Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the rights of British Chagossians to access the trust fund and resettle on the Chagos archipelago.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

On 22 May the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius.

On 12 December the Mauritian Government approved the introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Mauritian Bill confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians and by Chagossians. Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossians, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Mauritian Bill also confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board, alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK high commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings. We welcome these commitments by Mauritius, which will ensure that the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.

The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that the programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and to the children of a parent who was born on the archipelago before that date.

As of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship. However, any UK-based Chagossian who does not hold Mauritian citizenship and who meets the criteria will be eligible for it and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway, and they will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship. Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all those born there. Where for any reason this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.

This landmark agreement secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base. As the Defence Secretary told the House, there was no alternative but to act. In so doing, we have protected Britons at home and overseas.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We have basically just heard from the Minister that the Government’s betrayal of the British Chagossian community continues. We have just had more details on how bad this deal is for the Chagossian community. Labour’s surrender of British sovereign territory means that future decisions on access to and resettlement on most of the archipelago, the ancestral home of Chagossians, are now left in the hands of—guess what?—a foreign Government.

Can the Minister confirm if British Chagossians will need to become Mauritian citizens to have any hope of being entitled to or eligible for resettlement under the future resettlement programme? That is a simple yes or no—it sounds like the answer is an absolute yes. This is a country that, until only weeks ago, had an offence on its statute books of “misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius”, and it is a country from which hundreds of Chagossians have fled to Britain in recent weeks. By the way, housing this community across the country is adding to the pressure on local authorities. Does the Minister recognise the sheer madness of this plan?

The Government have confirmed that, despite this Government giving the Government of Mauritius £40 million of British taxpayers’ money for the trust fund, Britain has no proper representation on the board and no control over how the funds are spent. There will be just one UK-based Chagossian representative on the board, chosen not by the British Chagossian community, but—guess what?—by the Prime Minister of Mauritius. Can the Minister tell us if he thinks this is acceptable, and did the Government—I cannot say the Minister specifically—press for greater Chagossian and British representation on the board? Can he tell us exactly what UK delegations have been doing in Mauritius this year, who they have met and what has been discussed?

On the so-called contact group, why have the Government refused to seek the views of the British Chagossian community on this surrender treaty? They have instead chosen to outsource this vital function to a House of Lords Select Committee, whose survey, as we have seen online, has been open to manipulation by and interference from the Mauritian Government.

It is no wonder that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called the Government out for their betrayal of the Chagossian community. That is massively embarrassing, particularly when we have a Government of human rights lawyers. What is the Minister’s response to this UN committee? Will he suspend the ratification of this appalling treaty, which is what the UN calls for, and importantly, say sorry to hard-pressed taxpayers in this country, who are forking out £35 billion for this shameful betrayal?

[Mr Falconer]

In the spirit of Christmas, I will not respond to allegations of betrayal. I suspect that Conservative Members will want to chunter throughout this discussion, but they might remind themselves who started these negotiations and on what basis. No doubt they will wish throughout this session to focus on transfer of sovereignty, but they might remind themselves what their negotiating position was when they were in government.

Let me turn to the questions asked by the right hon. Lady. I am pleased to inform the House that we met the Chagossian contact group on both 2 and 8 December. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who leads on these issues, has been very keen to ensure that he hears the full range of views from Chagossians in the UK. I understand, as I know Opposition Members also understand, that there is a range of views among the Chagossian community—they do not speak with one voice—and this Government are trying to listen to all of those views.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the ratification of the treaty. As she knows, the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will have its Third Reading in the House of Lords in the new year. No doubt this will be discussed further then, as it was in this House. This treaty will be scrutinised properly in the normal way, and all of these points will be surfaced.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification that the Chagossian community will be involved in the operation of the trust fund.

Turning to support in the UK for the Chagossian community, which is a significant issue, the previous Government—including Conservative Members who now sit on the Opposition Benches, pretending they have no idea where some of these issues come from—legislated in 2022 to expand the rights of Chagossians to settle here in the UK and to claim citizenship up to 2027. I represent the port authority of Hillingdon, and we are seeing a significant movement of people based on the historical rights given by the Conservatives without adequate planning. Will the Minister and his team meet me to discuss the adequacy of the support available in the UK, and how we can stop playing politics with this complex historical issue and continue to find solutions?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have been clear from the start: nothing should be happening to the Chagossian people without the full democratic input of Chagossians themselves, who, in the custom of other overseas territories citizens, we should recognise as a self-governing and self-determining people, even if the UK has deprived Chagossians access to their homeland for more than 50 years.

Those principles, if they are to mean anything to our overseas territories family, must be both immutable and universal. In recognising that, I note that I am now joined by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which last week reported that the proposed agreement on the future of the Chagos islands should not be ratified on the grounds that it risks

“perpetuating longstanding violations of the Chagossian people’s rights.”

I am also concerned about the requirement—made, I think, explicit in the Minister’s statement yesterday—that Chagossian people will only be able to partake in the resettlement programme if, and only if, they accept Mauritian citizenship, even in circumstances where individuals and families have no historical connection, cultural or civic, to that state. Will the Minister therefore set out whether any negotiations have taken place that would have enabled Chagossians to exercise their right of return without being required to subscribe to Mauritian citizenship? Were there any discussions about a Hong Kong-style arrangement, whereby permanent residency and freedom of movement may have been granted outside of citizenship? Finally, how does the Minister reconcile last week’s UN report with his stated desire to conform with our international obligations?

[Mr Falconer]

In relation to the UN report, I am sure that it will be discussed on Third Reading, when the House of Lords further considers the treaty, and again in this House if that is where it returns. On the trust fund, the written ministerial statement yesterday set out the position of the Mauritian Government. There will be further discussions between the UK and Mauritius in the new year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Chagossians have been treated appallingly by successive Governments—we all accept that. To me, it is unconscionable that, for the first time since the first world war, a colonial people is being transferred from one colonial power to another 1,000 miles away with no control. I think there should be a referendum, but we are where we are. Does the Minister recognise that it would lighten the whole atmosphere if there was an absolute right of return for all Chagossians, with them not having to take Mauritian citizenship and being fully in control of their own trust fund? In other words, they have a right to self-determination like any other people on earth.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that question. The UK negotiations with the Mauritian Government have had the wishes of the Chagossian people very much at their heart. Some of the elements that I laid out in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary are responses very much to the Chagossians themselves, including both the majority control of the board that will determine the nature of the trust fund, and the element about civil status documents and origin of birth. We will continue to talk to the Chagossian community about their wishes.

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

Is, in the Government’s opinion, Mauritius a free society, and what is the Government’s assessment of the nature of its relationship with communist China?

[Mr Falconer]

These issues have been discussed at some length. Mauritius is obviously an important partner for us. I will leave it to the relevant Minister to provide a fuller commentary about the state of its relations with China.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is striking that the Government, despite deriding 14 years of Conservative Government, want to follow the example of the previous Government on just this matter. May I just point out that the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron, decided that the negotiations were not in the national interest and not in the interests of the Chagossian people, and that they should be suspended? May I recommend that the Minister follows our example on that?

[Mr Falconer]

I am confused whether I am or am not to follow the example of those on the Opposition Benches. My understanding was that Boris Johnson offered large quantities of money to Mauritius, absent negotiations, to try to make this all go away. That did not work. Negotiations were then opened with sovereignty at their heart. I am not sure which elements the hon. Gentleman would say I should or should not demur from. We are taking the action required to ensure the safety of the base and the security of the British people, and we are doing so closely with our partners, including the United States and Mauritius.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister talks warmly of the relationship with the Chagossians. They have, of course, just formed a Government in exile. Do the British Government recognise the Chagossian Government in exile?

[Mr Falconer]

As colleagues across the House will know, there is a range of views across the Chagossian community. I am not familiar with the Government in exile in any great detail, but I suspect that there is a whole range of views among Chagossians here in the UK, in Mauritius and elsewhere. The relevant Minister has been closely engaged with a wide range of Chagossian voices.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I accept the fact that the treaty and the UN report will be discussed further in the other place, but the Minister is here to answer our questions, and we are the only ones who are able to question the issue. What is the Government’s reaction to the United Nations reports, and will they honour the recommendations?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been asked an urgent question about the trust fund. That is what I have come prepared to talk about. I am sure that the relevant Minister, in the plenty of opportunities he has had before and no doubt the House will give him again, will answer further questions about the UN report. We have undertaken this process soberly and seriously. We recognise that the Members on the Conservative Benches who started this process had views. We are now trying to follow the process through. We will, of course, accord with international law throughout.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

After a string of high profile corruption cases across Mauritius, what confidence does the Minister have that the bounty he is about to bestow on the Mauritian Government, including on the Chagossian trust fund, will be spent appropriately and will not end up in the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians?

[Mr Falconer]

As I set out in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the trust fund will have a majority of Chagossians on it and a chair appointed by the Chagossians. The conduct of the trust fund will also be observed by our own high commission.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Last month, after a three-month wait for an answer, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry informed me in a written answer that the Government Actuary’s Department’s figure for the cost of the Chagos deal of £34.7 billion is inaccurate. I struggle to believe that the Government Actuary’s Department would have published the figure in error in August. It was widely reported at the time, and the Department has never publicly corrected the figure. Will the Minister confirm that the Government Actuary’s Department figure of £34.7 billion over the length of the deal is correct and that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is misinformed?

[Mr Falconer]

I will have to consult the Ministry of Defence to be sure where the error is. My understanding is that all costs have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, and I cannot provide any further clarification.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In getting to this point, the Government have made much of their adherence to international standards and bodies, yet in the last 15 minutes the Minister has been asked three times to respond to the United Nations’ findings, which call for a suspension of the treaty, and criticise the denial of the right to self-determination and the right to return. Why is the Minister now so timid when it comes to dealing with those international findings?

[Mr Falconer]

I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts all the UN findings—for example in relation to Gaza or UNRWA. There is a wide range of different UN bodies with different responsibilities. The UN Secretary-General himself welcomed the agreement between the UK and Mauritius. This further report by a UN body will no doubt be studied carefully by the relevant Minister, but I do not have a fuller response today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable and just man, but I do have to ask this question. Does he accept the reasons that Chagossians are concerned about the delivery of the UK-funded trust fund? They are concerned that the fund will not help to resettle Chagossians, but will be used by other settlers. How can the Government, with only one seat at the table, so to speak, ensure that that is not the case?

[Mr Falconer]

I feel a deep sense of foreboding when the hon. Gentleman chuckles before he asks me a question, as it is an indication that it will be difficult. I think the answer is straightforward: in addition to the British Chagossian who will sit on the board, our own high commissioner will be an observer of the board in order to give greater insight and transparency to the UK about its operations.

Africa: New Approach

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the Government’s new approach to Africa.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Africa matters to the United Kingdom and it matters to this Government, our missions and our plan for change. Africa has the greatest growth potential of any continent, providing expanding opportunities for UK businesses to kick-start economic growth. Strengthening the foundations of UK growth requires engagement with Africa to secure our borders and address the drivers of illegal migration. Africa is home to 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including significant deposits of the growth minerals identified in the new UK critical minerals strategy, which are essential to securing our supply chains and enabling the UK’s mission to become a clean energy superpower.

However, we inherited an approach that reflected the past and not the opportunities of Africa’s future. That is why we committed in our manifesto to deliver a new approach for mutual long-term benefit. We were also clear that reframing our relationship was not something to cook up here in London and then package as a shared approach, so we launched a five-month listening exercise, hearing from Governments and more than 600 organisations—from civil society and diaspora communities to businesses and universities—about what they valued and wanted to see from Britain. There was a clear common message: African nations want respectful, long-term partnerships that deliver real change for people’s lives.

Responding to the consultation, the UK’s new approach provides a high-level framing to guide the Government’s long-term engagement with African partners, reaffirming the shift from paternalism to a partnership of respect and equality over seven areas of shared interest. First, we are moving from donor to investor. We will go further to unlock investment and trade, helping African and British businesses to create quality jobs, economic opportunities and prosperity. Secondly, we are working together on the challenges of illegal migration. Migration should be fair, managed and controlled. We will be unapologetic in pressing for high ambition and clear progress against our priorities in this area. Thirdly, we are advancing shared interests on climate, nature and clean energy, recognising their significance for growth and security. Fourthly, we are continuing to collaborate for peace and security, working to silence the guns and tackle violence against women and girls. Fifthly, we are strengthening the systems that support people and growth, including strengthening financial self-resilience. Sixthly, we are championing African voices in global decision making, including in the global financial system. Finally, we are supporting innovation and cultural partnerships. This adds up to a new kind of partnership—one that works with African leadership and is inclusive, respectful and strong enough to work through difficulties and disagreements.

Our high commissions and embassies will be at the forefront of embedding this approach in spirit and content, and we will take it forward into the UK’s G20 presidency in 2027. British Ministers will be out there on the continent championing these principles, strengthening coherence across our partnerships and backing diverse African voices to shape our work.

[Mr Speaker]

I will just say gently, Minister, that this is a very important statement, and what you have said is so important to the House. We do not need written ministerial statements; it would be easier if it was brought to the House, rather than hidden away in the Library.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for foreign affairs and co-chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth.

The geopolitical challenges we face as a nation are acute and mounting and have real impacts on people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our United Kingdom. For too long, our relationship with countries on the African continent has been viewed through the prism of colonial guilt, which has harmed our ability to engage, left relationships to suffer and let generations down. We must think about what we can do with, not to, nations on the African continent.

The African continent is a big and diverse place and cannot be put in one basket. Each region will have different characteristics, and our approach needs to reflect that with respect, understanding and action. The United Kingdom has been found seriously wanting in relation to its former colonies over the past 30 years under successive Governments, and this must be a turning point based on respect, friendship, equality and our shared histories, bonds, systems and experiences.

I have the following questions for the Minister. How will the Government’s approach protect the United Kingdom against the geopolitical threats we face from Russia, China and other hostile states and their corrosive impact on nations across the African continent? Many African nations are members of the Commonwealth—a hugely important but totally underutilised post-war creation. How will the approach ensure that the Commonwealth gets meaningful support and is properly fit for purpose? I am concerned that one word that was not mentioned in the statement was “Commonwealth”.

How much money will be put behind this new approach? What steps will be taken to ensure that new, meaningful trade deals are established between African nations and the United Kingdom? Fair, balanced and decent trade has a hugely important role to play in this relationship, and it must be taken seriously. What will be expected of our heads of missions at high commissions and embassies across Africa to advance this approach? Finally, what will our new approach mean for British engagement with the African Union?

The bonds of history and people bind together our United Kingdom and many independent nations on the African continent; we have common languages, common legal systems, common but difficult histories and a common purpose. This new approach has the potential to help to grow our economy here at home, neutralise the influence of hostile states and move forward together. If it does that, it will have my full support.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend both for the question and for his dedication to and diligence on these issues. I reassure him of the importance that this Government place on the Commonwealth, which is a vital partnership both in Africa and across the world. It is the C in FCDO, and it is very close to our minds and central to our strategy both in Africa and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend asks important points about the role of Russia and China in Africa. As he knows well, China particularly has been a long-standing presence in many African countries as an important source of trade and finance. In my experience, though, African countries are not naive about Chinese motivations or the potential risks associated with elements of its offer. The Africa strategy that we announced yesterday is in part a response to the desire from so many African countries for a longer, enduring and sustainable partnership with the UK, both to respond to the interests of others, whether that is China or Russia, and to build on the historic ties to which he so eloquently referred.

I pause briefly to talk about Russia’s role in Africa. Russia is exploiting conflicts, instability and natural resources right across Africa, in the Sahel and indeed in north Africa. We are already supporting African partners through strategic security and defence relationships with countries such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, co-ordinating closely with like-minded states and international organisations. The role of the Africa Corps in Africa is malign.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important urgent question. May I say that I do not think it is acceptable for the Minister to just regurgitate the written ministerial statement from yesterday?

There are some fundamental issues about what should be the Government’s strategy. First and foremost, it was wrong to simply say that the approach that the Government inherited was wrong. I should know that, having recapitalised the Commonwealth Development Corporation, with British International Investment now having a huge amount of annual investment and reinvestment every single year on economic development in Africa. Fundamentally, whether it is from Gavi, the Global Fund or the sustainable development goals, these are founding principles that are now being advanced across Africa, and the Government really should do much more to stand up and defend them.

In the written ministerial statement yesterday there was no reference to China’s belt and road debt traps, Russia’s nefarious activities or the Wagner Group in Africa. Yet before our eyes, we see the axis of authoritarian states pillaging African countries for its natural resources. Where is the substance for a plan of action to counter the growing influence of that axis?

As we have already heard, there is also scant regard in the Government’s plan for the Commonwealth and its role in upholding democracy, capacity building and freedoms. Why is that the case? Are the Government working with the new secretary-general on her economic vision, which would clearly benefit the UK and Africa?

We do not know how the Government intend to support the African Union or rise to the challenges in the continent, and sadly, we are seeing so much conflict right now. Can the Minister explain what the UK will do to leverage our conflict resolution expertise to good effect?

Finally, on illegal migration, can I remind the Minister and the Government that they intentionally tore up engagement with a key Commonwealth partner? Rwanda sought to provide leadership on illegal migration and stop young men leaving the continent at great risk because it wanted to create an economic development partnership with the UK. That surely speaks to some of the serious challenges that this Government now need to pick up and confront.

[Mr Falconer]

I addressed the questions of Russia and China somewhat in my previous answer, but let me reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary how central those issues of conflict are to us. I travelled to Libya in recent months, where, as she knows, Russia has been active, particularly in the west. The Wagner Group may have been renamed the Africa Corps, but it remains as malign a threat to Africa and, indeed, British interests as it ever was. We are active across the continent in seeking to counter its baleful influence.

The right hon. Lady talks about migration pressures from Africa. We are working in places such as Algeria, Tunisia, and indeed Libya, where small boats cross into Mediterranean Europe—

[Priti Patel]

We always have been.

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad to hear a moment of uncharacteristic harmony between the two Benches.

Where the work that was started by the previous Government was functioning, we continued it. Where it was not—such as the Rwanda deal that the right hon. Lady referred to—we stopped it.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I welcome the publication of the Government’s Africa approach. Strengthening systems that support people and growth is the right approach to improve health, education and social protection. Can the Minister confirm that the approach will include disability rights and inclusion, which the written ministerial statement did not mention? To truly strengthen systems and support, disability must be at the heart of the approach.

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate in this area. I know that the Minister responsible for Africa has been considering those issues, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting to discuss them further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The Government are absolutely right to say that the United Kingdom needs a new relationship with Africa. Many Members in this House had hoped that that partnership would be sustainable, strategic and built on mutual trust. Africa, after all, has one of the youngest populations in the world and incredible economic potential, yet the Government are cutting aid to Africa by 12% this year alone, with further reductions likely in years to come.

Over the last decade the Liberal Democrats criticised the constant churn in Ministers under the previous Conservative Government, and we are very disappointed that the Africa Minister has recently again been changed. That has come as hard news in continental Africa, where the Minister was appreciated and the hard work that had been undertaken was bearing fruit.

Warm words are not enough when the overall trajectory that we see from the UK is arguably one of a diminishing partnership and diminishing influence. The Government are cutting overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.3%—the lowest this country has ever seen—at a time when debt costs are rising in continental Africa. It is important to invest in the work of the FCDO, because trade commissioners, for example, provide the in-country expertise that is needed to develop the new economic relations that the Minister talks about. On migration, upstream investment in poverty reduction and conflict prevention is more important than ever, as is support for organisations such as the British Council.

Africa is an essential strategic partner in an increasingly contested world, so may I ask the Minister directly, how can the Government seriously claim that they are strengthening partnerships and seeking to influence Africa while cutting aid and hollowing out the very tools that make engagement sustainable?

[Mr Falconer]

As I set out, at the centre of the new strategy is a move from simply donation to investment. We are hearing that that new partnership is demanded from across Africa.

Let me join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the previous Minister for Africa, who I worked closely with. He was a diligent servant of the FCDO and the country, and I know that he continues to do important work in the other place. The new Minister for Africa is excellent. I have been the Minister responsible for North Africa consistently throughout the period, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that while some things have changed, others have not.

We will set out the ODA allocations in due course in the new year. On the point about whether or not we can truly have influence in Africa given the decisions we have made on ODA, I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard clearly from the continent itself the valuable work that the Minister for Africa, both past and present, is able to do, and that work will continue.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the change of approach that the Minister has outlined—a change from a paternalism to partnership—and I welcome the listening way in which it has been done. I am concerned that poverty reduction was not mentioned in the statement—neither were sustainable development goals, or working with local organisations on the ground that know best. Will the Minister reassure the House that poverty reduction is at the heart of our strategy in working with local organisations across the many countries in Africa to achieve the real change that Africa needs?

[Mr Falconer]

I reassure my hon. Friend, who has long experience in these matters, that we remain committed to sustainable development goals, poverty reduction and working with local partners.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I absolve the Minister entirely from responsibility for this statement, as he is not the Africa Minister, but is the so-called new approach for Africa not rather like the old strategy—which was so well set out in the White Paper published by the former Prime Minister in November 2023, with its emphasis on investment—but with much less development investment and much less influence? Will the Minister confirm that bilateral programmes are being cut to ribbons across Africa? Does he realise that in major African institutions there is genuine amazement and astonishment that a Labour Government, for the first time ever in the Labour party’s history, have slashed development aid? Does he appreciate that as Britain and America are withdrawing from Africa, it is Russia and China that are taking our place?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman. I served for two years in South Sudan when he was the Development Secretary; I know his commitment to these issues and I know that many of the programmes that are still run in Africa were set up during his tenure. As I said, we will set out the ODA allocations in more detail in the new year. As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, it is vital that we make this shift; there has been recognition on both sides of the House that there was a need for a change in approach. That is what the Africa strategy is about, and we will no doubt set out further detail in the new year.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I have visited four of my six markets in southern Africa this year, and we are clearly hearing support from those nations for this new approach. It transforms our relationship from donor to investor and from benefactor to partner. Key to delivering this ambition will be a focus on economic diplomacy. Therefore, it is critical that we sustain our resources and networks within the region. How will that be reflected in a new appreciation of the vital work that our diplomatic network does within Africa and the expertise that it has, because it is vital to enhancing both our interests and African interests?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend both for his kind words about the diplomatic service and for his own diligent efforts as trade envoy to southern Africa, which I know is yielding real results. He is right that there is a real desire for serious engagement on economic issues. We see in his work and the work of many other trade envoys the potential for further growth in Africa, and the Foreign Office will remain focused on it.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Since it is nearly Christmas, and in the spirit of goodwill, may I congratulate the Government on changing and updating the UK language on the Western Sahara? What will the Government now do to ensure that the good progress we have made since the 2019 association agreement with Morocco is sustained and improves further both our bilateral trade and our mutual security?

[Mr Falconer]

In the spirit of Christmas, I thank my predecessor for that important and helpful question. I know the House will be aware both of the shift in position on Western Sahara announced by the previous Foreign Secretary and of our vote in the recent Security Council deliberations about the future negotiations over Western Sahara. The UN special envoy, Mr de Mistura, retains our full confidence. He is working hard to try to advance talks. It is vital to try to bring to a close this long-running conflict and impediment to greater unity in north Africa, and we hope to see progress in the coming months.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Although I do not disagree with any of the principles set out in the strategy, I am disappointed by its level of ambition and detail. It does not reflect what we did when we were last in government with the Commission for Africa, which was an all-encompassing report looking at how we work together at the university level as well as on skills, trade, women and girls—all those issues—and build democracy. Unfortunately, it also does not address the real risk from Russia and China’s role in Africa. We have 21 Commonwealth countries in Africa, and they are telling us that they desperately need us as a partner so that we can bring the stability and prosperity to the continent that we all want to see.

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has much experience in these matters. I sought earlier to address some of the questions on Russia and China. The Minister for Africa will have heard her disappointment and I am sure will be happy to discuss it further.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As you will know, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for the Government to publish an Africa strategy for a very long time. Has it been worth the wait? No. Yesterday, we got a written ministerial statement with a new approach—a partnership. It is not a strategy. As has been said, of the 54 nations, 21 are Commonwealth nations.

Many years ago, I visited the Foreign Office and met the Africa Minister. He said, “Mark, I want you to tell me about certain countries in Africa.” I said, “The first thing you need to do, Minister, is change the map behind you.” He looked round at a tiny little map—as the Minister knows, the continent is huge. This is a timid, timid, timid approach to Africa; it is rather embarrassing. The Minister and the Government should be doing better.

[Mr Falconer]

I do not accept that it is a timid approach. We have set out seven principles of a new approach following hundreds of consultations launched by the previous Foreign Secretary, but I heard what the right hon. Member said, as the Africa Minister will have done.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new approach to Africa and the shift from discussion of the continent and our role as donors to that of investors and partners. In the last 50 years we have seen the importance of Asia, with the tiger economies of India and China driving the global economy. It is quite clear that the next 50 years will be an African future, with demographic growth, economic growth and the role of critical minerals and other resources in Africa. I welcome recognition of the importance of that in the approach. In the light of the continent’s growing importance, will we see a shift in FCDO and diplomatic resources to ensure that our resources to discuss and build those relationships align with the new strategy and the continent’s importance?

[Mr Falconer]

As my hon. Friend would expect, our resources will indeed reflect our strategy. However, as I said earlier, ODA allocations will be announced in the new year, as of course will questions about the laydown of the Foreign Office.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Warm words offer cold comfort to those facing brutal aid cuts this winter. While the Scottish Government remain fully committed to their global partners, the UK is in full retreat. While Scotland’s First Minister has personally visited Malawi in recent weeks to see at first hand the impact of the lifesaving partnership we have, the UK Government leak to the press that they are likely to cut all their aid to Malawi, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. In the spirit of Christmas, will the Minister do the right thing and halt all those aid cuts until the Government have carried out full country-by-country impact assessments on the African continent?

[Mr Falconer]

In the spirit of Christmas, I am glad to hear that the First Minister of Scotland has been travelling to visit UK aid programmes, as have I and the whole of the Foreign Office ministerial team. As I said earlier, decisions on ODA allocations will be announced in the new year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One of the issues is what the effect of the new policy will be. To take one example, what will be the position of the new policy on Nigeria, where so many girls are not in education? The UK has invested in education to encourage them, but many of them come under threat from Islamists who try to convert them.

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, we will set out further details on allocations in the new year, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Nigeria. To understate the position considerably, women and girls in Nigeria clearly face very considerable threats—as do Christians in Nigeria, as recent events have demonstrated. Let me take the opportunity to condemn the recent abductions. We welcome the news that some have been released, and we join the Government of Nigeria in calling for the release of all remaining abductees and for perpetrators to be brought to justice. Events in Nigeria have taken a very dark turn in recent months, and it is a high priority for the British Government to see that reversed.

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

Following on directly from that, what can the Minister tell us about any military advice or assistance that our experts in counter-insurgency are giving to the Governments of friendly Commonwealth countries like Nigeria that face vicious jihadist extremist attack from organisations such as Boko Haram?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have a security and defence partnership with Nigeria and we are helping to build capacity within Nigeria’s security agencies to respond to and prevent attacks, including through support to the multi-agency anti-kidnap fusion cell, which is particularly critical given the events to which I just alluded.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

As Shakira once famously said, “This time for Africa.” Although I welcome the Minister’s statement, I am a little underwhelmed, especially by the constant cuts by successive Governments to the foreign aid budget. We know that 800 million Africans are living in countries where public spending on debt interest exceeds that on health expenditure. That is a feedback loop that only makes life harder. What Africa needs is long-term investments and to be viewed as a partner. What steps are the Government taking to invest in partnerships with African countries? How will they stack that up against what China has been doing for close to three decades?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question—obscured by Shakira lyrics—and makes an important point. It is indisputable that China has put more financial resources into Africa in recent years than in any period before. However, what we hear from many African Governments and African people is that they are wary of some of the conditionality that comes with that investment, and the debt to which he referred. We are seeking a partnership that is respectful and can help African Governments address those issues. Where private sector investment is available from the UK, that is what we are working to support, including through trade envoys such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who spoke earlier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers and recognise his intent and that of the Government to try to help in whatever way they can. For centuries, churches and faith groups have sent missionaries to Africa. I think of the Samaritan’s Purse charity, which works across Africa and the middle east. I also think of many churches from Ards and Strangford, such as the Elim church and missions who go to Swaziland—Eswatini—and have built schools, clinics and hospitals. They have also brought farm implements and introduced modern farming practices to feed the people. In the past, I have highlighted the key role that church missions could play. Is it not about time to work with churches and make those partnerships work for Africa and its people?

[Mr Falconer]

I appreciate the question. In my own time overseas, and indeed in Africa, I saw the vital work that church groups do. It was the bishops in South Sudan who performed some of the most important peace mediation work. Just last night I met Christian groups operating in the Holy Land as well. We are conscious of the vital work done by faith communities in Africa and across the world, and freedom of religious belief and partnership with groups of all denominations is important to the Government.

Kashmir: Self-determination

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The fact that this is the fourth debate on Kashmir this year tells its own story; it shows the strength of feeling in this House and among our constituents. With your permission, Sir Roger, I will try to make a little progress before taking interventions, of which I suspect there will be many, so I can leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who made a powerful speech and, I am sure, wishes to make some concluding remarks.

As the whole House knows, Kashmir is one of the most sensitive and enduring challenges in south Asia. It is a flashpoint between two nuclear-armed states and a place where history, identity and geopolitics collide. As both my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East and for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) demonstrate, even the history of the ’40s remains a fraught question in this House and many other places. The dispute has endured for nearly eight decades, and it defines the security landscape of south Asia. As we have seen this year, the stakes are incredibly high, and miscalculation or escalation could have consequences far beyond south Asia. That is why Britain, while maintaining a neutral stance, urges dialogue and respect for human rights.

We also encourage restraint, and we are working with our international partners to support peace and stability in south Asia. I recognise that Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute, but a question of identity, rights and aspirations for millions of people. It is a matter that resonates deeply here in the UK, given our historical ties and the presence of vibrant British Pakistani and British Indian communities—I am proud to be joined this morning by representatives of those communities. About 1.6 million British Pakistanis and 1.8 million British Indians live here, many of whom have roots in Kashmir.

I reaffirm the UK Government’s long-standing position on Kashmir, which is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. That principle is central to our approach, and it reflects our belief in diplomacy and our respect for human rights.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a brief comment on the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in relation to the UN statement of 24 November on alleged human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir. The British Government take such statements seriously and are continuing to monitor the situation in Kashmir. We are clear about the importance of respecting human rights, and we wish to see any remaining restrictions lifted as soon as possible and any remaining political detainees released.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for the tone in which he is responding. He says that the UK Government’s position is that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, but that we encourage dialogue. Will he set out what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that dialogue happens? What is the FCDO tangibly doing, short of determining an outcome, to get India and Pakistan to come to a conclusion?

[Mr Falconer]

As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) rightly said, this has clearly been a year of incredible tension between India and Pakistan. We have used our relationships with both countries, both of which are friends and have long-standing diplomatic, historical and political connections with the UK, to try to ensure dialogue. It is clear from press reporting, let alone diplomatic reporting, that the tensions between those two countries continue.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What plans do the UK Government have to take the issue to the UN? We must ensure the UN is seized of the issue in a way that it has not been. It has obviously tried to bring about a ceasefire when there has been conflict between India and Pakistan, but that is not enough; there has to be a fundamental resolution to the basic problem, which is the lack of a right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

[Mr Falconer]

As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), we talk directly to both India and Pakistan. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, there is strong disagreement between India and Pakistan about whether this issue should return to the United Nations. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West and for Bradford East noted, at different times India and Pakistan have respectively thought UN involvement was helpful or not helpful. I do not wish to take a view this morning about whether a further reference to the United Nations is useful at this time, but it is critical in 2025 and into 2026 that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan. We have seen the extent of the pressure when dialogue breaks down.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking all these interventions. Does he agree that the cross-border terrorism—most of the terrorist camps are based in Azad Kashmir—is specifically designed to engender a crackdown on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir and to foment tension? Therefore, one of the things that his Government could do is press the Government of Pakistan to close those terrorist camps. We know where they are: the South Asia Terrorism Portal records 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, and 21 located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. That report was updated in September.

[Mr Falconer]

The House will appreciate that I will be moderately circumspect on security questions in relation to the region, but clearly there was an abominable terrorist attack in May, and there continue to be terrorist attacks in Pakistan week in, week out—not, we suspect, related to Kashmir, but related to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and ongoing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is clearly a blight on south Asia that so many countries in the region believe their neighbours are hosting terrorists who threaten them. The UK seeks to help on this issue. It is vital, and it has clearly been a cause of the most recent breakdown in relations.

[Tahir Ali]

In 2020, our delegation from the APPG on Kashmir was refused entry to Indian-occupied Kashmir, and we were given full, free and unfettered access to the side of Kashmir administered by Pakistan. If India has nothing to hide, why does it not allow international and United Nations observers unfettered access to occupied Kashmir on the Indian side?

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said in other contexts, it is valuable for British MPs to be able to travel across the world to see the situations on which we report, but British travel advice in relation to Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as in relation to the other side of the line of control, is complex. I encourage people, including MPs, to look at that advice before they travel. I have already helped colleagues who have got themselves into scrapes in 2025, so I would like people to warn me in advance.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The situation is exactly the same in respect of journalists. Does the Minister agree that journalists must always be allowed access to every part of the world so they can truly document the position, whether in respect of alleged terrorist camps or otherwise?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member came into the Chamber very late indeed. I call the Minister.

[Mr Falconer]

It is, of course, important that journalists can do their jobs across the world. I take from your tone, Sir Roger, a renewed clarion call to make a bit more progress before taking further interventions.

We do not advocate a specific mechanism for self-determination, but we support efforts that allow Kashmiris to shape their future. I hear colleagues’ desire that British officials and Ministers be available to the very significant Kashmiri diaspora. I have sought this year to engage directly, including in Birmingham in June. If MPs would like me to meet their constituents in relation to these issues, I would be very happy to do so. I remind colleagues that I am the Minister with responsibility for Pakistan, and that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has responsibility for India. I am sure we would both be prepared to do diaspora engagements, where appropriate. Some of these questions are sensitive—in some areas, very sensitive—and I am always happy to engage on them with Members across the House. I recognise how deeply and personally they are felt, and how it is sometimes easier to have such conversations away from the Hansard record.

The UK Government stand firm in our commitment to human rights, peace and stability. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, which must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We will continue to encourage dialogue, condemn violence and support efforts that uphold dignity and human rights for all.

[Jim Shannon]

I made a specific request in relation to the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in Kashmir. What has been done to assist them?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to the hon. Member that we make representations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments on human rights, and the protection of minorities on both sides of the line of control, and indeed in both countries, is an important issue for the UK.

We want to see a future in which both countries enjoy peaceful relations, the Kashmiri people can live with dignity and security, and south Asia can thrive as a region of stability, growth and opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I was coming to about the international picture at the moment. Frankly, it continues to expose time and again the absolute double standards and disrespect for international law, along with the need to reform the United Nations from its current format. Furthermore, it continues to expose the absolute denial to accept certain injustices in the world.

[Mr Falconer]

I am rather shocked by the discourtesy of giving my hon. Friend 10 minutes, only for him to claim that it was because I did not have enough speech to give. I am very happy to provide further remarks on the points that my hon. Friend raises.

The question of whether this is a situation of interest to India and Pakistan seems to me inarguable—it was inarguable in the 1940s, just as it is inarguable in the 2020s. One of my colleagues mentioned the build-up of military forces in the region. Clearly, we must attend to the world as it is and to conflicts as we have seen them in 2025. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, because I know he pays close attention to these issues: we do not take a two-sides approach to international law. We remain deeply and profoundly committed to it, but we also believe in diplomacy. It is inarguable that in south Asia diplomacy between India and Pakistan is necessary. We want to see more of it. Kashmir has been disputed for such a very long time; no plausible analyst in the entire world would believe that the issue is resolvable without the involvement of those two states.

I am sad that my hon. Friend felt that, in my speech, I was not attending to some of the core questions of the conflict. I reassure him that, just as during my engagements with Pakistan and my colleagues’ engagements with India, we are very conscious of the diplomacy.

Venezuela: US Military

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on imminent US military strikes on land targets in Venezuela, and the implications for UK foreign policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for north America—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—told the House yesterday, questions about United States military action in the Caribbean and Pacific are questions for the US. The UK has not been involved in US strikes in the Caribbean. The Foreign Office currently advises against all but essential travel to Venezuela due to ongoing crime and instability. As always, our travel advice remains under regular review to ensure that it reflects our latest assessments of risks to British nationals.

The UK stands with the Venezuelan people in their pursuit of a fair, democratic and prosperous future. Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. The UK continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to publish the results of the 2024 presidential election in full. The Government announced sanctions against 15 more members of Maduro’s regime in January. The UK will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a peaceful negotiated transition in Venezuela which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected.

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful for the granting of this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the Minister for that answer.

At oral questions yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) both stated that the UK was committed to upholding international law. Last night, Donald Trump announced that US military strikes against Venezuelan land targets would “start…very soon”. Does the Minister believe that such an action would be legal?

Over recent weeks, the US has acted with complete impunity in the Caribbean, conducting unilateral military strikes in international waters with no due process. Let me be very clear. President Maduro is a threat to democracy and civil liberty. He is an ally only to dictators such as Vladimir Putin and President Xi. Yet the UK’s response to the culture of impunity in the Oval Office must be robust and consistent. We must always hold accountable those who breach international law. By failing to do so, we risk normalising abuses that are eroding the international liberal order, all to the benefit of strong men such as Maduro who reject entirely the rule of law.

I have several questions for the Minister. Have US strikes in the Caribbean already violated international law? What steps are the Government taking, including on halting intelligence sharing, to ensure that the UK cannot be complicit in other US violations? Has the UK been complicit in illegal actions already taken by the US, including the alleged “double tap” operations authorised by War Secretary Hegseth? Does the Minister believe that War Secretary Hegseth has authorised the commitment of war crimes? Finally, will the Minister confirm what further steps the Government are taking to sanction Maduro and his associates, and to work with international allies to strengthen our collective diplomatic and economic pressure on his regime?

[Mr Falconer]

As this House will understand, we must be very careful on making assessments. We, of course, continue to stand by international law. I am not in a position to provide a detailed assessment of the strikes conducted by the US, which are clearly a matter for the US, as the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State said during oral questions yesterday. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks whether we were involved in the strikes. I confirm again, as we confirmed yesterday, that we were not. He will understand that I will not comment on intelligence matters from the Dispatch Box. He asks about our policy towards Venezuela. As I set out, we do not accept the legitimacy of the current Administration put in place by Nicolás Maduro, but we do maintain limited engagement with Venezuelan officials where necessary.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

This is an enormous military build-up under Trump, one of the largest in decades. Retired US generals, along with US politicians including Republicans, are warning that Trump’s strikes off the coast of Venezuela are already violating international law. Yesterday, the Government told me that no British troops are aboard the US warships near oil-rich Venezuela, despite reports to the contrary. What are the Government doing to try to stop Trump from taking this dangerous, escalatory path, which he now says could include land strikes?

[Mr Falconer]

As the Minister of State made clear to my hon. Friend yesterday, the UK is not involved in these operations. There has been, as my hon. Friend mentions, much reporting and speculation in the US media and the US Congress. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the deliberations of their House on these questions.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this urgent question. Venezuela may be thousands of miles away, but instability there has a direct impact on the safety and prosperity of the British people here. The restoration of democratic institutions is essential if Venezuela is to escape the political, economic and humanitarian crises imposed on its people by Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime. The Maduro regime is propped up by the same axis of authoritarian states that undermine the rules-based international order and foster instability around the world. We know the shocking level of smuggling that comes out of Venezuela, and at a moment when our allies appear to be taking quite decisive action, the world is watching how Britain responds.

What discussions are taking place with President Trump’s Administration about the objectives and scope of any imminent US military action? What would be the implications for the wider UK-US defence partnership, particularly our joint counter-narcotics operations?

The House will also expect clarity on how the Government intend to hold the Maduro regime to account. What further diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions and co-ordinated international action is the UK pursuing to support Venezuelans fighting for a peaceful, democratic transition?

Will the Minister also update the House on the Government’s position regarding Venezuela’s provocation and aggression towards Guyana, the risks of escalation and the steps being taken with CARICOM—Caribbean Community—partners?

Finally, given the scale of organised crime linked to the regime, what additional measures are being deployed to disrupt drug flows, money laundering and criminal networks that threaten communities here in the UK? Are Interpol and our intelligence partnerships being fully leveraged? Britain cannot afford to be a bystander. The Government must demonstrate clarity, conviction and leadership at this critical moment.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The US is of course the UK’s principal defence and security partner. We have extensive discussions on a wide range of shared security objectives, including counter-narcotics. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are, of course, continuing to work with our international partners to achieve a peaceful negotiated transition in Venezuela, which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

One of my guilty secrets is that I like to listen to CNN in the evening, so I know that people in the United States are divided on this issue. The Minister started by talking about sanctions. Have we assessed the impact of the sanctions on Venezuela? What efforts are we making with civil society there to protect human rights? I really respect the fact that we are not engaging with the way in which the United States is trying to deal with the drug trade there, but are we able to show leadership in the region by trying to restrict the drugs trade in a way that definitely fits with international law? When did he last speak to his counterpart in the US in an effort to reach a peaceful solution on this issue?

[Mr Falconer]

On my hon. Friend’s last question, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with her US counterparts in recent days on these questions. He asks an important question about civil society. We strongly condemn the ongoing repression of civil society and members of the opposition in Venezuela. We continue to call for the unconditional release of those arbitrarily detained, including members of civil society and independent media, such as through the UK’s published statement to the UN Human Rights Council in its most recent session.

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

President Trump would no doubt argue that there is a parallel between this situation and George Bush senior’s invasion of Panama in late 1989, but does the Minister agree with me that it will be interesting to see, if something like this goes ahead, what sort of outcry there is from either Russia or China? If there is no sort of outcry, would that not suggest that there is some sort of understanding between these three major powers that they each leave each other to get on with, shall we say, unilateral actions within what they regard as their own spheres of influence?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman is learned and offers the opportunity both to make historical comparisons and comment on the conduct of other powers. I will avoid the temptation on both. Clearly, the British position is that international law is vital. Counter-narcotics action is important and we support that.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Nicolás Maduro’s presidency clearly has no legitimacy after he was so roundly defeated in last year’s elections; he has continued to refuse to release any evidence to show that he was victorious, as he claims. However, does the Minister agree that the presidency of Venezuela is a decision for the Venezuelan people to make in a peaceful, democratic way, supported by the international community—not a decision for the US President to make, under threat of military force?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing an opportunity for me to give a slightly fuller commentary. The UK is clear that the outcome of the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela was neither free nor fair, and therefore Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. While the National Electoral Council of Venezuela has not yet published the results of the elections, the results published by the opposition appear to show Edmundo González securing the most votes in the presidential election by a significant margin. Clearly, proper process and a free and fair election is the way to determine the leadership in Venezuela.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

On data sharing with our allies, does the Minister agree that signals intelligence and human intelligence are not a pick and mix when it comes to the Five Eyes community? Will he assure the House that we will continue to provide the information that the US needs in order to deal with Venezuelan cocaine, most of which lands up in Europe? I need not remind the Minister that cocaine deaths in this country were up by a third in 2022-23. Will he ensure that we do not apply an overly lawyerly approach in our dealings with an ally doing its best to tackle the scourge of drugs in the US and the rest of Europe, and in particular on the streets of Britain?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—my predecessor—for his question. The Government stand by the principles of international law. I will not provide a detailed commentary on intelligence matters, obviously, but I will say that the Five Eyes remains a vital, vibrant and free-flowing intelligence sharing arrangement that allows us to tackle a range of threats. That includes the illegal drug trade, which is having such an impact in both America and the UK; like many others across the House, I see that impact in my constituency.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Nicolás Maduro is no respecter of the international rules-based system, but we must be. We do not want to see chaos in Latin America, but we are seeing the biggest military build-up in the Caribbean since the Cuban missile crisis and the biggest US military build-up since the war in Iraq. What lessons would the Minister draw from previous regime change that the UK Government have been involved in, and what advice would he give his US counterparts?

[Mr Falconer]

Again, it is tempting to indulge in some historical analysis, but the advice we give our friends and allies is mostly done in private. Clearly, it is important that the rights of Venezuelans to free and fair elections are respected in the way that I outlined in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I will continue with what has been a bit of a history lesson today. President Reagan had his famous wobble over the Falkland Islands but eventually he came to the right decision, supporting the UK at that time. This issue is about how we liaise with the United States as its closest ally—certainly, in our eyes we are its closest ally; whether it is the same the other way around, let us wait and see.

It could be Venezuela today but Cuba tomorrow, and then Haiti and so on and so forth. We need to be candid with the United States, to uphold international law and to encourage our cousins across the water to show restraint, while recognising the need for them to counter the very bad drugs trade going into the United States, which affects crime on the streets in many cities there.

Among the potential impacts of this action are the growing malign influence of both China and Russia in the region and how that might affect proximate Commonwealth countries such as Trinidad and Tobago or Guyana. There are unintended consequences from something that the United States might feel is completely legitimate. Finally, there is the issue of whether this legitimises Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the experience that the right hon. Member brings to these questions. I want to be absolutely clear about the pre-eminent role of international law and how important that is to this Government and the actions we take. Those are, of course, points that we make to our allies as well.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that I suspect he grants President Trump far too much credit when it comes to understanding the Munroe doctrine—but that is an aside.

What legal advice have the Government received or obtained in regard to the legality or possible legal implications of support for the US, albeit through intelligence sharing, for any potential strikes on Venezuela?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House will know, Ministers receive legal advice on a range of matters relating to foreign policy, and that advice is subject to legal and professional privilege.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) on securing this urgent question.

Could the Minister be very clear? What the US is doing, in bombing vessels at sea in both international and potentially territorial waters, is illegal, as is the harassment of Trinidadian fishing communities. The threat now of bombardment on the Venezuelan mainland is completely illegal within all sections of international law. Have the British Government made any representations to the US on this, and what role do the British Government play at the United Nations in the discussions about this issue? Does the Minister accept that this is an incredibly dangerous, massive build-up of military force in the Caribbean, and that it can only be dangerous to the people not just of Venezuela but of every other country and island within the region? Surely there should be some move towards peace, rather than allowing this military confrontation to develop.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of Latin American issues to this House. On the legal position, I do not have much more to add. There has been extensive reporting over the last few days of some specific US strikes. I reiterate to him that they were not strikes in which the UK had any role, so we are not in a position to provide the fuller explanation that we would have, had we been involved—which we were not. On his wider question about build-up in the region, the House has heard his views.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I reiterate the question of the legality of the US bombing ships that are simply accused of carrying drugs. Is the Minister willing to actually say whether he thinks that is legal or not legal in international waters?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to be absolutely clear that the UK Government stand behind international law, in relation to both the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In every forum, that is what we stand for. I am not in a position to make assessments on individual strikes, for the reasons that I have set out, but I once again underline our position on IHL and the law of the sea.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his careful and thoughtful answers on an issue that concerns us greatly. Given the widespread concern about the potential for civilian casualties from these strikes near Venezuela, what assessment has been made to ensure that UK co-operation in the region does not in any way contribute to harming civilians, and remains fully consistent with our human rights obligations?

[Mr Falconer]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman asks an important question in a courteous way. The prospects for the people of Venezuela must be at the heart of our deliberations. We have been engaged with civil society and, where necessary, with the Venezuelan Government. We will continue to keep the human rights of the people of Venezuela in our minds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

1. If she will meet with representatives of the Dawood Family Justice Campaign to discuss the potential repatriation of their family members’ remains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I am deeply saddened that more than two decades after the tragic deaths of brothers Sakil and Saeed Dawood in 2002 the family are still waiting for Saeed’s remains to be repatriated. Following the conclusion of the criminal case this year, our consular teams remain fully committed to resolving this matter and continue to raise it with the Indian authorities to secure a resolution.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Saeed and Sakil Dawood were abducted and murdered in Gujarat, India in February 2002. Their nephew, my constituent Imran Dawood, survived the attack. For over 23 years, the family have sought accountability and the return of the victims’ remains. The previous Labour and Tory Governments supported the family during the court trials, which ended earlier this year without justice. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 1 October regarding the Dawood Family Justice Campaign that seeks repatriation of the victims’ remains. We held a parliamentary event on 22 October, to which the FCDO leadership were invited. Will the Foreign Secretary meet the Dawood family and will she commit to providing urgent direct support to assist further in securing the remains of their family members, held by the Indian Government for over two decades, and help the family to achieve some level of closure?

[Mr Falconer]

We will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

9. What recent progress she has made on helping Alaa Abd el-Fattah to return to the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The Prime Minister raised this case with President Sisi on 18 November, and the Foreign Secretary has pressed for Mr el-Fattah’s return on multiple occasions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, most recently on 25 November. Mr el-Fattah must be allowed to return to the UK and be reunited with his family.

[Olly Glover]

I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming Alaa’s recent release from detention in Egypt, and in thanking the many people who have campaign for and helped secure that over the years. This week, Alaa will miss the 14th birthday of his son Khaled, because the Egyptian authorities are not letting him travel. It is good to hear about the engagement that the Minister describes, but what further steps can he and the Prime Minister take to ensure that Alaa is able to return to the UK to spend Christmas with his family?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out some of the steps we have taken already. I met Mr el-Fattah in Cairo last month, and am in regular contact with his family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this case is right at the top of my priority list, as well as that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Ryan Cornelius, a British citizen, has been unfairly incarcerated in Dubai for the past 17 years. His son was six when he went to prison; he is now 23 years old. Some 150 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote to the Dubai authorities asking for Mr Cornelius’s release on the UAE’s national day—today—to no avail. Can the Foreign Secretary use her good offices to bring some urgency to the issue of freeing this British citizen from unfair detention?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy for Mr Cornelius and a range of other consular cases overseas. He will know that the former Foreign Secretary has raised this case with the UAE and met the families on 4 September, and we will continue to provide them with support. I have seen these families myself, and I am sure that we will continue to do so at times that they find useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

T5. My constituent has expressed deep concern for his family and friends in Syria who belong to a minority ethnic group and he seeks reassurance. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that all minority communities in Syria are protected?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. We have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians, publicly and in our engagement with the Syrian Government. The Foreign Secretary and I were clear on UK expectations for Syria’s transition when we met Syrian Foreign Minister al-Shabani last month: the protection of the rights of all Syrians, wide consultation with Syria’s diverse communities on next steps in the transition and, of course, holding perpetrators of violence to account.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

T8. Last month, I met Anoosheh Ashoori and opened his exhibit “Surviving Evin” at a Harrogate district Amnesty International branch event at Ripon cathedral. Given the continued use of arbitrary detention and state-sponsored kidnapping and hostage-taking by Iran, what steps are the Government taking to strengthen protections for British nationals when abroad?

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the case that the hon. Member mentions. On all the other detention cases in Iran, we are working to ensure that those individuals have full access to consular assistance where they need it, as British nationals have across the world.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

T9. We know that our official development assistance budget is currently reduced to allow for defence investment, but given the continuing need to improve global health, not least to guarantee our own health and security, will the Minister meet me and other concerned colleagues to discuss how best to continue to protect lifesaving health programmes and the work with women and girls that she has rightly prioritised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Since the beginning of 2025, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented more than 1,600 attacks in the west bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers. What more can the UK do in terms of sanctions for illegal settler outposts and settlement trade and to hold the Israeli Government to account?

[Mr Falconer]

On 27 November, the UK, France, Germany and Italy collectively condemned the massive increase in settler violence against Palestinian civilians in the west bank. The pace of settlement building in the west bank continues unabated, as my hon. Friend knows well because she has been engaged on these issues for some time. Israel must stop settlement expansion, and it must crack down on settler violence, which has reached record levels. This Government have introduced three waves of sanctions focused on settlements, including against Mr Ben-Gvir.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary said that trade relations between China and the UK were “in our national interest”. To that extent, can I ask what conversations her Department had with Invest Northern Ireland prior to its signing a co-operation framework memorandum of understanding with the China Chamber of Commerce in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Parliamentarians for Peace was set up in 2023 in the aftermath of the terror attack in Israel and the killings of innocent Gazan civilians. On International Human Rights Day next Wednesday, will the Foreign Secretary, her team and everyone here join us for the Parliamentarians for Peace vigil that we will be hosting?

[Mr Falconer]

I will do my utmost, as I am sure other Ministers will.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?

[Mr Falconer]

I will. I was delighted to see my Emirati counterpart just yesterday. We had a Minister representing the British Government at the Emirati National Day. It is a key partner. I welcome its investment all over the country, and we will take the relationship from strength to strength.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled in its advisory opinion that Israeli settlements and occupation are illegal and needed to be ended and dismantled retrospectively. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government still have not responded to the advisory opinion after 17 months?

[Mr Falconer]

The advisory opinion is an important piece of international legal opinion, so we are taking our time and ensuring that we have an adequate response. But I remind my hon. Friend that it is not like nothing has happened over the course of those 17 months: we have recognised the Palestinian state. That is absolutely central in the deliberations of the advisory opinion, and we have done many other things, too, as have been discussed over the course of this session.

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

What action will the UK Government take as a consequence of Israel’s flagrant violation of international law in establishing and expanding settlements? The lack of action creates a culture of impunity in which Israel feels able to green light the expansion of the E1 settlement, creating division between the west bank and east Jerusalem and putting a nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Will the Foreign Secretary ban trade with illegal settlements to show that violating international law has consequences?

[Mr Falconer]

We have, from this Dispatch Box, announced three waves of sanctions, including on Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich. I have discussed the questions around trade on a number of occasions with the hon. Lady. Any trade with settlements does not benefit from the trade arrangements in place with green line Israel. We continue to take steps to ensure that that regime is enforced in full, and we continue to look at these issues very carefully.

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I want to thank every hon. Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction.

I was asked a number of questions over two and a half hours. If hon. Members will permit me, I intend to make a brief statement about the humanitarian situation before taking any interventions. I know that the voices in this Chamber echo the deep concern felt across the country—concern so strong that nearly 200,000 people signed the petition that brought us here today, including many of my own constituents in Lincoln. I know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) says, this is not at all a fringe concern—it is on the minds of constituents represented by all of us, right across the country.

The ceasefire was achieved with great difficulty and in the face of great danger. It must hold. We must confront the humanitarian catastrophe that continues in Gaza. We must see the bodies of the hostages returned to their grieving families and move quickly from phase 1 to phase 2—reconstruction and recovery—to rebuild shattered lives. As we take peace plans forward, we must not lose focus on the catastrophic humanitarian situation. More than 69,000 people have lost their lives since October 2023. Tens of thousands have been wounded, most of them women and children, and over 90% of the population remains displaced. Our immediate priority must be aid—rapid, sustained and unrestricted. The international system can deliver at scale, but that is not happening on the ground.

As we speak, vital equipment and field hospitals are waiting just miles away, blocked by red tape. Winter, as many contributions have made clear, is closing in, and displaced families need shelter and basic services restored. The Israeli authorities must open all crossings without delay, and aid agencies and NGOs must be able to operate freely across the whole of Gaza. Restrictions on UNRWA and other UN agencies must be lifted. The system and the supplies exist. I was pleased to hear other colleagues who have seen them in el-Arish—as I have. The will in the UK exists. If the ceasefire and the 20-point plan are to succeed, the political block on aid must end.

I understand the frustration my colleagues expressed tonight. Let me reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to support the ceasefire and get aid into Gaza. We have allocated £78 million for humanitarian and recovery support this year, including £20 million for water, sanitation and hygiene services. Over the past two years, we have restored funding to UNRWA and provided nearly £250 million in development assistance. I was challenged on whether that has made any difference to individuals in Gaza—it is 439,000 people who have received essential health care, 647,000 who have received food and over 300,000 who have gained access to clean water and sanitation.

Many hon. Members rightly challenged me and the Government to consider the individuals at the heart of this, rather than the numbers. I was in Yemen last week and saw a malnourished child in front of me at one of the healthcare clinics that we are supporting. The sight of a severely malnourished 11-month-old baby is a truly arresting one. It is a reminder to me, as I know it is to everyone in this House, that there are thousands of such children in Gaza.

We must do everything we can to ensure that the ceasefire holds and that the aid gets in. We have deployed UK advisers to the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre to help to co-ordinate reconstruction and humanitarian efforts. In total, we are providing £116 million this year for humanitarian aid, economic development and strengthening PA governance and reform.

[Alice Macdonald]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for the speech he is making. It was announced today that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is ceasing operations. It was said that the GHF has shared lessons with the CMCC. Does the Minister think that it is important that we learn what not to do in delivering aid? We have seen that the best way to do that is through recognised organisations such as the UN. Will the Minister comment on the GHF statement today?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. I have been absolutely clear throughout that the GHF was no way to deliver aid. The cost to the people of Gaza was absolutely clear from the grim images of its operation that we saw day in and day out. It has always been the case that a system exists in order to provide aid across Gaza. It is not a perfect system, and where there are abuses of that system, they need to be investigated—I am very glad to hear from our partners that the looting of aid has considerably reduced following the ceasefire—but the system exists. The aid exists. It is the United Nations system. It is mentioned specifically in the 20-point plan. That is how aid must be distributed across Gaza.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that the Minister has said, and applaud much of it. The restriction of aid in Gaza is utterly reprehensible. There have been multiple calls for action in this Chamber, but what is the plan if Israel says no? If Israel says that it is not allowing unfettered access to humanitarian aid, what do we do?

[Mr Falconer]

It may be helpful to the House if I set out what the UK sees as unfettered access. There are three areas where our advocacy is particularly focused. One is the registration provisions around NGOs, which was raised by many colleagues. We have raised that issue directly with the Israeli Government, which is what the hon. Member asked about in his intervention.

The second is dual-use items. There has been an overly restrictive approach to dual-use items that has restricted shelter, in particular, and a range of other things, including water purification equipment and a whole range of medical supplies. The dual-use list must be considerably loosened to enable the kinds of operations that so many hon. Members have discussed.

The third, turning to the comments of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), is the crossings. There are two crossings open, which I understand the shadow Foreign Secretary saw during her recent visit, but significant crossings remain closed: the Allenby crossing into Jordan and the Rafah crossing. Those are two critical crossings, and their opening was clearly envisaged in the 20-point plan. It is on that point that we continue to press the Israeli Government.

The opening of those crossings is related to some of the important points made by hon. Members about both aid access going in and people coming out. I have told hon. Members before that I do not wish to be drawn on specific numbers of medically injured children and students whom we have assisted to leave Gaza. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have discussed some of these questions with me. Those whose questions I have not yet answered have my word that I will come back to them quickly. I can say that, after the most recent wave of evacuations, we have now exceeded the target that I had mentioned to some hon. Members in recent months. We have, after a series of evacuation operations, managed to save hundreds from what awaited them in Gaza and provided opportunities for them to take up here in the UK.

I take the point that the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), and others, have made that they would like to see larger numbers. There is a balance to be struck here. Clearly, medical assistance is most effective and timely in Gaza itself—on both sides of the yellow line. After that, it is most effective in the region, and I was pleased to be in Cairo recently seeing some of that provision. Where that assistance cannot be provided, it is appropriate that we look at specialist cases, as we have done.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

Very briefly, and then I will wrap up.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the Minister; I appreciate that. We have been talking about the desperate need for unfettered aid access into Gaza for desperate, starving civilians. At the same time, this country continues to provide completely unfettered trade access for settlement goods into the UK—proceeds of crime, literally. Is it not time for the British Government to ban trade in settlement goods? Might that not help to put a little pressure on the Israeli Government to allow aid into Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

As the hon. Lady knows, there is not unfettered trade with the occupied territories. They are not subject to the same trade arrangements as Israel, and where there are breaches, we will investigate those thoroughly. We have discussed many times some of the challenges around ensuring that goods produced in the occupied territories do not find their way into the mainstream Israeli trading system, but I do not have the time, I am afraid, to rehearse some of those arguments again this afternoon.

I will close by saying that the Government understand the urgency of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, on both sides of the yellow line. His Majesty’s Opposition ask whether we want to see the international system enter what some are calling the red zone, west of the yellow line, and indeed we do. That is absolutely vital. That is where 90% of Gaza’s population remains to this day. Humanitarian provision east of the yellow line cannot make a dent in the very significant humanitarian suffering that so many have described so eloquently.

The most recent figures that we have show famine levels reducing, and severe malnutrition has decreased since the ceasefire, but it is still far too high. I give this House my solemn commitment, and that of the Government, that we will not rest until humanitarian aid is entering Gaza in the volumes required to try to meet the staggering level of human suffering that so many have talked about with such power this afternoon.

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the war in Ukraine and the forcible removal of children to Russia.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state. For over three years, Ukrainians have defended their country with courage and a fierce determination to defend the shared values that we cherish.

President Putin continues to intensify missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities which continue to kill civilians, including children, and damage vital civilian infrastructure. President Putin is also taking children from their families. Almost 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly deported to Russia or to Russian temporarily controlled territory by Russian authorities. We are closely engaged with Ukraine and our international partners to ensure that Ukraine gets the support that it needs to defend itself and achieve a just and lasting peace.

President Putin has shown no readiness to engage in meaningful peace negotiations. At last week’s Foreign Ministers meeting, G7 partners were clear that international borders must not be changed by force. We will also continue to use the full might of our sanctions regime to bear down on the revenues that are funding Putin’s war and to ratchet up pressure to force him to engage in meaningful talks. To date, this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals and entities, targeted Russia’s illicit shadow fleet and its two largest oil producers, and announced a ban on maritime liquefied natural gas, all to curb funding of Russia’s war chest.

Russia’s heinous policy to deport, indoctrinate and militarise Ukrainian children demonstrates the depths to which they will sink to eradicate Ukrainian identity and future.

The UK has committed more than £2.8 million to supporting Ukrainian efforts to facilitate the return and reintegration of children deported by Russia. Since the beginning of September, Ukraine’s pilot tracing mechanism, which the UK is co-funding, already identified more than 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated in the temporarily occupied territories. The Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during last week’s inaugural meeting of the UK-Ukraine strategic dialogue. We are working internationally in support of Ukraine and Canada, which co-chairs the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children.

[Priti Patel]

This House has been resolute in its support for Ukraine and its defence of its territories, sovereignty and freedom. Since 2022, the amount of support we have given to Ukraine has placed us at the forefront of those working with it to secure peace on its terms. As US military officials are in Ukraine today, we need to know what role the UK Government and the coalition of the willing are playing. What is the Government’s position on reports that the United States is brokering a deal with Russia that will involve Ukraine making territorial concessions, with Russia gaining territory, or being party to some form of lease arrangement, under which it effectively controls the east of Ukraine? Was the UK involved in drawing up those proposals? Reports suggest that under those proposals, the Ukrainian armed forces will be reduced and limited. What is the Government’s view on that? Are these reports accurate, or are there proposals on the table that align more closely with our view, and the Ukrainian view, that Russia should leave Ukraine?

Can the Minister give an update on the steps being taken to pressure Russia and its economy? We know of the sanctions and measures, and that they are being kept under review, but are proactive steps being taken to press countries to stop refining Russian oil? Turkey, India and China all have refineries, and are significant importers of Russian oil. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President last month, did the Prime Minister raise this issue, and press him to stop? We have asked that question before, but we did not get a direct yes-or-no answer. Have British Ministers raised this issue with their Chinese counterparts in the Chinese Communist party when they have gone to Beijing to conduct shuttle diplomacy? Is there an update on securing the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea to support Ukraine?

Finally, today is World Children’s Day. Our thoughts are with the 20,000 Ukrainian children reported to have been abducted by Putin. We welcome the reports of the returns, and the rescue of 1,800 Ukrainian children, but what further steps is Britain taking to secure their return as soon as possible? Is that a priority in the talks that are taking place?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her questions. The whole House is united both in support of Ukraine, and in outrage at the iniquity of what the Russians are doing to Ukrainian children.

We are glad of our partnership with the Ukrainian Government on the new tracing mechanism. As I said, it has made some progress since September, having identified more than 600 children who should be returned to Ukraine, and we will use our full efforts to ensure that they are returned. The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about reports made in recent days. I am sure that she will have seen the statement this morning by the US Secretary of State, in which he indicated that a range of ideas were being discussed. The Foreign Secretary is in direct regular discussions with the US Secretary of State, and he made an important statement last week at the G7 on these questions. That statement reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed.

We should be clear that President Zelensky is ready for an immediate ceasefire, and the UK supports him in that initiative; it is President Putin who is failing to come to the table. What should be the starting point of negotiations? It was clear in the G7 statement that the current line of contact should be the starting point, and we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. I know that principle is held strongly across the whole House.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Today, on World Children’s Day, we are reminded that safeguarding the next generation is not just a value that we hold dear, but the responsibility of every Member of this House. In recent days, more than 100 Members have backed President Zelensky’s Bring Kids Back initiative. They stand united with Ukraine and its stolen children, and I thank all those Members.

I also thank the Minister for working with me on supporting the Ukrainian Government’s launch of a new pilot programme to trace the children. Since September, it has found 600 of those children. If media reports from the last 24 hours about a US-brokered peace deal are to be believed, they should trouble every single one of us. A deal that trades away Ukrainian territory and security and makes no mention at all of the 20,000 children whom Russia has stolen from Ukraine is not peace; it is capitulation. This House should stand united in rejecting that deal. Can the Minister assure us that before any peace deal is considered, the future of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children will be top of the agenda?

[Mr Falconer]

The whole House recognises my hon. Friend’s work on this issue, both before she arrived in this place and since being elected. The atrocities that have been committed against Ukrainian families are at the top of our minds, and the removal of children is first among them. This issue remains a priority for the Government; I described the tracing mechanism, as has my hon. Friend, and we are pleased with the results since the pilot began in September. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister during his visit last week, and we will continue to work on these issues. It cannot become the norm in international relations to kidnap children and relocate them, which is what we have seen the Russians do. We oppose that, and it is why we will continue with our work on this.

I have already provided some response on the question of negotiations, but to state the very obvious, the Ukrainian flag flies from the Foreign Office. It flies from many churches in Lincolnshire, and from buildings across the constituencies represented in the Chamber this morning. The UK is steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and it will be for Ukraine to determine what negotiations it is prepared to enter into. That is what the Foreign Secretary was discussing with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, the US Secretary of State and a range of her other international partners last week.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Donald Trump’s latest proposals for securing peace in Ukraine might as well have been written in the Kremlin—indeed, they probably were. Those in Reform UK who have been paid to repeat Russian propaganda might disagree, but I believe that those in the House today will see the proposals for what they are. If Kyiv is pressed by Moscow and Washington into accepting these terms, which include the surrender of the Donbas and a halt to vital weapon supplies, it would be nothing less than a betrayal of our Ukrainian allies, so will the Minister publicly express the Government’s unequivocal rejection of those proposals, including the sacrifice of Ukrainian sovereign territory, and will the Government urgently convene a coalition of the willing, with a view to generating fresh support for Ukraine?

The abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children by the Kremlin is the clearest and most grotesque evidence of Putin’s cruelty and desire to erase a whole nation. It will go down as one of the gravest crimes of the war. What further financial support are the Government offering to Bring Kids Back, and will the Minister back my Bill to seize Russian assets in the UK and make the proceeds available for helping Ukraine’s children, women and men?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions. I will not answer on Reform’s approach to these questions. Reform Members have not made themselves available this morning, unlike many others who have a deep commitment to, and interest in, these questions.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the funding that we have committed to tracing Ukrainian children and reuniting them with their families. We have provided more than £2.8 million to support those efforts. He also asked about the latest reports on what a deal might look like. I draw his attention to the statements, which I read from earlier, made last week by the US, the UK and the G7, and to the US Secretary of State’s statement this morning.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her excellent work on the stolen Ukrainian children, whom we all want returned as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that only greater resolve, unity and support from the west can drive back Russia’s outrageous demands for Ukrainian territory, and pave the way for a peace that represents Ukraine’s interests? What more can he do to encourage greater support for Ukraine among our allies?

[Mr Falconer]

There is resolve in Ukraine and among its allies, and there is significant unity. There have been a range of steps taken in recent weeks, including the sanctions that the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, the steps announced over the weekend on Ukrainian children, and the strategic dialogue with Ukraine that the Foreign Secretary conducted in London last week. We will continue to press. There is an illusion, I fear, taking root in Moscow that one more push and yet further military operations will lead to a weakening of resolve in Ukraine, the UK and across the west. That is an illusion. We will remain steadfast in support of our Ukrainian friends.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that I look forward to tabling a motion for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine, which will refer to the 20,000 abducted children. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on the work she is doing on this subject. That motion will also draw attention to the other atrocities. Just this week, we welcomed two former Ukrainian prisoners of war, who had been held and tortured by the Russians, completely without regard to the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war, because the Russians fabricate this narrative that they are not at war in Ukraine and are conducting some special military operation. They do not have the regard for the norms of warfare that we would expect any civilised country to have. Can the Minister underline the point that the Trump proposals are unacceptable, and will he join all the NATO allies in making it clear to the United States that these proposals are unacceptable?

[Mr Falconer]

I will ensure that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for further discussions in this House on these important questions. He is right to draw attention to the clearly preposterous Russian position that it is engaged in an operation, rather than a war. I am less well versed in military matters than the Minister for the Armed Forces, but this is clearly not an operation. We are some years in, and there have been thousands upon thousands of casualties—men, women and children —and a significant loss to Russian forces, even over the past month. The hon. Gentleman asks about our position on some of the media speculation. He will understand why I am reluctant to be drawn on that in great detail. I can point him to the clear statement from the G7 last week, and to the latest comments from the US Secretary of State this morning.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The stealing of 20,000 children like this is an outrage. I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the Bring Kids Back campaign is right to emphasise that the return of these children is non-negotiable in any future peace deal?

[Mr Falconer]

It is non-negotiable. You cannot steal children in 2025 and think that is an acceptable way to conduct war. The relevant international legal provisions are absolutely clear, and I know that this whole House, and indeed the whole country, is genuinely outraged by what the Russians have done.

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

By putting forward proposals that could have been drafted by the killer in the Kremlin himself, it seems that President Trump has finally given up on the Nobel peace prize, and is content to settle for the Lenin peace prize instead. Do the Government share my concern at the remarks, admittedly aspirational, by the US ambassador to NATO about his long-term hope that Germany will take over America’s role at the heart of the alliance? Does that not betray the decades of peace after the second world war that NATO was created to preserve?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not familiar with the Lenin peace prize; I will google it afterwards. I have been clear on the position and the basis of negotiations. Clearly, it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to determine the position that it takes in negotiations. I saw reports of the discussion. I think it was, to be fair, about who should perform the role of SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—rather than the future division of responsibility between forces in NATO. NATO remains a vital component of European security and perhaps the most signal commitment to Europe and America’s shared defence and shared values. Long may it continue.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Russia is enduring significant financial pressure as a result of its illegal war in Ukraine. Does the Minister share my view that we must impose maximum economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to the negotiating table?

[Mr Falconer]

I do. I feel great sadness for the Russian people, because the truth is that President Putin appears to be happy to endure their hardship at almost any cost. The Russians are suffering terribly, both on the battlefield and in their standards of living across Russia. The sensible thing for President Putin to do—the thing that he has refused to do—is enter into the ceasefire talks that President Zelensky, the UK and many of our allies have called for him to enter into. This is not complicated or difficult. We will continue to apply financial pressure on the Russians until he does so, and it is with great regret that some of the sanctions will put further pressure on the already suffering Russian people. That is what we must do, and it is what we will continue to do until those ceasefire talks begin.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister is very well read, so I wonder whether he can identify any point in history when the appeasement of an aggressive, expansionist autocrat has ever worked out well. The population of these isles and the rest of Europe have endured high energy prices for the last three years, have taken Ukrainians into their homes, and have heard his Government and the previous Government unite the House by saying that, whatever it takes and however long it takes, we will get Ukraine’s sovereign territory back. Yet here we are, with the United States apparently in bilateral talks with Russia about how to carve up Ukraine. Does he have any positive message about the UK’s role in rejecting that? If he does not have a positive message for me today, what is the message from the UK to our allies in Norway, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Moldova, who know very well what appeasement of Russia looks like and feels like?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. This is my message for the people of eastern Europe and for the people of the UK: we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. Russia will not win. The Russians are not winning; they are suffering terribly in trying to pursue a so-called operation that is bringing them nothing but misery. I hope that they realise that swiftly, that they start ceasefire talks on the basis of the line of contact, and that Ukraine is in a position to secure its full and sovereign rights. That is what the British Government are committed to.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Russia’s kidnapping of children as a weapon in its illegal invasion of Ukraine is absolutely abhorrent and wicked, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her sterling efforts to make sure that these children are not forgotten in this place. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that children have been used as a weapon of war; we have seen it in Nigeria and other places in recent years. What more can this Government do to ensure that this is not normalised by dictators and despots across the world, and that children cannot be used as a weapon of war? What more can be done to ensure the return of Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. She is right to suggest that children are bearing the worst brunt of conflict. I was in Yemen this week, and I was appalled to see so many children with both moderate and severely acute malnutrition. That malnutrition is in very significant order created by the Houthis, who have restricted aid access into north Yemen and, indeed, detained UN aid workers and seized their offices. What the Russian forces do in Ukraine is seen elsewhere: it is seen by the Houthis and by militias in Nigeria. This country will stand up for an international rules-based order, which includes the protections that children are entitled to. We will continue to work to ensure the safe return of those 20,000 Ukrainian children. Six hundred of them have been identified by the mechanism that we co-fund and co-founded with the Ukrainians, and we will continue to work to ensure that all the remaining children are returned.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the courage of the American people over many decades in standing up for our liberties and defending our freedoms, and I draw attention to the fact that this wonderful act of generosity has supported a US economy that has grown more powerfully, more capably and in more directions than any other economy in human history, making the United States the richest and most powerful country the world has ever known. Would the Minister agree with me that that stance on the side of truth and justice has genuinely been a great blessing for all free peoples, and that we should be standing up against people traffickers and child traffickers—by, for example, calling out folk like Jeffrey Epstein—but that seeing the world’s largest child trafficker almost getting away with it would be a betrayal of the great American values that have led to the happiness and prosperity of one of the wonderful countries of this world?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his question. The US and UK have stood together on questions of European order ever since the second world war, and I am incredibly proud that it was a Labour Foreign Secretary who led on the creation of NATO. I know that our American friends continue to see questions of European security and order as being of the utmost importance, and that security and order cannot co-exist in a world in which territory is seized by force and children are abducted in exactly the way he describes.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

The stealing of Ukrainian children by Putin is scandalous and equally devastating for the Ukrainian families impacted. Putin shows no desire to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine, with continued bombardments on the Ukrainian people day in, day out. Does the Minister agree with me that, until Putin demonstrates that he is committed to returning these children and committed to a ceasefire, we must continue to provide Ukraine with all the military, economic and diplomatic support that it needs?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I do agree. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for all the reasons that hon. Members have expressed this morning. We will continue to do so until talks have started, and a just and sovereign future for Ukraine is secured.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In Wokingham there is a Ukrainian refugee community that has made a positive difference to the area. I have worked with local groups to help supply aid to civilians in Ukraine, and many have shared their concerns about the war and the safety of their relatives back home. I fully support the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her comments about the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen by the Russians. What are the Government doing to reassure the many Ukrainians in my constituency that UK support for Ukraine will remain steadfast against the Russian invasion, that Putin will be held to account for his war crimes, and that Trump will not be allowed to backtrack on his support for Ukraine and NATO?

[Mr Falconer]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member and his constituents for their work to support Ukrainians. I know that hon. Members right across the House and their constituents have been engaged in supporting Ukrainians in many different ways. I myself have met the Ukrainian community in Lincoln, and there are many people in Lincoln who have taken in Ukrainians or provided support. I would like to assure all of those people that we will continue to stand with the Ukrainians on these questions.

The hon. Member asks an important question about how we can continue to identify those children who have been seized by the Russians. There is work ongoing, often using Russian databases themselves, which are relatively freely available, to identify where Ukrainian children are likely to have been taken in Russia. I imagine that the Russian authorities think people are not sufficiently interested to track individual children. I can assure the House that we are, that we will and that we will continue to follow this to the end. Alongside our Ukrainian friends, we have identified 600 individual Ukrainian children by name. We will not forget the names of those children, and we will not forget the locations of those children. The Russian families who have sought to take in those children should know that such an effort is ongoing, and that it is supported right across the Government, right across the House and right across the country. We will continue, day in and day out, to ensure that those children are returned.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Using children in this way is sick—there is no other word for it. The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme opened their homes, they spoke out, they spoke up and they stood with the people of Ukraine—and they still do. They raise money and deliver medical supplies, books and clothes. I thank them all for their efforts and commitment. We rightly support the people of Ukraine against Russia, but we also see Russia continuing to seek influence in other parts of the world through money, arms and the rest. This is a geopolitical challenge that we think we are getting right in one part of the world, but we cannot afford to ignore it in others. What are we doing to help ensure that we neutralise Russia’s attempt at command and control in other parts of the world?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Russia exerts a malign influence not just in Ukraine; we have seen its relationship with the Houthis. We have seen its relationships in Syria. I am glad to see that they have declined in recent months, but it continues, through Africa Corps and a number of other arms of its state, to be a malign influence right across the world. Its efforts are always at the expense of the populations where they are found. We continue to work with our friends and allies across the world. I was discussing malign Russian influence in Yemen in recent days. I have discussed it in Libya. I have discussed it in Syria. We will continue to act across the world—as my hon. Friend would expect; I know he pays close attention—and we will not rest while Russia continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs. We wish to have a friendship. We have long and historic relations with the Russian people. I know that nothing would give greater pleasure to so many in the UK than to have a more normal relationship with the Russian state than we currently do, but that will require significant changes from the Russian state, which continues to exert such a malign influence on global affairs.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

One of the most important things the UK can do to support Ukraine is to push President Trump on a comprehensive G7 plan to seize the estimated £300 billion of Russian assets across those seven nations and funnel them to Ukraine. Please can the Minister confirm what steps the Government have taken to push President Trump to build international co-ordination on seizing Russian assets, including Sutton Place in my constituency?

[Mr Falconer]

We have worked across our allies and friends to ensure there is a robust and unified approach to these issues. I have described some of the statements we have made in recent days. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed the questions engaged in Ukraine at some length with the Secretary of State on the sidelines of the G7 last week. We will continue to do all we can and everything it takes to ensure we are putting the pressure on Russia that is required to ensure that this war comes to an end.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

In September I had the privilege of meeting, in Kyiv, Raisa Kravchenko and Yulia Klepets of the All-Ukrainian NGO Coalition for People with Intellectual Disabilities. They told me of the devastating impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on disabled people. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly distressing that when Russian forces have kidnapped Ukrainian children, they have targeted disabled children, and that when we can finally look to reconstruction and rebuilding Ukraine, specific support will be required for disabled people who have suffered so much as a result of Russia’s aggression and crimes—crimes for which Russia must be held accountable?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is right. These are actions almost beyond comprehension. To be targeting disabled children in this way is a crime that will not be forgotten. He is absolutely right: it is always the most vulnerable who are worst affected by conflict, and that is particularly true of people who are disabled. It is something that we consider in our own aid efforts in Ukraine and, as he says, must of course be considered as part of reconstruction efforts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and for his strong focus on the Ukrainian children. I also thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all that she has done—we appreciate it. The trafficking to Russia and forced adoption of Ukrainian children is truly despicable. The re-education camps that are brainwashing children to forget—or to erase—their Ukrainian heritage are detestable, and the need for British involvement is undeniable. Will the Minister please outline what steps we will take to bring those children home to their families, instead of accepting that they are prisoners of war, which is disgusting, inhuman and contemptible?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman’s tone is absolutely right. I have described some of the tracing efforts that we are engaged in, but clearly, simply locating these children in Russia is not enough—they must also be returned. We will continue to work at every level; the Minister for Europe has met with civil society organisations involved in those efforts, as has Baroness Harman, our special envoy for women and girls, and the Foreign Secretary has discussed the children with her opposite numbers. We will continue to give this issue the focus that the hon. Gentleman rightly demands of us, and I assure the country that we will do so until the children are returned.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It would seem that the traditional role of the American President as someone who can straddle the world stage, working with friends and allies to achieve outcomes for good across the world, is in danger of being diminished to the role of someone who proffers capitulation on behalf of another sovereign nation. That is something that we cannot accept.

On the children who are the focus of this urgent question, I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). As young people are returned—hopefully in increasing numbers—what work can we do as a country and a Government to ensure the reintegration of those young people into the society that Putin worked so hard to prevent them being part of?

[Mr Falconer]

We must work to see those children returned. We are an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and we work closely with the Ukrainian Government on these questions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one can hardly imagine the trauma, confusion and status of those children on their return to Ukraine. We will do what we can to support the Ukrainian Government in their efforts in that area.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

All of us want to see peace in Ukraine, but it must be on the terms of the Ukrainian people—terms that they are fully behind. Russia cannot gain, or be seen to gain, from its illegal and unprovoked invasion. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will stand fully behind Ukraine in ensuring that there is a peace agreement on Ukraine’s terms?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Ukraine’s interests in this House, and he is right. We are working with our friends and allies, particularly at the G7. I have described the statement that we agreed last week on the questions of ceasefire and negotiations, which, as my hon. Friend says, must happen on the basis of Ukraine’s sovereign interests. We will continue to work with G7 partners in condemning Russia’s actions—condemning its provision of arms to others as well as its actions in Ukraine—and increasing the economic costs to Russia, as we have set out in our most recent sanctions measures.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses. I will allow a few minutes for the Front Benches to swap over, during which time it might be helpful to remind Members that in an urgent question, the questioner gets two minutes, the Minister gets three minutes to respond, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman gets one minute. Any Member posing a question that is approaching one minute in length might think about reducing the length of their question.

Conflict in Sudan

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s approach to the worsening conflict in Sudan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the shocking violence against civilians in El Fasher. The latest reports, including of 460 civilians being killed in a single attack, are harrowing. This is part of a pattern of appalling violence perpetrated against civilians and is just one element of the suffering driven by the war in Sudan, a conflict that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid and 12 million have been displaced. Famine is spreading and cholera is widespread, with the parties continuing to block lifesaving assistance. As the Foreign Secretary said at the Manama dialogue last weekend,

“no amount of aid can resolve a crisis of this magnitude until the guns fall silent…the world must do more”.

The UK is using all the tools at our disposal to protect civilians, to get humanitarian aid to those in most need, and to secure a lasting ceasefire in Sudan. A year ago, the UK, along with Sierra Leone, brought a resolution to the UN Security Council. This would have brought forward concrete measures to protect civilians if it had not been so cynically vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, we brought international partners to London to host the London-Sudan conference to build consensus around strengthening humanitarian access and ending the war. On 30 October, we called an emergency UN Security Council session, condemning the assault on El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces and its devastating impact on the civilian population. We led a press statement to maintain the spotlight on the situation and the pressure on the RSF to de-escalate in line with UN Security Council resolution 2736.

On Saturday, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million in aid in response to the situation El Fasher, which will provide lifesaving food and health assistance as well as support to survivors of sexual violence. That is on top of the £23 million we have already mobilised from existing budgets through partners such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. We are providing £120 million this year to the crisis in Sudan, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this funding is protected. We will keep working at every level to bring this horrific conflict to an end.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The atrocities of recent days, including in El Fasher, are beyond horrifying. The suffering inflicted on the Sudanese people by this war is an affront to humanity. Red lines have been crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that cannot be allowed to stand, especially by the UK as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. Britain needs to use its influence to co-ordinate robust and stronger international action to tighten the screws on the warring parties, press them into a ceasefire and end this barbaric conflict.

The Government must go further and upgrade our support for those documenting evidence of these heinous crimes. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen? Will the Minister introduce more hard-hitting sanctions on the key operators and take concerted action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful conflict? Are actions of this nature being co-ordinated with international partners, and what progress has been made to build up organic civilian political groups so that Sudan can move back to a civilian Government after the ceasefire? It is essential that we have a credible day-after plan as soon as possible.

On the dire humanitarian crisis, are the changing territorial positions of the warring parties having an impact on the ability to deliver aid, and if so, what is the plan to counter this? We note the announcement earlier this month—I think last week in Bahrain—of the £5 million being provided for emergency aid support for the survivors of sexual violence in El Fasher. The whole House will recognise the importance of getting aid to them, so what can the Minister say about the delivery of that urgently needed aid? How is that happening? What discussions have the UK Government had with the Sudan quad in recent days? How does the Minister define the UK’s relationship with the quad, now and moving forward?

Can the Minister share his latest assessment of the region’s wider ability to manage the fallout from this terrible conflict? Have the Government carried out an assessment of what different outcomes from this conflict would mean for the security of the Red sea? Those carrying out the atrocities in Sudan need to know that the whole world is watching them and can see what they are doing, and that there will be consequences.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that important set of questions. On accountability, we continue to lead the core group in Geneva. We are supporting the fact-finding mechanism of the United Nations, and it is absolutely vital that work on accountability and justice continues. Those at the top of both the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces are responsible for the conduct of their forces, and they must be held accountable for their conduct.

The right hon. Lady is right to raise questions about humanitarian aid. I am afraid I can confirm that the shifting of the frontlines is affecting aid delivery, and aid is clearly not reaching El Fasher in the volumes required. The reports, including the report from the World Health Organisation last week, of both the events in El Fasher and the consequences for civilians are horrifying. I can confirm that both the Foreign Secretary and I were in touch with many key players in the region over the weekend, including members of the quad, the secretary-general of the Arab League and a range of others. This is a situation of the utmost urgency, and more must be done.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The UK, as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, has already played an important role in calling an urgent Security Council meeting this week, but what my hon. Friend says about Russia chimes with the Select Committee’s experience when we visited New York. It was suggested to us that the UK has held back from raising Sudan at the Security Council because it knows that Russia is likely to use its veto. Beyond providing direct aid funding, which I know is a priority for the Prime Minister, what can the United Kingdom do to focus the minds of the international community on the unfolding tragedy in Sudan? It has gone overlooked for far too long.

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend is experienced in these issues. Questions of aid are absolutely vital, but as the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, aid is not enough in a conflict of this magnitude. We are working with all parties to try to ensure a change in behaviour from the two conflict parties. They are taking steps that are not only inflicting horrific hardship and violence on civilians in north Darfur and wider Sudan, but restricting the vital flow of aid, which is so important. We will continue to work with a range of international partners, including members of the quad, to try to bring this conflict to a close. The quad’s statement on 12 September is important, and all external parties providing support to either side in the conflict must stop doing so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Rapid Support Forces’ capture of El Fasher, following an 18-month siege, has ushered in a new phase of terror. Reports of systematic sexual violence against women and the summary execution of civilians are truly horrific. The Minister referred to the UN Security Council, which met last week and demanded that all parties to the conflict protect civilians and abide by their obligations under international law. It is clear that those obligations are being entirely ignored. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN, the UK has a unique responsibility to show leadership and ensure that protection for citizens is more than just words.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm whether the UK sought at the UN to secure a country-wide arms embargo? Secondly, do the Government consider that the United Arab Emirates is a party to the conflict? Thirdly, in the light of reports that British weapons have been supplied by the UAE to the RSF, will the Government ban arms sales to the UAE until it can be proven that Abu Dhabi is not re-exporting British arms to the RSF?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me take this opportunity to be clear on reports about British arms, because I can see from previous discussions in this Chamber that there is some confusion. There was an article that made reference to a range of different arms that might be in use in Sudan, and I have already spoken about the importance of all external parties not supporting the two parties to the conflict. Let me clear: the UK is providing no arms that are of use in the conflict. As I understand it, the article referred to a seatbelt or a harness, which is not a prohibited item; components of an engine; and a target practice item, all exports of which were stopped in 2017.

I reiterate that we interpret our arms obligations carefully and strictly, but to clear up any confusion for the House, in some cases, these are not items that are prohibited at all. None of those items is eligible for export at the moment, and none would make any difference to the scenes of conflict that we are discussing this afternoon.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The situation in Sudan is beyond devastating. Indeed, Sudan’s ambassador has warned that a genocide is taking place there. As we focus on those who are being violated, I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK Government lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of the disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, no matter how long that takes.

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks a critical question. I am pleased to confirm that today, the UK has called for a special session of the UN Human Rights Council, in our capacity as leader of the Sudan core group. This is further action on our part to ensure that there is exactly what my hon. Friend calls for: accountability and scrutiny in this horrific conflict.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, what is happening in Sudan is absolutely appalling for the people there, but we cannot insulate ourselves from these sorts of conflicts. Mali is about to be taken over by terrorists. All over Africa, energetic young men are fleeing. They are walking across to Libya, being tortured and ending up in Calais. It seems to me that we must think outside of the box on this issue, and we should not wash our hands of it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): why are we cutting overseas aid at the precise moment when the whole of Africa is in absolute turmoil? We are not an island. These young men are coming here; it would be much better if we arrested and deported them, and sent them back—with some help; we should not just lock them up—so that they can assist with rebuilding Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia. After all, we are one planet, are we not?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour for his question. His questions in this Chamber often surprise me. I am very much alive to the issues he has raised. I was in Algiers two weeks ago, I think, and met young men of exactly the profile he described—men who had sought to leave Mali and had got stuck somewhere on their way to the UK. The conditions they find themselves in are much more brutal than those that the cruel human traffickers tell them they can expect when they leave their home country, and many of them wish to return. I will have to check, but I think we have supported 6,000 men and women in Algeria who have returned to their country, rather than attempted an onward journey to Europe, and possibly eventually the UK. This is vital work. In our efforts to smash the gangs and stop the boats, we must, as the Father of the House says, look right back to the places of origin, which include some of the places we are talking about today.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is estimated that 11.7 million civilians have been forcibly displaced. Of those, 840,000 are in Chad, which of course has its own issues. What support is being provided to Chad and neighbouring countries that are housing refugees from Sudan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

We have a programme of support for refugees displaced in the region. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Sudan’s neighbours face a range of challenges, and the burden of refugee support often falls particularly heavily on the places with the fewest resources of their own. I am very happy to write to him with details about Chad, but having served for two years in Juba when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) was Secretary of State for International Development, I know what a significant impact conflict in the region can have. It displaces large numbers of people, which puts huge pressure on public services elsewhere.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and underlining the importance of this matter by allowing further discussion on Sudan in the House. The Minister is doing a very good job, but the whole House needs top-level, prime ministerial involvement in this matter, just as Sir Tony Blair and my noble Friend Lord Cameron were involved when they were Prime Minister. We are witnessing wholesale slaughter. Today is not about money and humanitarian aid, but about impunity. These murderous thugs are bragging online about their part in the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. We need to keep very strong records, so that we can hold to account as many of these people as we can, and we need more action at the UN, where Britain holds the pen. We need to demand access for an African Union-UN delegation to El Fasher, so that they can meet the leaders of the RSF, and we need to prepare international sanctions to be visited on all its leaders.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, based on long years of experience. I will certainly discuss his suggestions with the Minister with responsibility for Africa.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification recently discovered conditions of famine in El Fasher and Kadugli. It has also stated that conditions in Dilling in south Kordofan are likely similar to those in Kadugli, but those conditions cannot be classified due to insufficient reliable data. Does the Minister agree that just as it is unacceptable to indiscriminately kill civilians, health workers and aid workers and restrict aid access, it is unacceptable to deny access for the purposes of famine classification, and are the Government making that point to the belligerents?

[Mr Falconer]

That is a very important point. It is absolutely vital that the IPC has the access it requires to make its classifications. I note with alarm and dismay how often this House relies on IPC classifications, not just in Sudan but in Gaza. It is vital that the IPC can do its work properly, so that its classifications, which are the world standard, can be relied on.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

In last night’s Adjournment debate, I called for a Lancaster House-style conference for all the parties to the Sudan conflict, so that a way to peace can be found. Government Members also called for a peacemaking force. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister please see to it that both of those suggestions are investigated, and that discussions are opened with our partners in the region, including Nigeria, so that the suggestions can be acted on?

[Mr Falconer]

I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. I am sure that he will be aware that six months ago, we did host a conference—I think it was in Lancaster House—for the whole world, in order to try to make progress on this question. We did so mostly privately, given the sensitivities for all involved. We will continue to do all we can diplomatically, both publicly at the UN and behind closed doors, as part of a concerted effort to bring this violence to an end.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) yesterday. He noted that in previous conflicts, concerted efforts had been made to bring in some form of UN peacekeeping force, but unfortunately, that does not seem very popular in today’s world. I will forgive the Minister if he thinks this is a naive question, but in addition to the humanitarian aid we are providing and the diplomacy we are undertaking, what can we do to stop civilians from being killed right now? Are we looking at any form of peacekeeping force, be it UN, African Union or a coalition of the willing, to stop civilians being killed right now?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks the right set of questions. Of course, the first priority must be a ceasefire. As he knows, there have been peacekeeping forces in Darfur previously, and they have faced very considerable difficulties in exercising their mandate when the conflict parties are not prepared to take the vital first step, which is to hold a ceasefire.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I have asked this before, and I will ask the Minister again: when will the Government publish their Africa strategy, covering both north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa? I fear that there will be other conflicts like this one, and as the UK, the US and the French have divested politically, economically, diplomatically and as regards the provision of aid, we have seen others fill that vacuum, such as China, Russia, proxies and terrorist groups. Unless the US, the UK, the French, and other partners and allies get together, and get back into Africa to support fragile Governments and stop them becoming failed Governments, we are likely to see our adversaries advance all over Africa—including in Commonwealth countries—and we are more likely to see more bloodshed, rape and torture and what one of our UK papers has called “hell on Earth” in Sudan.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment to these issues. I can reassure him that I have been in north Africa twice in the past two weeks, and the ministerial team will continue to pay Africa the attention that it deserves. I will have to revert to him on the question of the timetable for publishing the Africa strategy.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Despite it being the largest humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, and despite the mass rape and slaughter of civilians, when it comes to Sudan, it feels like the world has taken a moral holiday. The atrocities in El Fasher were entirely foreseeable—this conflict is not new. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is leading the fight to keep Sudan on the agenda and to secure accountability for the mass atrocities in Darfur, but does the Minister agree that it is time that global leaders followed the UK’s example and showed the moral resolve, the moral courage and the leadership needed to end this deadly assault?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is one with which both I and the Foreign Secretary agree. As she said at the weekend, the world must do more.

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

May I repeat the question that I asked the Minister’s colleague last week: are there no other regional powers that could intervene physically to separate the warring parties? May I put it to the Minister that, while it is fortunate that we have been granted successive urgent questions on this subject in successive weeks—thanks to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to Mr Speaker—it would be a recognition of the anxiety felt in all parts of the House if the Government made regular ministerial statements on it, rather than us having to rely on applications for urgent questions?

[Mr Falconer]

As I am sure the House knows, this ministerial team is very happy to return to the House regularly, and Mr Speaker provides us with plenty of opportunities to do so. I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments back to the responsible Minister. For reasons that I am sure he will understand, I will decline his invitation to comment on the regional balance of military forces.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Sudan is facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at the moment, with 150,000 people killed in the past two years and more than 14 million displaced. There are two aspects to this. First, humanitarian aid has to get to those who are affected, and urgently. Secondly, what measures will the Government take to stop the murder, rape and torture of innocent civilians in Sudan?

[Mr Falconer]

I agree with my hon. Friend about aid access. On the tangible steps that we are taking, as I said earlier, we have called today for an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council on these questions. We have supported the fact-finding mission. My colleague the Minister for Africa conducted an event at the UN General Assembly in September. The Foreign Secretary has described some of the work she has done, too. We will keep at it for as long as it takes.

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

British-made military equipment has been found in conflict zones in Sudan. That includes Cummins engines found in armoured vehicles, which were not subject to export licensing, did not go through any checks and were not subject to any diversion checks having been sent to the UAE. The Minister dismissed the concerns expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), but is it not clear that our arms export licensing system is not functioning, is not fit for purpose and needs a full review, and that we should have an embargo on all arms exports to the UAE now? I agree with him that the UK Government need to do more, as does the world. Does that not include international pressure and sanctions on all those with links to the warring party, including, as I understand it, the UAE and Egypt, which are supporting and fuelling the horrific conflict in Sudan?

[Mr Falconer]

It is vital that external weaponry does not flow into Sudan at this time. I would not wish to characterise my earlier remarks to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), as dismissing his concerns; it was an effort to be precise about what we are talking about. The articles in question are a seat belt, a target practice item and components of an engine. The engine components may have been licensed at a previous time, but since then those licences would not apply for getting the components into Sudan. We need to be clear that these are neither bombs nor bullets, and nor are they items that are likely to be irreplaceable.

We are looking carefully at those reports, but given the tone of some of the commentary in this House, I want us to be absolutely clear what we are talking about. Our arms export licensing regime is one of the strongest in the world. I recognise the strength of concern in the House, but we have a duty to be precise about what we are talking about. These are not arms as the public would understand them. It is right that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) raises questions about the engine components, and we are looking carefully at the reports about when they may have been transferred, but let us be under no illusion: the components for that engine are unlikely to be making a substantial contribution to the absolutely devastating violence that we are seeing.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Some 3.5 million children under five years of age are suffering from acute malnutrition. In January 2025, the former Biden Administration said that it judged that

“the RSF and allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan.”

Do the British Government share the opinion of the former Biden Administration?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House will know, genocide determinations are, in the view of the British Government, a question for the competent courts. That does not in any way take away from the horror of what we see and the reports that we receive, including the World Health Organisation reports from early last week, which are absolutely horrifying about the scale of the violence taking place in Sudan.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Sudan is a crushingly poor country, but it is not without resources, so it is hardly surprising that malign state actors and their proxies are closely involved there, and not in a good way. What can be done in particular to disrupt the smuggling of gold from Sudan to Syria by the Wagner Group to fund Russia’s war in Ukraine?

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend—my predecessor—makes an important point about the role of what was known as the Wagner Group and is now Africa Corps. It has suffered some setbacks in the region, not least in Syria, but it continues to play a deeply malign role. We are focused on what Russian support is doing to that part of the world, and it is all malign. We will continue to bear down on those questions in the way he would expect.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the aid that the Minister has outlined for this horrific crisis. He is right that we must be precise about what military involvement, if any, the UK may have via arms sales. He will have also heard the concern about the UAE and what is happening. Amnesty International has described it as a

“hub for arms diversion for years”,

affecting conflicts not just in Sudan, but in Eritrea. Can he update the House? He says that the Government are looking closely at the reports about arms sales. Can he update us on what conversations he has had with our counterparts in the UAE on that? How can we close those loopholes so that everybody can have confidence in this matter?

[Mr Falconer]

We have looked closely at the reports in The Guardian and the associated documentary evidence that it has provided. I have tried to set out our assessment of those reports. We are still looking in particular at this question of the engine and the licensing arrangements by which it may have made its way to Sudan. However, unlike some of the reports that I have seen online and elsewhere, this is not large-scale British arms; this is three specific components, and the dossier of documents included a range of other countries. That is why I have focused my remarks more broadly. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that the UK and the UAE continue to discuss these issues, including discussions on Friday between the Foreign Secretary and her counterpart.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Given the horrendous, apocalyptic scenes we are seeing in Sudan, and the fact that 25 million people are now estimated to be in acute hunger, does the Minister still think it was right for the Government to cut our overseas development aid budget? Can he commit to the House that the Government will increase it back to 0.5% of national income and use that funding to fund the UK’s response in Sudan, which is so desperately needed?

[Mr Falconer]

I am happy to enter into the wider debate about aid funding, whether in relation to Sudan, Afghanistan or Gaza, but I must also tell the House what I see on a day-to-day basis: in Sudan, just as in those other countries, restricted access is the single most significant cause of harm, and that is a result of the actions of the participants in the conflict. There is a debate to be had about the overall aid budget, but at moments such as this, when areas that require aid are being cruelly deprived of it, we need to focus on where responsibility lies, and that is with the parties to the conflict.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for the leadership they are showing on Sudan, including last week’s statement at the United Nations. The Minister is right to stress both the urgency and the horror of the current situation in El Fasher and beyond, but can he set out what is required next at the UN, in terms of both process and outcomes, to try to stop the violence and to tackle the ongoing humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Falconer]

There are three particular areas in which we are focused on UN action. The first relates to the fact-finding mission that we have supported, which is critical to accountability and justice; the second relates to the Human Rights Council itself, where, as I said earlier, there will be an emergency session; and thirdly, we will be discussing with our partners on the United Nations Security Council what more can be can be done following last week’s events there.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The 25 million people who are starving at the moment in Sudan are obviously victims of the most ghastly proxy war. What engagement do the Government have with the UAE on all this, and on its wider war objectives, given the vast mineral deposits that exist across Sudan, including in Darfur, which clearly a lot of people have their greedy eyes on? The poorest people in the poorest place, as ever, are victims of this war.

[Mr Falconer]

There have been a number of contributions this afternoon about the various countries with an interest in the region. We of course continue to discuss the events in Sudan with all members of the Quad and all those in the region with an interest, including the UAE, which we spoke to on Friday.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

I echo the comments of those who have highlighted that the atrocities in Sudan are absolutely abhorrent, and I welcome the Minister’s statement that we must hold those responsible to account, but may I ask for some further reassurance? Will he press for the expansion of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to international crimes committed across the whole of Sudan?

[Mr Falconer]

As I understand it, the ICC already has the necessary powers, and indeed it has secured a conviction for crimes committed in 2003. I am sure that the House will not find news of that conviction reassuring, given that it is 20 years after the fact, but accountability measures taking effect whenever possible, even after such a long delay, still makes an important contribution to the international justice architecture. However, I am happy to look at the question of the mandate if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment that the need to stop the horror in Sudan is urgent, but while I hear much talk of continuing actions, nothing, other than an emergency meeting called today, seems to be happening urgently. What steps is he taking to change, to move forward, to try some new things, and to make something happen as a matter of urgency to stop this horrible conflict?

[Mr Falconer]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, yes, we have called for an emergency meeting in the Human Rights Council today, and we have also been in discussions with our partners today. Over the weekend we announced the provision of a further £5 million. The Foreign Secretary has been extensively engaged in discussions with all those with influence, and I have been playing my part in the region this weekend as well. We will continue to be as imaginative and as determined as the House would expect us to be.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Rape and violence against women and girls has been used as a weapon of war in El Fasher, with militias acting with impunity. What support has been given to non-governmental organisations working on the ground to support the victims, and does the Minister agree that diplomatic efforts must be ramped up to end this horrific situation?

[Mr Falconer]

I do agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of diplomatic efforts. We have provided support specifically to deal with sexual and gender-based violence, which has included sending out a special team under the auspices of UN Women, and we are working closely with international NGOs through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund and other partners.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The public watching will have been rightly confused to hear the Minister and the shadow Minister speak of the importance of aid when it was their Governments who walked the aid budget back to 0.3%, a large percentage of which is spent in the UK. What assessment has the Minister made of the UK’s ability to support international aid efforts in Sudan and, indeed, around the world?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to be so clear about what is the significant driver of hardship in Sudan. I am happy to have this debate at some other time, but it is absolutely clear that the driver of hardship is the conduct of the parties. I am sure that there will be debates at other times about the overall question of aid percentages, but, as I said in my statement, Sudan has been protected, as has the aid for Gaza. We are trying to focus on areas where we can have the greatest impact, but when the primary issue is humanitarian access and the conduct of the parties, it is right for us in the Chamber to focus on those questions.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in its evidence to the International Development Committee, made some insightful observations about the focus of the Government as the penholder. In what way is the Minister using the strength of the UK to bring parties together to stop the flow of arms, mercenaries and other resources into Sudan?

[Mr Falconer]

We do of course use our role as penholder at the Security Council, but we try to use the full range of our obligations at the UN on this question, which includes leading the core group on Sudan at the Human Rights Council. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken today.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In addition to surviving bombs, bullets and sexual violence, the 24 million people in Sudan are facing an acute food shortage. According to Save the Children, people are eating leaves, grass and even peanut shells to survive. That situation has been further compounded by the expulsion of the World Food Programme’s country director and emergency co-ordinator. What steps, if any, has the Minister or his Department taken to ensure that the World Food Programme and other UN agencies can continue to deliver lifesaving assistance immediately, without obstruction?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I can confirm that we have raised directly with both parties to the conflict the importance of the issues that he has mentioned.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

What is happening in El Fasher is nothing short of catastrophic. My former colleagues at the International Rescue Committee report that although more than 250,000 people live there, fewer than 5,000 have been able to flee and make it to nearby Tawila, which suggests that many may be dead, or trapped in the city or along the route. Can the Minister say more about what the Government are able to do to get these civilians out?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is experienced in these matters, and she asks the right set of questions. The details of what has happened in El Fasher, and indeed what is still happening, are horrifying, and continue to emerge from north Darfur. We are doing everything we can to try to ensure the safe passage of civilians, but I must be clear with the House: progress is limited, and what civilians are facing in north Darfur remains appalling.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. Open Doors reports that there has been a spike in the abduction and killing of Christian men, women and children by radical Islamist groups. Church leaders have been targeted with false charges, including terrorism and apostasy, while Christian converts face violence, forced marriage, sexual violence, and losing custody of their children. Many Christians are forced to flee their homes because they feel that to stay would be unsustainable. Action for those persecuted Christians is needed. May I ask the Minister what can be done to protect Christians and religious minorities, and to stop the violence against them?

[Mr Falconer]

Freedom of religious belief is absolutely vital in the region, and I have raised these questions in the region over the past few weeks. Obviously, in the wider context that we are discussing, almost everyone is facing very serious risks to their human rights, but I will give the hon. Gentleman a further update in due course on what we have done in Sudan specifically.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As I have said before, this is a war on women, but women are also fighting hard as human rights defenders in the diaspora and in Sudan, whether they are running emergency response rooms or advocating for change. Can the Minister say more about how we are ensuring that our aid is going to grassroots, women’s rights-based organisations? In the discussions at the UN, in line with the Women, Peace and Security agenda, will we ensure that women’s voices are heard?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion on these issues, and I know that she has been committed to them both in the House and before her election. We are focused on ensuring that our aid reaches women and on the issues that are faced by them in particular, including— as I said earlier—sexual and gender-based violence. That includes the work through both UN Women, which I described, and mutual aid groups, and a number of other measures. I will ask the Minister for Africa to set that out in more detail for my hon. Friend.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

As people continue to flee from El Fasher to Tawila, a town that is already sheltering some 652,000 displaced people, it is clear that the situation on the ground in Sudan is not only extremely dangerous—not to mention barbarous in some cases—but chaotic. It is likely that Sudan will need ongoing support for a very long time. Has the Minister had those discussions with colleagues at the UN and from other interested countries, to make sure that that support is provided for the country, whenever we have the opportunity to give it that aid?

[Mr Falconer]

I wish we were in a position to talk about longer-term questions but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, as the frontlines continue to move rapidly and the conflict remains in such an active phase, our efforts have been most focused on the urgent questions regarding a ceasefire.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share the view of Members across the House that the crisis in Sudan is simply not getting enough focus from the world. I thank the Minister for his leadership in this area. The situation in Sudan is absolutely horrendous. In last week’s attack on the maternity hospital in El Fasher, almost 500 civilians were killed. In the words of the UN relief chief,

“women and girls are being raped…mutilated and killed—with utter impunity”.

We know that this is an increasing trend across the world: more aid workers and health workers are being killed. What are the Government doing to ensure that aid workers and health workers are not targeted? What we are doing to tackle rape and sexual violence in conflicts?

Will the Minister also remark on the fact that 11 UN staff are still being held hostage in Yemen by the Houthis—another example of attacks on health and aid workers across the world?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that specific attack. The details are truly horrifying: marauding through a hospital, killing civilians ward by ward, including the sick and the injured. This was a barbaric attack, and it is vital that we seek accountability for it, not simply for the people of Sudan but because we cannot, as a country or an international system, allow such things to pass without that justice and accountability.

My hon. Friend raises an important point about Yemen; the conduct of the Houthis has been appalling. I am pleased to inform the House that some of those detained UN officials have now safely left Yemen, but there is a worrying and deeply disturbing trend of Houthis capturing aid workers.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

With regard to the attack on the hospital, it is estimated that 80% of health facilities in conflict-affected regions are no longer operating, and those that are operating face shortages of medicines and supplies. That is leading to a resurgence of cholera, measles, dengue fever and malaria, as well as neglected tropical diseases such as leishmaniasis, leprosy and onchocerciasis. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that humanitarian assistance and medicines are getting to those who need them most?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cholera is now endemic in Sudan, and the spread of waterborne diseases is increasingly common in humanitarian crises. I know that there are Members on both sides of the House with experience of post-disaster recovery. Water and sanitation are always vital, and it is deeply disturbing that we are seeing these outbreaks in so many places. The Government will continue to do all we can in the way I have described.

Gaza and Hamas

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the actions taken to secure the elimination of Hamas from Gaza and the preservation of the ceasefire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The House will be aware of events over the past 24 hours in Rafah, including reports that Israeli strikes took place last night. Estimates of the death toll vary, but the suggestion is that up to 100 people in Gaza have been killed. We understand that these strikes followed an attack yesterday afternoon, where responsibility remains unclear.

As the Prime Minister said earlier, we echo the Americans in calling for urgent de-escalation and for all parties to keep the commitments they have made in the ceasefire agreement. We are clear that Hamas must release the bodies of all remaining Israeli hostages. The immediate priority is to ensure the unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza. The Israeli Government must urgently lift restrictions on aid entering, and international non-governmental organisations must be permitted to operate in Gaza to provide the scale of support that is needed. Civilians cannot wait.

This Government are working closely with our partners to do everything we can to support the transition from the ceasefire to phase 2 of the peace plan. This includes the disarmament of Hamas, the deployment of a ceasefire monitoring mission, an international security force and the implementation of transitional governance arrangements in Gaza. We are clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future governance of the strip. In recent days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the UN Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordination, Tom Fletcher, the Egyptian Foreign Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister about the importance of opening more crossings and removing restrictions on aid. As I told the House yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and I will be heading to the region shortly.

On 13 to 15 October, I co-hosted with the Egyptian Government and the Palestinian Authority the first conference to look at how we can leverage sustainable support to Gaza’s reconstruction. Britain will continue to play our full part in support of the ceasefire and the wider peace initiative. There is not a moment to lose to get relief at scale to those in need and to make progress on the pathway to a lasting peace.

[Priti Patel]

The situation in Gaza is fragile. We all want the ceasefire to hold and endure, and for it to transition into a sustainable end to the conflict, but that requires the terms of the ceasefire to be adhered to. The scenes of masked Hamas gunmen carrying out summary executions is sickening. Their continued hoarding and disruption of aid to starve Gazans is shocking. Their refusal to disarm is disturbing, and their failure to return the bodies of the deceased hostages is distressing. The hostages and their families deserve the dignity of a proper burial. Their loved ones have already been through terrible pain and suffering. No more coffins should be released with the wrong remains. This is a disgusting game that has to end immediately.

Can the Minister explain what pressure is being exerted on Hamas by the UK Government to ensure that they comply with the full terms of the agreement and release all the deceased hostages? Yesterday it was reported that Hamas gunmen killed an Israel Defence Forces soldier, violating the ceasefire and leading to the targeted IDF action in response. What is the Minister’s assessment of the threat that Hamas pose, and what practical steps is the UK taking to support the disarming and elimination of Hamas and the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that

“the UK has been proposing different ways in which we can help in the process of decommissioning and disarming Hamas, using expertise that we have built up over very many years.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 150.]

Can the Minister now say what Britain’s specific role is? This is a unique situation regarding Hamas, with terrorist infrastructure and threats funded by Iran across the region. What actions are the Government taking to rebuild their relationship with Israel, given the important partnership that we have with Israel?

On aid, what steps are being taken to increase getting aid into Gaza? Given the remarks by the US Secretary of State about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and its role in Gaza, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration about UNRWA’s future and the implications for the UK following the Government’s decision to give it millions of pounds, despite knowing some of the risks?

[Mr Falconer]

We track events in Gaza incredibly carefully. I do not intend to give the House a running commentary on each and every individual incident that takes place. The situation remains volatile and messy. I hope not to disappoint hon. Members if I avoid giving very specific answers on very specific incidents. Structures are now being put in place, including the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which plays a role in seeking to verify the facts on the ground where we can. That work obviously takes some time. The UK is making a contribution to it, but I do not wish to get ahead of that process from the Dispatch Box.

What I will say is that we have been absolutely clear on the threat that Hamas poses to Palestinians, Israelis and the wider world. That is why it is sanctioned as a terrorist organisation here. We are taking a range of measures with our partners to work through the very complicated but necessary steps, whether that is about transitional governance in Gaza, the security arrangements that need to follow, the international security force, or a whole range of other questions. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are deep in those discussions. We have been having them over the last few days, and we will have them in the region, too. This is an incredibly complex piece of work, and we remain very focused on it.

Just quickly on aid, I would like to inform the House that there appears to have been quite a significant uprating of the aid going in, particularly through Kerem Shalom, which is welcome, but the House will know of the centrality of the other crossings, particularly Rafah and the Allenby bridge. They are not yet fully open. Aid cannot therefore flow in the volumes that we would wish to see. We continue to work with all our partners to try to see them reopen.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from my hon. Friend. It is fairly clear that the Israeli Government agreed to the peace deal only because they felt they had to, not because they necessarily wanted to. After all this time, we still have not got aid flowing into Gaza in the way we would all want to see. What further action can the Government take to put pressure on the Israeli Government to ensure that all the aid that is needed actually gets in, and gets in quickly?

[Mr Falconer]

That is a vital question from my hon. Friend, who follows these things closely. As I said in my last answer, to get to the volumes that we need, we will need both Rafah and the Allenby bridge to be reopened. It is welcome that there appears to be an increase of aid through Kerem Shalom—both UN aid and private trucks. It is vital that the Palestinian private sector, particularly in Gaza, can get goods in, restart the market and enable people to go about their normal lives. We will, as he would expect, continue to work with all our partners until we see the reopening of those crossings.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The ceasefire was a rare moment of hope despite the challenges ahead, so we share the dismay that extremists on both sides continue to look for opportunities to restart the war. We feel the distress of the hostage families being tortured by Hamas cruelty, and the grief of those whose family members—women and children—die under IDF bombs. The fake recovery of bodies by Hamas, as evidenced by the Red Cross, is a cruel and despicable act. Yet we can also see that extremists in the Netanyahu Cabinet, who have no interest in peace nor in the rights of Palestinian civilians, are straining at the leash to retaliate. It is this cycle of violence and suffering that we must break.

What steps have the Government taken to work with regional partners to force Hamas to find and return the remaining hostage bodies and to disarm? Given the importance of maintaining President Trump’s interest and attention, what conversations has the Minister had with US counterparts to ensure that the White House does not lose focus on the prize of peace through a two-state solution?

[Mr Falconer]

I can reassure the House that the British Government remain in very regular contact at the highest levels with the American Government on these questions. The American Government, as I think has been clear in recent days, remain very focused on these issues, which is to be welcomed and supported, as the hon. Member says. He raises important points about the recovery of bodies. I can confirm that I have been in talks with many of my opposite numbers across the region—most recently my Qatari opposites yesterday—as has the Foreign Secretary, and we continue to make these points with force.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. He has done a great job over time updating this Chamber—he has been terrific through this difficult period. Will he say more about the type of aid that he thinks our country needs to send into Gaza to support the people there?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. There are two areas in which aid will be particularly vital. Of course, there are the immediate needs of the Gazan people. Most recently at Sharm el-Sheikh, the Prime Minister announced a £20 million contribution to the humanitarian programme to meet those needs, which will be focused on water, sanitation and health. There is also a need for the sustainable reconstruction of Gaza. The message that we hear so often from Palestinians is that they wish for their own companies and private sector to be engaged in that endeavour, and do not simply wish to see the World Bank or the United Nations leading the charge. They, too, want to take agency in those questions. That was one reason we involved them so closely in the conference that I held in October.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Once again, it is the children of Gaza who seem to bear the brunt of the violence, with reports that 35 of them were liquidated overnight in the casual dropping of bombs in retaliation. Equally as shocking is the realisation that there will be absolutely no accountability whatsoever for those deaths, likely no investigation into the targeting or intelligence used, and no sense of any punishment for what is very obviously a significant crime. Allied to that is the fact that it has proven quite a handy distraction from the significant violence and brutality taking place daily in the west bank. Given that we have now recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation, will there be any further measures to deter Israeli aggression on Palestinian soil?

[Mr Falconer]

We have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about events in the west bank, and we have announced three waves of sanctions—including at the most senior levels—against the Israeli Government. I reassure the House that we remain very focused on settler violence. We are moving into the olive harvesting period, which, as the right hon. Member will know, is a period in which violence is often particularly high. Regrettably, we are seeing similar trends this year. I will have more to say about that later in the day.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s first point on individual incidents, I refer him to my previous comments. It is important, at such a delicate moment for the ceasefire, that we are as precise as possible. That is why the CMCC is engaged in the way that it is.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The International Court of Justice has called on Israel to allow aid into Gaza, denounced its occupation of Palestinian territories as unlawful, and demanded the removal of troops. Does the Minister understand that as long as there are boots on the ground and UK arms are still sold to Israel, and unless Palestinians are allowed to determine their fate and be free of the violence that they continue to face, they will not have the peace that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I think my hon. Friend refers to the ICJ advisory opinion in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As the House will be aware, there has been another advisory opinion from the ICJ more recently in relation to aid accessing Gaza. Assuming that she is asking about the former, we have made significant decisions since that advisory opinion—not least on the recognition of the Palestinian state. I clarify once again for the House that no British weaponry is used either in Gaza or in the west bank, other than subject to the messages relating to F-35s that we have discussed previously.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister quite rightly said that Hamas must disarm and that there can be no place for Hamas in the future of Gaza, yet the White House appears to be licensing Hamas to conduct internal security operations. What conversations is he having with his US counterparts to reconcile the UK position, which he clearly outlined, and that of the US?

[Mr Falconer]

As the right hon. Member knows, disarmament is usually a process. It takes time and requires serious and greatly complex technical work. We want to ensure that Gaza is free of Hamas and that Hamas are disarmed. That will take time, and it is the work that we and the Americans are engaged in.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Both in Gaza, where grassroots peacebuilders will face the immense task of reconciliation, and here at home, where debate has become dangerously polarised, the peace plan and the two-state solution remain the only credible path forward, and we must all be absolutely clear in condemning Hamas, who have no place in the future governance of a free Palestine, and the atrocities that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right Government continue to commit. Put simply, two wrongs do not make a right. I urge the Minister to make a statement calling for unity at this fractious time.

[Mr Falconer]

There have obviously been innumerable wrongs in the region in recent months. It is important that we now continue the work, move forward with the ceasefire into phase 2, and see the wider peace plan fully implemented.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Throughout these horrific two years, I have kept trying to make the case for the innocents—for the people who did not choose any of this and who are not responsible. It is completely unacceptable that Hamas have not released all the bodies, and it is equally unacceptable that the Israeli authorities released 100 Palestinian bodies with just numbers. What are the Government doing to help the Palestinian authorities to identify all the bodies that have been returned, in both Israel and Palestine, so that families can grieve and the dead can have the dignity that they deserve?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member speaks with personal experience, real force and a long track record on these issues. My heart goes out to families on both sides. Mortuary processes are difficult at the best of times; one can only imagine the agonies that they are facing. We are not aware of specific requests for support in mortuary services, but if they are any, I am very happy to consider them.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Let us be clear: peace cannot exist under impunity. Weeks into the ceasefire, Israel has once again bombed Gaza, killing over 100 Palestinians, including 35 children, as it continues its genocide. Our Government have shamefully yet to reply more than a year and a half after the substantial ruling by the International Court of Justice, which made it absolutely clear that any Government who allow trade with Israel’s settlement economy are complicit in sustaining the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. British companies continue to trade in goods and financial services with the settlements, undermining our obligations under international law. When will the Government suspend the UK-Israel trade deal and end all trade linked to the settlements, or will the Minister continue to sit back and allow this complicity?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to the ICJ advisory opinion. I would not want the House to have the impression that the British Government have done nothing. At the centre of that advisory opinion is the question of the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have been clear, subsequently, in recognising the status of that territory.

The hon. Member raises important questions about the trade in goods with settlements. We do not accept trade with settlements on the same basis as trade with Israel. Where British companies are doing so, they are in breach of the trading arrangements, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will take an interest. They must ensure that they know who they are trading with and in which territory. If people in settlements wish to falsely label where the thing is produced, it is difficult—as a whole range of nations and states have found—for others to determine.

I know that the hon. Member follows these issues closely. He will no doubt be interested in the efforts of the Irish Government to try to pass exactly the kind of legislation that he is describing, and in the very many difficulties that they have encountered in so doing. We are not in breach of our international obligations. If he could point me to legislation that is in operation and does what he says, I would be grateful to see it, but I think this is one of those questions on which we must continue to work with our partners to ensure that the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories—part of the Palestinian state—is understood by all.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, on top of the absolute imperative of Hamas releasing the remaining hostage bodies and not only completely disarming but being removed from all governance in Gaza, there must be a widespread deradicalisation programme to undo the damage done by innocent children in Gaza being taught in their textbooks, some of which were funded through the UNRWA—an uncomfortable truth—to hate Israel and Jews? That deradicalisation must happen too.

[Mr Falconer]

Much work has been done in recent months, including under this Government, in relation to the curriculum in Gaza, and I am aware of the concerns that have been raised. The funding to UNRWA that we have provided, which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, included specific provision for ensuring that all reforms identified in the Colonna report, including on curricula, were followed through, and we continue to engage with UNRWA on those questions.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

My colleagues have already asked about the current horror in Gaza, so I will pivot to the longer term. Before this crisis, we saw decades of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory, so I welcomed the Government’s sanctions on extremist settlers and Israeli Ministers. I do not want us to lose sight of that issue, so will the Minister consider what further steps he can take, including trade restrictions, to combat illegal settlements?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there has been a significant increase in settlements and in violence associated with those settlements. This is a continued problem, and we will continue to work at it, alongside our partners, to try to see that terrible trend reversed.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I get the impression that the Minister shares my despair at what feel like constant impediments to real progress that are being put in place by the impunity of both Hamas and of Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal regime. The United States of America has indicated that Israel’s response last night was proportionate, and it backed the action. I am curious: is that view shared by His Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Falconer]

For the reasons I gave earlier, I am reluctant to be drawn into a day-by-day commentary on the actions of both sides. What is key is that we keep the ceasefire going, and that is what the Americans have been clear is still in place. This is going to be difficult. The events of the last 24 hours have been difficult, and I am sure that we will have further difficult days ahead. This is not a straightforward path, and if the right hon. Gentleman doesn’t mind, I will not be drawn on an individual instance today.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is now 19 days since 10 October, and there are still hostage families who cannot grieve for a loved one, and still people starving in Gaza because there is not enough aid, and now we are seeing the west bank deteriorate. In the last 24 hours, Vice-President Vance has argued that “skirmishes” are somehow inevitable. With the greatest will in the world, the death of 35 children and possibly more is not a “skirmish”. If the international community can do anything, it is to be involved in the detail of ensuring that the ceasefire holds. If the Minister will not tell us what the Government’s response is, will he at least say what possible justification the Israelis have given for the latest incident?

[Mr Falconer]

I do not wish to spend too much time at the Dispatch Box repeating the statements of others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who follows this issue closely, will have seen what the Israeli Government provided as justification, the statements from Hamas denying that they were involved in the shooting in Rafah, and the considerable uncertainty that has surrounded some of those events. The key question for the British Government is whether or not we think the ceasefire can hold, and whether we think we can make all the progress, that my hon. Friend describes, on reopening the aid crossings, disarming Hamas, and transitional governance arrangements. I am not for one second taking away from the gravity of these incidents—lives have been lost, children have been killed—but the role that stands before the British Government at the moment is to ensure that the ceasefire does not break down. That does not mean that we do not get into the detail. We have a major general in the Civil Military Co-ordination Centre who is part of the efforts to ensure that when violence and threats to the ceasefire occur, we understand the who and the why, but I will not give a running commentary from the Dispatch Box until we are in a position to do so.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Minister has already acknowledged that it is olive harvest season in the west bank—a harvest that supports approximately 100,000 farming Palestinians—yet we have seen more than 150 attacks by settlers against those farmers. How are the Government holding the Israeli Government to account to stop those settlers acting with impunity?

[Mr Falconer]

As the hon. Member rightly identifies, this is a period of particular danger. We have repeatedly condemned the increase in violence that is associated with settlements, and we have made sanctions against that. We will continue to make those points strongly in this harvest season as we did during the last.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

All Members have been appalled by the scenes that emerged from Gaza in the wake of the ceasefire, showing Hamas executing people in the streets as they seek to reassert control over the area. Does the Minister agree that such scenes simply reinforce that Hamas are nothing but terrorists and murderers, and that they must have nothing to do with the future governance of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes we have seen, which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, are chilling. Hamas are terrorists and they can have no role. The work to remove and disarm them will not be easy, but it is the vital and necessary next step.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Yesterday it emerged that Hamas do know where the bodies of the remaining hostages are, as video evidence emerged of them playing games with one body, removing it from a building, burying it, then bringing along the International Red Cross and pretending that they had found it and dug it up. Do the Minister and the Government condemn that, and what more can they do with our international allies and the Gulf nations to put pressure and leverage on Hamas to return all the remaining bodies immediately?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member is right: Hamas must return all the bodies immediately. We have made that point to our regional partners with force, and we will continue to do so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The war crimes carried out by Israel last night, including the killing of 35 children, are a continuation of the horrors that we have seen over the last two years visited on the people of Palestine by a state led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is currently wanted for war crimes. The Government rightly brought wide-ranging sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine and its war crimes, but is it the truth that unless there are real consequences for Netanyahu and Israel for these war crimes, they will carry on? A lack of action and sanctions is giving the green light and treating them with kid gloves, so is now the time for extensive widespread sanctions on Israel? Why is Israel treated differently from Russia, and why is Netanyahu treated differently from Putin?

[Mr Falconer]

We have discussed sanctions in this House many times, including the three waves during my time in government, and including against two Ministers. The priority now has to be to make the ceasefire work, to move to phase 2, and to get through all these incredibly important and complex questions, and that is the focus of this Government.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Over the past decade there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the conflict, and the continued advocacy for a two-state solution. Civil society organisations have played a vital role during this time in entering that chasm. Will the Minister outline how the Government are providing help to those organisations? For example, will it be through the recently announced international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

[Mr Falconer]

We remain focused on supporting the whole range of civil society. The hon. Member will be aware of some of the proposals in the Knesset, which we have opposed and to which I referred in my opening remarks. We will continue to conduct that work and will have more to say about the fund she refers to in the coming days and weeks.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The ceasefire has been one of the few positive achievements in what has been an unending tale of misery, violence, and horrific suffering, and all those involved in achieving that ceasefire deserve the gratitude and recognition that has been received. Now as Israel continues to kill Gazan children, and Hamas refuse to disarm, will the Minister reassure us that everyone involved in achieving a ceasefire in the US, the UK, and the middle east is equally concentrated and focused on keeping the peace and making the ceasefire work as a beginning of a peace process? Can he further reassure us, given our recognition of Palestine, that the Palestinian voice will be heard?

[Mr Falconer]

I reassure the House that I am absolutely certain that everyone in the UK who is working on this is focused on ensuring that the ceasefire sticks in the way that my hon. Friend describes. Indeed, I can tell from our many contacts with the American system that they remain similarly focused. They want this ceasefire to stick, and they are working to try to ensure that it does.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give assurances to the House that this Government are utterly committed, along with our international allies, to eradicating Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure, and that they will not cease until Hamas have been fully dismantled and obliterated, and the remains of those hostages murdered in captivity have been returned?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), we are committed to ensuring that those bodies are returned and that Hamas are disarmed. The infrastructure of Hamas is not just heavy weapons and small weapons, as has been the case in other conflicts; there is also a network of tunnels under Gaza that have posed a very significant threat to Israel. Dismantling them is a difficult and complex engineering and military task, but it needs to be included as part of the process.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Minister’s commitment to work to support Chevening scholars to leave Gaza, particularly the decision to extend that support to students with full scholarships. Will the Minister update the House on the latest steps that the Government have taken to support Gazan students who wish to study in the UK, particularly those I have been arguing about who have dependants who they understandably do not wish to leave in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a little bit about the wider evacuation operations. Evacuations have continued, including on Monday and Tuesday this week, both for students, who my hon. Friend has been so doughty in pursuing, and for highly medically vulnerable children who can benefit from UK support. That work continues, and I have been working alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We have been able to help many people to get to the UK to transform their lives by getting vital medical assistance and educational opportunities, which I hope will allow all of them to make a real contribution to the future of Palestine.

The operations to get people in and out of Gaza have been incredibly complex, not least given the most recent closures. I am afraid that there are very strict limits on how many dependants anyone can bring out. We have made an update to our policy in relation to students who are fully funded, which says that we can support a very small number of dependants to leave. I know that many hon. Members with an interest in this have engaged with me directly, and I reiterate that these operations remain incredibly complex. I am happy to talk to all hon. Members who have an interest, but there is neither infinite capacity in the UK to support people, nor, even with our partners, unlimited capacity to get people out. We have made an announcement and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and many others across the House, but I wish to keep people’s expectations suitably focused on the very many constraints that remain on these operations.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Renewed violence in Gaza continues against a backdrop of unimaginable human suffering. Millions remain in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies, yet aid convoys continue to face unacceptable obstacles. The UN reported yesterday that many of the 177 aid trucks that entered Kerem Shalom were limited by congestion on coastal roads, in part because of damage to that aid route, meaning that they were forced to limit their supply of aid far below what was agreed. As yet, aid routes are not fully open, but Gazans cannot wait any longer. Aid restrictions should never have been there in the first place. What specific pressure are the Government exerting on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli authorities to get the routes fully open and the aid in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member asks an important question. As I said earlier, it is welcome that there has been an increase in Kerem Shalom, but there is congestion too. The UN, the private sector and a number of donors who are not using the UN are all trying to get aid through Kerem Shalom, so the congestion that she describes is perhaps to be expected. It is vital that other routes, including the Allenby bridge with Jordan and the Rafah crossing, which has already been the subject of much discussion, reopen too. We are working with our partners on these questions. We want to see progress soon—I would like to see it in days—but this has proved to be more complex than I had hoped and talks are ongoing.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I place on record my thanks to the Minister for his tireless work on the issues in the middle east. The devastation continues for Palestinian people living in Gaza, whether from the murderous intent of Hamas or from further strikes from Israel, which reportedly killed 104 people, including 46 children, overnight. Alongside that, Gaza’s healthcare system has been decimated, and it is always women and girls who end up being the worst victims in such circumstances. Does the Minister agree and will he update the House on how further aid can be directed to support women and girls in particular, and to rebuild healthcare systems in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

These are vital questions from my hon. Friend, who I know has remained very focused on the issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West, who has kindly joined me on the Front Bench, and I remain focused on the issues. As access to Gaza becomes easier, as we all hope that it does, among the most urgent actions are ensuring that medical supplies, personnel and infrastructure are in place to meet the very significant needs of Gazan people. We will continue to work closely on that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Every day since the ceasefire took place, at least 20 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the IDF. There have been numerous other breaches of the ceasefire and continued military activity in the west bank. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain no longer flies RAF aeroplanes over Gaza, no longer co-operates with Israel on its security arrangements, and no longer supplies any weapons to Israel, because of its frequent breaches of the ceasefire and its continued abuse of the people of Gaza and the west bank?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our arrangements in relation to arms and the very significant suspensions that we made from the Dispatch Box a number of times—they remain in place. The right hon. Member asks about RAF flights; I think he refers to the RAF flights that were attempting to find hostages in Gaza. Those flights have stopped. The hostages have been released, so there is no further function for those flights and they have ended.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

One crucial factor in achieving the current ceasefire was the unprecedented declaration at the end of July by all 22 members of the Arab League, calling on Hamas to release the hostages, lay down their arms and give up power in Gaza. That was hugely important in showing Hamas that they had run out of road. What role do the UK and our partners have in influencing that declaration? Does the Minister agree that our strong diplomatic relations, led by our excellent diplomats, have a positive impact?

[Mr Falconer]

I associate myself very much with my hon. Friend’s comments. He knows that neck of the woods well. Our diplomats are excellent. I was pleased to be in New York in July when the declaration he describes was made. It was part of a declaration that included our own commitments in relation to the Palestinian state, which led to our recognition in September.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

We all hope desperately for a just peace in Gaza. I served alongside the Minister as a diplomat in the middle east and as a soldier. Given that, I particularly welcome the proposed international security force, but it is essential that such a force includes troops from Arab countries and possibly from western countries too, in order to reassure the Israelis, and that it is there for the long term and ready to take casualties. Will the Minister update the House on what progress there has been on the composition and the mandate of the potential force?

[Mr Falconer]

My friend the hon. and gallant Member is right to focus on some of these practical questions. He, like me, served in countries where peacekeeping forces were unable to keep the peace and unwilling to take casualties, and were therefore unable to fulfil their mandate. These are some of the most central and most delicate questions around the ISF. I hope he will forgive me for not giving a detailed commentary at this time, but I expect to return to the House to provide more detail when I am able.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

There have been recent press reports that the Israeli Government have been arming factions within Gaza in order to destabilise Hamas. Can the Minister comment on any of those reports? What is the position of the British Government on that?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said earlier, I will not provide extensive commentary on reports, but clearly safety and security for Gazans will involve Palestinian authorities able to ensure law and order. Those who have been living in Gaza have suffered terribly; there has been widespread looting and violence. I am sure many will pore over the question of who those factions and criminals are and who is supporting them. The key thing now is that security needs to return to Gaza, and that security cannot be provided by the masked Hamas gunmen that the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly referred to at the outset, so that work continues.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of securing the swift and urgent supply of aid to all those in need in Gaza, but he has also mentioned that some of the crossings remain disrupted or fully closed. What reasons have been given for the continued delay in reopening all the crossings?

[Mr Falconer]

There has been some public reporting of Israeli concerns about the Allenby bridge, particularly after the violence there. Rafah is a subject that we have discussed many times in this House, and it remains an absolutely critical artery. It is true to say that in both the Allenby crossing and Rafah there will need to be agreement between both countries. I hope that agreement can be secured quickly, that Israel removes the restrictions in place, and that we see the free flow of aid through those crossings very shortly.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and his focus on maintaining the ceasefire. I stand in solidarity with the many ordinary Palestinians living under Hamas and with the families in Israel waiting for their loved ones to be returned, but I cannot conclude that what Netanyahu has done in the last 24 hours was proportionate in any way. I continue to hope and pray for peace. With peace will come the opportunity to rebuild Gaza, but I do not see how that can be done when Israel holds so many people without charge, particularly healthcare workers. My constituent Eman is really concerned about Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who is being held. Does the Minister agree it is really important that people, particularly healthcare workers, should not be held without charge? Is he having negotiations with Israel on their release?

[Mr Falconer]

Due process is incredibly important. I have raised this specific case with the Israeli authorities. It is important that adequate explanations are provided where people are detained, particularly doctors who are providing vital, lifesaving work. We will continue to take this matter up with the Israelis.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Overnight, more than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Once again, innocent civilians are suffering a collective punishment, this time imposed for breaches of the ceasefire by Hamas. Unless this Government believe that all Palestinian civilians are Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets, the Minister must unequivocally condemn these attacks on innocent civilians. Will he unequivocally condemn those attacks and call them what they are: an egregious breach of international humanitarian law?

[Mr Falconer]

I think I have covered those questions already in this session, but let me be absolutely clear: all Palestinians are very clearly not part of Hamas. So many Palestinians want to see an alternative. They want to see this process succeed and to see the ceasefire hold, and that is where our focus is.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Israel Defence Forces said this morning that they had

“renewed enforcement of the ceasefire”.

The strikes are reported to have killed 20 women and 46 children following the death of one IDF soldier. President Trump’s peace plan makes provision for Arab states to commit stabilisation forces. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he cannot provide a running commentary on such a stabilisation force, but does he share my view that after a ceasefire, the protagonists are the least well-placed to enforce peace?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not sure that I totally follow. The composition of the ISF is not yet determined, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague. We will no doubt discuss this matter further in the House once we are in a position to provide a fuller update. A number of states have indicated some willingness to provide troops to the ISF. I will clarify for the House that we have provided military personnel into the region, but it was into the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which has a different tasking to the ISF. These are all complex questions that are very much in negotiation at the moment. When some of those matters are more clear and finalised, I am happy to return to the House.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is horrifying that Netanyahu has bombed Gaza in a clear violation of the ceasefire. The suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. To move forward, we must demand justice and reparations for all victims of atrocity crimes and hold to account the perpetrators. What are the Government doing to uphold UK obligations under international law to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? What are the Government doing to push for journalists to be allowed in, given the Israeli Government’s outrageous restrictions, which prevent them from documenting the horrors?

[Mr Falconer]

International justice and accountability are of vital importance. That is why this Government removed the block on the International Criminal Court and continued to support that very important body, and that is why we continue to support the International Court of Justice. They are the competent courts and the process by which justice will be secured, and we continue to support them in those endeavours.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Are we expected to believe that in the months and years ahead, the Government will stand by their promise that Hamas must be fully disarmed and play no part in the Government in Palestine? I ask because a previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair, with the present National Security Adviser by his side, promised the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA and other terrorists would be totally disarmed through decommissioning. That did not happen: supposedly decommissioned weapons continued to be able to be used to kill, and we ended up with the surrogates of the IRA in government. Will it be any different in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

One thing I have learned so far as a politician is not to make comparisons between the middle east and practically anywhere else, and certainly not with Northern Ireland. I will allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular questions about the current arrangements. Clearly, peace is possible—we have demonstrated it here and in many other places. That has to the be the work of the Government, and that is what we are focused on.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It appears that this ceasefire is going in the same vein as previous announcements on ceasefires—primarily one side, the Palestinians, cease; the other side, Israelis, continue to fire. Some 20 Palestinians have been killed every single day since this so-called last ceasefire. Last night was the most violent, with more than 104 Palestinians killed and the targeting of a cancer patient camp. We all appreciate the Minister coming in week in, week out to answer these questions—I certainly do—but given that the UK has not stopped arming Israel since the genocide began, can he confirm how many export licences to Israel have been granted in Labour’s time in office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but I do not have the numbers precisely to hand. I did an extensive hearing in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee in which we went through the numbers in some detail, but let me focus on the key point. We have suspended all arms that could be used in this way; we are not selling bombs or bullets that could be used in Gaza or the west bank. The munitions that he and so many others in this country saw exploding last night on their television screens were not British.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers, his tone and his well-chosen words; we appreciate them. The moment that there were reports of shots fired at Israeli soldiers in Rafah and of an IDF soldier being murdered, my heart sank—as the hearts of many others probably did—because I knew that the tenuous peace had been broken by Hamas. Does the Minister accept that retaliation is inevitable? What role can the Government play, along with our allies, to rebuild the fragile peace process and disarm Hamas, remove their weapons and destroy them? Real and lasting peace can then actually happen.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question and his as ever courteous tone. The work is important. The threats to the ceasefire are many and varied, and we will continue to work with our partners in exactly the way that he describes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hamish Falconer Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to promote a Palestinian state.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The UK’s commitment to a two-state solution remains steadfast. The UK has provided £116 million of aid to the Palestinian people this year. I was proud that, on 21 September, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s recognition of the state of Palestine. That was to protect the viability of the two-state solution and support a path towards lasting peace. Meanwhile, the UK Government are continuing to provide technical and financial support to the Palestinian Authority as they build a viable and effective state of Palestine. In July, we announced £7 million in technical support to strengthen governance, accountability and civic space in Palestine. I and the Foreign Secretary remain in touch with our Palestinian counterparts.

[Andrew George]

Slow as it was, that is welcome indeed, but will the Government go beyond suspending new trade deals and actively review existing trade deals with Israel, including both goods and services originating from the illegal settlements, to ensure that UK trade policy does not undermine the prospect of Palestinian statehood?

[Mr Falconer]

The Foreign Secretary has already been clear about the importance of a single, effective Palestinian state, which of course includes the west bank. The hon. Member has heard from me on a number of occasions about the different trading standards for both Israel itself and the occupied territories. We of course keep these questions under close review, but the whole House will appreciate that our focus now needs to be on ensuring that the ceasefire holds as we move into the 20-point plan and towards the two-state solution that we all want to see.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

We all welcome a ceasefire and the recognition of a Palestinian state, but we must now support the Palestinian people. The head of the United Nations humanitarian affairs team has said that driving through Gaza City is like

“going through the ruins of Hiroshima”.

The people of Gaza who have endured this hellish war and survived now face a humanitarian disaster. They urgently need aid, and the UK, along with many other countries, stands ready to provide it. The block to this aid, as so frequently has been the case, is the Israeli authorities. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Israel stops blocking this urgently needed aid and humanitarian supplies, and to get them to the people who are desperately in need?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to update the House on this very important question. We are seeing a greater flow of aid into Gaza. That is, of course, supremely welcome, and something that we have long awaited, but it is not yet at the level we would wish to see. There are still restrictions on that aid going in, and, as the Foreign Secretary has been clear on, vital crossings remain unopened. We continue to engage with all our partners on this, and I and the Foreign Secretary will be travelling to the region this weekend to pursue that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

16. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help ensure that humanitarian aid can reach people in Gaza.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Alongside our international partners, the UK is working to get aid into Gaza on the scale needed to ease the desperate humanitarian crisis that is taking place. In recent days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken with Tom Fletcher of the United Nations, Egyptian Foreign Minister Abdelatty and Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar about the importance of opening more crossings and removing all restrictions on aid. We are ready to play our full part in providing that aid. We have announced £74 million of humanitarian funding already this year, including the £20 million announced at the peace summit in Egypt.

[Paul Davies]

I fully support the Minister in welcoming the US-brokered ceasefire, which has enabled the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza. As the Minister is aware, the UN and its partners have significantly scaled up their operations providing essential supplies, such as food, water, medical aid and fuel. However, given that border closures and ongoing political tensions continue to obstruct the flow of assistance, what steps are the Government taking to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access, and to prevent aid being used as a tool of political leverage?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following the US-led ceasefire agreement and the UN’s work, more trucks are starting to cross the border, but that needs to be scaled up much more rapidly, and we need the Rafah crossing fully opened, alongside other aid routes. We need international non-governmental organisations in, and able to operate in Gaza unimpeded. Civilians in Gaza cannot wait.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Norwegian Refugee Council says that, between 10 and 21 October, 99 requests by international NGOs to deliver aid to Gaza were rejected by Israel on the grounds that the organisations were “not authorised” to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, yet these trusted agencies have operated there for decades. Can the Minister tell the people of Gaza who are living in makeshift shelters, and who are hungry and thirsty, what the UK Government are actually doing to compel the Israeli authorities to immediately allow aid deliveries into Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

We need to see the agreement implemented in full. The Foreign Secretary has raised this particular case with the Foreign Minister of Israel. We will continue to press for the full flow of aid that needs to go in. The hon. Member rightly asked me what I say to the people of Gaza. I say that we understand the urgency, and that the aid needs to be in there now. We will continue to press those points on the phone, and when we both go to the region this weekend.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

12. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from her Department’s budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T3. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, and as I led a delegation there. The 2005 federal Iraqi constitution agreed in a popular vote to underpin Kurdish rights. We were told that Baghdad deliberately withholds salary payments to public employees in the region. The Foreign Secretary visited Erbil when she was Home Secretary, and knows how important this part of Iraq is to our security. Does she agree that we need our Kurdish ally to be strong and respected in a federal Iraq, and that a better relationship there would enable vital reform, for the benefit of that region and, indeed, our own country?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The relationship between Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah is of vital importance. I continue to discuss these issues with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, and Iraqi Kurdish politicians as well. We will continue to do so, and I look forward to visiting the region shortly.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T4. The UN Secretary General has warned that it is now inevitable that we will fail to keep global warming under 1.5°C, with the threat of devastating consequences, like the loss of the Amazon rainforest and its role in climate regulation. While the Conservatives and Reform continue to sabotage climate action, it is good to know that the Prime Minister will be going to COP30, but will the Foreign Secretary commit to making no further cuts to our international aid budget, so that we can contribute to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T7. On Saturday, I joined CAFOD and my constituents Karl, Harry and Jo on a deadlift challenge. We—and yes, Mr Speaker, that includes me—collectively lifted more than 100 tonnes, the equivalent of five aid planes to Gaza. CAFOD also works in the west bank, where Palestinians are being treated as second-class citizens living under military, not civil, law. What diplomatic actions is the Department taking to ensure an end to violence against Palestinians and to improve their rights while a two-state solution is negotiated?

[Mr Falconer]

The initiatives that the hon. Member took with CAFOD rightly highlight the importance of rubble movement in Gaza, which is an enormous logistical challenge. That was one of the reasons I convened the Gaza reconstruction conference in Wilton Park. She rightly raises the very important question of rights in the west bank. We have contributed and will continue to contribute to efforts locally to ensure that those resident in the west bank can exercise their rights, and we will continue to raise the wider issues around annexation.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Hurricane Melissa is of huge concern internationally, to those who have friends and family on holiday in Jamaica and to those of us of Jamaican heritage here in Britain. Will she give an assurance that in the horrific aftermath of Melissa, we will give every possible help and support to the people of Jamaica?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

It is an important question. We have condemned rocket attacks into Israel throughout—both before and after 7 October. The nature of the rockets from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad makes it harder to have a clear and indisputable number, but I will try to assist the hon. Gentleman on some of the other rockets. I believe that Iranian attacks since 7 October have included 600 rockets, killing 29 Israelis, and that Houthi attacks, which have targeted Israeli civilians, have included 100 ballistic missiles and drones.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I recently met the family of Davinder Singh Thandi, who died in suspicious circumstances in India. This has obviously been a distressing time for my constituents, and unfortunately they have struggled to get timely advice and support from the Foreign Office. I thank the Minister for her recent letter, but will she meet me to discuss their case and how the Department can develop a victims code to better support families like Mr Thandi’s?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Karim Ennarah is an internationally recognised human rights activist who has been subjected to a travel ban by Egypt and has been stuck there since 2020. What is the Foreign Office doing—or what can it do—to ensure that he is able to come to the UK to join his wife in my constituency?

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the case and have met the man in question and my hon. Friend’s constituent. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. I am travelling to Egypt this weekend and will continue to be in these sorts of discussions.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Cuts to spending in Afghanistan inevitably impact women and children disproportionately. They are more likely to be employed by NGOs forced to make cuts and more likely to need assistance. Does the Minister agree that we need to ringfence and protect funding to Afghanistan?

[Mr Falconer]

We have to be clear about who is driving the oppression of Afghan women and girls. The Taliban have put further restrictions on women and girls. They have taken further steps, including restricting the internet, that undermine the viability of Afghanistan’s economy at a fundamental level. But I assure the House that we continue to allocate significant funding to Afghanistan, with £151 million this year. That is a small decrease from last year, but I assure the hon. Member, who I know remains committed to these issues, that we remain very much focused on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Mr Yaxley-Lennon, aka T. Robinson, has been fêted in Israel at the invitation of a Government Minister, while the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, aka Dr Peter Prinsley—a British Jew, a member of the Board of Deputies and a vocal supporter of the Israeli people in Parliament—has been banned. What does the Minister think can be usefully done to rectify that?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly thoughtful, long-standing commentator on these issues. Both he and his family have made a great contribution to UK-Israeli relations. It was an act of great foolishness to prevent him from entering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We called on the Israeli Government at the time, as we did in previous such instances. We cannot prevent the Israeli Government from making decisions that are not in their interests, but that was clearly one of them.

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

The Government’s position seems to be that communist China can and does pose a wide range of serious threats to the United Kingdom but is not a threat itself. How can that possibly make sense?

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

Despite a ceasefire being in place for almost a year, Israeli forces struck UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon just this weekend. What work are the Government doing with the Lebanese Government and in particular the Lebanese armed forces to shore up our crucial ally in the region?

[Mr Falconer]

Lebanon is a crucial ally. I will travel there shortly and intend to go to the area affected. It is vital that Lebanon’s borders, in both the east and the south, are secure. That is vital for their security, as well as for ours.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

British national Jimmy Lai is currently in solitary confinement in a prison in Hong Kong. He has been there for five years. He is 78 years of age, he is in ill health and his trial will come to an end very soon. Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit, what representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the White House to ensure that when President Trump meets President Xi, the case of Jimmy Lai will be raised, as it has been in the last 36 hours by a cross-party group of 38 US Senators?