Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

The United States plays a critical role as a member of NATO and as a key ally—if not the key ally—of ours, but despite the priceless nature of the service it provides, we do not typically pay for it. We do not normally pay for its bases; we pay for our own.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I said I would give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

That is rather desperate. I give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister described this asset as “priceless”, yet he is giving it away—and not only is he giving it away; he is paying someone to take it! Is this the kind of decision people would expect from a rational Government? More importantly, if it is priceless in security terms, why are we compromising it?

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask that question. That is what we are trying to get to the bottom of, and we hope to hear answers from the Minister this evening so that ordinary citizens of this country can understand how it is in the UK’s interest to do this.

Of course, other points have been touched on, including, quite rightly, the Chagossians. Why is the Labour party—the party so committed to human rights and which very much sees itself as champion for the underdog—absolutely disregarding the Chagossians? As the hon. Member for Bolton West suggested, Labour also sets itself out as a nature and climate champion, yet it is handing this asset over to a country without the wherewithal—I do not know about the will, but it is certainly without the wherewithal—to ensure that the protection of that marine area continues. That is the problem, and it is why we need answers from the Minister. The Government may be unable to get anyone to speak in favour of the Bill, but they should think again, accept the amendments and new clauses, and bring some light to bear on this rather murky issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now.

The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight. When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only

“take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area”

after sovereignty has been surrendered.

We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all?

A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the marine environment in the area, but does he accept that we do not even need a change of heart by Mauritius? We do not need it to decide that the treaty was not worthwhile—it does not have the ability to give the protection. Even if there was no change of heart, there is no ability to give such protection, which is why this is a bad deal for the environment.

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman and I are the only Members in the Chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those Members in this House who are here to protect our environment and hold the Government to account on environmental protections.

Will the Minister now explain what will happen to the MPA in future, and say whether the Government will commit resources to support the protection of the MPA? If so, where will those resources come from? With the fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in marine protections before British territory is surrendered to Mauritius. When the Minister sums up the debate, will he say whether he shares my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences?

New clause 3 would require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the marine protected area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with developing the “separate…instrument”, referenced in article 5.2 of the treaty? Will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State regularly to report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from Committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius’s track record on environmental protections. Does the Minister agree with those concerns, and therefore agree that the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the British Government’s agenda, and will he reflect on that in his summing up of the debate? Will he now accept that, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security, without better protections secured in the treaty, the Government’s Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment? All of this at a time when the Government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices—choices that punished pensioners, family farmers, and taxed education for the very first time.

The annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos islands could pay for 3,068 new teachers, 3,253 new nurses or 1,975 police officers. In the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities —communities such as Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, which are still waiting for improved access to local healthcare. This was all a choice—a choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security, and over marine protections. It is shameful, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to support new clauses 3 and 4.

--- Later in debate ---

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

For no apparent reason, and in a crowded field, the Government have chosen the Chagos islands as one of the many hills they wish to die on. The surrender of the sovereignty of the Chagos islands has been a puzzling mis-step for months, with today’s votes the culmination of it.

There was a clumsy rush to try to force the deal through, first before the elections in Mauritius and then before the US elections, and there now appears to be an attempt to salvage some dignity, having seemingly surrendered

“meekly to a Mauritian shakedown”,

as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has put it, while trying to upsell the deal to a US Government that publicly backs it, given that it will not cost them a penny, but privately must have concerns over the impact of allowing Chinese encroachment in the region. With recent developments shifting the focus of US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific, the Chagos islands deal surely takes on greater significance. The base is now more important to US policy, not less.

Last December, the previous Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is in his place, announced that the deal

“secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia”,

and said that

“when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 28.]

Indeed, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) confirmed to me that

“There has been no change to the substance of the deal”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 764.]

That is strange, because the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, described the deal struck with the previous Mauritian Government as a “sell-out”, stating that the deal should be indexed to inflation, take exchange rates into account and fully recognise Mauritius’s ownership of the islands, which could affect the UK’s unilateral right to renew the lease. That was in mid-January. Less than a fortnight later, the Minister confirmed to me in a written answer that the UK would not have the unilateral ability to extend the agreement at the end of the lease. What changes were made to the original deal during discussions with the Government of Mauritius, and why have the Government gone on record as saying that the deal has not changed, in direct contradiction with the statements of the Prime Minister of Mauritius? Surely the Minister for the Overseas Territories is not suggesting that Prime Minister Ramgoolam is mistaken.

In January, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he had ever discussed the Chagos islands with Philippe Sands KC, his answer was a brusque, “No.” Brevity is key when trying not to give too much away. Philippe Sands has represented Mauritius at the International Court of Justice in multiple disputes over the Chagos islands. In 2022, Mr Sands published “The Last Colony: A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy” about Chagos. It is worth highlighting that Philippe Sands and the Prime Minister have apparently been very good friends for several years; they even interviewed one another at the Hay festival.

Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that the national security justification for surrendering the Chagos islands used by the Prime Minister came from Philippe Sands, who wrote about it in the 2023 book, “The International Legal Order in the 21st Century”. With Mr Sands apparently no longer representing Mauritius following the change in regime, it does make one wonder if that was the reason why there was such a rush to conclude the deal before the election, after which Mr Sands’ services were no longer required—did the Government lose their in?

I would be interested to know how the Government think the International Telecommunication Union would block our use of the electromagnetic spectrum. How would it block communications equipment on Diego Garcia without encroaching on our territory? What active blocking of electromagnetic frequencies is a UN agency capable of doing anyway? What steps would the ITU have taken to block the US military’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum had we not progressed this deal? The national security argument simply does not stack up.

New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the impact of UNCLOS on the operation of the treaty. The Government have previously stated that it is ITLOS that would pose the greatest threat to the operation of Diego Garcia. It was cited specifically by the Defence Secretary for the first—and only—time on 22 May, when he said:

“There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

In July, the Minister for the Overseas Territories referred to ITLOS for the first time since he was a shadow Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, when, in December 2022, he had stated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

“did not have competence on territorial disputes”,

going on to say:

“It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 162WH.]

He asked for assurances then. Now, nearly three years later, with a belligerent China flexing its naval muscle in the region and adopting a robust posture towards us over the delay to the decision on its London embassy and the obvious ongoing spy debacle, what assurances can the Government give the Committee that this opportunity will not be exploited by the Chinese Communist party?

As recently as August, the Mauritian Government referred to

“The strategic role of Mauritius as an investment gateway to Africa and a trusted partner for Chinese enterprises seeking to expand their footprint therein”.

Mauritius is committed to working closely with China—far closer, it would appear, than it is to working with us. Why are the Government prepared to embolden Chinese ambition in the Pacific? Why are they prepared to embolden Chinese spying in Parliament? Why are they prepared to allow the Chinese to build an embassy in London without absolute clarity on its structural plans? With all that in mind, why will the Government not include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The shadow of Jonathan Powell looms large over this deal, as it has over every aspect of the Government’s dealings with the Chinese Communist party.

Across the globe, we are seeing changes in the rules-based order. We must navigate this better. My fear, which is shared by all on the Conservative Benches, is that this capitulation shows no understanding of the changes we are facing. We need to ensure that this great nation stands up for safety, freedom and security across an increasingly dangerous world, and this opaque and furtive deal puts that at unacceptable risk.

[Sammy Wilson]

A deal of such implication, one would have thought, would have been hotly debated in this House, yet as has been pointed out, there has been no attempt to defend it by the Government. In fact, one could hardly call this a debate—it has all been one-sided. In a debate, people usually argue in favour of whatever the proposal happens to be and listen to and rebut the arguments from the other side. We have had no rebuttal from the other side—the Government—today, despite the fact that this is such an important deal.

For some people outside the House, this deal might seem to be an unimportant issue—where are the Chagos islands, and why do they matter? However, even if the attitude taken by Government Members is to say, “Our constituents are not all that interested in the issues around the Chagos islands,” there are issues with this deal that have been raised this evening that should concern them all.

Let us look at the issues, because they are addressed by the amendments. The first is human rights—the human rights of the people who were displaced in the 1960s and who are ignored in this deal. Their rights to self-determination and to decide where they live are being ignored, yet we are not getting any response from the Government—the party that talks about human rights all the time. They say that we cannot leave the European convention on human rights because human rights are so important, but they are ignoring the human rights of the people who are affected by this deal.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Since we are going to have a debate, I will listen to the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He says that he wants a debate, and I have given a number of rebuttals. He mentions the Chagossians, whom I will come to in my concluding remarks. I respect what he has to say, but I point him to remarks from the Chagos Refugees Group, which said in its communiqué to all of us: “We urge all Members of Parliament to support the Bill at its final stages and deliver long overdue justice to all our people. Passing this Bill will mark a turning point and the moment when Parliament stands on the right side of history and begins to restore what was unjustly taken from us.” There are a range of views within the Chagossian community, and I think it is important that those are put on the record.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course there are many who take a totally different point of view and whose wishes are not reflected in this Bill. The amendments that have been tabled to seek to remedy that situation are being ignored and opposed by the Government.

The second issue is the economy. On a regular basis, we hear how difficult the fiscal position is for this country—black holes we have to fill by taking money off pensioners, reducing benefits, cutting here and cutting there, and taxing people to the hilt. Yet when amendments are tabled that simply request transparency and the opportunity to look at the expenditure involved in this treaty, we hear no support from the Government. Either we are concerned about the fiscal position of this country or we are not. I would suggest that £35 billion—and rising—is a significant figure that we should be looking at.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful point. Is not part of the problem that we do not even know which budget the money is coming out of? That is the kind of simple question that the man or woman on the street would expect us to be able answer.

[Sammy Wilson]

We may not know which budget it is coming from, but we know whose pockets it is coming from: the pockets of taxpayers. To a certain extent it does not really matter, because all our constituents will pay for this deal. The Minister said that the Chagos islands were priceless, yet we are giving them away and giving away taxpayers’ money for them—and we do not even know how much we will be giving in the long run. I would have thought that some Government Members have concerns, if not about human rights then about the financial implications of the deal.

Especially at this time, national security is an important issue for every Member of the House, yet amendments that seek to ensure that there is scrutiny over what happens to these islands, who has influence in them and whether the treaty that has been entered into guarantees that our security will not be jeopardised are being refused. The Government are not even attacking the amendments or explaining their opposition.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the right hon. Member share my dismay that, despite a Government majority of over 170 and the fact that there are over 400 Government MPs, on an issue of national security only one Government Back Bencher spoke in this debate? Does he think that is an indication of how the Labour party views national security and an overseas territory being given away for nothing?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do. Since the hon. Member has given me the opportunity, I will make the point now—I was going to make it later on—that while no Government Members have been rushing to defend the Bill in the Committee, hundreds of them will be rushing through the Lobby at 10 o’clock or half-past 10 to vote for it. That is the worrying thing. Defence of it, there is none; support for it, despite the issues we have highlighted, there will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will in a minute, but let me finish this point. Yet here we have a Bill that does not give any long-term security to one of the pristine marine environments. Indeed, we are handing over responsibility for it to a Government who could not even get a boat to put a flag up, yet we are supposed to believe that they will be able to protect the marine environment if foreign countries attempt to destroy it by doing deep-sea trawling, bottom trawling and so on. I would have thought that the environmentalists on the Government Benches might at least have asked some questions about the treaty, or would have supported some of the amendments that seek to do that, yet we find that is not the case.

This is a bad Bill. It will have long-term implications for our country financially and it will have long-term implications for those people who felt that perhaps there was an opportunity for their rights to self-determination to be granted. They have not been. Of course, there are also dangers to our long-term security.

I will finish with this point. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the point he made. Sure, the Americans support it—as if the Americans always make good strategic decisions. They do not. Given the time tonight, I know that you would stop me, Madam Chairman, if I started going through some of the bad strategic decisions the Americans have made that we and the world have lived with and their consequences. Just because the Americans—for short-term gain or short-term interest—have supported the deal, let us not say it is okay. It is a bad deal. Amendments were made to try to improve the Bill. The shame is that those amendments were not debated. The Bill goes contrary to the beliefs of many Members on the Government Benches. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bill will go through with a huge majority.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Mr Jim Shannon. If people have contributed, they should make their way back to the Chamber. Danny Kruger, I am looking at you to whip your colleague.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad to be answering questions from my hon. Friend again, as he has been a persistent advocate on these matters. There is deep concern about events. The attack in Jerusalem was horrific, as I said to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The developments in the west bank, both over the summer and before, are deeply concerning, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising them. We will continue to keep all measures under review, as he would expect. We have taken far-reaching actions, with three waves of sanctions targeted in particular on violent settlers. We will continue to keep such options under review as developments proceed.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let us look at the facts behind Israel’s strike. We have a bunch of terrorists who have been sitting in the safety of Qatar for years, organising and financing acts of terror, including the mass murder of civilians in Israel this week, and boasting about their involvement in it. Is it not an advance that those people are eliminated and it is made clear to them that they will face the consequences of the terror that they organise? Is showing them that they will be pursued and punished, and that they will not win, not more likely to drive them to the peace table than to continue their acts of terror?

[Mr Falconer]

We have condemned the strike, and I do so again. It violates Qatar’s sovereignty. Obviously, the question of the facts of the strike will now be contested, and, as I said earlier, the Qatari Government are releasing those facts as they conduct a full investigation. Regardless of anybody else, there were Qatari officials killed in the strike, and it was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. For that reason alone, it is worth condemning.

Middle East

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

All action is under review at this time. We are pressing for a ceasefire, and our assessment is that we could see one shortly after the Knesset rises. My hon. Friend will understand that a ceasefire is our priority, as it is the single act that would stop the suffering that we are seeing in Gaza. She lists some of the actions she would expect to be under consideration with international partners. Of course, we must act internationally alongside our partners if we are to have any effect.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that this war must end. However, we must remember that it was started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people, took captives and still abuse those captives today. The war could finish tomorrow if the terrorists released those captives and agree to a ceasefire. Much has been said today about Israel trying to starve the people of Palestine, but the fact is that since the new arrangements were put in place to stop Hamas stealing aid, 82 million meals have been supplied in Gaza. Instead of talking about a two-state solution and recognising a state that does not exist—and that, if it did exist, would be controlled by terrorists—our Government should be standing by the Israeli Government, who are seeking justice for their own citizens.

[Mr Lammy]

I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, save for his remarks that the hostages must be released.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has replied to multiple questions on this topic, as have I. Indeed, I answered these questions in the due scrutiny that I received the other day. We do not have to provide notification in advance. The treaty refers to “expeditiously” informing after the event, and that is absolutely the normal course of business. I am clear that the operations and the operational autonomy of this base are secure under this deal.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is amazing that we are to give up an important security base without it being necessary to do so, that we are to pay billions to a Government that will allow them to make tax cuts while we impose tax burdens on our own country, and that the Minister stands here today at the Dispatch Box and says that he does not have time to explain why it is necessary to do so. Surely the way to ensure that we have proper scrutiny of this deal is to have a proper debate, or is he afraid that his own Back Benchers, once they hear the real story, will find it as difficult to walk through the Lobby for it as they did for the welfare reform Bill yesterday?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I totally reject his assertion. There is full support for this deal—and, indeed, full support for it from our allies in the United States and the Five Eyes partners. On the point about alleged tax cuts, at no point in his Budget speech did Prime Minister Ramgoolam say that he was planning to fund income tax reform with the money from this deal. That was very, very clear. Indeed, the rationale for this deal, which I have explained multiple times to the House, is that our national security was at risk and the operations of that base could not function as they once did. That is why the Opposition started the negotiations and why we have concluded them.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have been very clear about the nature of the new aid arrangements involving the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the levels so desperately needed. I have said so repeatedly, and we will continue to make these points with force.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Regardless of what one may think of the views expressed by the two Ministers who are subject to sanctions today, the fact is that this is nothing new—they have been saying it for a long time without sanctions. The question that must be asked today is: why now? The Minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza, and it will not stop Israel pursuing the terrorists it is bound to pursue in order to free the hostages and release its grip on Gaza, with the danger that presents to Israel. Is this a case of the Minister pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his Back Benches, and does he not know that this will only encourage Hamas not to release the hostages and not to agree to a ceasefire?

[Mr Falconer]

I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the west bank and, indeed, the events of the past two weeks. I have also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies, so I do not think that I have anything further to say about the timing of the announcement.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Arms are not getting to Israel that could be used in Gaza. My hon. Friend will recognise that the United Kingdom is a very small supplier of arms to Israel in percentage terms. I cannot account for other countries, and other countries have not made the decision that we have made. I stand by the assessments I have made that led to me suspending arms.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The House has debated this issue regularly for many months—in fact, for well over a year. However, we must remind ourselves why we are doing this. It is because brutal terrorists burned, raped, murdered, and tortured innocent citizens and took hostages, and then continued a conflict against Israel. In his expressions of anger today, the Foreign Secretary could have been much more balanced. Instead of talking about attacking hospitals, why is he not condemning the terrorists who use hospitals as bases, knowing the consequences? Instead of talking about the lack of aid, why is he not recognising the aid that is given, and the fact that that aid must not be allowed to be abused by terrorists in Israel, and—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Our constituents are watching.

Persecution of Christians

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Jesus of course warned his disciples that in this world they would have tribulation. Many Christians across the world have experienced that tribulation in their own personal lives. Over 340 million Christians are actively persecuted for their faith. That ranges from discrimination, to imprisonment, torture and death. I think many of us find it difficult to contemplate and comprehend that people making the choice to be a Christian know that, in some countries, that is what they will suffer.

One of the most moving experiences I have had in this House was at the Open Doors event, where I met a pastor from Nigeria, who told me that his church of 400 members was down to 22 because most of them had been killed. He was going back to be their pastor and to lead them, regardless of the consequences. I do not know how many of us in this room would have that kind of bravery. In this Parliament, we have a duty to keep highlighting these issues through the questions we ask and the debates that we have. The Government have power to do things through their trade, aid and asylum policies. One of the bishops in Syria told me that the Christian Church had been decimated in Syria, but even when refugees went to refugee camps, they were the first to be persecuted and discriminated against there. I think our asylum policy has to bear in mind those groups fleeing persecution and still being persecuted as they should have priority. There is much we can do and I hope that debates such as this one encourage the Government to do it.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I would like to give the mover of the motion two minutes at the end.

Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

This Government have taken action. We have taken action since the day we formed the Government. I would be happy to rehearse those things, whether it is the arms suspensions, the restoration of funding to UNRWA or the numerous other actions we have taken, but conscious of time, I think I will save that for another day.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I think we have seen a good example of faux outrage in this House today, as Members have condemned the Israeli Government. Would the Minister accept that, first of all, the Israeli Government have every right to decide to whom they give entry and to whom they refuse entry? Will he remind some of his colleagues that it was not so long ago that they were campaigning to get the President of the United States excluded from this country?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not sure how many more times I need to say the position about Israel’s right to control who enters its border, but I am happy to reiterate it one more time.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

While no one wants to see the continuation of war in Gaza, under the terms of the ceasefire agreement Israel has the right to take action where there is an immediate threat. We have seen that Hamas have refused to release hostages and are now firing rockets into Israel. They are planning further attacks and, indeed, attacking and murdering their own citizens who protest against them. Is it not reasonable in those circumstances for Israel to take action to defend its own country? Should it not be the priority of this Government to ensure that Hamas release the hostages whom they are cruelly and cynically holding, and to ensure that UK aid is not used to prop up Hamas and help them to reassert their authority?

[Mr Falconer]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: of course Israel has the right to legitimate self-defence consistent with international humanitarian law. Concerns about the risk of a breach of international humanitarian law underpin our concerns. He is absolutely right that Hamas are a threat not just to Israel but to their own people, and I have been absolutely clear on that question on numerous occasions at this Dispatch Box. Where there are any reports that Hamas are benefiting from aid going into the Gaza strip or anywhere else, we take serious action in response.

Gaza

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Despite the appalling abuse of the hostages who were released and the propaganda value made of them, in 42 days the Israeli Government have allowed 25,200 truckloads of aid into Gaza, which is enough to sustain the entire population for four months.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Nonsense!

[Sammy Wilson]

It is a fact. The concern is that Hamas are now using aid as their major source of income and are seeking to control the billion-dollar aid industry there now is in Gaza. What assurances can the Minister give that UK aid will not be used to sustain that terrorist organisation or to control the local population?

[Catherine West]

If the right hon. Member is reading things online, he needs to be careful that they are correct, because while there have been recent arrivals of aid, we all know that there is a continuing need for aid. We all want to eat fresh food, we all need fresh medications, and we all need water and all those other things, and the essential aid going in needs to be refreshed every day. What we can say in this House is that providing access to essential civilian services with that aid is also crucial. I encourage him to widen his sources of reading on the access of aid into Gaza and the west bank.