual perpetrators is important in this area, as it is throughout the world.
May I first send my condolences, thoughts and prayers to all the victims of this heinous terrorist attack in occupied Kashmir?
There is a large Kashmiri diaspora in my constituency, and many of my constituents have reached out to me expressing deep concerns. A number of them have mentioned the Indus waters treaty. Pakistan has already been suffering from the effects of floods in past years, from which it has not recovered. At times of escalation and troubles such as this it seems to be communities at large, be they in India or Pakistan, who suffer. What message can the Minister give my constituents to reassure them that the UK is doing all it can to de-escalate, bring things back to normal and hold the perpetrators to account?
We are focused on holding the perpetrators to account. I am familiar with the issues facing Pakistan in relation to acute natural disaster: I was there during the disastrous floods in 2010, and I recognise the importance of the Indus river system in both India and Pakistan and of co-operation between the two states to manage that vital system. There is a great deal of speculation about what has been decided and what has been agreed, but we understand that diplomatic treaties are being held in abeyance and that there is still space for a long-term answer to some of these questions.
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on British Hindus, and with a constituency that contains a considerable Indian and Pakistani community, I was especially shocked and saddened by the news of the horrific murder of 26 people last Tuesday, and I have received many emails from constituents raising their own concerns. Of particular concern are reports of the targeting of Hindus and Christians: such race-based terror is unacceptable anywhere in the world. What steps are the Government taking to encourage both India and Pakistan to investigate these terrible crimes, and to ensure that lines of communication are kept open to avoid a further escalation of the conflict?
We are encouraging direct lines of communication, and we are of course encouraging Pakistan to provide all possible assistance with the investigation of these horrific crimes.
May I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and other Members who have condemned the killing of 26 innocent people?
Given that tensions between India and Pakistan are running high and resulting in arrests, does the Minister agree with me, and with others who have raised the point, that we must not let this issue boil over into our streets? If anything, we should be working to convey a message of peace and hope to that part of the world. In the light of the tit-for-tat actions being undertaken by Pakistan and India, does the Minister also agree that we need to encourage the holding of an open, independent inquiry to establish the facts, ensure accountability and help to restore calm? That would be far better for the world than India and Pakistan—nuclear powers—going to war.
My hon. Friend is, of course right: peace and calm are vital for communities here and across the world. The two states are talking to each other, which is welcome. India’s concerns for its own security are understandable in the light of such a horrific incident. It is clearly taking steps to try to establish the facts as best it can, and it will have British support to do so.
At a time of such tragedy, language is incredibly important. All of us, in all parts of the House, condemn this terrorist incident, but a number of my constituents have been particularly concerned about the BBC’s describing it as “militance” rather than as what it is—a terrorist attack. Will the Minister use his position to make representations to the BBC to ensure that it understands the importance of the language it uses?
I resist calls for Ministers to police the BBC’s language too much, but let me be clear: this was a horrific terrorist attack, and that is the view of the British Government.
We have seen the Kargil incursion, the Chittisinghpura attack, the hijacking of Air India Flight 814, the attack on Gandhinagar, the attack on the Lok Sabah itself, the attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai and the suicide bomb attack at Pulwama that killed 44 people, and now 26 tourists have been murdered at Pahalgam. That is just a short list of the activities of Pakistan-based terror organisations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and its derivatives, including The Resistance Front, that have taken place since you and I were first elected to the House, Mr Speaker. They destabilise international security between two nuclear states, and cause unwarranted tension in community relations here. Is it not time to make the support that we give to Pakistan conditional on its finally dealing with and closing down the terrorist training camps that it harbours?
We expect all our friends to work closely on the shared international scourge of terrorism. Pakistan itself has faced a series of deeply damaging terrorist attacks in recent months and years, and we press Pakistan, as we press all our allies in the region, to take the steps that are necessary to investigate not only the terrorist threats that face it, but those that face its neighbours.
I share the sentiments that have rightly been expressed by all other Members. It is crucial to condemn unequivocally all forms of violence irrespective of their source, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
The recent incident is a stark reminder of the fragile peace that hangs by a thread in a region that has suffered for too long from recurring cycles of violence. The intricate history of Kashmir requires a diplomatic approach underpinned by international co-operation Does the Minister agree that the role of the UK, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, must be to encourage and support efforts that prioritise dialogue and reconciliation between India and Pakistan? Does he also agree that the law-abiding people of Kashmir deserve to live in peace and security without the shadow of perpetual conflict, and that will be achieved only if they have the right of self-determination?
Of course the people of Kashmir, both Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered, have the right to live in safety, and we want to see that right exercised; and of course there must be dialogue between India and Pakistan at this time of heightened tensions. Let me add, however, that in the face of such a horrific attack, India also has the right to investigate, to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice for these terrible crimes.
A number of my constituents have expressed deep concern about the developments in Kashmir, and we all condemn the attacks and growing tensions in the strongest possible terms. Does the Minister agree that advocating for a peaceful resolution in Kashmir is also part of maintaining community cohesion in the UK, given that so many of us have constituents with family members and friends in the region?
I do, of course. The UK supports a peaceful resolution of the long-standing issues in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It is a matter for the two countries and we will support them in those endeavours.
I join Members across the House in condemning this act of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman will know that his party’s manifesto pledged to pursue a new strategic partnership with India. I welcome that, but could he explain to the House what steps are being made in regard to that pledge? It will be by concerted diplomatic efforts, but it will also be by leadership from the Dispatch Box around re-characterising our commitment to India, that people will gain strength from this Government’s response.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to cast away any doubt there might be. We stand with India in the face of this horrific attack. We have, at the very highest levels, been in direct contact with the Indian Government. This is an absolutely atrocious incident and they have our support in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. If he will forgive me, I will leave it to the Minister responsible for India to provide an update in the House in slower time on the state of our relationship. It continues to grow from strength to strength.
In light of the recent tragic attack on civilians in Kashmir, which we all condemn, what steps are the Government taking to de-escalate tensions, and to urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to engage in a transparent and impartial investigation to establish the facts, while also pushing forward a new diplomatic engagement to address all outstanding issues, including the core dispute of Kashmir, through meaningful dialogue and a commitment to peace that prioritises the lives and rights of all Kashmiris?
As I said earlier, we have been engaged with both Governments. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir. It must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people and it is not for us to prescribe a solution. We will continue in those efforts.
The Minister outlined that the Government have been in communication with both India and Pakistan, and the risk of escalation. Given that risk, has the Foreign Secretary been in communication with any other regional powers, such as China?
Honestly, I have not spoken to the Foreign Secretary in the past 24 hours so I am not totally sure, but I will write to the hon. Member and let him know.
I, too, associate myself with the condolences for the innocent families who have become victims of this appalling attack. It is important that there is an evidence-based investigation and I hope that, from what the Minister has said, Pakistan is assisting India in identifying the perpetrators and ensuring they are brought to justice. Tensions are certainly high, both within India and Pakistan. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks on the assistance being provided at the moment, but can this be used as an opportunity to also look at the longer- term issues that Kashmir has faced for decades?
I set out the Government’s position on the core dispute in Kashmir in the previous answer. I repeat that we encourage the Pakistanis to co-operate fully with the Indian Government in their efforts to investigate and we hope that they will provide assistance. This obviously remains a time of great heightened tensions, so direct dialogue on these issues is particularly important.
I join the Minister and other Members in my unequivocal condemnation of this heinous and cowardly act of terrorist violence. My heart goes out to the families and the victims. We stand in full solidarity with them, as well as with the civilian populations of India, Kashmir and wider Pakistan. As has been highlighted, the killings have heightened tensions in the subcontinent. At present, both nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, are on a war footing. The escalation in military action will have ramifications globally, especially in the UK where reactionary bigots and far-right politicians are sowing division among British Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis. My Kashmiri diaspora and my Indian family and friends and I would like to know what specific steps the UK Government are taking to help de-escalate the heightened tensions in the region and the increased tensions within our borders.
As I said, we are seeking to play our full diplomatic role to help manage the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, and the concerns of the region. It is vital that all of us in positions of influence at a community level here in the UK do everything we can to ensure that those tensions do not play out on British streets.
Many of my constituents have contacted me in the past few days to register their horror at the appalling terror attack in Kashmir. I join the Minister in condemning it unequivocally. Will he confirm that the UK stands firm against terror in any form? Will he further confirm what steps the Government are taking to support our long history of community cohesion in the diverse constituencies of this country, such as Ealing Southall?
I can confirm that we stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. We will be working closely with all communities, including through colleagues in this House, to try to address the concerns that are being raised.
One of the consequences of mass immigration and radical diversity at home is that we see foreign conflicts play out among diaspora communities in Britain. We should all do everything possible to stop this domestic disintegration, including drastically curtailing immigration, but will the Minister take this opportunity to tell Members of this House who have played the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire?
I think the hon. Gentleman’s question is: will I condemn the existence of British Indian and British Pakistani communities? No, I won’t. There is tension between those communities and I have called for calm. If he is asking me whether I think there has been too much immigration over the last 14 years, yes indeed—[Interruption.] I am very happy to take guidance from Mr Speaker on what the question was.
I thank the Minister for his statement. I would also like to associate myself with the condemnation of this horrific and cowardly attack on innocent people. Ilford South is home to a large diaspora of Indian and Pakistani descent. Following the horrific murder of the 26 tourists, whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the terrorists orchestrated their heinous attack, India points the finger at Pakistan and Pakistan denies any involvement. Both are nuclear powers. What steps are the Government taking to de-escalate this particular situation?
As I have said, we have been engaged with both states extensively over the past few days. We are taking all the steps we can to ensure that heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of uncontrolled escalation.
Many of my constituents have been hit hard by the recent massacre in Kashmir. The perpetrators of the massacre must face the full force of the law. An open dialogue between India and Pakistan is now vital to avoid an escalation of tensions over Kashmir. How are the Government working to support efforts to de-escalate and to prevent cross-border exchanges escalating into a full-blown conflict?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. We will continue to work with both states on the issues he outlines in the way I have described over the course of the afternoon.
It is our common humanity that unites many of us in this House in our condemnation of a terrorist act and our condolences to the families affected, whether they have community links to this country or not. I hear what the Minister says, and I support entirely his call for an investigation, as many Members do. What is troubling my British constituents who have family in the Kashmir region are the words of the Indian Defence Minister, who has said there will be a “strong response” in the coming days. In previous crisis moments, we have had missile strikes, airstrikes and special forces action from the Indian Government, and we have seen an explosion in anti-Muslim attacks in India in the past couple of days. What words of reassurance can the Minister offer my British constituents, who are concerned about human rights around the world and concerned about family members, that this Government will always speak up for innocent civilians, wherever they may live and wherever they may find friends?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do, of course, stand up for human rights around the world, and we will continue our work to try to address heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. We want to avoid a dangerous spiral of escalation in the region.
It is incumbent on us as an international community to engage with leaders on both sides. What have the Minister and the UK Government done so far to promote an open dialogue specifically and to ensure it stays open?
As I say, we have spoken at a senior level to both Governments and we are encouraging direct contact, which we understand is in place.
My constituents, particularly those from the Kashmiri and Pakistani communities, strongly condemn this terrorist atrocity in Pahalgam. They are also worried about India’s response, in particular its suspension of the Indus waters treaty, but also the bulldozing of homes of those not connected to this attack in any way. Does the Minister agree that the Kashmiri people should not be subjected to collective punishment, as the people of Palestine have been in Israel?
As I hope has been clear in all my answers, a terrible terrorist attack has been perpetrated, and India has our full support in going after the perpetrators of that attack. We do, of course, expect all our partners to do that in accordance with their domestic standards and laws.
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions and for the calm way he has responded, which is appreciated in this House. I travelled to the region in question some four or five years ago as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief; there was tension then, and there is greater tension now, in every sense of the word. The slaughter of tourists in that idyllic meadow in Kashmir can never be seen as anything other than pure, unadulterated evil: people were killed simply because they were Hindus or Christians. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who mourn their loved ones today. What steps can the Minister take to provide support for the Government to deal with terrorism, and how can we get the message to British citizens that they should under no circumstances whatsoever travel to that region?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will reiterate our travel advice: we advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city of Jammu and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.
People in India and around the world were horrified last week by the news of the terror attack in which 26 innocent tourists were killed in Jammu and Kashmir. My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones. This was an appalling attack, aimed clearly at destabilising the situation in Kashmir. In my constituency, I have large Pakistani, Indian and Kashmiri communities, and many of my constituents are now very concerned about an escalation of tensions in the region. How are the British Government working with the Indian Government to provide support in the wake of this terror attack, and what more can the Minister say about the constructive role Britain must play in finding a diplomatic resolution?
My hon. Friend reflects the strength of feeling in her constituency, as in so many of the constituencies represented in this House. We will continue to play our full diplomatic role, and we welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend and many colleagues across this House in engaging right across the spectrum of their constituencies.
The Kashmiri community in Stoke-on-Trent will have condemned the appalling atrocities taking place last Tuesday, but that condemnation will have quickly turned to fear and anxiety about what it means for their friends and loved ones in both the India and Pakistan-administered sides of Kashmir.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Government’s position that this is now an issue for India and Kashmir to resolve alone, and I welcome the actions the Government are taking to reduce tensions. However, in the long term, a peaceful settlement for this community will need help and need international facilitation, per UN resolutions 39 and 47. Self-determination for the people of Kashmir is going to take more than warm words from Ministers. Can the Minister therefore set out what actions he will take through the UN and his counterparts in other countries to ensure that we start to move down the path of peace quickly?
My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for his constituents in voicing their concerns. The long-standing position of the United Kingdom is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for us to prescribe a solution.
Like many colleagues in this House, I was appalled by the terrorist attack in Kashmir, and my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones. What really worries me now is the hatred, threats and incitement we have seen online since the attack, which I know are deeply unsettling for many of my constituents. Does the Minister agree that the incitement of hatred online is completely unacceptable, and can he share what measures the Government are taking to monitor and act against it?
We are aware of hatred being incited online in relation to events in the region, and we condemn it utterly. Where the threshold is met for police action, it should be taken.
I share the horror at this despicable act of terrorism inflicted on 26 innocent people, many of whom were on holiday—one young man was on his honeymoon. My condolences are with all those affected. The ripples are widespread and felt by the global Indian community, including my constituents in Winchburgh. They have raised their concerns with me about this incident, but they are also really fearful of what happens next. Can the Minister give my constituents assurances that the Government will work with international partners to support peace and stability in the region, and that community cohesion will remain a top priority for this Government?
India and Pakistan are our friends. We have historical connections to both states and to communities right across the region, and we will continue to be committed to regional stability. Of course, we also call for calm on our own streets.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) on securing this urgent question, but I do say to the Minister that this really should have been a statement. We are all horrified by the act of terror that we saw just days ago and condemn it without equivocation. I have heard from many of my constituents from both diasporas in recent days, and it is important to note that many people are feeling this act of terror deeply in my community, and up and down the United Kingdom. India and Pakistan are two very important members of the Commonwealth. Can the Minister specifically outline what engagement the British Government have had with the Commonwealth to help to reduce tensions?
If my hon. Friend would like a statement, he can stay for 45 minutes and he will get another one from me. We have been in direct contact with both India and Pakistan, and we will continue to do so.
I thank the Minister for his condolences and for his strong condemnation of this horrific terror attack. In recent days, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in my constituency who have been horrified by these events. It is clear that the awful terror attack in Kashmir has sent shockwaves through the British Indian community and the global Hindu community more broadly. My constituents have spoken overwhelmingly of justice, and understandably so. We all want to see peace and de-escalation, but understanding that people will be held to account for these horrific crimes is vital to getting there.
I would just like to press the Minister a little more to be clear that the UK Government, when they stand with India, are doing all they can to identify the parties responsible for these events and those who support and fund them, so that they can be held to account and justice can be found.
Of course, we want to see the perpetrators held to justice properly, and we will be supporting India to do so.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, I asked the Minister to tell Members of the House who were playing the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire. He not only failed to do so, but attacked me for observing the undoubted tensions and sometimes even violence that take place here as foreign conflicts are played out in this country. Can you advise me on whether the Minister can withdraw this attack? If he simply misheard my question, can he be allowed to answer it now? This is a very serious issue.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understood the question, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there had been too much immigration from, presumably, both India and Pakistan over the last period, and that that was leading to communalism within constituencies across the country. This Government —[Interruption.]
Order. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is not going to carry on speaking from a sedentary position.
I have been absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that I do not want to see any communal tensions in the UK. I have repeatedly called for calm. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he believes that too much immigration has led to these—[Interruption.]
Order. Obviously, we are not going to get anywhere like this. Sit down, Minister. I am not responsible for the answers that the Minister makes. I am sure that this matter will not rest there, but it will have to rest for now because we are moving on to the next urgent question.
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberWith your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the inward visit of Prime Minister Mustafa.
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday, and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving just and lasting peace in the middle east, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood. The Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA are the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the west bank are reunified under their authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. There can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.
The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership, and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Aid workers need protection. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.
We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the west bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.
Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking. We fully support the implementation of those much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. The reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery, and promote peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the Palestinian Authority underlined their commitment to delivering their reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of the visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.
As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. The visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the middle east—at this critical moment. I commend this statement to the House.
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government’s MOU fails to stand up to credible scrutiny, as it fails to outline in any way how it will help to achieve a meaningful end to the conflict. The MOU says that the PA are the “only legitimate governing entity” across the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and that the UK Government want to see the PA running all three. There clearly cannot be any future for Hamas—we completely agree with that—but how will the Minister and the Government bring this about without a strategy for the removal of the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? I have asked this question many times from the Dispatch Box, but the Government simply have no answers.
There is a commitment in the MOU that the Palestinian Authority will hold presidential and parliamentary elections in “the shortest feasible timeframe”. What is that timeframe? Who is dictating that timetable? What mechanisms are being put in place for elections, and has this been supported by Arab partners and neighbours who are signatories to the Cairo plan to rebuild Gaza? Does the Minister believe that the Palestinian Authority, in their current form, are capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, is it the Government’s intention to provide election assistance? How would the Government rule out Hamas being able to run in those elections? There is nothing explicit in the MOU about a plan to ensure that terrorist infrastructure in Gaza is dismantled once and for all, which is inexplicable. What dialogue has taken place with key middle eastern allies since the Cairo plan for Gaza was published?
On the question of recognition of a Palestinian state, the Government’s approach is incoherent, and the MOU provides no clarity on the long-term intentions, conditions or timing of this happening. Does the Minister agree that we are not at the point of recognition, and that recognition cannot be the start of the process?
There is no mention anywhere in the MOU of efforts to build upon the Abraham accords as a way of achieving regional stability, despite the accords providing the framework to support and finance a new future for Palestine and support a two-state solution. Were efforts to expand the accords discussed with the Palestinian Authority leadership yesterday?
On the economic front, the MOU talks about boosting trade, but what kind of increases are we looking at in value terms, given all the instability in the region? In which sectors are the Government now pursuing trade, and will this involve the UK Government spending money on trade promotion measures?
Why is there no mention of welfare reform in PA-controlled territory, which we know is in dire need of urgent attention? Meanwhile, the reference to education is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. It needs to be much clearer and set proper parameters, so that there are clear plans for educating and upskilling a whole generation who have been poorly served by their political leaders for too long. Can the Minister confirm whether he held discussions with the PA about the urgent need for them to do everything in their powers to banish antisemitism from Palestinian school textbooks? Can he provide any detail on the opaque commitment to
“education, scientific and cultural exchanges”?
What form will those take?
Can the Minister clarify what exactly the £101 million he announced yesterday will go towards? Which organisations will be entrusted with the money and whether UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—will receive any of it? What specific programmes will it fund? The entire document contains only a brief mention of the need to tackle corruption, which is inadequate. What is his assessment of the current corruption levels and the PA leadership’s efforts to deal with it? What is his definition of progress?
The section on security co-operation also needs unpacking and more accountability. Exactly how will security co-operation be enhanced, and which “global challenges and threats” does the Minister envisage jointly countering with the Palestinian Authority?
The MOU also states:
“The Participants commit to action to uphold the rights of women and minority groups and prevent the targeting of individuals in these categories.”
Does the Minister believe that these rights are being sufficiently upheld in the west bank at present? Indeed, the question of full civil liberties, including freedom of expression and media freedom, needs serious attention. The PA have their work cut out to prove their credibility.
There is a section on climate change in the MOU. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is the best practice he is seeking to learn from the Palestinian Authority when it comes to tackling climate change? On the current conflict, what have this Government done since the House last met on this issue to support international efforts to secure the release of those poor hostages who remain in such cruel captivity in Gaza?
Finally, I turn to Iran. If we are serious about sustainable peace, we must address the root causes of this terrible suffering. We still have no clarity from the Government about how they see the UK working with the US Administration, so I will give the Minister another opportunity to answer that question. Will he furnish us with the Government’s official response on the legal attempt here in the UK to challenge the proscription of Hamas?
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked many questions. Let me be clear: the British Government see the Palestinian Authority as a vital partner, and they are a vital partner that must go through reform. The new Prime Minister has shown leadership on that reform agenda and has made progress on a range of issues. The right hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. One is the content of textbooks, an issue on which we have discussions with the Palestinian Authority and which I have discussed with other parties who have strong views, understandably, on the importance of ensuring that both communities are raised with a belief in co-existence rather than hatred.
There are a range of other very important reform questions that are at issue. One of them, on which the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, is the so-called “pay to slay” arrangements. Progress has been made on that, and we must encourage the Palestinian Authority in those reform efforts. The memorandum of understanding is intended to provide a framework to upgrade that co-operation, because the Palestinian Authority are the vital partner for peace.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked what we will do to ensure that Hamas leave the Gaza strip and do not play a governance role. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that there is a serious and credible alternative to Hamas, and that must be the Palestinian Authority, which is what our efforts are aimed at.
The right hon. Lady asked two important questions about the UK Government’s position in relation to Iran. We welcome the talks between the United States of America and Iran. I was in Oman after the first stage of the talks and the Foreign Secretary has been there recently. We are talking to all parties and we want to see a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapon threat that Iran poses not just to the region but to the world. We hope that these talks will prove successful.
The right hon. Lady asked, reasonably, about the allocation of the £101 million. I am not in a position to give a full breakdown of exactly where the money will go, though I will provide the House with that breakdown. I would anticipate that funding is directed to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority directly, but once we have full programmatic details, we will return to the House with that breakdown. We are talking to partners about those allocations and I am happy to come back in writing on some of the more detailed questions.
Lastly, we support the Abraham accords. I was very pleased, while the right hon. Lady was there, to sign the UK up to an agreement with Bahrain and the US which includes explicit reference to the Abraham accords. We are supporting the Abraham accords not just in our words but in our actions.
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
At the meeting last night between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Palestinian Prime Minister and his delegation, it was clear that they were very encouraged by the discussions they had had with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and rightly so, because the memorandum of understanding shows serious thinking about the long-term future of Israel and Palestine and leadership towards peace. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to take the next serious step, which is to finally recognise the state of Palestine? The best time to do that might be alongside the French in New York in June.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her courteous treatment of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night. The question of recognition is raised repeatedly in this House. Our position remains the same: we do wish to recognise a Palestinian state, and we wish to do so as a contribution to a two-state solution. We will make the judgment about when the best moment is to try to make the fullest possible contribution.
As I said to the Palestinian Prime Minister this morning, our responsibility is for the reality of the situation on the ground—the practical viability of a Palestinian state. Of course, other states have taken a different position from the UK Government and chosen to recognise a Palestinian state. That has not called it into existence. Our job in the British Government is to make a practical contribution to a two-state solution, and that is how we intend to approach this issue.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I was glad to see the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary meet the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Mustafa and reaffirm this country’s support for a two-state solution. A Palestinian state as part of a wider two-state solution remains the only path to long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats have called for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. I ask the Minister this question most weeks and will ask it again, and I hope the position will change one week: following yesterday’s meeting, will the Government now take this vital step and commit to working with international partners such as France on issuing a joint recognition statement?
Now is the time for a restoration of the ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a return to the political process. This Government have pledged a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including for humanitarian relief. That is welcome, yet for more than 50 days Israel has blocked aid from entering Gaza and shuttered border crossing points. As a result, the food stocks of the UN World Food Programme, which previously reached half of Gaza’s population, have entirely run out. The risk of starvation, disease and death is very real, even as 116,000 tonnes of food aid languishes at border checkpoints. In a joint statement with French and German counterparts, the Foreign Secretary called this “intolerable”, and rightly so, but what are the Government doing to end the blockade and ensure that aid can flow into Gaza?
The International Court of Justice has opened hearings on Israel’s responsibility to facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Two weeks ago, the Government said that they continue to consider the ICJ’s opinion on the OPTs. Can the Minister update the House on when we can finally expect the Government’s response?
The Government have also reaffirmed their condemnation of violent west bank settler activity, but what concrete steps are being taken to pressure Israel to act on illegal settlements? Finally, will the Government now consider sanctions on those Israeli Ministers, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who encourage settler violence?
I have set out the position on recognition in a previous answer, and I am afraid that I will have to test the hon. Lady’s patience because on sanctions I will also set out the position, which is very familiar: we do not comment on sanctions in advance, as to do so might impact their effectiveness. I can confirm, however, that we have raised these issues, including the blockade of aid. As she has identified, we issued a statement with our European partners last week, and the Foreign Secretary raised this with his counterpart on 15 April.
I welcome the work that special envoy Sir Michael Barber will be doing in the Palestinian Authority. When I was working in Pakistan as a diplomat, I saw the excellent work they were doing in building the public sector. Does the Minister agree, however, that that work will be futile if Israel continues to undermine the PA by taking steps towards the annexation of the west bank, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that this does not happen?
I join my hon. Friend in what he says about Sir Michael Barber. We were both in Pakistan at a similar time and both saw the excellent work he did on girls’ education there, and I welcome his vital role in relation to the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, about our position on settlements. They are illegal under international law and we oppose completely any annexation of the west bank.
The Foreign Secretary rightly said in his statement yesterday that Hamas have no future in any of the possible ways forward for Palestine and for Gaza. That is a statement of the obvious, but what is the Government’s strategy for Palestine? In particular, given that the Minister avoided the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), what discussions has he had with the Americans, because it seems to me that the Trump plan for Gaza, in particular, is very different from any conceivable plan that the UK Government might have?
The right hon. Gentleman, one of my predecessors, asks what our plan for Palestine is. Our support to the Palestinian Authority is an important element of our work in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They must be at the centre of the efforts to ensure that there can be a future for both Palestine and Israel that involves two safe and secure states side by side. We of course speak regularly to our US counterparts across the whole range of issues in my area—in many areas we may diverge, but we continue to have a very close relationship and discuss these matters closely.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) mentioned, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister yesterday. He was steadfast in his comments to us on his advocacy for peace for the people in Gaza, in the west bank and the occupied territories and in Israel. Those of us on the Labour side of the House stood on a manifesto that stated:
“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel.”
The Minister has been asked this question before, but the time to recognise the state of Palestine is long overdue; the time is now. When will the UK finally recognise the state of Palestine?
My hon. Friend is committed to these issues. I know that she has travelled to the region recently and has a long history of advocacy, as do so many in this House. As I said in my previous answer, the role of the British Government must be to try and practically bring about the safety and security that two states can provide, and we will consider recognition in that context.
As has been mentioned by colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, yesterday we met the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He outlined to us their plans for the running of Gaza once the conflict is over. However, the Palestinian Authority are also in desperate need of long-overdue reform. Hamas’s rule of Gaza has been an absolute disaster for the Gazan people, but the future of Gaza cannot be for the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza in the same fashion in which they have been running the west bank. What guarantees do the Government have that the PA are going to undertake those reforms to their governance, to the corruption issues, and to the rule of law that are desperately needed so that the people of Gaza have a better future?
A central element of our discussions with the Palestinian Prime Minister is that reform agenda. The Palestinian Prime Minister is relatively new in his position and, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), he has made some important commitments and important practical changes, and we must support the Palestinian Authority to reform in order to best serve the Palestinian people.
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his statement today and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for securing this landmark memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Government? Following my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Mustafa, can the Minister tell this House how the MOU and the £101 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will allow the Palestinian Authority to reform and provide crucial public services to the Palestinian people?
It was a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to some of these practical questions of service delivery that their Health Minister travelled with the Prime Minister for discussions. The MOU provides a framework through which we can have that reform discussion, including strategic dialogues on a whole range of questions such as the important education questions that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised earlier.
For how long does the Minister think he will be able to recognise a Palestinian state that retains sufficient economically viable land to actually be a goer?
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the economic viability of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and what any future state of Palestine would rely on for its economy. There clearly are very important questions to be considered about energy, water and the areas themselves. Clearly, many of these issues have been considered as final-status determination issues envisaged for the end of a two-state solution conference. We are doing everything we can to try and support the most practical measures possible to enable the Palestinians to live the most dignified lives that they can.
May I place on record my thanks to the Minister for all the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing on the MOU, which is very welcome?
On the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I appreciate that we stood on that manifesto, and rightly so, but things have since changed. The Government’s position was that we would continue recognition as part of the peace process, but Israel has been blocking aid to Gaza for 50 days now, people are starting to die of starvation, settler violence is increasing in the west bank and we now have an MOU, so is this not the right time to review our position? Will the Minister at least commit to going away and reviewing the decision and give the Palestinians the state recognition that they are way overdue?
My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues, and raises them with me here and elsewhere. I will not restate the position, but I will once again confirm from the Dispatch Box our commitment to our manifesto and that we consider recognition an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. However, it must be part of the practical steps taken to bring the violence to an end and a peaceful resolution to the region.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Given that the horrific attacks of 7 October were perpetrated by Hamas, that hostages still remain in captivity in Gaza, that those attacks were carried out with the support and participation of many Gazans, and that there were senior Palestinian Authority diplomats who openly celebrated those attacks, does the Minister not think that unilaterally recognising Palestinian statehood at this moment would constitute a reward for terrorism, rather than the fruit of peaceful negotiation?
The right hon. Lady refers to the conditions of the hostages. Last night, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), I attended a presentation by Eli Sharabi, who has British family members and was taken by Hamas on 7 October and held in the most unimaginably cruel conditions. He was released, only to discover that the British passports that were held by his family as a source of protection were not enough to save them, and were not enough to prevent the killing of his brother 300 metres from him in a tunnel. The whole House remains focused on the hostages who remain in unknown conditions, probably deep underground. Anyone who had anything to do with that can have no role in the future of Gaza. It is, in part, out of our determination that Hamas must leave the strip that our support for the Palestinian Authority is so important.
I welcome the significant strengthening of ties between the UK and the Palestinian Authority, not just in trade and extra funding from the UK, but because, as the Foreign Secretary said last night,
“The UK is committed to urgently advancing Palestinian statehood as a key part of a two-state solution.”
It was my pleasure last night to meet not just Prime Minister Mustafa but Basel Adra, the director of the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land”, who made clear that recognition is his central demand too. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that President Macron was right when he said last month that
“We must move towards recognition, and we will do so in the coming months”?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s engagement and commitment to these issues. I will not rehearse the position that I have set out already on recognition.
Two weeks ago, I had the privilege to speak on behalf of the UK Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where over 1,200 MPs from 188 countries passed a resolution supporting a two-state solution. No one voted against it. There was plenty of notice of the UK not recognising a nation state. Last night, I asked the Palestinian Prime Minister what difference it would make if the UK recognised a Palestinian state, and he replied that
“it would be a paradigm change, a new platform. It all starts with that recognition.”
Given the crucial meetings between the UK Prime Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister as equals, what practical impediment stands in the way of now recognising Palestine as a nation state? I hear repeatedly that we are looking for a practical solution, so will the Minister explain that to the House?
Owing to time constraints, I will not rehearse the vital questions about security and governance that will clearly need to underpin a two-state solution in which both states are able to live in peace, security and co-operation. Those final-status determinations have long been vexed. While we are committed to the inalienable right of the Palestinians to a state as part of a two-state solution, let us not pretend that there are not vexed issues at the centre of what a Palestinian state would look like. That is one reason why so much diplomacy has been focused on these issues over the years.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for bringing an extensive range of expertise to his role. Does he agree with me that it is only right for a British Government Minister to ask searching questions of both the PA and the Israeli Government? Will he reassure me that he will continue to ask questions about accountability for the killing of humanitarian workers who are trying to perform their duties?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his dedication to these issues. Clearly, there has been an absolutely tragic loss of life among aid workers who are delivering vital services in Gaza. We all remember that a year ago a tragic incident killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, including James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British nationals who remain in our thoughts. It has been more than a year and we expect an update on the investigation by the Israeli military advocate general. We want to see full justice and accountability for British nationals affected by violence, including in relation to the strike in March on a UN building, in which a British national was seriously injured. Over the course of this devastating conflict, more than 400 aid workers have been killed. Our demands are driven by nothing other than a desire to protect the lives of humanitarian workers and demand accountability for those who are killed.
If our Prime Minister can meet the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and if the United Kingdom Government can enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Palestinian Authority, what barriers can remain to the United Kingdom recognising the state of Palestine as a matter of logic?
I gently suggest to the right hon. Member that that logic does not wholly follow. There are complex final-status determination issues that would underpin any recognition. No two-state solution will be straightforward without significant negotiation, diplomacy and agreement on both sides. As I have set out, recognition remains our goal, but let us not pretend that it is a straightforward decision without complexity.
In his remarks yesterday, the Palestinian Prime Minister quite rightly reminded MPs of the UK’s historic, moral and legal obligations to the Palestinian people. The importance of our actions to uphold international law today cannot be underestimated, so I must ask the Minister why the UK is still reluctant to sanction Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians? Why are the Government deepening our trade ties with Israel, as the International Court of Justice warns countries not to assist or aid illegal occupation? Finally, I ask the Minister to listen to the growing calls in this Chamber and announce when the Government will finally recognise the state of Palestine.
Our position is clear on international humanitarian law and on the importance of accountability. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by again going through the points about recognition.
In 2014, I was one of 39 Conservatives who voted in this House for recognition of Palestine. Since then, Governments have come and gone, and thousands of lives on both sides have been lost. The Minister said a few minutes ago that he could not go into the full details, but I am sure it would be helpful—if not today, in the very near future—to Members from across the House for him to provide a detailed analysis of what needs to change before recognition can take place.
I am confident that I will be back in this House to talk about the details of recognition soon.
As another Member of this House who voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine in a motion that this House passed, I will say that progress on this matter is long overdue. I hope the Minister has heard loud and clear the message from many of us that continuing to delay that is problematic.
The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) might be surprised that I agree with him: there is a concern about what will be left of the state of Palestine. Despite the existence of theogenic technology, Israeli forces are now burning to the ground the agricultural fields in northern Gaza in apparent pursuit of the tunnels that Hamas are using for their terrorist attacks. We know that nearly 4,000 children in Gaza have been diagnosed as suffering from acute malnutrition. We all desperately want to see aid resuming to Palestine, because we know that there is no future for any state if people are starving to death. Will the Minister update us on the practical details he discussed last night with the Palestinian Authority about how we will get food back into Gaza and get movement in this process?
My hon. Friend raises important questions about the viability of the Palestinian state. The Occupied Palestinian Territories must not be reduced either geographically or by forced displacement, and I am happy to reiterate that point at the Dispatch Box. There is clearly an urgent crisis. The World Food Programme has said that it has now run out of food in the Gaza strip. The single most important measure that can be taken to address that crisis is an end to the blockade of aid into the Gaza strip, and that is what we continue to call for.
Can I invite the Minister to bring a greater sense of urgency to the situation? There are children starving to death in Gaza and dying for lack of medicines. There is no water and hardly any power going in. The hospitals are not functioning. That is all a disaster made by the deliberate action of the Israel Defence Forces. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the blockade ends and that food, medicine and all the necessities for life go in? Those people who are dying of starvation can see food over the fence in Israel, but they are being deliberately starved to death.
As I said in my previous answer, we are clear that the single most significant contribution that can be taken on that problem is ending the blockade of Gaza. We have been clear with the Israeli Government at the highest levels, including on 15 April, in the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his Israeli equivalent, that that blockade must be lifted. On the longer-term questions of health and some of the other basic social services, I will say that of course we discussed those issues with the Palestinian Authority and relevant Ministers over the past two days. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is very urgent, and the World Food Programme has been clear. That is why we made the statement over the weekend.
It was sobering yesterday listening to Dr Mustafa, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, not least as he stressed the UK Government’s leadership role and the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. Bearing in mind that leadership role and the fact that 147 jurisdictions already recognise that state, will the Minister explain to the House today the reasons for the impediment to that recognition? It is really important that we hear that, because we are here to hold the Government to account.
Some 147 states have recognised a Palestinian state, yet no Palestinian state is fully functioning. That underlines the importance of taking the practical measures that will be absolutely vital not only to support Palestinian life, but to ensure that two states can co-exist peacefully, side by side. Many Members have referred to some of the practical impediments, whether it is the removal of Hamas from the Gaza strip or the economic challenges that face the Palestinian territories in both the west bank and Gaza. Let me be clear. An extremely violent conflict continues. Without a ceasefire, it is hard to imagine the creation of a state. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the merits of recognition, but let us not pretend that there are not serious practical considerations to bear in mind before the practical establishment of a Palestinian state is possible. The British Government are focused on changing the actual facts on the ground. That is the approach that we will take.
Other hon. and right hon. Members have talked about what might be left in Palestine, but I will ask about who might be left. Some 20% of the 55,000 pregnant women there—that is 11,000 pregnant women—are so malnourished that their pregnancies are now high risk. That really undermines the future of Palestine’s population. What assurance can the Minister give us that the £101 million will be directed to those people who really need it?
As I have said already, once we have fully allocated the funding, we will return to the House to outline how it has been prioritised.
I was pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary, along with France and Germany, strongly condemned the use of humanitarian aid as a political tool. The Minister will know very well that the only way to bring peace and stability to the region is by working together with our network of allies. Bearing that in mind, what conversations has he had with our European and international allies about the Palestinian-led planning of recovery and reconstruction in Gaza, as outlined in yesterday’s excellent memorandum of understanding?
My hon. Friend asks important questions. The Foreign Secretary and I, and the whole ministerial team, are engaged with our international partners. We have made a number of statements with European partners; with the Qataris on Sunday, when the Foreign Secretary travelled to Qatar; and in Oman, to which the Foreign Secretary and I travelled recently. We are engaged with many other important partners in the region, including Egypt, Israel and many others.
We have heard Members across the House ask about recognition and sanctions. Yesterday, I joined a private briefing organised by the Palestinian NGO Network, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Oxfam International, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Association of International Development Agencies. The message I took away, which is burned into my brain, was that, on the ground, food, water and medicines—the essential of life—have all run out, as the Minister said. Baby milk and the water needed to make it are not available. Would the UK Government’s response be the same if the people who were starved, and denied water and medicine, were in Ukraine, God forbid, and if Russia was the perpetrator?
The UK seeks to play its full role in every humanitarian crisis. We have conducted important conferences on Sudan, and have attended to issues in Ukraine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We act wherever we can to try to avert humanitarian suffering.
I welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular the announcement of £101 million for humanitarian aid and the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The Minister has reconfirmed his commitment to a two-state solution. However, in order to have a two-state solution, we need to recognise both states. What criteria are being used to assess when the time is right to recognise Palestine as a state? If the Minister is not able to provide a detailed response today, I am happy to receive one in writing.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no end of detail to discuss in relation to recognition, and I am sure that we will return to this House to discuss it further. Of course, when we talk of a two-state solution, we envisage two recognised states living peacefully together, providing for their joint safety and security. That is implicit in our long-standing support for a two-state solution.
In his statement, the Minister said that there could be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. I support that, but there can be no future for Gaza unless the killing and destruction ends. That is why, in September last year, it was welcome that the Government suspended 29 arms export licences, following concern that there was a risk that they could be used by the Israelis to break international law in Gaza. However, a further 34 export licences to Israel were granted between September and December last year—more than were originally blocked. Can the Minister explain that decision, and provide the latest number of arms licences to Israel that have been approved?
In September, we set out the basis on which we chose to suspend arms licences, and that basis remains. There is not a full restriction on providing licences; many licences are provided either for dual-use goods, or for goods that could not possibly be used for the activities that have caused concern. For example, licences would be issued for body armour used by non-governmental organisation workers in Gaza. There are also items for the legitimate defence of Israel, such as components that could enable its missile defence system to defend it against Iranian drones. I do not have the exact number of licences; it tends to change relatively regularly, given the nature of the flow between the two countries.
I too welcome the MOU and the funding we will provide to the Palestinian Authority. When I went to Jerusalem last year with other Members, we talked to the NGO community—an absolutely vital community in both Israel and Palestine, working for democracy and human rights. On 5 May, the Knesset is planning to vote on another law that will clamp down on the activities of NGOs working to help build a two-state solution. The law will impose an 80% tax on donations from foreign state entities, including the United Kingdom, and ban access to courts for NGOs. What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel to ensure that our state funding can go to towards building that two-state solution with both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs?
We support efforts by both Israeli and Palestinian civil society actors to build links across communities, and I know that many in this House have engaged with organisations of that kind. We are aware of the draft legislation in the Knesset, and we are engaging with colleagues in Israel on these questions.
Today, the International Court of Justice heard that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza under the world’s watchful eye. All of us are witnesses to the most horrific crimes against humanity, which are being carried out in plain sight. A million children have been cut off from the basic necessities for survival for well over a month. They are at risk of starvation. I repeat those words: a million children are at risk of starving to death. I fear that once this is over and done with, and all is said and done, we will make mere memorials to mark the most horrific war crimes of our time. This is a tragedy that the world has the power to stop but is refusing to. What more can the Government do to ensure that the civilian population of Gaza, including a million children, are not starved to death, and why is it not being done?
The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. That is why last week, we made statements—both with our allies and alone—about the politicisation of humanitarian aid and the urgent situation that the UN agencies are reporting. More than 90% of Gaza’s population has been displaced, and many have been displaced repeatedly. Many Members of this House have heard harrowing tales of residents of the Gaza strip simply trying to survive, returning to their home only to find it totally destroyed, or trying to find medical assistance as hospitals across the strip go out of operation. The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the situation, and we raise it with the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman would expect.
I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he is doing—I know that a huge amount is going on behind the scenes—and particularly on the memorandum of understanding and the additional funding. When I hosted a meeting of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group last night, it was quite clear how grateful Prime Minister Mustafa was for the stance that the UK was taking, and that he saw it as part of a sequence of steps towards recognition. Yes, he wanted that as soon as possible, but he recognised the steps that needed to be taken, because of the difficult international context, to ensure that recognition would make a difference. However, who among our other allies, either the E4 or the Five Eyes—except the US, obviously—has provided a similar sort of MOU that can be built on?
I will have to revert to my hon. Friend on whether others have a memorandum of understanding. The European Union and others have done important work with the Palestinian Authority, but I was very grateful for the words of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night in Parliament. He has particularly recognised the importance of the UK’s work on the reform agenda and on many other things, for which I am very grateful.
More than 15,000 children have been murdered, more than 15,000 women have been murdered, and more than 15,000 innocent men have been murdered. The Minister used the word “contribution” when making reference to a two-state solution. I ask him whether the contribution of all those who have been murdered—the blood that has been spilled—is not sufficient for Palestine to be recognised as a state.
As I said in my last answer, we are incredibly conscious of the suffering in Gaza. We want to see a ceasefire, we want a political process, and we want two states living securely side by side, and all our diplomatic efforts in relation to this question are focused on that.
In his meeting with MPs, the Palestinian Prime Minister was clear that Israel will change course only if there is real action from states. He stressed that, in line with the International Court of Justice ruling, states have a legal responsibility to impose sanctions—including ending all trade in settlement goods—and to cease any aid or assistance that sustains Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Those measures are backed by a significant number of MPs across this House. When will the Government finally impose meaningful sanctions in order to hold Israel accountable and apply the pressure needed to stop it trampling all over international law without any consequences? Rightly, the Government did that for Russia; wrongly, they will not do it for Israel.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I would gently correct him; as he knows, this Government have taken steps since we became the Government, including sanctions. He also knows that we do not comment on sanctions in advance of issuing them.
The Minister is a good man and his answers indicate just that, so I read with interest the release on the Government website regarding the visit. I saw the language referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Does the Minister not agree that Government language must be considered and unbiased? While we welcome dialogue and we hope for peace, to achieve that we cannot and must not roll over and use narratives that are not helpful and useful. We must be careful that the Government do not sow division and distrust with our Israeli allies.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories has long been the language of the British Government under multiple different Governments, and it reflects our legal view of the position.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing a peaceful future for the region, but that future feels far away for the families of the hostages still held by Hamas. As the Minister mentioned, yesterday he and I heard from Eli Sharabi, who talked about the horrors of his experience and how he lost absolutely everything. He is working tirelessly to secure the release of all hostages, including Avinatan Or, who has British links. Does the Minister agree that the first step in securing the peaceful future we all want to see is the immediate release of all the hostages?
I do, and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless supporter of hostage families, including Emily Damari, her mother Mandy and, of course, Avinatan Or, who is an Israeli citizen with a British mother. He is very much in my thoughts, as are all of those left in tunnels for phase 2. They are awaiting a ceasefire that cannot come urgently enough. I join my hon. Friend in calling for the immediate release of all hostages.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Palestinian Authority are key to a two-state solution and should be the basis of the viable Palestinian state we all want to see. I welcome the Minister’s focus on practical steps to build up the Palestinian Authority. I think those are a lot more important than statements that might be interpreted as a little performative. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s work with the PA to improve the situation on the ground in the west bank, including tackling the recent increase in Iranian-backed terrorism there and the expansion of Israeli settlements, both of which represent major practical barriers to a two-state solution?
My hon. Friend raises important points, and he has a long history of engagement on these issues. The security challenges in the west bank are important and he is right to raise them. I have set out our position on settlements clearly already from the Dispatch Box, and I reiterate that. We are talking to the Palestinian Authority about those practical challenges and the importance of being able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Palestinian security forces to prevent violent disturbances within the areas they control. It is vital that settlements are restrained and that the terrible increase in settlement activity is reduced. It is vital, too, that Israel enables the Palestinian Authority to function effectively, which includes paying salaries, having electricity and all the other basic fundamentals that a nation state would require.
It was a real honour to join the meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa in Parliament yesterday. I welcome the Minister’s hard work in the signing of the MOU. I desperately want peace for Palestinians and for Israelis, and I was touched by Prime Minister Mustafa’s gracious remarks that the way forward has to be peace for all, dignity for all and justice for all. Does the Minister agree that while we work through the short-term practical considerations of recognising the state of Palestine, we have to keep our eyes on that long-term prize of peace, dignity and justice, and that a state of Palestine is a vital part of that?
My hon. Friend is right. Those are the principles for long-term peace for both parties, and that is what we will need to work towards.
The memorandum of understanding is significant, and the message to the Minister about the recognition of the state of Palestine is equally significant. Member after Member has raised the famine in Gaza and its implications. We are seeing pictures of children who, as a result of malnutrition, are not surviving the hospital treatment they are getting. Historically, our country has been faced with this situation before, and we have overridden blockades. We have not allowed other countries to veto humanitarian aid. Are we not near that stage now? We cannot allow Israel to veto the delivery of aid. Should we not be looking with our partners at the logistics we have on the ground in that region to deliver the aid by sea and by air, whatever statements Israel makes?
With and without our partners, we have looked at a range of mechanisms whereby aid might be brought into Gaza, but the truth is that without effective deconfliction mechanisms, aid workers are at real risk, as we have seen in recent months and weeks. There is also a question of scale. There have been airdrops and sea movements of aid into Gaza, but nothing can equal the scale required other than lifting the blockade, and that is what have been focusing on.
After 570 days, 59 hostages remain. Does the Minister agree that their unconditional release is a key to the ceasefire? What did Prime Minister Mustafa have to say about that yesterday?
I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy in this regard. Prime Minister Mustafa told me that he wanted hostages to be released, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have seen some of the other commentary from the Palestinian Authority on these questions. This is critical: the hostages must be released as soon as possible, and I know the whole House continues to share that view.
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the London Sudan conference.
Co-hosted with the African Union, the EU, France and Germany, the London Sudan conference convened Foreign Ministers, major donors and humanitarian leaders to galvanise co-ordinated international action on the conflict. Discussions focused on ensuring humanitarian access, protecting civilians and supporting a Sudanese-led peace process that preserves Sudan’s territorial integrity. A co-chairs’ statement set out the shared principles of an immediate ceasefire, rejection of external interference, opposition to parallel Governments, a return to a civilian-led transition and a principled approach to full, unimpeded humanitarian access.
Although this was not a pledging conference, international partners did announce over £800 million of support to address the humanitarian situation. This includes a further £120 million in UK aid for this year, which will reach over 650,000 people with food, nutrition support and emergency assistance, including for survivors of sexual violence. It follows our sustained push to ensure aid reaches those in need, including through access corridors such as the Adré crossing from Chad.
The UK will continue to lead international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan. Our immediate goals are clear: to bring an end to this destructive war, to protect civilians and to get aid to where it is needed most. Our vision for Sudan is to work with the Sudanese people and international partners to deliver the democratic and peaceful future that they deserve.
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. It is so important that we shine a light on this conflict, which is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at this time. Sudan is experiencing the most extreme hunger crisis. Conflict-related famine, mass displacement, and extreme and sexual violence and killings continue to devastate millions of people. About half the population—24.5 million people—are experiencing acute food insecurity, with 650,000 facing catastrophic hunger. The conflict has led to an unprecedented displacement, with 8.6 million people internally displaced since the start of the conflict and nearly 4 million people forced to flee across borders.
Unfortunately, the crisis continues to get worse. In recent days, we have seen the Rapid Support Forces attack the Zamzam camp, which housed about 500,000 displaced people, and the Sudanese Government allegedly attack a market in western Darfur, which is speculated to be one of the worst single incidents of the conflict. I share the Minister’s aspirations, as I am sure does the whole House, but we cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge. I was pleased that the Government took part in the conference, but it was very disappointing that it was not possible to get the other participants, particularly the Arab nations, to sign up to an agreement at the end of it. It was also disappointing to find the RSF declaring an alternative Government within a few days of the conference.
What are the Government doing to encourage a greater role for the African Union, particularly in discussions at the United Nations? Generally, there is a view that if the African Union was more involved, it would be more difficult for Russia to veto UN resolutions. Secondly, what are we doing in relation to the United Arab Emirates and its role in the conflict, which has been significant?
This is a truly tragic sequence of events for the people of Sudan. The right hon. Gentleman has long had an interest and he is right to call me to the House to answer questions. We had hoped that at the conference last week, we would be able to issue a communiqué agreed by all parties. As he identifies, there is a whole range of countries with an interest in Sudan. We are at real risk at the moment not only of a further degradation of the situation for those in Zamzam, northern Darfur and across Sudan, but, as he says, of a declaration of parallel Governments, none of which will lead to the peaceful democratic future that the Sudanese have long hoped for.
The Foreign Secretary took the decision to try for this conference in an attempt to ensure wide agreement among the parties, because he recognises that there must be no hierarchy of conflict. The situation in Sudan is catastrophic and we are making every effort. The conference was the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to try to reduce the suffering in Sudan.
Let me begin by supporting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and congratulating him on securing what is a very important urgent question.
Many millions of innocent Sudanese civilians have been caught up in what is a barbaric conflict. They deserve peace and dignity. They are facing the most appalling, dire humanitarian crisis. It is a fact that red lines have been crossed in the conflict, and that cannot be allowed to stand. We all want to help chart a course to a meaningful peace for the people of Sudan, and we are aware of the various pillars articulated in the London Sudan conference statement. We all agree on the need for an immediate end to the fighting, on preventing the partition of Sudan, and on the need for urgent humanitarian access.
Crucially, the Foreign Secretary’s conference did not see any new practical measures agreed with the African Union and other partners to help the warring parties into a ceasefire and an end to the conflict, and, importantly, to deter the ways in which the conflict is being escalated, because there has been no de-escalation whatsoever. Supporting a transition to a civilian-led Government is clearly crucial, and it must be led by the Sudanese people. What practical diplomacy are the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary doing to help international processes such as Cairo to stay on track and to build confidence among the Sudanese civilian and political forces?
Finally, the Minister mentioned the additional £120 million in humanitarian aid announced by the Government for 2025-26. Will he inform us which organisations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is partnering with for the delivery of this new aid, whether delivery has started and whether it is actually making any impact whatsoever? Will he also confirm that in parallel to announcing this new aid, he is working to keep border crossings open and pressing for the proper safety nets to ensure that this aid ends up with those who genuinely need it, and not in the wrong hands?
Like the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), the shadow Foreign Secretary raises important questions about the African Union. We thought it was particularly important that we co-hosted this event with the African Union; clearly, this is an important conflict with wide implications for those in the neighbourhood and in east Africa. We are taking practical steps, and we conducted the conference in closed session in order to enable the kind of frank discussion that is required to advance towards a more peaceful solution in Sudan.
I would not wish to give the House the impression that we have made dramatic progress towards an end to the violence in Sudan. We are all familiar with the terrible reports that continue to come in—even this morning—of events in Darfur and across Sudan.
Through the conference, we were able to bring greater unity among the international community on what the necessary next steps must be and on the importance of maintaining open border crossings, which, as the shadow Foreign Secretary sets out, are vital, in addition to trying to ensure that humanitarian access can be exercised right across Sudan. We have been in discussions with Tom Fletcher, the emergency relief co-ordinator, who has today spoken to some of the key participants. In terms of practical steps, I can confirm that we remain in direct contact, through our special envoy for Sudan, with both the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. We are absolutely clear that we need a civilian process towards civilian Government.
The Government were right to co-ordinate this conference as a first step on the path to peace. It is obviously disappointing that it was not possible to establish a contact group at the end of the conference, but I know the Minister will be working hard to progress bilateral talks, not least with the external actors in this conflict such as the UAE and Egypt.
I want to put the spotlight on women and girls in this conflict, who are experiencing high levels of sexual violence. What discussions were there on the protection of women and girls, and on the further steps that could be taken both to ensure the safety of those experiencing trauma today because of their experiences and to protect women and girls in the future?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the focus on violence against women and girls in Sudan. It is absolutely appalling—the latest reports are lurid and graphic in their details of what is befalling women and children right across Sudan. The Minister for Africa has been leading international efforts to maintain a spotlight on these questions. He chaired a UN Security Council briefing on conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan just last month, and was also at the UN Security Council in November further highlighting this issue. This conflict is disproportionately affecting women and children, and the UK will remain completely focused on doing everything we can to bring that to a close.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group?
I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians?
Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan?
The shadow Foreign Secretary also raised those questions. I am happy to write to the House with further details about aid delivery, both in relation to the £120 million in further funding and the concerning reports over recent days about restrictions in aid access, particularly in Darfur. Once the situation becomes clearer, I am happy to provide a full update to all parties on the practical questions about aid delivery.
The hon. Lady asks about the practical successes of the conference and what is next on the diplomatic front. The statement from the co-chairs, which include not just the UK, but the African Union, the EU and others, attempted to capture what was an important and frank set of discussions over the course of the day, and set out five principles. It went further than any other recent statement, calling for a ceasefire, rejecting external interference, opposing parallel governance and supporting a transition to civilian-led Governments. My Foreign Office officials have been talking to all parties with an interest in Sudan, including the two belligerents, to make it clear that the statement is the strong view of the international community and that we expect to see it put in place.
It is true, as the two most recent questions have set out, that we were not able to secure a contact group at the conference. I would not want the House to think that, as frank and behind closed doors as it was, the conference was therefore a failure. The fact that this is difficult is all the more reason why it was important for the UK to show leadership and to bring the African Union and others to the table to discuss these issues.
What is happening in Sudan should shock us all. UNICEF has warned that children as young as one are being raped. More than 220 cases of child rape have been reported since 2024, so we need outrage and, more importantly, action. Can the Minister confirm how much of our aid, if any, is being spent on supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and also how we are using our role as penholder on Sudan at the UN to push for action specifically on sexual violence?
My hon. Friend has worked extensively on these issues, and I know her commitment to them. I will write to her with a full breakdown on which part of our aid programmes are working with survivors. As I set out in answer to an earlier question, the Minister for Africa has led efforts at the Security Council on ensuring that the whole international community is focused on the atrocities that she has just described. We are also leading efforts at the Human Rights Council to establish and renew the mandate for the UN fact-finding mission, which will be crucial to supporting future accountability efforts in Sudan.
I appreciate the pressures on the Minister’s officials, but does the Minister agree that this disaster playing out in Sudan is under-reported, and, therefore, may I encourage him in the future to take every opportunity to come to the House voluntarily with statements, rather than rely on urgent questions, to give him the opportunity, which he has quite rightly taken today, to spell out where we are in this awful situation?
I am always happy to come to the House, but let me just clarify that I am not the Minister with policy responsibility for Sudan; that belongs to the Minister for Africa in the Lords. Since taking office, the Foreign Secretary has shown strong personal commitment to this conflict. He is intensely aware of the many conflicts in the world, but appreciates that this is the one that is causing the greatest humanitarian disaster. There is a danger of appearing to create a hierarchy of conflict, and the Foreign Secretary is personally committed to ensuring that that is not the case, and that is why he took the leadership that he did last week.
Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, and we know that there has been a particular toll on women and girls, as other Members have mentioned. Some 80% of hospitals in conflict-affected areas are not functioning, and maternal deaths have spiked, so can the Minister say little bit more about how aid will support hospitals in the region?
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. As I have said in previous answers, we are very focused on the fate of women and girls in Sudan. We have been working through the United Nations and with the emergency relief co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary aid is in place, whether that is for the function of hospitals, to support survivors or to protect the mechanisms to prevent civilian suffering. I will update the House once the position is clearer, given the events of the last few days.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this urgent question and laying out the unimaginable horror of what is currently happening in Sudan. There is a very real danger that the catastrophe in Sudan will spread to neighbouring countries. Since 2023, an estimated 800,000 Sudanese refugees have fled to Chad, which is already one of the poorest countries in the world and ranked No. 1 in the list of countries at risk of genocide. What assessment has been made of the impact of overseas aid cuts to the likelihood of genocide occurring in Chad, and what are the Government doing proactively to prevent a genocide in Chad?
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Since the conflict began, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. That of course includes Chad, but also Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. Many of these countries I know well, and I served in South Sudan for the Department for International Development for two years. These are countries with delicate political balances and that have seen recent incidences of severe conflict. What happens in Sudan makes a difference to neighbouring countries. I do not think that what is centrally at issue here is UK aid to Chad. What is centrally at issue is violent displacement from Sudan, and we will remain focused on those questions.
I commend the Foreign Secretary for co-hosting the conference and for giving this situation the political and diplomatic attention that it warrants. The crisis in Sudan is awful. The UN has warned that
“never in modern history have so many people faced starvation and famine as in Sudan today”.
The UN puts that down to the deliberate starvation tactics by the RSF and the SAF. Can the Minister outline what further measures the Government are taking to end the deliberate obstruction of food aid by the warring parties?
The UK condemns the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan. The escalation of violence, killing of civilians, sexual assault of women and restriction of humanitarian access must end. That is why in January the Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border and raised awareness of the conflict. It is why we hosted the conference last week and are in regular touch with both the parties themselves and all those with influence, including regional players, the United Nations and major donors. We are trying to do everything we can to ensure that humanitarian access is properly restored.
Might it be expedient if we use our intelligence resources to expose and shame those who are fuelling the conflict through arming the antagonists?
We are clear that there should be no external interference in Sudan and that a continuation of this conflict serves no one. It is why we took the efforts last week that we did, and we held the conference in closed-door sessions in order to allow the frankest possible exchange of views on the way ahead.
The scenes from Sudan are beyond harrowing. There is brutal murder, millions at risk of starvation, and millions more have been displaced, with women and children watching their sons, fathers and husbands be brutally killed and many of those women and children being victims of the most horrendous sexual violence. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, I represent a number of people from the Sudanese community—either born in Sudan or whose parents were born in Sudan. They are watching the TV in horror, fear and sorrow. What we are doing to engage with and support the British Sudanese community here in the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend speaks about the horrors for British Sudanese residents who are looking back at home and seeing such atrocious scenes. I am sure that the Minister for Africa will be happy to meet with my hon. Friend and his constituents to discuss the issue further. I have Sudanese constituents in Lincoln, and I know the horror that they feel each and every day looking at this imagery.
Does the Minister agree that religious freedom must remain a key pillar of the UK’s foreign aid policy? That said, with Sudan now ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for Christian persecution according to Open Doors, will he confirm whether the protection of religious minorities will be a condition—indeed, a priority—of the distribution of foreign aid to Sudan?
Freedom of religious belief remains a real priority for the Government. On my way to the House, I was with our new envoy for freedom of religious belief, meeting with the Baha’i community, who have suffered in Yemen and Iran. This remains an important question for the Government, and we will remain focused on it through the envoy.
The Minister rightly condemns the violence against women and girls in Sudan. Will he update the House specifically on what assistance is being provided to the victims of female genital mutilation? Those women are literally castrated. Will he ensure that we are providing assistance to those poor women?
I have heard the House’s interest in the fine detail of which elements of our aid programme are working with survivors, and I commit to providing that further information in due course.
I am deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict in Sudan and in particular the sexual violence that was brought to light so shockingly by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). When the Minister next engages with his counterparts in South Sudan, will he raise the case of Dr Ding Col Dau Ding? He travelled from Norfolk to South Sudan to practise medicine shortly after independence and saved many lives across east Africa in his time there. Just a year later, he was shockingly murdered, and his family—my constituents—have been fighting for justice for almost a decade. Will he meet me and the family of Dr Ding to discuss how they can finally secure justice for their beloved brother and son?
I am not familiar with the case. I will discuss it with the Minister for Africa and ensure that the hon. Member gets a proper response.
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the urgent question. Despite the barbarity of Sudan, it seems to be the forgotten conflict. What steps are being taken to investigate and prevent the transfer of arms to Sudan via third countries who may have been present at the conference over the weekend and are allies of the UK?
We were clear in the co-chairs’ statement, as we have been in many other places, that we do not want external interference in this conflict. We are taking every step we can to try to ensure that we get back to a diplomatic solution and back to a civilian transfer towards civilian rule, which is what the Sudanese so desperately need.
The Minister clearly understands the issues and responds to our questions, so we thank him for that. Having, like others, raised the Sudanese war on numerous occasions and the acts of depravity and war crimes that have taken place over the last number of years, I and many others were disheartened to see the end to any semblance of peace talks. However, we must not lose heart and give up. The people of Sudan deserve a better chance of hope and a future without living in fear. How will the Minister facilitate further peace talks? What discussions have taken place with allies to produce a co-ordinated global effort to stop the torture, the maiming and the killing and to bring peace to all?
I say with regret that the two protagonists of the conflict do not appear prepared to enter into serious talks at the moment. That was why they were not invited to the conference. The conference was not an attempt to mediate a peace deal as that is not possible if neither participant is prepared to do so. We made the judgment that the conference was so important to try to cohere international support towards the next steps to try to reduce the violence. We are working with all our partners to try to do that.
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberOver the weekend, two Members of this House—my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed)—on a parliamentary delegation to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories were detained and refused entry by the authorities. They had both been granted entry clearance in advance of travelling to Israel. On arrival in Tel Aviv at 2.30 pm local time, the two hon. Members were held in immigration for six hours. When I spoke to them at 8.30 pm, they believed they were to be detained overnight without their mobile phones.
While the situation was ongoing on Saturday night, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his counterpart, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I spoke with the Deputy Foreign Minister and the Israeli ambassador. Following that intervention, both hon. Members were released from detention, but their entry was still denied. Foreign Office officials supported the two MPs and their staff at the airport as soon as they were alerted to the situation. After a public statement at 10 pm from the Israeli immigration authority, they were then flown back in the early hours of Sunday morning.
It is my understanding that this is the first time a British MP has been barred from entering Israel. That decision appears to have been taken on the basis of comments made in this Chamber. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, and as I am sure almost every Member of this House will agree, their treatment is unacceptable and deeply concerning. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is no way to treat democratically elected representatives of a close partner nation. We have made this clear at the highest levels in Israel. I pay tribute to the contributions that both Members have made to this place since they were elected. I know that they both believe in a two-state solution. They have our support and solidarity.
The Foreign Secretary and I spoke to both MPs while they were in Israel, and I met with them earlier today. They have behaved with great dignity. They were part of a delegation visiting humanitarian projects amid the appalling situation in Gaza and a dangerous and deteriorating situation in the occupied west bank. They were going to see for themselves what is taking place in the occupied territories and to meet those directly affected by the shocking rise in settler violence.
Such visits are commonplace for MPs from across this House and from all parties. Indeed, I am told that more than 161 Members of Parliament have conducted such visits. They enrich our knowledge and experience as legislators and representatives. They create connections with countries, political counterparts and civil society. Indeed, I note that both Medical Aid for Palestinians and the Council for Arab-British Understanding have supported visits involving Members from all the main political parties, including those on the Benches opposite. All Members should therefore be worried by what this decision means and the precedent it sets.
So our message to the Israeli Government is not just that this is wrong, but that it is counterproductive. We have warned them that actions like this only damage the image of the Israeli Government in the eyes of hon. Members across the House.
Amid this unnecessary and unwelcome decision, the bloodshed continues in Gaza. The hostages are still held by Hamas, essential aid is still blocked by Israel, and yet more innocent Palestinians are suffering. The killing of 15 paramedics and rescue workers in Rafah on 23 March was one of the deadliest attacks on humanitarian staff since the war began. These deaths are an outrage, and we must see this incident investigated transparently and those responsible held to account. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families.
We will not go quiet in our calls for the violence to stop or in our demands for humanitarian workers and civilians to be protected. We urge all parties to return to ceasefire negotiations. It is clear that this conflict can be won not by bombs and bullets, but by diplomacy. A ceasefire is the only way we will bring the conflict to an end and return to negotiations for a lasting peace in the region. This is the only way we can end the needless loss of humanitarian workers striving to alleviate suffering, and it is the only pathway toward the two-state solution that we all want to see, where Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security. I know that hon. Members across this House will continue to work towards that goal. I commend this statement to the House.
I had hoped that the right hon. Lady might come to the Dispatch Box to withdraw the comments of the Leader of the Opposition—comments that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not prepared to support. I remain none the wiser from the comments of shadow Minister what the position of the Conservative party is on the detention of British MPs overnight, despite having clearance to enter, and their return.
Many Conservative Members have been on such delegations; I can see one of them in the Chamber. I am sure that the Conservative party would have the full support of this House were the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), my neighbour the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), or indeed the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who is also from Lincolnshire—all of whom have been on such delegations—to be treated in this way. The whole House would support them.
These are not difficult questions, and I am truly surprised by the answers. The right hon. Lady asked me further questions, but the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity to ask questions before her Sunday round—not of the two MPs concerned, and not of the Foreign Office. She characterised their comments in this House as “Hamas propaganda.” She can make whatever political characterisation she likes of Back-Bench MPs, but she seemed to imply that the reason for their removal was that they were not going to comply with Israeli laws. [Interruption.] Would you like me to read out her comments?
Order. The word “you” is not appropriate.
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition said on Sunday:
“If you look at the reasons the Israeli Government has given for why they’re not letting them in—they don’t believe they’re going to comply with their laws.”
The reason for the denial, which the Israeli Government gave to the two MPs in writing, was for the prevention of illegal immigration considerations. The Leader of the Opposition should apologise.
I would like to start by thanking the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Middle East, the British embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate for their continued support.
It has been a challenging few days. What happened to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) is unprecedented: we were denied entry based on our legitimate political opinions, which are firmly aligned with international law. We are not the only ones speaking about the atrocities, we are not the only ones calling for change, and we are not the only ones saying that the current actions of the Israeli Government must change. Indeed, many Israeli people and charities in Israel have also called for the Israeli Government’s actions to change
There is no direct route into the west bank, so we had to go through Israel. This act was not just a diplomatic affront. Neither was it about security; it was about control and censorship. No state, however powerful, should be beyond criticism. I desperately want to see a two-state solution; I desperately want to see peace. I hope that the Minister will be able to work with his counterparts in Israel to prevent this denial of entry from happening again, so that we can continue to act in good faith to shed light on what is happening.
I pay tribute to the dignity of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Earley and Woodley.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with the Israeli Government, and all our partners across the region, towards a two-state solution. I welcome the strength of support from her and many other colleagues in this House.
To be clear on the position of the Israeli Government: they do have the right to decide who enters their country, as indeed do we. On this occasion, the two Members of Parliament were given clearance to enter, so it was known to the Israeli Government before they arrived at the airport that they would be travelling. It was therefore with some surprise that I received the call on Saturday evening.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support his rebuke of the Israeli Government for detaining two hon. Members of this House and denying their entry into the state of Israel. I am disappointed, however, that this House has not been able to speak with one voice on this matter.
I was shocked by the leader of the Conservative party’s comments yesterday morning, and I am deeply disappointed by the shadow Minister’s comments today. The Liberal Democrats believe that Members should be free to advocate without fear or favour on issues of national and global importance. We believe it is vital for parliamentarians to be able to see for themselves the realities of the situations we discuss in this Chamber.
Israel’s actions are inconsistent with the behaviour we would expect from an ally and from a democracy, and it is regrettable that the leader of the Conservative party and the party spokesperson do not agree. Transparency in the middle east is vital for securing a long-lasting political settlement, which must be based on openness and trust. Has the Foreign Secretary since made clear to his counterpart in the Israeli Government that such treatment of parliamentarians is unacceptable, and that no further parliamentarians will be treated in that way or denied entry into Israel?
Will the Foreign Secretary also raise with his counterpart this morning’s deeply disturbing reports of Palestinian detainees being subjected to torture, and this weekend’s report that the initial IDF account of the deaths of 15 aid workers at the hands of Israeli forces has been contradicted by video footage from a victim’s mobile phone?
I confirm to the hon. Member that the Israeli Government are in no doubt about our views on this incident, and that discussions continue. She references a number of concerning reports that have emerged in recent days. I was in this House last Wednesday to discuss some of those in detail, as well as the wider position in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and I am sure we will continue to have such discussions about what remains a deeply concerning situation.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) in her thanks to the Minister and the Foreign Office. Since arriving home yesterday I have been inundated with support from MPs, hundreds of whom have written to me personally to express their solidarity. That outpouring of support has come from all parts of the House, and it has united us as British parliamentarians who stand together against this unprecedented treatment of our fellow MPs.
Since I came to this place, the war in Gaza and the violence on the west bank has remained one of the top issues that my constituents write to me about. Residents have shared with me their longing for peace, and it was on their behalf that I joined the delegation. As a former journalist, I understand deeply the significance of bearing witness, and I also understand the risks that that entails. Many Palestinian journalists have paid that price with their lives. Before going to the west bank I understood the risks of travelling to a region where violence is all too common. I did not, however, anticipate the risks of detention and deportation from a British ally. Now, as an MP, it is the honour of my life to bear witness on behalf of my constituents. My only regret is that I was not able to do so on this trip.
So far in this Parliament the conflict in Gaza has been referenced more than 1,000 times by British MPs, and I have made five of those references in this Chamber. If my experience has proved anything, it is that what we say in this Chamber matters, and I encourage other MPs to continue speaking on this issue. People around the world are listening to us. Our voice is powerful, and we must continue to use it without fear or favour. What can the Minister do to ensure that future delegations going to the west bank, including those who are about to depart this weekend, can do so without having to censor their remarks in Parliament?
My hon. Friend is a dignified and doughty tribune in this place. I know that all Members of this House will continue to speak without fear or favour from these Benches, and I would encourage them to do so. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) referenced our travel advice, which sets out some of the risks, and I encourage Members of Parliament who are considering visits and wish to discuss that with the Foreign Office to do so.
This is obviously a deeply alarming development, coming as it does off the back of proposed financial penalties for foreign non-governmental organisations that are operational in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which also bear witness to what is going on there. Will the Minister enlighten us about two things? First, it would be helpful for parliamentarians if, in his discussions with the Israeli Government, he could ask them for a comprehensive list of MPs who will not be permitted to travel to Israel from here on in, so that we get a sense of the scale of their objection to what we say in this House. Secondly, will the Government still be entertaining high-level military delegations from Israel on their premises?
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, we will keep such matters under review on a case-by-case basis. On the question of which MPs are now welcome to travel to Israel, I will have to revert to this House. To our knowledge, this is the first ever such incident. Colleagues from across the House with a whole range of views on the conflict in Israel and Gaza have travelled there, so we were dismayed to see the weekend’s events.
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
As I look around the Chamber, I am proud to see so many Members from all parties who have come here to support our sister parliamentarians, but I am disappointed not to be able to include Members of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition in that. Our fury at this insult to our Parliament and to our country is tempered only by the fact that we must not forget why these young women went to Israel: they wanted to bear witness to what is going on in east Jerusalem and on the west bank. They were going to meet generations of a family who are living in a supposedly temporary refugee camp, but who have been there for decades and are still waiting on the promise of a Palestinian state. They were there to see aid workers and charities whose organisations are at threat of 80% tax, threatening their very existence and lifesaving work. They might even have met, as I did, a man who had been looked in the eye by Antony Blinken and told that his home was safe, yet we were standing in its rubble. What steps will my hon. Friend the Minister take on behalf of the Government to protect the right of MPs not just to see the tragic reality of the west bank and east Jerusalem, but to call that out without reprisal?
I will update the House once we have had further discussions with the Israeli Government on the question of MPs’ travel, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I encourage all Members of the House, whether they support the Government’s position or not, to continue to speak in the House with the frankness and integrity that Members would expect.
My sympathies are with my two colleagues, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for what they experienced over the weekend. However, we must remember that Israel is in a state of war against a terrorist enemy and it is—[Interruption.] At different times, this country has refused to admit elected politicians—they have wanted to come to this country, but they have been refused entry. It is Israel’s right to refuse entry to people who choose to call for boycotts or other elements against the state of Israel. Therefore, if colleagues wish to visit Israel, they need to be clear about the Foreign Office advice. By the way, the travel insurance advice is that if people do not follow that Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice, they are not insured.
I reiterate that nobody in the British Government is disputing the Israeli’s Government’s right to decide who enters Israel—that is clearly their right to discharge as they see fit. What was particularly surprising about this incident was not just its novelty—it is the first time of which we are aware that MPs have been stopped—but that they had entry clearance already and they were permitted to travel to the airport.
I thank the Minister for his statement. If this is how the Israeli Government treat the UK’s elected representatives, we can only imagine how they are treating the Palestinian people. Parliamentary delegations are how we in this House better understand the world and the issues that we debate. I returned from my recent visit to the region as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee more committed than ever to working towards a lasting peace. Travelling to the west bank shows at first hand the fear and violence experienced by the Palestinians. Meeting with the Israeli hostages, walking through Hostages Square and meeting their families brings home their trauma and suffering. Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of parliamentary delegations, and that actions like such as this by the Israeli Government undermine long-term efforts for a lasting peace?
Many Members of this House have benefited from parliamentary delegations across the world. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken the effort to travel to many countries that the Foreign Affairs Committee considers in its deliberations. They are very important, and I would like to see them continue.
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This delegation was organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, and it is my enormous privilege to serve as the chair of that organisation. CABU has organised dozens of delegations of this sort over the years, and with the support of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, if it is necessary, we hope to continue to do so in the future. The attack on the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) is an attack on us all. I regret to say that that is why the position of the Opposition Front Benchers is so utterly regrettable. We know that Israel has closed off Gaza in recent years; if the treatment of the hon. Members is anything to go by, it now looks like it will do the same thing for the west bank. What will the Minister do to ensure that it is not allowed to do that?
I hope to see parliamentary delegations from CABU and others continue. The Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), also asked me about delegations. I take this opportunity to clarify that while my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, this was not a Foreign Affairs Committee delegation—no one on it has travelled recently—nor was it a delegation from an all-party parliamentary group. However, it was a delegation—in line with many such delegations that have been supported by CABU and many other organisations to ensure that parliamentarians can travel and see things for themselves—and I hope that they continue.
This whole House was and remains united in its condemnation of the horrific attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October and their disgusting treatment of the hostages ever since, but many in this House have also been appalled by the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of men, women and children from the state of Palestine. Ever since 7 October, their forced displacement and the blockade of aid on them has surely upset many Members of this House. Does the Minister agree that the treatment and the smearing of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang)—they are honourable, and I am proud to call them my friends—is part of a wider attempt to stop others, such as journalists, parliamentarians and the Israeli people themselves, from seeing what is really going on in the occupied territories?
I agree with how my hon. Friend described my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley and for Sheffield Central. They are my friends too. They were a bureau chief for the Financial Times and a lawyer before coming to this place. They are distinguished members of their communities and distinguished Members of this House.
Israel has forgone the opportunity to engage with two of its trenchant critics. Is this not a case of more fool it?
I agree with that length of question as well.
This is an unprecedented situation, and I pay tribute to both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. I have visited Israel on many occasions, and I have had the opportunity to live there. While Members of this House may have disagreements with the current Israeli Government, does the Minister agree it is essential that we enable delegations to visit the region? That is the only way that we listen, learn and are exposed to a wide range of views and perspectives.
I agree. There are many friends of Israel in this House, many of whom are disappointed by the events of the weekend.
I express my own solidarity and the solidarity of my party with the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who were detained at the weekend. That was a completely unacceptable set of circumstances. While there can be no doubt about the fact that our colleagues were denied entry into Israel because the Israeli Government were terrified of what they would witness, in the last week Israel has intentionally targeted 15 UN medical workers, burying them in a mass grave, and confirmed the indefinite expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied west bank. Last week, the Minister told this House that the Government take action when there is “a risk” that Israel is breaching international law. Does he consider that the targeting of UN aid workers and the confirmation that settlements in the west bank will be expanded demonstrates a risk that international law is being violated by Israel, and will the Government end Israeli impunity by condemning its indiscriminate attacks and suspending all arms exports?
We went through many of these issues in some detail last Wednesday, and I am sure that I will return to this House to do so again. My position remains as it was on Wednesday.
I have stood opposite the spokesperson for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), many times and engaged in the rough and tumble of political debate. It is not part of the rough and tumble of political debate to seek to justify the detention and deportation of fellow Members of this House. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the position taken by Opposition Front Benchers poses a risk to all of us as parliamentarians?
My right hon. Friend speaks with force, and I condemn the position taken by Opposition Front Benchers. We have just heard from a fairly trenchant advocate for free speech; I thought that was the position of the Conservative party.
Like many colleagues, I have visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza, facilitated by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. I benefited greatly from those visits, and I hope that both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government will facilitate future visits by parliamentarians. However, does the Minister think it was wise for the Foreign Secretary, in his remarks on X/Twitter, to try to conflate China and Israel?
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), made an almost identical comparison shortly thereafter, so the right hon. Member may want to talk to his own party about that comparison.
For 13 years before my election, I worked as director of an organisation called We Believe in Israel, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Part of my job was to lead study tours for British politicians to visit Israel—incidentally, every single trip I led also visited the west bank to hear Palestinian perspectives on the conflict. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for wanting to visit the region and see the situation for themselves. We probably disagree on aspects of the conflict, but they are moderate voices who support a two-state solution, and it is outrageous that they were detained and not allowed entry. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for hon. Members to visit Israel and the west bank and see the situation at first hand; that doing so helps people to arrive at an informed, nuanced and balanced view; and that anything that hinders this is to be deplored?
My hon. Friend is well known for his friendship to Israel, and his remarks have real force. I agree with them.
It is my honour and privilege to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), and I put on record my support for her and my outrage at her treatment. Given that this is how the current Israeli Government act towards their allies, disregarding democratic and diplomatic norms, what steps will the Government take to help ensure that Israel enters into negotiations with its enemies towards a lasting peace and a two-state solution?
We will continue to work with the Israeli Government and all parties in the region to try to ensure that there is a return to substantive talks, and a return to the ceasefire that will lead to the release of hostages and an end to this terrible conflict in the region.
I listened to the Minister’s statement in detail, but what specific actions will this Government take against the Israeli Government for doing what they did to two of our colleagues? Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, back in 2021, Mr Speaker banned the Chinese ambassador for banning Members of the British Parliament from going to China. Is the same going to happen to the Israeli ambassador until these sanctions are lifted?
We consider the actions of the Israeli Government to be not just regrettable but counterproductive, for the reasons that Members on the Opposition Benches have stated. It is so important—as many on the Labour Benches have said—that parliamentarians are able to visit, to engage, and ultimately to seek to persuade others. The actions of the Israeli Government are deeply regrettable and unacceptable, and we have made that clear to them at the very highest level.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for supporting the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as any other Member attempting to make the same journey in order to acquaint themselves with the situation. Could he bring us up to date on what is happening regarding the supply of arms and weapons to Israel? Can he assure the House that the Government will suspend the sale of parts that make up the F-35 jets that are being used to bomb and strafe Gaza, kill so many people, and destroy schools and hospitals by targeting them? Will he also tell us exactly what RAF Akrotiri is being used for, and why there are so many flights from that base into Israel? Is it delivering weapons?
I have covered this ground recently, and it remains as it was. We took a principled position in relation to the suspension of certain arms licences in September, and that remains our position. We have discussed the position in relation to F-35 parts and the role of RAF Akrotiri on a number of other occasions. However, I am glad for the opportunity to correct something: when last the right hon. asked me a question, I referred to him simply as an hon. Member. No offence was intended, and it was a mistake on my part.
It is regrettable that the Israeli Government are now acting with impunity —they seem to be accountable to no international law. Enabled by the US President, they continue to bomb hospitals and schools, killing aid workers and thousands of Palestinian civilians. Today, Breaking the Silence reported further executions, as well as the destruction of homes by the Israel Defence Forces, and now this: banning Members of our Parliament from entering. I put on record that I wholeheartedly disagree with what has been said by Opposition Front Benchers and the accusations made by them. My hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) are our friends and our colleagues, and they have more dignity and strength in their little fingers than has been shown by Opposition Front Benchers.
My hon. Friend speaks with real force, and I agree with her condemnation of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments.
There is no question but that the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed)—who are sadly no longer in their places—had a difficult experience in Israel, and that is to be regretted. However, we are hearing today that that somehow makes criticism of Israel impossible in this place, but as we have heard time and again, that is simply not the case. We can speak out in Parliament, and we can continue to do so.
I do not think that anything I said indicated that I expected this House to be less critical in its position, so I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s question.
It is our job in this House to speak out against what Hamas did, but also to speak out against Israel and what it is doing. Denying Members entry is a disgrace, and I am embarrassed by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the position they have taken—they should be ashamed, and should reflect on what they have done. Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s interview with the Israeli ambassador on “Channel 4 News” clearly showed that she was lying. Does the Minister agree that the way in which our friends have been treated is a snub to the UK?
In solidarity, Green party MPs share in the condemnation—which should be fully cross-party—of the Israeli Government’s shameful detention and deportation of our two Labour MP colleagues. In the context of the widespread evidence of war crimes, does the Minister agree that this demonstrates that international scrutiny of what is happening in Israel and Palestine is ever more important? Noting that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have condemned the actions of the Israeli Government, may I ask him which of the many actions that I have previously challenged him to take, will he now take, to show that actions speak louder than words? How will he make our disapproval really clear?
Conscious of time, I will not relitigate the many points that the hon. Member has raised with me in the past. I will simply say that I stand by the remarks in the statement, and we have made our displeasure known.
The detention and the deportation raise some serious questions. What is Israel trying to hide? If Israel has not already crossed a red line, what more does it need to do for this Government to take some action? The alleged execution of the 15 humanitarian aid workers was bad enough. What are this Government going to do? Actions do speak louder than words.
This Government have taken action. We have taken action since the day we formed the Government. I would be happy to rehearse those things, whether it is the arms suspensions, the restoration of funding to UNRWA or the numerous other actions we have taken, but conscious of time, I think I will save that for another day.
I think we have seen a good example of faux outrage in this House today, as Members have condemned the Israeli Government. Would the Minister accept that, first of all, the Israeli Government have every right to decide to whom they give entry and to whom they refuse entry? Will he remind some of his colleagues that it was not so long ago that they were campaigning to get the President of the United States excluded from this country?
I am not sure how many more times I need to say the position about Israel’s right to control who enters its border, but I am happy to reiterate it one more time.
I have debated for many years with members of the Conservative party, and I have often disagreed with them, but I have never before been ashamed of them. Considering that Israel has for a long time now not been allowing journalists into Palestine and the west bank, and now seems determined not to allow parliamentarians to go to that country to build links and to see for themselves what is going on, is this the point where we need to consider what action we take going forward? Should that action be about talking to Israel, or does it need to be something slightly stronger?
As I said in answer to a previous question, we have taken action since we became the Government. We will continue to talk to the Israeli Government. They are, as many Members have said, a partner and an ally, and we are surprised and distressed, and we oppose the treatment of our MPs this weekend.
For 15 years, I have found it impossible to say anything on the subject of Israel and Palestine without it being completely unsatisfactory to either side of the debate, but I have to say, having got to know the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) pretty well on the Treasury Committee, that I was profoundly concerned by the decision of the Israeli Government to do what they did, although I respect the right that they have to do so. However, it is so counterproductive, because it is only when we fully express our views on all sides of this debate that we can find some edification.
That is a decent and honourable contribution, and I thank the right hon. Member for it.
Colleagues who were elected after 2024 may not know that in 2022, 287 of us parliamentarians were banned from entering Russia over our views about the Ukrainian crisis, including not just the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and me, but the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the Leader of the Opposition. At that time, the House stood as one standing up to that intimidation. Today, from the Opposition, we get a dog whistle so loud—about our colleagues, who did nothing wrong apart from wanting to go and see for themselves what was going on—that it could be heard on the moon. What a disgrace. Does the Minister agree that this Government will always defend free speech and that defending free speech means defending the ability of people to go and talk about things that others may not want to talk about?
As I have said, these parliamentary delegations are very valuable, and I want to see them continue.
Many of us have raised serious concerns about the actions of the Israeli Government, and replies have rarely gone as far as most of us would want. I am deeply concerned that the state of Israel may be using this tactic to curtail Ministers from condemning Israel more strongly. What assurance can we have from the Minister that he will not be cowed by what has happened to his colleagues?
I have visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories a number of times, including Gaza, in years gone by. One of the purposes is to bear witness to what is happening on the ground. That is particularly important when aid workers, medics, journalists and civilians are being killed in large numbers. While I appreciate the Minister’s support for our colleagues, what will the Government do to ensure that in future Members of this House can visit with impunity?
It is the right of the Israeli Government to decide who visits. They can exercise that right as they see fit. I am sure they will hear from right across the whole House Members’ desire to continue to visit, which continues to provide a valuable function. Israel and Britain have a long relationship, whether Parliament to Parliament, society to society or people to people, and I want that to continue.
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I put on record my and my colleagues’ solidarity with our friends, the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). What are the UK Government’s precise red lines that, when crossed by Israel, will trigger a full arms embargo and comprehensive economic sanctions against Israel? Furthermore, when will the Government publicly articulate and enforce those red lines to ensure accountability and to uphold international law?
I have talked about the importance of international humanitarian law, as has the Foreign Secretary and many other Ministers of this Government, at this Dispatch Box, at some length. Conscious of time, I refer the hon. Member to my answers last Wednesday.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all the help he gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) over the weekend. The British Jewish organisation Yachad has suggested that this occurrence of detention is symptomatic of an attempt to silence criticism within Israel and outside. Is my hon. Friend sympathetic to that view and, if he is, is a business-as-usual diplomatic relationship with this current Israeli Government still possible?
My hon. Friend, who is so committed to these issues, has been discussing them with me and others for many years. He is right to highlight the important work of Yachad, which has also provided delegations to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I refer him to my previous response in the statement.
I was on one of those delegations that the Minister has just spoken about, and unlike my friends on the Government Benches, we were able to visit the area without a problem from the Israeli Government. However, we did have an incident with Israeli settlers. Is the Minister concerned, and what will he do about this sliding from what is supposed to be a democratic country, undermining the rule of law and stopping British politicians from seeing what is happening in the occupied territories?
I know that my neighbour, the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), has also been on such a delegation. Like the hon. Member, he reported an incident with settlers. I refer the House to my previous statements about the expansion of settler violence and illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The power of bearing witness, as my hon. Friends were attempting to do, was shown at its most extreme in recent days by the paramedic Refat Radwan, who filmed the recent attack on 15 aid workers by the IDF before losing his own life. Does the Minister agree that in this case there must be accountability and not a cover-up?
I do believe that wherever there are incidents against humanitarian workers, including the one that my hon. Friend mentions, there must be full accountability.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. These discussions are sometimes very polarised, but let me say now that this is not just an affront to the House and every Member in it and not just an affront to the Government, but an affront to the British public who put us here. Thousands of British citizens travel to Israel to make their way to the third holy site, Masjid Al-Aqsa, and hundreds have been refused entry on arrival. What reassurance can the Minister give them when our own MPs seem not to be able to get there?
The Foreign Office and the embassy in Tel Aviv, and the consulates in Jerusalem, will give support to all British nationals seeking to travel. They supported our colleagues on Saturday night, and in recent weeks they have supported British pilgrims in an incident similar to the one that the hon. Gentleman has described. They will continue to provide that support.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition is not here, but I would say to her gently that she should agree with the whole House and recognise that her comments may inflame the situation, and that they are not just wrong but counterproductive in respect of the work that the Government are doing.
I commend Opposition Members who have spoken truth to power, and I express my solidarity with our two colleagues as well. Their treatment was very concerning, and the fact is that this a worrying trend: we have seen aid workers being denied access, and we have seen vital journalists being denied access. We know that atrocities are often committed in darkness, when people have something to hide. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government must stop shutting themselves off from the eyes of the world?
I have already spoken about the importance of parliamentary delegations, and I hope that they continue. I hope, too, that the free press of Israel—and, indeed, the whole international press—are able to operate within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I have been deeply saddened and concerned to see that so many journalists have been killed in Gaza. As for the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, I should say to the House that I did inform her office that I intended to make some observations, so I am disappointed not to see her today to answer for them.
I thank the Minister for his statement. As a general principle parliamentarians should be entitled to travel, but there is an understanding that sovereign nations across the globe have the right to decide who can enter. I personally am barred from China and Russia, as are other Members, but I have not heard anyone speak about that. Does the Minister not agree that sovereign nations have a right to prevent entry if they believe that it would have an adverse impact, and that we, as our own nation, should support the right of other nations to make their own rules for what they believe to be for their benefit? Each nation should have that sovereign right.
I do indeed accept, as do the British Government, that every Government have the right to control who comes in. More fool Russia and Belarus for taking the position that they have taken in relation to the hon. Member.
Does the Minister agree that the counterproductive and concerning actions of the Israeli Government in this regard, and the contemptible response from the Opposition Front Bench, have one thing in common, namely that neither will command the support of the British people?
I do agree. The public expect that their MPs will go and see for themselves. This was an important delegation, and I am sure that the constituents of my two colleagues would have welcomed the fact that they were taking the time and making the effort to try to ensure that they had the best possible understanding of a situation about which I know so many constituents feel so strongly.
I have had the privilege of visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with two delegations, one with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians and the other with Yachad. During those visits we met people working in schools, hospitals and clinics, we saw the operation of the Israeli military courts, we met Palestinians whose villages had recently been destroyed by settlers, and, during the last visit, we met Israelis who had lost loved ones on 7 October. Such visits enrich our understanding. They ensure that our debate in this place is informed not only by what we think we know, but by lived experience—by having looked in the eye people whose day-to-day reality consists of the issues that we discuss in this place. Can the Minister assure the House that he will continue to seek a commitment from the Israeli Government that such delegations will not be prevented in the future?
I hope that such delegations will continue in the future, and I will talk to the Israeli Government to that effect.
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their support for our two colleagues, who, since their election, have spoken so bravely about many issues, including what is happening in Palestine? May I also remind the House that Israel is an occupying power, occupying Gaza as well as the west bank? Over the past year the Israelis have consistently not allowed people into Gaza, and we know now what they have been doing to it and to the west bank. It seems that what Israel really wants to do is hide its atrocities.
The British Government do consider the west bank and the Gaza strip to be Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Israeli Government’s justification for this action seems to have been the statements that my hon. Friends made in the House against their policies. On that basis, they detained, denied entry to and expelled two elected Members of the Parliament of their democratic ally on legitimate parliamentary business. Let me repeat the question that I asked my hon. Friend on 20 March. I know that these matters are complex, but can he tell me at what point we change our posture towards the Israeli Government?
I am sure that we will have an opportunity to discuss events in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in further detail. I thank my hon. Friend for his dedication and commitment to these issues, and I do not doubt that we will have further discussions in the Chamber in due course.
My hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) have borne their detention and repatriation with great fortitude, courage, dignity and, indeed, grace, which makes the attack on them from the Opposition Front Bench all the more disgraceful. It is an attack on all of us. Their detention occurred at the same time as it came to light that Israel’s version of the terrible killing of 15 aid workers was not true. Does the Minister agree that lying about actions in occupied territory, preventing the entry of humanitarian aid and journalists and barring British parliamentarians undermine Israel’s claim to be an open and transparent democracy?
I agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the grace and dignity with which the two Members have comported themselves over what has been a trying 24 hours, and I am sure we will discuss the other matters that she has raised in due course.
Israel is supposed to be an ally of ours. Does the Minister agree that its treatment of our hon. Friends is not only an affront but a further indication of the Israeli Government’s desire to show no transparency in respect of their actions, and not to respect human rights?
Israel remains an open society with a vibrant press, who were reporting on this incident as it happened. I hope that this proves to be an aberration, and that Members of this House will be able to go back to travelling to Israel with no thought of detention or being returned.
For me, the most important aspect of our country is not our flags or even our institutions, but our people, and our people—the elected representatives of thousands of British people—have been treated with contempt. My understanding was that we are Britain and you do not do this to us. There is, at least, consensus on this side of the House that this is not how we should expect to be treated by our allies.
While I welcome the Minister’s statement, I still cannot understand where our red lines were when thousands were slaughtered, when aid was prevented from entering Gaza, or when international law or the ceasefire was broken. Can he explain where those red lines are, and how, when Britain and Parliament have been insulted, we can continue to sell arms to Israel?
I have talked about the position relating to arms sales, and I will not rehearse the arguments that were heard in the Chamber so recently. I agree with my hon. Friend that we all represent communities across the United Kingdom. I believe that in travelling to Israel those two hon. Members were trying to reflect the earnest concerns of their constituents, and I encourage all hon. Members, whenever they are able to do so, to travel to the places where their constituents cannot.
I thank the Minister for his statement. I join him and most fellow Members—sadly, not all of them—in fully supporting my two hon. Friends over the shocking treatment that they have faced. Does the Minister agree that such an utterly disproportionate and counterproductive decision by the Israeli authorities, at a time when the situation in the middle east is already deteriorating so badly, can only do damage to the Israeli Government’s reputation here and in the wider world?
I rise in solidarity with the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed)—two sisters of this House—and I am disgusted by their treatment at the hands of the state of Israel. However, all too many of my constituents have suffered similar treatment when they have tried to visit Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem and other holy sites around the country. Mr Tassadaq Hussain and Suhan Hoque have recently been denied entry. What will the Minister do to make sure that British passport-carrying citizens are not denied entry to Israel?
It is for Israel to decide whom it grants entry to, but any British national travelling overseas, regardless of their faith, can expect consular assistance from the Foreign Office.
I thank the Minister for his statement. I applaud the dignity with which my hon. Friends have responded, and the solidarity from many Members of different parties. I commend the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke so powerfully about the importance and impact of parliamentary delegations. Does the Minister agree that democracy is weakened if parliamentarians cannot undertake such visits and duties at a time when the need for scrutiny has never been greater?
The detention and deportation of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) by the state of Israel is disgraceful, and it smacks of racism—we cannot ignore the fact that they are women of colour. They were visiting not Israel, but the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Let us remind ourselves that the International Court of Justice recently found that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians constitutes “systemic discrimination” on the basis of
“race, religion or ethnic origin.”
The fact is that white hon. Members on recent delegations who have made similar comments about the conflict are not treated this way. Will the Minister summon the Israeli ambassador over this issue, and over what it now seems was the execution of 15 PRCS paramedics and those who went to rescue them in Gaza?
I have told the House the stated basis that my two hon. Friends were given for their refusal, and I will not pass further comment on what might or might not be behind that. As I say, the written reason was the prevention of illegal immigration considerations, as unlikely as that may seem to those in this Chamber.
On the deeply concerning reports about further deaths of humanitarian workers, this Government have expressed on a number of occasions our condemnation of the lack of a deconfliction mechanism to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers who conduct essential work.
I echo the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and I find it deeply troubling that the only Members who were detained and deported at the weekend are not white. Will the Minister express in the strongest terms his concerns about these events in any future Government discussions on peace and trade?
I am conscious of the time. We have expressed our concerns about this incident in the way that I described, and I expect to have further discussions with members of the Israeli Government to that effect.
I travelled to the west bank in November, and I heard from UN agencies and non-governmental organisations about their international staff being denied entry, restricting their aid efforts. That was alarming enough, but the appalling treatment of our brilliant colleagues is a new low, as it seems that it is not just the support to Palestinians that is being denied, but the right to scrutinise whether that support is getting through. Does the Minister agree that future access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories for aid and scrutiny must be protected?
I have spoken already about the importance of the free press, safe travel for journalists and, indeed, parliamentary delegations.
I thank my hon. Friend for his strong statement in defence of parliamentary democracy. Does he agree that transparency and accessibility are key to parliamentary democracy, and that obstructing the visit of two elected representatives of an allied nation can only raise troubling questions about the current health of Israeli democracy?
As I have said, one of the appealing elements of Israeli democracy is its free press and vibrant debate, and I know that many Members of this House have benefited from vibrant exchanges with their counterparts in Israel, as they have said already. I regret that that has not been the case this weekend.
The response of this House to what happened to our colleagues at the weekend should be united, because it affects us all. Does the Minister agree that any equivocation from Members of this House risks sending a green light to other countries that wish to interfere in our activities and parliamentary delegations? Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and those on the Opposition Front Bench could give that long and hard consideration.
As I have said, the Opposition should give this issue long and hard consideration. It should not be a complex question for this House, given the circumstances of events this weekend.
Had this been the right hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) or for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I would have stood in support of them, as I am sure many colleagues would have done too, because this issue affects us all. I therefore find the Leader of the Opposition’s comments extraordinary. We must not forget that my two hon. Friends were granted visas to enter the country by an ally. Does my hon. Friend agree that this was a showcase event that was designed to intimidate, threaten and silence this place?
To be clear, they were granted entry clearance, rather than a visa. The distinction may seem academic to this House, given that both would have permitted my hon. Friends to travel to the airport. Clearly, it was not a surprise to the Israeli authorities that they arrived.
I share the anger of most Members of this House. It is completely unacceptable that two Members of this House were denied entry to the occupied territories in the west bank by the Israeli authorities. Does the Minister agree that more than ever, now is the time to be united and show solidarity across the House with our parliamentarians, whose only mistake was to do their jobs by representing their constituents without fear or favour in this House and holding Israel accountable for its actions?
I can confirm that I would like to see unity across the House on such matters, and that any parliamentarian, of any political party, would enjoy the support of the Foreign Office under such circumstances.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends, who are currently not in their places. They are the kindest and most thoughtful people I know, and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has tried to damage their reputation is disgraceful. I urge the Minister to continue to have conversations with the Israeli ambassador to the UK. What additional dialogue is he having with international partners to ensure that there is access to aid for Palestine?
My hon. Friend speaks about our colleagues with real warmth, which I know is felt right across the House. That has been referred to not just by those on the Government Benches, but by those on the Opposition Benches, and I am grateful. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue those discussions.
I associate myself with the comments made about my hon. Friends. Does the Minister share my horror, outrage and anger at the killing of 15 paramedics in Gaza, and can he assure me that we are doing everything we possibly can to demand that all those responsible are held to account?
Accountability is vital, and I am indeed outraged by the reports.
The detainment of two hon. Members of this House is shocking, and the killing of 15 Palestinian paramedics in Gaza by the IDF is deeply distressing. At a time like this, it feels as though peace is further away than ever, so can the Minister set out what more we can do to make sure we get back in place the ceasefire we so badly need?
We will continue to work with the Israeli Government and all relevant partners in the region to see the ceasefire restored, which is vital not simply to the Palestinians and the Israelis, but to all in the region.
What has happened to our two amazing colleagues —my hon. Friends—is appalling, but it is part of a pattern of behaviour from Israel of disdain for diplomatic relations with allies, disdain for democratic norms and disdain for human life. Does my hon. Friend agree that this pattern is worrying, and will he correspondingly toughen the UK’s diplomatic posture so that my constituents feel secure that our Government are standing up for their values?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his commitment to these issues even before he was a Member of this place. This incident over the weekend was novel. It is the first time we are aware of that MPs have been refused entry in this way. We are making clear our views about that to the Israeli Government in the way that I have set out. On the other issues, I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure his constituents that we have taken action since becoming the Government, whether with the suspension of arms, in multilateral forums or with the restoration of aid to Gaza.
Can I put on the record my comments about our two hon. Friends, alongside those of everyone else in the House, apart from the Conservative Front-Bencher, who I do not think said any words about them in her commentary?
We are rightly talking about our two hon. Friends, but this incident shines a much wider light not just on our rights as parliamentarians, but on the rights of journalists, charity workers and others to enter Israel and the west bank. We have talked a lot about their being refused entry to Israel, but this is actually about their entry in order to gain access to the west bank through their only entry point into it. What more can the Minister do to ensure that the learning, the sharing and the visits to the west bank will continue if the Israeli Government are embarking on a system of shutting people out?
Does the Minister agree that this whole debacle—the whole sham we have seen in the last few days—has been a distraction from and made much harder the real job we need to do, which is to take on the crimes of Hamas, get the hostages out, get a ceasefire done and speak up for the innocent Palestinians who are suffering day by day because of the actions not being taken by the Israeli Government?
My hon. Friend speaks forcefully about the importance of focusing on the hostages, the restrictions on aid and the death of innocent civilians on both sides of this conflict. As I have said a number of times this afternoon, I do want parliamentary delegations to continue to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the west bank, and I hope this incident will prove to be an aberration.
I thank the Minister for his statement.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Israeli Government’s announcement that they are expanding their military operations in Gaza.
We are deeply concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The UK does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations. Continued fighting and more bloodshed is in nobody’s interest. All parties, including Israel, must observe international humanitarian law. We urge all parties to return to dialogue and ceasefire negotiations, ensuring the return of all who have endured unimaginable suffering. It is clear that this conflict cannot be won by bombs and bullets, but by diplomacy.
Aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. Blocking goods supplies and power from entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law, and it should not be happening. We are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation. Gaza is also the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker. Over 400 aid workers have been killed since the start of the conflict. Despite renewed fighting, the United Nations and humanitarian organisations must be able to deliver their vital work.
A year on from the appalling attack on World Central Kitchen aid workers, lessons have not been learned. We are appalled at recent attacks on aid workers, which include the attack on a United Nations Office for Project Services guest house and the killing of at least eight Palestinian Red Crescent medics. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. Those responsible must be held accountable. The Government of Israel must urgently ensure that there are effective deconfliction mechanisms in place to enable agencies to deliver their impartial mandates safely.
On 28 March, the UK and France called an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss the risks facing humanitarian aid workers in Gaza. Since the hostilities resumed, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, the EU high representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator Tom Fletcher.
A return to a ceasefire is the only way we will bring the conflict to an end and return to negotiations for a lasting peace in the region. That is the only way to deliver the two-state solution that we all want to see. Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security.
The Israeli Government’s brutal decision to expand their military operations in Gaza is not about security; it is about domination and erasure. It comes on top of 18 months of collective punishment, including, since 2 March, the longest aid blockade since the war began. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK does not support the Israeli Government’s expanded military operation in Gaza. Will he now finally name what is happening as genocide and undertake a structural investigation into genocide and other crimes under international law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
To ensure that the UK is not complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide, illegal occupation and system of apartheid, will the Minister immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer—including transit and trans-shipment—to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment? Will he immediately suspend the provision of training and other military and security assistance and recognise that, otherwise, there is a clear risk of contributing to the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including crimes under international law?
As the Minister mentioned, the UK is a significant provider of humanitarian aid to the region. What assessment has he made of the impact of today’s reports on the humanitarian crisis? Although he touched on this lightly, given the UK’s level of influence with Israeli authorities, will he confirm that he will use his position to actively oppose current and planned attempts by Israel to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza, and to oppose moves to alter Gaza’s borders and demographic make-up or to shrink its territory, including through any expanded buffer zones and construction of permanent checkpoints?
The hon. Lady asked a series of important questions. As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, determinations of breaches of international law are for competent courts and we support those courts in their work.
On weapons, I want to be clear that we continue to stand by the assessments that we made soberly in September and the suspension of licenses that that involved. The hon. Lady asked about the UK’s view on a permanent presence in Gaza. I am happy to restate our policy now. We welcome the proposal by Arab nations, called the Arab initiative, which would allow for a reconstruction of Gaza, the safe return of Palestinians who have been displaced, and for those remaining in Gaza to rebuild their lives without forced displacement, which we oppose.
We have had several urgent questions and statements on Gaza over the last few months. Each time, I have come to the Chamber and asked the Government: what is plan B? What is plan B when Israel ends the ceasefire, which is what has happened? What is plan B when Israel’s far-right Government choose their survival over the lives of the remaining hostages, which is what seems to have happened? What is plan B when annexation of either the west bank or Gaza is not just threatened but actually happens, which is what is happening now? My question is this: what are the Government doing to turn our allies’ heads from American trade wars and towards the tragedy unfolding in the middle east, to do whatever they can to restore a ceasefire and the road to peace?
My right hon. Friend, who has been pressing on these issues for some time, is right to raise those questions. She asks whether there is a plan B. In all of my experience, there can be no plan B in Israel-Palestine; there is only one route, which is widely understood by our allies in the region and beyond, and it must be a two-state solution. The route to a two-state solution must involve compliance with international humanitarian law.
It is clear even from the short exchange that we have already had in the Chamber that the British Government’s policy and the Israeli Government’s policy differ. They will continue to differ until we return to a pathway to a two-state solution. There is no plan B. Our plan A is for a two-state solution, and we will work with our allies in the region, on the Security Council—as we did on Friday—and closer to home in order to pursue those arguments.
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. This is clearly a difficult and dangerous moment for the middle east. A way must be found through the dreadful impasse that has led to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.
As has been said time and again, the key to a sustainable end to the conflict is the release of the remaining 59 hostages so cruelly held by Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October. Their continued captivity is intolerable. The British Government should be able to bring their influence to bear, and the Foreign Secretary should be directly involved in all efforts to find a way through, working with Israeli counterparts, the US and key regional players and mediator countries. We said that in the Chamber yesterday.
The Minister stated yesterday, as he has today, that the Government are
“in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 147.]
That includes the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to his Israeli counterpart last week. Will the Minister inform the House what direct Minister-to-Minister discussions have taken place about the current military operations? Were Ministers informed in advance, and have they been given any information about the objectives that Israel is seeking?
Every week we come here to ask questions of Ministers, and it is unclear exactly what level of influence the Government have. What is the Government’s plan? What is their vision of a way through? What discussions have they had in recent days with vital interlocutors?
On humanitarian aid, does the Minister feel that he has made any progress in his efforts to try to unblock the current aid access situation? We have spoken about this many times. Will he update the House on what has been happening to British aid while the restrictions remain? Where is that aid?
It was the Conservatives’ position when in government, as indeed it is now the position of the Labour Government, that there can be no role for Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists in Gaza’s future. Will the Minister be proposing to our critical partners a road map for how this will end and how that future will become a reality?
These are important questions that the right hon. Lady has asked. The Foreign Secretary has been directly involved in Minister-to-Minister contact. I, too, have been talking with all those affected. I very much welcome her comments about the hostages. Of course, the whole House wants to see them all released, and I am sure that many of us will be thinking of Avinatan Or—he has a British mother—who has been held, almost certainly in terrible conditions, ever since 7 October. I know that the whole House will continue to think of those hostage victims.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked about humanitarian aid. I accept that our efforts in recent days to try to prevent the blockade from continuing in Gaza have not been effective. In the first part of this year, we saw a very welcome increase in aid going into Gaza, including UK aid. Even during that greater flow, there were still unwelcome restrictions on the nature of the aid going in, which made reconstruction, shelter, tents and sleeping bags hard to get into Gaza when they were desperately needed. So there were improvements, and we can see a route by which we might see a significant increase in the amount of aid getting into the Gaza strip, which is desperately needed. But at the current time the reports are extremely depressing; we discussed some of them yesterday.
The right hon. Lady asked about our plan for reconstruction and what discussions we are having with others. We have discussed the Arab initiative with those involved closely. We think it is a plan with real merit. It must not allow Hamas to have a role in government—we are absolutely clear on that point, and I think Arab partners are very much of the same view. That is the basic idea from which we must work.
On 30 March, the first day of Eid, Israeli attacks on Gaza killed dozens of Palestinians, adding to the death toll since Israel breached the ceasefire agreement. Israel is now in the process of enacting the largest forced displacement, ordering hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Rafah. How will this end? Israel cannot and will not stop. Is the goal ethnic cleansing? We are witnessing that. Is the goal the complete destruction of Gaza? We are now witnessing that. Is the goal the permanent occupation of Gaza and the west bank? We continue to witness that. Is the goal a complete end to the two-state solution? Israeli Ministers have made their intentions clear. Will the Minister unequivocally condemn their actions for what they are: war crimes and crimes against humanity?
My hon. Friend has been fearless and persistent on those questions. I do condemn the comments of Israeli Ministers which amount to forced displacement or the annexation of Palestinian territories. We recognise international humanitarian law and call on all our allies, including Israel, also to abide by it. The scenes in Gaza in recent days have been hard to watch, and we will continue to make those points to the Israelis with all the force that my hon. Friend would expect.
Israel’s expansion of military activity in Gaza, including a strike on UN medical facilities, displacement of civilians and the Defence Minister’s new proposal to seize large swathes of territory is gravely disturbing. It seems that international humanitarian law is being violated. This week’s reports that the Israel Defence Forces killed and buried 15 humanitarian workers in a mass grave is also appalling. The ceasefire must be restored. Israel must immediately end its illegal blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza to bring desperately needed relief to 2 million people who have suffered enormously. Hamas must also release the remaining hostages immediately and unconditionally.
Will the Minister update the House on the conversations he is having with Israeli, American and middle eastern partners regarding the restoration of the ceasefire? All sides must recommit to a political process. He says that there is only one route, so I ask him once again: will this Government now recognise a Palestinian state, giving hope to millions of Palestinians? Will he also outline what the UK is doing to hold those who attack aid workers in violation of international humanitarian law accountable and to protect those aid workers who remain in Gaza?
Those are important questions. Let me start with humanitarian aid workers. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We of course want to see accountability when humanitarian workers are struck. We particularly expect accountability when British nationals are affected. My thoughts are with the families of all those affected by the World Central Kitchen incident. What do we want to see next by way of accountability? We want to see the Israeli Military Advocate General going through the investigation at a proper speed—it has been a year—coming to proper findings and answering the question of whether criminal charges should now be laid.
This House has discussed questions on the recognition of a Palestinian state many times. We will recognise a Palestinian state as part of a contribution to a two-state solution. We are all watching the events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the moment and seeing how distant a functional Palestinian state looks under these circumstances. Our first efforts must be to restore the basic functioning of Palestinian life, in both Gaza and the west bank, where it is also under threat.
I recently visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I travelled to Area C in west bank and saw at first hand the settler violence that Palestinian men, women and children are facing day in, day out. They are living their lives in constant fear. In this House we all support a two-state solution, but that is being undermined daily by the actions of the Israeli Government, especially in the west bank; we are seeing it being annexed in real time. The Minister says that we will recognise the state of Palestine when the time is right, but I fear there may be no state left to recognise. Will the Government look again at stopping all settlement goods coming into the UK?
Those are important questions. The UK considers settlements illegal under international law. We are clear that settlement goods must be properly labelled and they do not benefit from the trading regimes that would otherwise apply to both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. My hon. Friend’s question is the right one. We need to ensure that there remains a viable path to a two-state solution. There is no other path to peace in the region, and all our efforts are focused on that outcome.
When I was the Minister responsible, the current Minister was then an outstanding official in the Department. He will therefore know that when I presented an egregious list of complaints to the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, as well as to the chief negotiator, he simply stormed out of the meeting, leaving the ambassador with his head in his hands. I therefore ask: what leverage do we actually have?
The right hon. Gentleman is kind about my service. I know that he raised some of the issues with some force, as he says, during his time in this ministerial role. That underlines the hard truth here, which is that the Israelis must be persuaded to relent from a course of action that both the Conservative and Labour parties, as well as the other parties in this Chamber, have seen is totally undermining the long-term stability of the region, which is important not just for Israel and for Palestine, but for the UK and our friends and allies in the middle east.
The poor people of Gaza are trapped between Hamas, who refuse to release the 59 hostages, and Defence Minister Katz, who is now threatening the “total destruction” of Gaza. Does the Minister share my despair at the lack of leadership committed to peace? Will he also talk about what diplomatic efforts we are making, as well as through aid spending, to try to create moderate leadership in the region that can establish the long-term circumstances for peace and reconciliation?
My hon. Friend has done much work over the years on questions of peacebuilding. We, too, are committed to playing our part in trying to build up the connections between the two societies that could allow for the kind of moderate leadership at the most local level that is so necessary for making peace—we saw that in our own experience of Northern Ireland. Many in this Chamber have rightly pressed us on the proposals from the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and we look forward in the coming period to setting out what we will do to support peacebuilding efforts. I watch with dismay, as does the Foreign Secretary, the many civilians asking for peace on both sides; the many civilians protesting both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for a return to a ceasefire. That is what we want to see.
We have heard Ministers refer many times to the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. On the one occasion, on 17 March, when the Foreign Secretary admitted that withholding aid to Gaza was
“a breach of international law”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.],
he had to retract the admission and refer again to a risk of breaches. If the recent attacks on aid workers constitute a further risk of breaches, will the Minister outline what would constitute an actual breach?
The Foreign Secretary has clarified his comments on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and he will know well from his own background that a long-standing policy of Governments of all kinds is that it is not for Ministers to act as courts. There are competent international courts that make such determinations.
The resumption of the conflict in Gaza is incredibly tragic, and it is especially heartbreaking for the hostage families and all those brave people we have seen protesting in Israel against their Government and in Gaza against the death cult that is Hamas. Does the Minister agree that the conflict today could end if Hamas released the 59 hostages and left Gazans to live in peace and security? Will he update us on plans for the international plan for peace for Israelis and Palestinians?
My hon. Friend is right: the hostages must be released, and Hamas can play no role in the future of governance of Gaza. Their role, which was correctly described by the shadow Foreign Secretary as being supported by Iran, has been malign. It has been malign for the Palestinians, for the Israelis, for the UK and for the region.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the proposal for the international peace building fund, we will come back to the House with further details of our approach. As the situation continues to evolve, we want to carefully consider how best we can contribute to peace building, in the way that I described in answer to a previous question.
I thank the Minister for raising, in his answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the plight of Avinatan Or, who I am proud to be twinned with. He was brutally captured by Hamas terrorists 544 days ago. In March, his family received a sign of life for the first time, and in that same month a number of colleagues heard in Parliament from his mother—Ditza, a British citizen—her moving story in Parliament about her continued fight for her son’s release. Does the Minister agree that Hamas could end the war now by releasing Avinatan and all the remaining hostages, and will he assure Ditza that all avenues are being pursued by this Government to make that a reality?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Ditza. I too met her, and Avinatan’s sister, recently. Those two incredibly strong women are doing absolutely everything that they can for their loved one, and I can assure them from this Dispatch Box that we are doing everything we can to secure his release.
I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the killings of the British World Central Kitchen workers by Israel in Gaza, and I extend this sentiment to Palestinian aid workers too. It is almost a year since I was last in Gaza, and not a day goes by when I do not think about what I saw. Does the Minister agree that what Israel is doing in Gaza is reaching new and uncharted territory, in its level of danger both to Palestinians and to the prospects of a two-state solution ever being realised? Does he further agree that it is past time for fresh, co-ordinated international action to stop this? When will he be able to come to the House to outline what this action will be?
My hon. Friend has seen events in Gaza with her own eyes, and I know from all her work before she came to this place how committed an advocate and an actor she has been for those suffering some of the most unimaginable pressures and horrors. I agree that they continue to suffer those pressures and see those horrors. We took the step of calling the UN Security Council to session on these questions on Friday solemnly and soberly. We will work with our international partners on these questions because they are an egregious threat to the life of Palestinians, to a two-state solution and to the stability of the region. I will come back to the House to give her further updates, as my hon. Friend would expect.
We need a ceasefire now—again—because the situation on the ground is as bad as it has ever been, if not worse. I spoke to my friend whose family are in Gaza and he told me that last week their home was bombed multiple times while they were sheltering in the basement with no food or water. They are now barely surviving, surrounded by destruction, terrified and without aid for over a month. He said:
“This is not self-defence. This is the destruction of families like mine.”
If this Government do not support this escalation, where are the consequences? We do have leverage. Why have they not suspended all arms sales to the IDF—not because of a risk of it hitting civilians, but because we have principles and will show intent?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing that story in the Chamber. I know that many Members of this House have received similar stories over the last few days, and indeed have been doing so for the 18 months that this conflict has been running. I have set out our position on arms a number of times in this House, and I would like to say that the decisions taken in September were decisions of principle and they remain decisions of principle. The two principles that underline our position in relation to arms licences for sales to Israel are that we are concerned about risks of international humanitarian law and that we will continue to defend Israel against threats to its security and safety, including from Iran. We have suspended weapons that could be sold to Israel, and we have flown the RAF in its defence when Iran threatened to strike it with missiles. The world is incredibly complicated, things are moving very quickly, and I recognise the strength of feeling in this House on the question of arms. Our position remains the same, and it is one of principle.
What we are witnessing in Gaza is the weaponisation of starvation. With the ongoing blockade of food, water, medicines and shelter now in its second month, there is also the heart-wrenching, despicable discovery of the killing of a further 15 aid workers found in a mass grave, and large-scale hostilities have now restarted. This must stop. Given that it is clear that the Netanyahu regime is not listening to the UK Government and will only listen to President Trump, what pressure are our Government putting on the US to ensure that the Israeli Government finally end their aid blockade?
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will confine my comments to the discussions that we have, rather than the policy of other allies. But my hon. Friend, who has raised these issues many times, is right. I have said it at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said it at Prime Minister’s questions earlier and the Foreign Secretary reiterated it yesterday: we want the aid blockade to end immediately. It should not have been put in place. Palestinian civilians are suffering, and we expect urgent action. We of course discuss these issues with Secretary Rubio, with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and with a whole range of our counterparts in the US system. We work closely with our American colleagues on the middle east and in a whole range of national security fields, and we are clear about our policy with them, as we are with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority.
Can I ask the Minister to bring a sense of urgency to this? The people of Gaza are starving. Every bakery is closed. There is insufficient water. There is no power. No schools are open. No hospitals are fully functioning. It is an utterly desperate situation, yet I believe we are still allowing RAF Akrotiri to be used as a staging point for Israel and still supplying parts for F-35 jets, which are bombing the people of Gaza and bombing the rubble there. What are the Government doing to ensure that Israel stops the bombing and that food aid gets through very, very urgently for the people of Gaza, merely to help them survive?
I hope the House is under no doubt about the urgency with which myself, the Foreign Secretary and the whole ministerial team treat these issues. I think I have already answered the question in relation to arms in this session. The humanitarian need has been on terrible and vivid display over the last few days. We are aware of the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and we raise these issues with the urgency they demand.
The Hostages and Missing Families Forum in Israel said this morning that it was horrified to wake up to the news of the expanded military operation, and that is because it knows the risk that this poses to its loved ones. But it is the loved ones of Palestinians who have already suffered so much that are most relevant today. They themselves know that the annexation and the forced displacement of men, women and children is simply unacceptable, so can the Minister tell me exactly what he and this UK Government have done to make representations to Israel, both about that Israeli aggression and about the 13 new expanded settlements in the west bank, which are deliberately designed to suffocate any future state of Palestine?
I can assure my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner on these issues, that we have raised both the risks of returning to war and indeed the settlements he refers to directly with the Israeli Government, and we will continue to do so.
I welcome the Minister’s reply to the urgent question, but I am sure he will forgive me when I say that we have heard all this before. There is a sense of hopelessness in this place at the downward spiral we seem to be on, but it must be nothing compared with the hopelessness being felt by the Gazans and also the Israeli population. The Israeli regime is not listening to us or to its own population, who are protesting and simply want the hostages home. The region needs some hope, and it has already been suggested that if we are to go down the route to a two-state solution, we need a breakthrough. That breakthrough might come if this Government recognise Palestine as a state.
I recognise the hon. Lady’s remarks. The sense of hopelessness must be acute in Gaza, and I say to all those watching in the region that the UK will continue to do everything it can, no matter how hard it is, to try to return to a ceasefire. I have addressed the question about the recognition of a Palestinian state. There must be a breakthrough. We need to get back on the path that both sides were on before if stability is to return to the region.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for raising the matter. I concur with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in that we have been here before. We keep getting the same responses. Our constituents continue to write to us about this—they want hope. The reality is that over a thousand Palestinians have been killed within the last fortnight. Today marks a month since Israel broke that ceasefire, blocking critical aid into Gaza in defiance of international law. I ask the Minister—I know he and the Foreign Secretary are working hard—what more it will take before we as a UK Government take a different course of action, because Israel is not listening to warm words any longer.
My constituents in Lincoln have strong views about the horrors they see, and I know many constituents right across the country are writing to their Members and strongly expressing their views. I would not describe our policy as “warm words” and I think many of our friends in the region would not describe it as such either. We have taken concrete action since becoming the Government. We have restored aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have taken the arms suspension measures that have been discussed. We have sanctioned settlers. We have continued to use our position at the UN Security Council to try to bring attention and action to some of the most egregious areas of concern, and we will continue to do so. I cannot promise this House that I will be able to return next time with something different to say. The fact that my remarks may seem repetitive indicates that the problem is difficult and the solution feels distant, but we must continue to work on the path that this whole House knows we must get back to, which is towards a two-state solution.
Last week, the Foreign Secretary was unequivocal in saying that both sides—Hamas and Israel—were guilty of committing atrocities. Does the Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary that that is the case?
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to return to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat Member. To be clear, on the determination of crimes, we leave that to courts. On the determination of risk, we take action.
As affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion, Israel is violating the peremptory norms of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the prohibition against racial discrimination and apartheid, and the prohibition against unlawful use of force. Its occupation of Palestine is illegal and must end as soon as possible. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK has a duty to suspend all military co-operation and trade with Israel—a duty that stems from a wide range of intersecting international obligations—in the face of grave illegalities committed by the state of Israel?
My hon. Friend asks me about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. We accept that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and have been clear about that policy position. I am afraid that we will take some time yet to return to this House with a full response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which has a number of novel elements of international jurisprudence, and we are considering it with the seriousness and soberness that it requires. We agree on the fundamentals: the settlements are illegal and must be brought to an end.
Recent polling suggests that over 60% of Israelis will support any deal that brings the remaining hostages home. If that can be achieved, the likelihood is that peace and rebuilding can be achieved, especially if Egypt can be involved, along with finance from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Will the Government please push for that?
I can confirm that we want to see all the hostages returned and a reconstruction plan for Gaza based on the Arab initiative, with the full involvement of the region—a reconstruction plan that can allow Palestinians to remain in their homes.
I was devastated to hear of the expansion of military operations in Gaza this week, alongside the aid blockade in the region. That is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. The Minister has said that he urges Israel to respect IHL. If Israel continues to ignore the international community on that, what concrete steps will we take to hold it accountable?
My hon. Friend has served both in our military and as an aid worker. He knows well and feels strongly, as do many in this House, the agonies of what we are seeing. We have determined that there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Government. We will continue to press them on those points. I will not issue further comment on sanctions, which I think was underlying some of his question, as to do so could reduce their impact.
While no one wants to see the continuation of war in Gaza, under the terms of the ceasefire agreement Israel has the right to take action where there is an immediate threat. We have seen that Hamas have refused to release hostages and are now firing rockets into Israel. They are planning further attacks and, indeed, attacking and murdering their own citizens who protest against them. Is it not reasonable in those circumstances for Israel to take action to defend its own country? Should it not be the priority of this Government to ensure that Hamas release the hostages whom they are cruelly and cynically holding, and to ensure that UK aid is not used to prop up Hamas and help them to reassert their authority?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: of course Israel has the right to legitimate self-defence consistent with international humanitarian law. Concerns about the risk of a breach of international humanitarian law underpin our concerns. He is absolutely right that Hamas are a threat not just to Israel but to their own people, and I have been absolutely clear on that question on numerous occasions at this Dispatch Box. Where there are any reports that Hamas are benefiting from aid going into the Gaza strip or anywhere else, we take serious action in response.
If the rule of international law is to mean anything, we must uphold it, so just as we recognise that taking hostages is a breach of international law, we must recognise that killing aid workers is a breach of international law. My constituents will be listening to the Minister, recognising the work being done but completely perplexed as to why we are not doing more to uphold international law in practice. He is right to argue that the courts need to be involved. He said that he wanted this issue to be dealt with by the relevant competent court and talks about novel elements of jurisprudence delaying our ability to do that. Can he explain to my constituents what more it would take for the United Kingdom, through the auspices of the UN Security Council, to make a referral to the International Criminal Court given what we are seeing and to uphold international human rights law directly?
My hon. Friend asks an important question. I recognise that, for constituents in Walthamstow and elsewhere, questions of international law may seem very arcane when we are faced with the kinds of images that we are all seeing this morning and have been seeing for months, so let me clarify. She refers to the ICJ advisory opinion. That advisory opinion, long in gestation, refers to the presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It pre-dates the 7 October attacks. She also refers to the ICC, which has heard referrals in relation to conduct on both sides of the conflict since the 7 October attacks. We respond in the fullness of time, as required by the ICJ, which has taken some time in its complex determinations about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have responded on the ICC to the timelines required—we did so late last year.
We can all see the discomfort of the Minister in having to embroider language, referring merely to the risk of the breach of international law and not speaking as plainly on behalf of our country as many Members would wish him to speak. Of course, we all want the hostages to be freed, just as we want the 2 million hostages in Gaza being held hostage by the murderous IDF, which is treating them with disdain and starving them, to be freed. If the Minister is not prepared to make the statement that many of us wish for him to make, will he at least admit that the actions of the far-right Israeli Government can no longer be described as self-defence?
I have been accused of many things, but not of embroidering, so if there is any doubt, let me be clear: the position to which I stick at the Dispatch Box on the determinations of law is one that has been held consistently by both parties in government for a long time. There is a good reason why we would not want people to stand at the Dispatch Box making determinations of law, and it is why we have courts and an international legal order that this country has a proud history of establishing and maintaining. We have determined that there is a risk of those breaches. We are not making a determination; we are looking to our own laws—passed, in fact, by those now on the Opposition Benches—and following them through thoroughly and vigorously. In the discharge of our duties, we have said that we think there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. That is the same as saying that we think there is a serious risk that Israel is not simply acting in its own legitimate self-defence. That is why we have taken the steps that we have.
Last year, I raised the concerns of a constituent whose family member was stuck in Gaza without food and water. The situation has worsened since the aid blockade. I am particularly worried about the escalation of hostilities impacting most on women and girls. Supplies of female hygiene products are at critical lows, women are giving birth on hospital floors, and doctors are performing C-sections without adequate medical supplies. May I ask the Minister, on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who have written to me, what the UK Government are doing to end the aid blockade? Will he reassure me that the Government have communicated the sheer urgency on the ground to the Israeli Government?
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on particular cases involving constituents in Gaza. My hon. Friend works incredibly hard for her constituents, as do many other Members. Where I am in direct correspondence with Members about the fate of constituents and their relatives in Gaza, I will not provide a running commentary from the Dispatch Box, but the Foreign Office will do everything it can to ensure that British nationals in distress, and their loved ones, including in Gaza, are able to get to safety. I can confirm to her that we have raised the urgency of these matters with the Israeli Government.
Another day, another statement, another day of predictable and depressing answers. Nothing is more predictable and depressing than the statement, “We are doing everything we can.” Are we really doing everything we can when we do not call out genocide and ethnic cleansing as we see it happening in real time? Are we doing everything we can when we have not imposed bilateral economic sanctions? Are we doing everything we can when we have not even called in the ambassador to express our concerns? If we are indeed doing everything we can, why have the Government just sold £9 million-worth of technology for Israeli submarines that are being built to house nuclear weapons?
We are doing everything we can. I recognise from the commentary of many Members how unbearably frustrating they and their constituents find this situation. I have been calling for a ceasefire ever since I have been a Minister. It is also deeply depressing for me to be in this situation today, as I have been so many times in the House. We will continue to do everything, in accordance with the measures I have laid out this afternoon, to bring the conflict back to a ceasefire.
The Minister has been generous with his time, not just today but over the past few months, both in the House and in private meetings, but every time we meet, the situation is bad and getting worse. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, it is now as bad as it has ever been. Does the Minister agree that unless we in the international community take firmer immediate action to force change as a matter of urgency, nothing will be different and there will be no point talking about peace or a two-state solution, because those opportunities will be lost not just for now but for the foreseeable future, and the consequences for those in the region, particularly the people of Gaza, will be unimaginable?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. In the time that we have been in government, we have seen the situation deteriorate, but we have also seen it improve. I hope to be able to return to the House with the news that we are back at a ceasefire. I recognise how distant that feels at this moment, but a ceasefire would be not just a vital step towards a two-state solution and an enormous contribution towards getting aid into Gaza, but the step change required for international diplomacy to bring stability to the region.
Some 400 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the past 500 days, and we are now a year and a day on from the awful attack on the World Central Kitchen. How many British aid workers are in Gaza, and what tangible action will the Government ask Israel to take to guarantee their safety?
I do not believe that I am in a position to confirm the current number of British nationals in Gaza as aid workers, but if I am, I will write to the hon. Member.
Those at the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which represents most of the captives’ families, said that they were horrified to wake up this morning to the Israeli Defence Minister’s announcement about expanding military operations in Gaza. They also said that the Israeli Government have an obligation to free all 59 hostages from Hamas captivity, and to pursue every possible channel to advance a deal for their release. Hostages have been released only when there has been a ceasefire, so a ceasefire is paramount for the release of hostages. If we believe that Israel should stop bombing Gaza, we need to stop supplying it with parts for bombs. If we believe in a two-state solution, it is about time that we recognised Palestine.
I have already commented on the question of recognition. I assure my hon. Friend that we are not providing parts for bombs. We have set out the provisions on arms suspension. There is a question about the global supply chain for F-35 parts where those parts are going indirectly to Israel, on which I have elaborated in the House on a number of occasions. That remains our position.
Nearly 24,000 women and children have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023. In the light of evidence submitted to the UN Human Rights Council showing Israel’s use of starvation as a method of war, the denial of human rights and humanitarian assistance, and a concerted policy of destroying Gaza’s healthcare system, will the Government take immediate and tangible steps to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to upholding international law by ceasing provision of military support to Israel, suspending all export licences and imposing a two-way arms embargo?
I set out our position on arms suspensions earlier in this urgent question.
Let me try to approach this in another way. It is obvious that Israel has been emboldened by the explicit and implicit support of the US Government for what it is doing—that has been a fundamental change. The US Government have ruled out a two-state solution, as I understand. What has the Minister been doing, or what can he do, to work with our colleagues in the European Union, and with the Arab states, to develop a clear plan for a two-state solution, and a clear timeframe for all countries recognising a Palestinian state?
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not seek to characterise the foreign policy of others; they can set out their policy themselves. On co-operation and co-ordination, we have been in extensive dialogue with those involved in the Arab initiative, and we have worked with Germany, France and Italy, and made joint statements on this and wider issues recently. I expect that in June we will join an important international conference about a two-state solution, where we will discuss that with our partners.
Time and again we have heard Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that they are doing everything they can, and talking about the diplomatic levers that they are trying to pull. We all know that since the ceasefire was broken because of the Israelis not complying, 1,100 people have been killed, mainly women and children, and 15 aid workers assassinated—we know they were assassinated because some of them had their hands tied behind their back. The Minister knows that there are only three actions we can take: stop trade; sanctions; and recognising Palestine. Those are the only actions that this Government can take to prevent Israelis causing more damage. Which one will he take?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was a diplomat before, and ultimately it is diplomacy that will resolve this conflict. That is the lever to which we must most vigorously apply ourselves.
Just suppose that we closed our airbase in Cyprus. Just suppose that we applied greater sanctions, and withdrew export licences. Just suppose that we recognised the state of Palestine. Would the Minister be making the same statement? What analysis has he made of that?
It is hard enough to respond to the facts as they are. I will not be drawn by my hon. Friend into such a complex chain of hypotheticals.
I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and for his understanding and honesty. Hamas are terrorists, murderers, rapists, and child killers. They hide their AK47s and their weaponry in children’s beds. They hide their missiles in their schools, hospitals and houses. What steps have the Minister and the Government taken with the UN to bring all the kidnapped hostages home alive, rather than in the coffins that were paraded around by Hamas terrorists—murderers—at the last hostage handover? What steps are they taking to underline the point that the Israelis would not be intensifying their plans to strike were the murderous Hamas not content to hold hostages and fire rockets into Israel daily?
We have worked with our partners in the region, the Israeli Government, the US, and many others to try to secure the safe release of all those with UK links who have been held hostage. Of course we want to see all hostages released, but it is on British nationals and those with links to the UK that we have turned the focus of our efforts. This has been heartbreaking for me, and for so many in this House. It has been so joyful to see British nationals escape from the clutches of Hamas alive, and a heartbreak when British-linked nationals have returned deceased. I know that the whole House will be hoping for Avinatan Or, and all others who are being held, to be returned alive and well soon.
The killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them women and children, by Israeli forces is simply heartbreaking. The Minister knows that I have been raising my concerns, and those of my constituents, with him since I was elected to this House last July. I am grateful for and appreciate the steps that he and the Government are taking on aid and arms, yet here we are. What more can the Government do to stop the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, ensure the release of all remaining hostages, and ensure that aid gets to those who so desperately need it in Gaza?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his persistence on these issues. So many colleagues on the Labour and Opposition Benches have raised the plight of Palestinian civilians and of hostages with real force and urgency, ever since we came into government, and I am sure they will continue to. We will continue to take the steps I have outlined to try to effect a change, and we recognise the greater urgency for us all as military activity intensifies. I hope to return to this House in due course with updates on our diplomatic efforts.
Under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to which the UK is a signatory, states have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide. That obligation to prevent involves acting immediately, so will the Minister outline what the Government are doing, and say what steps they are taking to ensure that genocide is prevented in Gaza?
The hon. Member will have heard my previous comments about determinations. I will answer the question that I think he is asking, which is about what we have done since we came into government to try to reduce the suffering in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and indeed in Israel. We have taken firm and far-reaching steps—on the suspension of arms, on the restoration of funding to UNRWA, by using our role on the Security Council, and by raising these questions forcefully with the Israeli Government and all relevant regional partners. We are working night and day to try to ensure that those in harm’s way are no longer at risk. I recognise today, as we have done almost every day since we came to government, that there is yet more to do.
Since Hamas’s war crimes of 7 October, we have seen multiple flagrant breaches of the rules of the international order. This week, 15 Palestinian paramedic Red Crescent workers were found in a mass grave alongside their abandoned emergency vehicle. That comes on top of a four-week total aid blockade. What are our red lines about how this war without end, in which ceasefires and signed agreements can be tossed aside, is being conducted?
Our position on the conduct of war is that taken by international humanitarian law. We have set out the risks and our concerns about breaches, and we continue to take actions that are in line with our assessment.
More than 300 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel’s new offensive began. What worries me about the Government is that they do not seem to have any red lines that Israel must not cross. We need robust action, not words. The two-state solution, which is on its knees, is not a by-product of peace; it is the route to peace. If the time for recognition is not now, then when is it? What will the Government’s response be when Israel permanently occupies part of Gaza, as its Defence Minister seems to be insinuating it will?
My hon. Friend has a long commitment to these issues, and I know that she has travelled to the region. She is right to say that the two-state solution must be central to this. She asks about annexation; I can be clear once again from the Dispatch Box that we want a resolution that provides for the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be Palestinian, as is consistent with relevant Security Council resolutions.
I commend the Minister for the care and concern with which he updates this House, but we keep coming back to the same point and situation. This morning’s announcement by the Israeli Government about more incursions is condemnable. We all know where this leads. Over the past year and a half, we have seen mass displacement. It leads to suffering, and to hostages not being released, and it takes us close to the abyss. Will the Minister join me in making it clear that any forceful transfer of Palestinian civilians, and any annexation of Palestinian territory, is unacceptable and would be a breach of international law?
My hon. Friend remains deeply committed to these issues, and I am pleased to reassure him that we do not support the expansion of military operations by Israel announced this morning. We continue to oppose forced displacement of the Palestinians. Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war.
In the past few days, the worst extremist, Ben-Gvir, has rejoined the Israeli Government; Red Crescent medics have been killed by Israeli forces; and Israel has started a fresh ground invasion, killing hundreds of women and children, with the specific intention of annexing Palestinian territory. After every atrocity and illegal act, the Foreign Office expresses its concern, and then things get worse. Has the Minister considered what steps the Government should take to make things better on the ground for Palestinians and Israelis?
Of course. That is the thought in our mind every day as we see the imagery, and are sent it by our colleagues and our constituents. Every day, this Government see with our own eyes the horror in Gaza, and every day we ask ourselves what we can do to try to ensure that this goes in the direction of our policy, and not in the direction that it has done—the direction of the end of the ceasefire. That led to far too many hostages continuing to be detained, and aid restrictions have continued long after I and others have called for them to end. As my hon. Friend would expect, every day these questions haunt us.
We are back here again—aid workers shot dead and dumped in a shallow grave; hunger used as a weapon of war; hospitals bombed. Now there are new plans to seize large areas of Gaza. All that has come in the past few days. Israel is carrying out war crime after war crime. On 29 December, the Foreign Office issued a press release rightly referring to Russian war crimes, so I do not see why there is reticence here. I am afraid that expressions of concern are not enough. When will the Government act, treat Israel as they have rightly treated Russia, and impose serious sanctions?
I have set out the steps we have taken and the sanctions we have issued, and I will continue to return to this House with further updates.
I recognise what the Minister has said about what has been done, but given the desperate situation, what more could be done through diplomatic efforts to ensure that Israel allows in humanitarian aid at speed and at scale, and to support the Arab initiative, so that Gaza is rebuilt as part of a recognised, viable Palestinian state?
We will continue to work with our partners who are party to the Arab initiative, and indeed our partners in the United Nations Security Council, where we have called sessions and issued statements. We will continue to work along those lines in the way that my hon. Friend would expect.
I have a simple question, and am looking for a very simple answer. Do the Government recognise Israel’s plan for large-scale forced evacuations in Gaza as ethnic cleansing? If not, why not?
I put on record my sincere desire to see the Israeli hostages returned as soon as possible. The International Development Committee recently spent time in Geneva as part of its inquiry on international humanitarian law. We discussed at length the way that countries increasingly conflate the legality of resorting to war with the legality of conduct in war. We see aid being blocked and land being annexed without, it seems, legitimate justification, or even significant condemnation. Will the Minister please explain what the Government are doing to ensure that international humanitarian law stops being openly broken, and is given the respect it deserves?
My hon. Friend and east midlands colleague is right to raise the issue of the deterioration of the application of international humanitarian law. There are too many places in conflict where there is a very serious risk of breaches of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. We are doing all we can in Geneva and New York, and on the ground in places including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to ensure that the risk of breaches of IHL does not continue.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to questions.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI am deeply concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I are pressing all parties to return urgently to dialogue and to implement the ceasefire agreement in full. Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We have also been working with our French, German and Italian partners in support of the Arab plan for the reconstruction of Gaza as part of wider peace building efforts.
It is often said that actions speak louder than words. The Government have repeatedly condemned what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, yet Israeli settler violence, Israeli settlement expansion, the unlawful demolition of Palestinian homes and violence in Gaza are continuing. Given that UK diplomatic efforts and condemnations are being so roundly ignored, will the UK now take action and ban the importation of products from illegal settlements on illegally occupied land, to give the signal that Israel cannot break international law with complete impunity?
The hon. Lady will know the importance that we have placed on international law since we came to power in July. We have been clear throughout this period that we want to see a ceasefire in Gaza. We regret that, at this point, we are still in disagreement with the Israeli Government, and we regret the scenes of the last few weeks in relation to the west bank and to Gaza. In relation to settlement goods, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier and as I have said before, different provisions exist for illegal settlements, which we consider to be illegal and which do not benefit from any of the provisions that would otherwise cover goods from Israel.
Over the past week, I have been in touch with medical colleagues on the ground in Gaza and also with representatives of hostage families in Israel. In Gaza, they corroborate the worrying UN reports of a shallow grave containing the bodies of 15 paramedics and rescue workers, seemingly shot one by one by the Israeli army, some of them still wearing the surgical gloves that they were using to save the lives of others. In Israel, hostage families feel increasingly distant from their own Government and abandoned by them. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but Israel is an ally. As a critical friend and ally, what further steps can we take to reinforce our message that the Israeli Government’s current trajectory is destructive for peace and, indeed, for their own interests?
My hon. Friend is right to ask this question. I know that he, himself a surgeon, has been closely engaged with the medical situation in Gaza and the incredible bravery of those who provide that assistance. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), the scenes in Gaza in relation to aid workers and, of course, the Gazan civilians themselves are absolutely horrific. It is why with France we called a special session of the UN Security Council on Friday, and we will continue to press with all diplomatic levers to see an improvement.
What assessment have the Government made of reports that Iran is considering pre-emptive strikes against American B-2 Spirit bombers that have recently been forward-located in Diego Garcia?
As the House will understand, I will not provide a detailed commentary on that reporting, but we remain deeply conscious of the potential threats from Iran, both in this country and in the region. We continue to have dialogue with the Iranian Government—the Foreign Secretary spoke to his equivalent just last week. We treat these matters with the utmost seriousness, as the right hon. Member would expect.
Like many, I was extremely alarmed to hear the Israeli Defence Minister, Israel Katz, threaten the “total destruction” of Gaza. The UK and its allies are committed to a two-state solution, but that only works if there is a state left standing for Palestinians. Will that Minister ever be sanctioned, and will our Minister set out what role he sees the UK playing in the long-term reconstruction of Gaza?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know how attentive to these issues she has been. The Foreign Secretary has condemned in this Chamber the comments of Defence Minister Katz, and this Government are clear what the path to reconstruction in Gaza must be. We have engaged closely with our partners in the Arab world, we welcome their plan for reconstructing Gaza, and we will continue to do all we can to see that as the path to reconstruction, with dignity for the Palestinian people of Gaza.
Today is the anniversary of the killing of the 33-year-old ex-Royal Marine James Henderson, who was killed by the Israelis among seven aid workers with the World Central Kitchen. A year later, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) has mentioned, mass graves have been found with eight bodies of those who worked for the Red Crescent and the Red Cross. That comes two weeks after eight aid workers from the Al-Khair Foundation were killed. It is believed that 1,500 aid workers have been killed. Does the Minister believe that it is illegal under international law to kill aid workers and, if so, what is he prepared to do about it?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to comment. Today is indeed the one-year anniversary of the appalling strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy, which killed seven people, including British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby. I would like to pay tribute to their bravery and remember again the appalling tragedy of that day. I, alongside the Foreign Secretary, met their families in November. They are determined to see justice for their family members, and I know that the whole Chamber will be united in that determination. Israel’s Military Advocate General must quickly and thoroughly conclude their consideration of the strike, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Gaza is now the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker. This cannot continue.
As others have said, today is the anniversary of the deaths of James Kirby, John Chapman and James Henderson—three former servicemen. We further heard about the 15 aid workers who were killed last week. UN Under-Secretary-General Tom Fletcher has described them as having been killed one by one and buried in shallow graves alongside their clearly marked ambulances, fire trucks and UN vehicles. I thank the Government for calling a UN Security Council meeting on the protection of aid workers. Will the Minister update us on the outcome of that meeting and the further steps we will take to protect aid workers in Gaza?
The meeting on Friday considered those questions. There was agreement across the Security Council on the importance of preserving the space for humanitarian action. As I have said this morning, we regret deeply that there have not yet been further improvements, and we will continue to use all available diplomatic steps to ensure that aid gets into Gaza, aid workers are protected, and the horrific scenes described by the emergency relief co-ordinator are not repeated.
Our thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Hamas captivity in Gaza and with their families. What recent contact has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel, America and our partners in the region to secure their release and broker a way through this impasse? What steps are being taken across Government to address the threats to stability posed by Iran? How does the Minister envisage the removal of Hamas from the governance of Gaza?
On the shadow Foreign Secretary’s important first point, we are, as she would expect, in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week. I have been in regular contact with the Qataris, who are doing important work in this file. As she would expect, we continue to be in touch with the hostage families, whose concern I know the Chamber continues to share.
On the threats posed by Iran, we speak to the relevant players in the region and to the E3. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister last week and underlined that we continue to support a diplomatic resolution to the tensions with Iran. We do not want to see Iran secure a nuclear weapon. We believe that a diplomatic solution is the best way to achieve that, but we will hold the snap-back of sanctions, and indeed many other measures, under review until we are satisfied.
Aid should never be used as a political tool. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the House on 20 March, blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. Israel must allow aid into Gaza immediately. The Foreign Secretary made that clear to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 21 March and issued a joint statement with his French and German counterparts on 5 March. Gaza is the deadliest place in the world to be an aid worker. More than 400 aid workers have been killed in the conflict. Restoring the ceasefire remains the best chance to see hostages released, allow a surge of humanitarian aid and bring this bloodshed to an end.
It is clear from the Chamber this morning that we all despair at the recent breakdown of the ceasefire agreement, the resumption of hostilities and the blockade of aid into Gaza. We now have warnings of an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in the Gaza strip, which is hard to imagine after what we have already seen there. The Minister mentioned the conversations that have been had with Israel. First, can he assure me that we are making it clear that the only way we will achieve a lasting peace is through a two-state solution, which will not achieved by subjecting people to such hardship? Secondly, what conversations are ongoing with allies about restoring aid drops directly into Gaza?
I can confirm that we say regularly to our Israeli counterparts, and indeed to all others in the region, that the only route out of these horrors is a two-state solution, an outcome that provides for the safety, security and dignity of both peoples. We are talking with our partners about what might be done to try to ensure aid gets into Gaza through whatever means are at our disposal, but at the core, Israel must relax the restrictions and allow aid into Gaza. That is the way to get the scale of aid that is required into the strip. During the ceasefire, we saw a massive increase in aid, and that is what we want to do.
With continued aerial bombardments impacting the flow of aid into Gaza, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether UK-made F-35 parts have been used to enable air strikes in Gaza since 18 March?
To clarify my previous answer, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 5 March, not 21 March.
In response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), we will continue to press these issues with the Israeli Government. It is clear to the House that we have not succeeded, over these long months, in ensuring the level of aid into Gaza that we would like to see, or had the protections for humanitarian workers that we want to see. Deconfliction, with humanitarian aid workers, is a vital part of ensuring their security, and we are pressing the Israelis to do so.
Whether in Gaza, Turkey or elsewhere, it is essential for journalists to be able to do their job. We are incredibly proud of the BBC and all the other UK outlets overseas that play a vital role in holding power to account, and we will continue to support them.
On 23 March in Gaza, eight medics in the Palestinian Red Crescent, five responders from the civil defence and a UN staff member were killed by the IDF while responding to casualties. Their bodies have been returned today. International humanitarian law is clear: medical personnel, ambulances, humanitarian relief workers and civil defence organisations must be respected and protected. International humanitarian law is not something for debate. The Foreign Secretary understands the importance of upholding the law and holding to account all who breach it, including our friends, so why is Israel seemingly allowed to act with impunity when it comes to the protection of medics, humanitarian workers and civilians?
On this day, the one-year anniversary of the World Central Kitchen incident, I want to be clear that nobody has impunity and that we expect full legal processes to be followed, including in Israel. The Foreign Secretary and I have both spoken about the important role the Military Advocate General will play in that. On my hon. Friend’s wider question, it is clearly deeply problematic that deconfliction does not exist in Gaza and that aid workers continue to be in such peril, as she described. We will continue to use all methods at our disposal to try to improve the situation.
On 17 March, the Foreign Secretary told the House that there had been
“a breach of international law”
by Israel in blockading aid getting into Gaza.—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.] If he takes international law seriously, will he tell us what sanctions are in place as a result of that?
We have announced to this House a series of sanctions in relation to the risk of breaches in relation to the attacks on aid workers, which I have covered a number of times in this session. [Interruption.]
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsThe Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:
The British Council is an important international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities for the UK. It supports peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide. It does this by uniquely combining the UK’s deep expertise in arts and culture, education and the English language, its global presence and relationships in over 100 countries, and its unparalleled access to young people and influencers around the world.
In 2023-24 the British Council received £161.5 million core grant in aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
With a total reach of 589 million people in 2023-24, the British Council creates mutually beneficial relationships between the people of all four nations of the UK and other countries. Such connections, based on an understanding of each other’s strengths and shared values, build an enduring trust. This helps strengthen the UK’s global reputation and influence, encouraging people from around the world to visit, study, trade and make alliances with the UK.
Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2023-24 financial year have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The annual report can also be found at the British Council’s website: www.britishcouncil.org/about-us/how-we-work/corporate-reports
[HCWS563]
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to the points raised.
I note that my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, spoke about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir in a Westminster Hall debate on 5 March. I appreciate the importance and complexity of the issues relating to Kashmir and the strength of feeling about it in the House.
As the House is aware, India and Pakistan are important friends of the UK. We have strong and deep bilateral relationships with both. We encourage them to engage in dialogue and to find lasting political solutions to maintain regional stability. The Government’s position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution for Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley spoke movingly about human rights in Kashmir. We recognise that there are human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Our position is clear: any allegation of human rights abuses is deeply concerning, and it must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
There are various conflicts across the world at the moment and conflicts always require mediators to end them. Given our history with the continent, can the Minister explain why the Government think that the UK does not have a role as a mediator?
As my hon. Friend knows well, this is an area of the world in which we have long been engaged. It is the position of this Government, as it has been of many previous Governments, that for this issue to be resolved sustainably it will require an agreed compromise between the two countries. That remains our position.
I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will.
It is vital to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected. We raise our concerns, where we have them, with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The UK Government are monitoring the situation. I understand that several restrictions put in place in Indian-administered Kashmir have been lifted. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
I welcome the fact that the Government are calling for the human rights abuses, which have escalated since 2019 after the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A, to be ended. Will the Minister clarify one point? While he uses the line used by successive Governments that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, will he at least confirm that we support the Security Council resolutions that very clearly restate the birthright of the Kashmiris to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite?
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It is our long-standing position that for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, the wishes of the Kashmiri people do need to be taken into account. I do not want to go beyond the existing position that I have set out.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked why the UK Government are not doing more to bring about peace. Could the United Kingdom Government be the mediator or the honest broker here, bring parties together, suggest ideas for solutions and find an honest way forward? That might be what we all seek.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I know of his long-standing commitment to peacemaking and mediation. We continue to judge that it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
Returning to the subject of human rights, I want to address the important issues relating to the role of journalists. The UK Government are aware of reports of the detention of a number of journalists in Indian-administered Kashmir. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for any remaining restrictions on journalists to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
I now turn to the specific cases raised by my hon. Friends. I am aware that in May 2022, Yasin Malik, an Indian national, was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of funding terrorism. I am aware that he has been in custody ever since. Although it is not for us to comment on an independent judicial process in another country, we encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws adhere to international standards for free and fair trials, and that they respect international obligations in their treatment of detainees.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), then to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi)
It is precisely the language being used by the Minister that undermines the position of Britain on the global platform. Our position is that, on the one hand, we champion human rights and criticise any violation of international law, but on the other hand, we are very selective when it comes to applying sanctions. We are very reluctant to impose sanctions on a global economic power such as India. We say things like, “This is a matter for India and Pakistan.” We reach out to them and invite them to negotiate, but we do not actually uphold international law. Does the Minister agree that that is at the core of why Britain is being undermined internationally?
I do not accept that our position on Kashmir undermines the commitment to international law that this Government have sought to evince in all our actions. In relation to the allegations that have been referenced in this debate and the many other reports from both Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir, we expect international law to be upheld and we continue to hold our principled position on these questions.
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden first.
I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that there was a trial process for Yasin Malik in India, but if one looks into that case and how the trial was conducted, it is quite clear that no proper due process or law was followed. For example, he was actually in a prison cell at the time his so-called trial was taking place. He was not able to communicate with, or even see, those sitting in judgment on him. It is not just me saying this; these are documented facts. It is quite clear that the process Mr Malik went through was actually not a trial at all. In the light of that, should we not be asking the Indian Government about their process in relation to Mr Yasin Malik?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her long commitment to these issues. We do encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws adhere to international standards on free and fair trials, and that that is seen through fully.
I am grateful to the Minister for sparing so much of his time. I welcome his making the Government’s position clear that we will call out human rights violations in the region and condemn violations that occur, but will the Minister also confirm that, in line with our policy and our international obligations, no future trade deals in the region will be agreed at the expense of Kashmiris’ human rights? I say this despite the fact that I promote trade deals in the whole region of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, because it has a great deal to offer.
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. We remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, we raise them directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. That is undertaken completely separate from any negotiations of trade agreements, but agreeing trade deals is part of building open and trusting relationships with important partners, which then allows for some of those free and frank discussions about human rights to take place.
We welcome reports that some detainees have been released, but we remain concerned by some ongoing detentions. I note that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir have recently used their collective voice through a 64% turnout in the state assembly elections last October in what was happily a largely peaceful electoral process. We also note that the state legislative assembly in Srinagar has now been restored.
I reiterate that India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain regional stability. The UK Government’s position is clear: any allegations of human rights abuses are deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. In recent years, the UK Government have raised our concerns with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for sharing their valuable and thoughtful perspectives. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has done so much in these very difficult months in which we have both been Ministers. Much of what I will be able to say about what we are doing in the region is a result of her efforts, and I am very glad to share Westminster Hall with her.
Securing peace in the middle east is a priority that I know we share across the House. The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward. As many have said, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans, as well as the release of hostages—38 so far—was vital. The situation is incredibly sensitive at the moment. I will not provide a detailed commentary on the talks that are ongoing today in order to try to transition into phase 2. As we have said repeatedly, and as I said this morning to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we want to see talks move into phase 2, and into phase 3.
The ceasefire has made an enormous difference to the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and we want it to continue. Many Members have spoken about the deficit of trust. We think that a ceasefire going through all three phrases, with all of the difficult politics and all of the difficult compromises that that will require, is a vital part of building trust between the two communities. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear: the decision to block aid going into Gaza is completely wrong. Aid should not be used as a political tool. I made some comments this morning about the restrictions on energy as well.
The topic of this debate is the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are committed to convening the meeting that many have discussed. Given the developments in the region, I am not in a position today to commit to a time or cast list for the meeting. We want to make sure that the meeting will have the desired effect of building trust across the two communities, and we will need to be sensitive to the circumstances in the region when we meet.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his leadership and the work he has done, particularly in keeping us abreast of the ongoing situation. It is right that the UK takes concrete steps to support peace, including through the revitalising of the Abraham accords, which are about normalisation of relations. Does the Minister agree that peacebuilding funds that rebuild Gaza are not just for humanitarian efforts but are a regional step towards the normalisation of peace and an independent Palestinian state free from Hamas? Does he agree that providing infrastructure, homes and hope will sustain peace efforts and normalise the reality of a two-state solution?
My hon. Friend talks about infrastructure, homes and hope, and it is those three elements—in particular hope—that are so missing at the moment. It is important to make a distinction between the vital humanitarian aid into Gaza and efforts to support civil society, which necessarily will be less focused on the immediate humanitarian support required and the reconstruction, which he rightly says will be necessary in Gaza, and more focused on the efforts that many have referred to as bottom-up—trying to ensure that both communities see bridges to each other.
I very much agree that there is a terrible deficit in trust and confidence across the two communities. When we were in opposition, I travelled there shortly after 7 October—two months later—and it was striking for both communities how little they believed in common in that moment. Rebuilding trust will be vital.
I remind Members that interventions should be brief.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. When it comes to the moneys, there obviously has not been much, and it must be ensured that it goes far and wide. I think the issue has been debated in the past—that money has been diverted by certain terrorist groups. What we need is transparency to ensure that the moneys that are allocated are safely distributed to the right people for the right purposes.
I agree with the hon. Member. It is vital that aid goes to the purposes for which it is intended. To be clear, we imagine this international fund being of a much smaller magnitude than the much larger funds that would be required for humanitarian assistance or the reconstruction of Gaza.
I turn to the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—the spokespeople for the two Opposition parties. In relation to what assessment we make of the various proposals, we welcome the Arab plan. We think it has considerable merit and is a good place to start in thinking through the vital questions of reconstruction and the future governance of Gaza.
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we see no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We think that the Cairo summit made important breakthroughs. We will discuss this at the G7 meeting and as Members will be aware it will be discussed over the coming days by negotiators from a range of countries in the region.
The Palestinian Authority are clearly very important in all of this. They are the authoritative voice for the Palestinian people. We are committed to supporting them through their journey of reform, which is vital. We have given £5 million to support their reform initiatives. There is a range of views about the future governance of Gaza and the role that the Palestinian Authority might play, and some of them were discussed at the Cairo summit. We will play our full role, as the Opposition spokesperson and many Members would expect, so that the provisions in place for the future of Gaza can ensure governance and security both for the people of Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the Israelis themselves.
Before I make some general remarks about conflict prevention and civil society, I want to welcome the work of the APPG on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding; I would be very happy to hear more about it. Civil society has a vital role to play. We will support it fully. We recognise the sensitivities on both sides. Several Members made reference to Senator Kerry’s comments that the problem in 2014 was not necessarily a gulf in the positions but a gulf in the trust, and we see that civil society plays an important role in resolving that.
I hear what the Minister has to say about how we can move to a path towards peace. However, does he agree that there must be steps taken to ensure that Israel is held accountable for its violations of international law? In doing so, will he commit to taking steps to begin ending the UK’s military support to Israel?
I have commented on the question of international law, and indeed on arms suspension, both in the main Chamber and this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee. With just one minute left, I will say that I stand by those remarks.
I want to say a bit about some of the lifesaving assistance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East was responsible for when she was the Minister for Development. The assistance, which continues, included an announcement at the end of January for a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, it is absolutely right that we think about the route out of this conflict, but we will not forget those in desperate need at this moment, and our support will continue. I was asked by colleagues about the possible impact of the reduction in ODA. I reiterate what the Prime Minister has already said: we are focused on the needs in Gaza and we will seek to preserve our efforts through any changes.
UK support has meant that over half a million people have received essential healthcare. Some 647,000 people have received food, and 284,000 have had improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. Humanitarian needs, however, cannot be solved by short-term solutions. I will conclude by saying that we reaffirm our support for a credible pathway towards peace, leading to a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace, dignity and security, and we agree on the merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Syria.
Events in Syria over the past few days are deeply concerning. We are working as quickly as possible to establish from reliable sources of information what exactly happened and who was responsible, but reports that a large number of civilians have been killed in coastal areas in ongoing violence are horrific. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, the interim authorities in Damascus must ensure the protection of all Syrians and set out a clear path to transitional justice.
This is a critical moment for Syria, and for the interim authorities to demonstrate their intent to promote stability and to govern in the interests of all Syrians. Since the fall of Assad on 8 December, our priority has been to support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition that leads to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We have been clear that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria should demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid and the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combat terrorism and extremism. This is the only way forward towards a more stable, free and prosperous future for Syria and for Syrians, who suffered for so long under the brutal Assad regime. We have consistently emphasised this message in all our diplomatic engagement with the interim authorities, and in concert with our international partners. We will continue to focus our diplomacy to this end.
The UK is engaging privately and regularly with the interim authorities at every level, including through Ministers and our Syria envoy. We are supporting them to take steps that will deliver a more stable, free and prosperous future for the Syrian people. We welcomed the announcement by interim Syrian President al-Sharaa on forming an inclusive transitional Government, leading to free and fair elections. We welcomed the national dialogue conference held on 25 February. But the violence over the weekend demonstrates that more needs to be done to bring Syria’s different groups together, and we urge the interim authorities to urgently establish a clear process and timeline for the next phase of the transition. Representative figures from across Syria need to be appointed to the transitional Government and the recently announced legislative council.
Our overarching objective is a stable Syria. In addition to supporting an inclusive political process, we are focused on preventing escalation of conflict in northern Syria, on tackling security threats, including the threat from terrorism, and on the destruction of chemical weapons. We are also supporting economic recovery by lifting some sanctions and scaling up humanitarian assistance.
The UK, like our partners, imposed sanctions on Assad’s regime to hold him and his associates accountable for their oppression of Syria’s people. In recent weeks, the Government have made changes to those sanctions: we issued a general licence to support transactions for humanitarian activities in Syria, and last week we revoked the asset freezes of 24 entities, including the Central Bank of Syria, which had been imposed to prevent Assad from using financial assets in conducting his vile oppression. We keep all our sanctions regimes under close review, and we target them at those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. It is also important that we take steps to support the economic development that Syria’s people desperately need.
The humanitarian situation in Syria remains dire, with over 16 million people currently in need of humanitarian assistance. We will continue to support those in need across Syria, where it is safe to do so. Through non-governmental organisations and UN organisations, we are providing food, healthcare, protection and other lifesaving assistance, in addition to agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes. Since December, the UK has announced over £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance to support vulnerable Syrians inside Syria and across the region.
In conclusion, this is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria, and we will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future. I commend this statement to the House.
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough. It is deeply alarming that, in recent days, we have been witness to some of the deadliest violence in Syria since the beginning of this dreadful conflict. The Opposition have been raising questions, written and oral, about the Government’s approach to Syria throughout the year, so it is with some disappointment that we have had to wait this long—and, to be quite frank, for these events—for a Minister to give an update.
Reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including Alawite civilians, is troubling. The Syrian people have suffered 14 years of conflict and decades of oppression. The country is now at a fork in the road, but these terrible events are a stark reminder that a better future for the people of Syria—for all groups and all minorities—is far from guaranteed. We should be clear that those who have ratcheted up the appalling situation in recent days should pull back from the brink, not jeopardise that better future.
The Labour Government have decided to establish contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with interlocutors, and if so, whether the Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations for how the temperature should be taken down and stability restored? Can he also confirm whether there has been any direct engagement between Ministers and HTS leaders at any point, and what is his assessment of HTS’s response to this violence and the threat posed by remnants of the disgraceful Assad regime?
We note that the Government have announced they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Minister lifted those particular sanctions, did he consult US and European allies as well as partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive these decisions?
On the Minister’s visit to Turkey last week, he said the UK is committed to working in partnership with Turkey
“to support Syria’s transition to an inclusive and peaceful country”,
but what exactly does that mean in practice, and what does he see as Turkey’s role? On security issues specifically, can he confirm that there remains no change to the Conservative Government’s very firm position on foreign fighters—that they must not come back to the UK? What is his assessment of the Syrian state’s ability to counter any ISIS cells in the east of the country, and has he seen any progress on securing borders in the region and the prevention of smuggling people, drugs and weapons?
The Government are right that Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles need to be secured and destroyed, and that needs to be verified by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. However, is the Minister confident these weapons will indeed be destroyed? We acknowledge that the Government have put more funding into the OPCW’s Syria missions following the fall of Assad’s regime, but we still need Syria to meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention in full. We need concrete actions as well as words.
Turning to the humanitarian situation, where does the Minister judge the need is most acute, and how is he mobilising UK aid to ensure that it is safely distributed and is genuinely reaching those innocent civilians in need? With the reduction of official development assistance to 0.3%, can the Minister confirm that Syria will continue to be a priority and that funds will be made available, given the security and strategic issues?
Finally, on the transition to representative and inclusive governance, we note the launching of the non-binding national dialogue conference by the interim Government of Syria, but does the Minister believe that this process will yield the kind of results we all want for the people of Syria, and has he discussed this through the channels he has established with the interim Government?
I will try to answer as many of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s questions as I can. As she knows, we have had senior-level contact with the new HTS leadership. Our Foreign Secretary met the interim Foreign Minister on the margins of the Paris meeting. We have not yet sent Ministers to Damascus, as many of our partners will. We keep these issues under close review.
On whether we are consulting the Europeans on sanctions and other things, the Europeans have taken steps on sanctions slightly in advance of us. I cannot remember the precise date, but they relaxed their sanctions before we did. I can confirm to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we keep all decisions on sanctions under very close review.
The 24 entities for which sanctions were lifted on Friday are very much focused on the economic function of Syria. As the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well, Syria is in the midst of a very significant economic crisis—the Syrian pound has lost 99% of its value—and we want to protect the Syrian people from the consequences of that crisis. The relaxation of sanctions is very much focused on allowing normal Syrians and humanitarian actors to get on with their lives, but we will keep all further sanctions under close review.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about HTS’s progress on borders and countering terrorism and drugs. She is exactly right to say that we must judge HTS on its actions, not its words. HTS has made some very welcome commitments on a range of questions. For example, we have seen a welcome commitment from the new interim authorities to work with the OPCW. The interim Foreign Minister has engaged with the OPCW, which has now visited Damascus. That is to be welcomed, but the shadow Foreign Secretary is right that actions, not words, will be how we judge our Syria policy.
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his horror at the killing of civilians in Syria this weekend. I agree that this is a critical and fragile moment for the country.
In a letter to me last week, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government’s policy is to push for an inclusive political process and accountability in Syria. This is, of course, exactly what is needed to deal with the tensions formed by decades of civil war and brutal dictatorship, but what are the Government actually doing to make sure this happens? We hear about aid and the loosening of sanctions. Is this the full extent of their plan? If there is more, can it be implemented properly when we do not have an embassy in Syria and when our special representative has visited Damascus only twice this year?
My right hon. Friend raises some important points, including about what the transitional Government will look like. And the answer is that all of Syria’s diverse communities need to feel that they have a presence in the new Government of Syria. Of course, many Alawites, many Druze, many Kurds and many Christians across Syria feel very nervous at the moment, and we call on the interim Administration to do all they can through their actions, not words, to reassure those communities that they are welcome in the new Syria.
As the shadow Foreign Secretary noted, I discussed this with my Turkish counterpart last week. I can confirm that we have delivered these messages clearly and consistently to the interim authorities, that we have raised the most recent violence with them, and that we are seeking urgent clarification on the confusing events at the coast, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) says, are absolutely horrifying.
On the question of a future British presence in Syria, I will return to the House when I am in a position to give a fuller update.
The reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that at least 1,000 Alawites have been killed over the past few days are deeply concerning. This escalation in violence undermines Syria’s fragile transition from dictatorial rule under Assad, and it harms efforts to encourage religious and sectarian tolerance.
At this stage, it is critical that we understand whether the violence represents spontaneous clashes between different sects or is the product of state-directed policy. This must inform the Government’s position on whether to lift sanctions to support Syria’s development and reintegration into the global community.
I note that the interim Syrian Government have announced the establishment of an independent committee to investigate the violent clashes, but this must be followed up with concrete steps to protect Syrians of all ethnic and religious groups and ensure they are represented in the new Administration, as well as action to bring justice to those who have perpetrated violence in this conflict.
The international community must also work with partners in the region to support Syria’s transition away from dictatorial rule, including by emphasising the importance of embedding religious and sectarian tolerance, as well as the rights of women, in the new Syrian regime. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to engage with partners in the region, including the Syrian Government, to promote respect and support for religious and sectarian tolerance in Syria?
It is important, too, that this Government recognise that neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon have generously welcomed Syrian refugees, but they face immense challenges in providing food, shelter and essential services. Can the Minister outline how the cuts to international aid will impact our ability to support Syria’s economic development, including the cuts to bilateral aid to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where many Syrians have sought refuge?
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson poses many of the most vital questions. We need to very carefully the determine the nature of the violence on the coast in order to make a full assessment of the most appropriate response. We consult closely with all Syria’s neighbours—Jordan, Turkey and many others—and have raised with them the importance of Syria making this transition, which is vital for Syrians, the region and some of the global issues the shadow Foreign Secretary outlined, whether counter-terrorism or drug supply.
On aid, I can confirm that we will continue to play our full part in Syria. On Monday, there will be an international pledging conference on Syria in Brussels, and I expect we will be able to make further announcements in advance of that.
The interim Government in Syria have suggested that operations in the coastal areas are complete and that things have now calmed down, but human rights groups suggest that the violence is ongoing. Is the Government’s assessment that this was a spike in violence or a continuing escalation in the security situation in Syria?
My hon. Friend rightly points to some of the confusion around events at the coast. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will update once we have more clarity. We are calling on the interim authorities to ensure that the violence stops now.
The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world. Up to the civil war, it was about 10% of the population; now, it is down to 2%. Aid to the Church in Need has described Friday as a “black and painful day” for Christians in the Latakia area, with Christians being murdered in their cars and in their homes. Will the Minister—representing, as he does, a Christian country—call out the new Sunni Muslim Government of Syria and say that they have an absolute duty of care to all minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites or others?
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and my constituency neighbour, that we do, of course, call on the interim Administration to ensure the full representation of every one of the minorities in Syria—Christians, Druze, Kurds, Alawites and many others.
I thank the Minister for his statement and thank the Government for the support they have given to the people of Syria. The terrible events of this weekend bring home the vital importance of an inclusive process for all people in Syria. I am aware of the Minister’s response to a previous question about our diplomatic presence in Syria, but are the Government also looking at ways we can increase our engagement with civil society in Syria? It is not just the Administration with which it is important to engage, but civil society. Civil society groups want to carry out a number of peaceful initiatives to build a more inclusive society, but they are struggling to get governmental and non-governmental funding and to have the right conversations. Is that something the UK Government could look at, as we build a more peaceful and inclusive society in Syria?
My hon. Friend has worked on these issues for many years, and he is right about the vital role of civil society. I was pleased to meet Syrian civil society organisations with him, and indeed separately. I am pleased to confirm to the House that we have been talking to a range of Syrians in Syria, including Alawites, after the events of the weekend.
The Minister is to be commended for bringing this statement to the House. He will be aware that Britain has been heavily involved, since we helped to set up the Zaatari camp, in supporting the 5 million people in the surrounding countries who we know wish to go home as soon as the situation allows. My plea to him is to ensure that, given all the other preoccupying crises around the world, the full force of the Foreign Office, with its long history of engagement in Syria, does not get distracted elsewhere but is brought to bear at this time.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s many years of work on Syria as the Secretary of State for International Development and in many other capacities. I confirm that I and we will remain focused on events in Syria, which are of vital importance to the region and to the UK. We will continue to give them the focus that they deserve.
I wholeheartedly welcome the UK Government’s efforts to support the Syrian people on their country’s fragile path to building democracy following the overthrow of the brutal Assad regime. Given the rapidly evolving situation, are the Government considering further boosting their foreign aid support and spend in Syria during this fragile period?
As I said in the statement, we have provided £62 million since the fall of Assad, and we will keep such questions under review. There is a pledging conference on Monday where we will be talking to our partners; as my hon. Friend knows, not all the aid will come from the UK, so co-ordination with our partners is a vital component. I expect to be able to say more in the coming days.
I have a Syrian family living in my constituency. The wife is from a small village in Tartus and her husband is from Salamiyah, a town in Hama. Both of their families are still there. They are both part of a religious minority, the Ismaili community, and come from a very diverse area that has Alawite, Muslim and Christian villages. The mountainous areas around Tartus are currently being ravaged by extremist Muslim groups, killing whole families. The area near the husband’s family is preparing for an imminent attack. My constituents are terrified for the safety of their families. They are pleading for an urgent intervention from the international community to stop the killings and to protect civilians.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that moving account. The family in his constituency are representative of Syria, which is a place of many different minorities and communities with a long history of working together. I confirm that I am working with international partners, including the United Nations, to do everything we can to ensure that the violence on the coast stops.
The Minister paints an extremely concerning picture of what is happening in Syria. On 9 December, the Government announced a temporary pause in accepting asylum applications from people from Syria, because of our hopes for the country’s future. In the light of what he is telling us, what conversations has he had with his colleagues in Government about what should inform that assessment moving forward and what it means for people in our country?
The events over the weekend are still unfolding. I am not really in a position to provide any further commentary on what they might mean in relation to other parts of Government, but I will return to the House when I am.
Russia has obviously been significantly involved in Syria previously. As part of the Minister’s investigations and getting an overview of what has happened, will he look specifically at whether Russia played any role in these events, particularly through social media?
I thank the Minister for his statement and echo his sentiments and worries about the escalating violence in the region. He will be aware of the chronic underfunding of health facilities there, particularly maternity services and newborn care facilities. There are worrying reports of pregnant women losing their lives as they are shuttled between hospitals because of inadequate medical supplies. What conversations is he having with the interim Government about the health provision in the region, particularly women’s health provision?
We have had initial conversations with the interim Administration about some more practical questions around social services. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with further details.
The Foreign Secretary is on record as saying that an inclusive political process that protects Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities was his top priority, but these attacks on civilian and minority groups have never ceased, and they were increasingly frequent before this recent atrocity. How is that strategy of protecting religious and ethnic minorities being implemented on the ground? What protective measures have been put in place in the past three months to defend those minority groups from further violent attacks? How is that being assessed and monitored so that prevention can be put in place before they happen again?
It is important to highlight that the violence over the weekend is not what we have seen since the fall of Assad. This is a particularly acute spike in violence. The hon. Member is right that we must do everything that we can to prevent the kind of violence that we saw over the weekend, and to understand its causes, the perpetrators and whether it has fully ceased. When I am in a position to make that assessment, I will be happy to return to the House.
The Minister mentioned the attacks on Alawite and other minority communities, where civilians were attacked, killed and injured. Will he condemn the attacks? What support will he give those minority communities who feel incredibly under threat?
I condemn the attacks. It will be absolutely disastrous for the future of Syria and its people if sectarian violence spreads among communities in Syria. It is in everyone’s interests—Syrian, British and regional—that Syria is stable and a chance to recover after all the years of Assad’s oppression. I condemn them both because they are egregious human rights violations and because they threaten the future of Syria.
I congratulate the Minister particularly on his last answer. Unfortunately, world events and crises tend not to go consecutively. We have all the issues in Ukraine; I understand that this weekend the Prime Minister once again will meet the coalition of the willing on Ukraine. Can we ensure that the vacuum in parts of Syria is not filled with third-party actors who do not have our interests or those of Europe at heart? I urge the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about ensuring that we do not allow that to happen, for the security of the continent.
As has been said, clearly there have been malign third-party actors in Syria for some time. Russia and Iran have played a deeply malign role in Syria in all the years of the Assad regime, and we are glad that their influence is reduced. We will do all that we can to ensure that Syrians can stand on their own two feet without third-party influence, and that there is a stable and inclusive Government to take the next steps for Syria. That is a challenge for all the reasons that we have discussed.
Given the horrifying events in Syria over the weekend, does my hon. Friend agree that the time for warm words from the Syrian Government on protecting minorities has passed, and that actions to safeguard religious minorities such as Alawites and Christians are required? If so, what more can the United Kingdom do to prompt those actions?
My hon. Friend is right that actions, not words, must be the yardstick by which we judge the interim authorities, including the interim President. Following the violence, they have made some important commitments about holding the perpetrators to justice, being clear that this is not state-ordered. We need now to see the consequences of those words in those coastal communities in Syria. We will be watching very carefully.
The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week about the importance of ensuring accountability for crimes committed under the Assad regime. Today’s statement in the wake of the violence over the weekend calls on the interim authorities in Syria to set out a path to transitional justice. Has the UK’s position on accountability for war crimes under Assad changed in the wake of that sectarian violence?
No, it has not. We announced a further £240,000 to ensure that vital evidence in relation to the Assad regime can be secured and preserved so that there can be accountability. Our attitude towards the Assad regime has not shifted in the light of the events over the weekend.
We are obviously all aghast at the deaths and terrible violence against minority communities in the western coastal region of Syria, but in the past few weeks we have also seen attacks on Tishrin dam and neighbouring areas by Turkish forces, including the bombing of areas where there are civilians. What discussions has the Minister had with our Turkish NATO allies about ceasing the violence in northern Syria, considering in particular that the PKK over the border in Turkey has declared a ceasefire?
I discussed these issues with my Turkish counterpart in Ankara last week. It is a shared position of the British and Turkish Governments that we want a peaceful resolution to the tensions in northern Syria leading to an inclusive Government—including all the communities. The developments in Turkey are clearly welcome, including the statement from Mr Öcalan that the PKK will lay down its arms. We do not want to see Turkey threatened by foreign terrorist fighters from anywhere, including Syria, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is also vital that the violence in northern Syria stops.
The collapse of Assad was always going to be a setback for Russia, but it was also always going to be a boost for the Islamist opposition. Even if there is only a 5% chance of forming an inclusive, democratic, stable Syria, the Government are clearly right to try to promote that, but they should also recognise that the real threats to us are chemical weapons falling into Islamist hands and the Syrian Democratic Forces no longer being able to keep under control those Islamists who are currently confined in camps. What happens when they are released?
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the vital importance of safely destroying the chemical weapons programme in Syria; I am glad that some progress has been made in that regard. We have increased our funding and co-operation with the OPCW and have been encouraging of those efforts in Syria to start the safe and full destruction of the chemical weapons programme. We remain clear-eyed about the continuing threats from ISIS in north and east Syria and we are conscious of the risk from those camps, as raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary. We remain closely engaged with all our partners on those questions.
I thank the Minister for his ongoing leadership on this issue. Our hearts go out to the victims of the terrible attacks and their families. Does he agree that when we talk about a pathway to a stable and inclusive Syria, it is important that we and our allies all speak with one voice?
I do agree. We have engaged closely with our partners and we have travelled extensively to the region. It is vital that the international community, both in the region and beyond, speaks with one voice to give the best possible chance for the inclusive Government that we all want to see in Syria.
I thank the Minister for his statement and share his deep concern about the violence over the weekend. He mentioned the more than 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance and the pledging conference next week. Will he explain how the UK can support a safe, secure, sustainable transition in Syria given the recently announced devastating cuts to UK aid? What is his assessment of the security implications of those cuts in Syria and more broadly?
I do not want to sound unduly cheery given the stage of economic crisis in Syria, but in many respects access to Syria for humanitarian aid has got easier since the fall of Assad, so our aid programmes are able to make a difference. We have £62 million—that is not a small number—making a real difference to saving lives. We will be able to say a little more about how much further we can go on providing aid into the future at the Brussels conference, where it will be really important that we talk with our partners, too.
The transitional Government have obliquely referred to what they call foreign parties in the coastal regions of Syria, but given Iran and Russia’s long-standing alliance with Assad and the Alawites, it is not difficult to understand who is being referred to. Given the current uncertainty, will the Government be very circumspect about who they share intelligence, information and data regarding the region with, given where it may well end up?
I will not comment unduly on intelligence matters in this Chamber but, as I have said, we will look very carefully at the involvement of third parties in Syria in recent days.
Syria has been, and will continue to be, an incubator of terrorist threats, not just to the region but more widely. What work are the Government doing with allies to contain and degrade that threat?
The terrorist threat that emerges from Syria is very high on the agenda of this Government. We have been talking with our partners in the region, with our American colleagues and with many others about what we can do to ensure that, in this period of transition and uncertainty, ISIS is not able to take advantage.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making what is a very important statement today. Is he able to make any comment on the continuing presence of foreign troops in Syria? Russian, Turkish, American and Israeli forces are presently occupying at least the demilitarised zone just beyond the Golan heights. What pressure is being applied for the withdrawal of those forces and the cessation of their military activities within Syria, to give Syria an opportunity to bring this appalling period to a conclusion, hopefully with peace and justice in the future?
The right hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on these issues and, as he says, there is a range of different military forces in Syria, under different auspices. When there is a new, full Syrian Government, it will be for them to decide which forces should be in their country. Let me be clear about the British position. We have been of the view for a long time that the Russian and Iranian presence is malign. It will be for the new authorities to work out whether they are prepared to accept a continued Russian presence, given all the damage that that Russian presence has done to the Syrians. In relation to the Israeli presence in the country, to which he alludes, we have had assurances from the Israelis that that presence will be temporary, and we expect them to stick to that.
Like the Minister, I was appalled by the events in Syria this weekend. The killings show that the international community needs to be more involved in Syria. Please will the Government consider pushing for a United Nations assistance mission to support a transitional Government, so that all Syrians can be protected?
I have been in contact with Geir Pedersen, the senior UN envoy in Syria, and there are ongoing discussions about what further support the United Nations might be able to provide to Syria. We will keep the House updated as they develop.
On 11 December, the Home Secretary gave a statement to the House on border security and collaboration, following the meeting of the Calais Group just after the collapse of the Assad regime. I made the point during that statement that it was critical that there should be safe routes to asylum for the most vulnerable, and the events of the past few days illustrate exactly why that needs to be the case. Are there safe routes to asylum for people? If there are not, will the Minister undertake to raise this directly with his colleagues in the Home Department?
As I said in answer to a previous question, we will make a close assessment of the developments in the coastal areas. At the moment the violence appears to be isolated to that area, but we will keep it under close review.
I thank the Minister for the statement. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I express my concern about the slaughter of Christians, Druze and Alawites in Syria. Before the civil war in 2011, Syria was home to approximately 1.5 million Christians. By 2022, tragically, that number had dwindled to around 300,000. Today, there are even fewer under the new regime. Given these horrifying developments, will the Minister review the planned £50 million of aid prepared for Syria in the light of the refusal of the interim Syrian Government to address the ethnic cleansing of Christians? Will the Government ensure that aid is delivered on the ground through reputable charitable groups, rather than those turning a blind eye to Christian persecution?
As I said before, we condemn any sectarian attacks and any actions to stoke intercommunal tensions within Syria. Syria has long benefited from its many minorities and its great diversity, and that is what we want to see in its future. We have given £62 million since the fall of Assad. We monitor that closely to ensure that it goes, as the hon. Gentleman says, through reliable channels with proper controls to ensure that there is no misuse.
An Arab proverb goes, “Better a hundred days of tyranny than one day of anarchy.” We saw the result of that anarchy over the weekend with potentially over 1,500 civilians killed. Would the Government support a well-resourced, integrated United Nations group with a beefed-up mandate, and potentially a new Syrian envoy familiar with the country and who speaks Arabic, to help resolve the issue?
As I said in response to a previous question, we are in discussions about what a UN role could be in a future Syria. I will not comment too much on what personnel might staff it.
Was the delisting of 24 institutions from sanctions on Friday the product of engagement with the interim Government? If so, in the light of the gruesome mass murders of Saturday, was that decision premature?
It is true that the interim Administration are asking for sanctions relaxation, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the economic situation in Syria: 99% of the value of the Syrian pound has disappeared, and 90% of the population live below the poverty line. This is an acute emergency, and we want to see, now Assad is gone, Syria as a stable country that can stand on its own two feet. Those 24 bodies are involved in the basic functioning of Syria’s economy. We will keep all our sanctions under review, as Members would expect, and once we have a clearer picture of the events over the weekend, I will return to the House.