1. What recent discussions he has had with European allies on tackling foreign interference in democratic processes internationally. (901717)

At the Warsaw security forum earlier this month, I discussed with our allies our work to deter and disrupt threats to our democracy from foreign interference. The Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly that, in line with the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will establish a national centre for information defence to detect, deter and disrupt information attacks from hostile states. This is a very serious and important issue for our democracies, and all countries need to do more to tackle it.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for those remarks, but with Russian-linked interference operations continuing to target democratic elections across Europe, does he feel that the current arrangements are sufficient? He will know that the European democracy shield is developing new structures to co-ordinate action against foreign interference and disinformation, so what discussions has he had with our European partners about ensuring that the UK is fully involved in those efforts, including the proposed European centre for democratic resilience, so that we can better identify and respond to Russian attempts to undermine democratic elections across Europe?

The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and Governments across the world, and indeed across Europe, need to do more. Since October 2024, this Government have sanctioned 106 entities and individuals responsible for delivering Russia’s information warfare. That includes, in July, sanctioning Rybar, the media company resourced by the Russian state and responsible for spreading false narratives about Ukraine and interfering in European elections, including in Moldova. I hope—indeed, I am confident—that the centre that the Prime Minister announced is something we will work on with our European partners to counter this grave threat to our democratic way of life, frankly, across the world.

For a decade we have rightly been worried about the impact of misinformation on social media fuelled by hostile foreign states, but now millions of people get their information from AI chatbots. What work is the Secretary of State doing with European allies to protect the information provided by AI systems during elections here and overseas?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I recently read the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on these issues, and that was an important document. He is absolutely right about countering all the threats we face from AI, as well as taking advantage of the opportunities. That is something that the new centre the Prime Minister announced will definitely do.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it would be a disservice to the democratic process to identify attempts to interfere with it with invalidation of the result? Does he, like the Prime Minister, now accept that whatever Russia tried to do, it did not have any decisive effect on the referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union?

I and the Prime Minister have always accepted the result of the Brexit referendum, and it is important to say that. I do think it is important, though, that whatever side we were on in that debate or in other debates across this House, we all recognise that Russia is seeking to interfere all the time and to disrupt and destabilise our democracy. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a proud record on these issues.

Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Last Wednesday, Georgia’s constitutional court began hearings on a lawsuit brought by the ruling Georgian Dream party seeking to ban the country’s five main opposition parties. At a time when external authoritarian actors seek to undermine democratic institutions across Europe, what steps are the Government taking with our European allies to respond to the deterioration of democracy in Georgia?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this. Whether it is in Georgia or elsewhere, it is incredibly important that we speak out in favour of democratic norms and ways of life. We know that we face more of a threat to democracy and the rule of law from hostile actors across the world than at any time since world war two. This Government will bow to nobody in speaking out in favour of democracy and the values shared across this House.

I call the shadow Minister.

Moscow ships stalk our cables, Tehran’s agents seek to assassinate on our soil, and last week the Pentagon declared Confucius institutes a threat to our national security. In stark contrast, the powers I secured to allow these weapons of the Chinese Communist party to be closed here in the UK were scrapped by this Government. Does the Foreign Secretary think that Washington has got it wrong, and if not, will the powers be reinstated and deployed? While he is at it, will he expel every Iranian official with links to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and bring our allies together to freeze Russian and Belarusian tourist visas to protect us from their use to attack our country?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. She talks eloquently about the threats we face from across the world, whether that is Russia, Iran or China. It is incredibly important, and this Government will be absolutely resolute in countering these threats whatever form they take. Frankly—this is why this question is so relevant—the threats to our national life have changed. They are not simply the threats we are used to from the past; hybrid warfare is the modern threat, and we will absolutely counter it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Foreign money can be used to influence politics through sport. On 17 December last year, the Government gave Roman Abramovich 90 days to hand over the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club to benefit Ukrainians—314 days later, that has still not happened. What is holding the Government back from enforcing their own legal contract with Mr Abramovich through the courts? When might Ukrainians who are fearful about the winter see some of that money? In the light of this and questions over the ownership of Manchester City by Sheikh Mansour, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Prime Minister or the Culture Secretary about ensuring that overseas investors are fit and proper persons to own English clubs?

Let me deal directly with the most substantive part of the hon. Member’s question. I think it is a view shared across the House that the ill-gotten gains of Russia and Russian oligarchs must be used for the right purposes, not the wrong purposes. On the question he raised about Chelsea, I will be careful what I say because of legal processes, but we are absolutely determined to take action on that. More broadly, we will be urging in the coming months that our EU partners, along with Britain, move on Russian sovereign assets more generally, because we know that one of the most important things we need to do is give proper support to Ukraine through this winter and beyond, and Russian sovereign assets are an ideal way to do that.

2. What assessment he has made of future levels of uranium enrichment planned by Iran. (901718)

We have raised the UK’s serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, and that includes the Foreign Secretary raising it directly with Foreign Minister Araghchi. Iran has accumulated over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%—a level that goes beyond any credible civilian justification. Iran’s ongoing lack of International Atomic Energy Agency co-operation led us, together with 22 countries, to vote to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its continued non-compliance and refusal to allow inspectors access. A negotiated solution remains the way to address Iran’s nuclear programme, and we are working with partners on that.

Iran is tiptoeing towards a bomb. It is an existential threat for our friend and ally Israel. I cannot understand how glad-handing the despotic Tehranian regime and making fake TikTok videos in New York helps world peace. Surely we can do more.

With the greatest respect, the Foreign Secretary raised very serious concerns at the highest levels about Iran’s nuclear programme and a series of other issues, just as previous Foreign Secretaries—including many Conservative ones—have raised serious concerns directly with Iran. We are absolutely clear: Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. We are committed to working with others to ensure that it does not.

3. What assessment his Department has made of the level of strategic importance of the polar regions. (901720)

The polar regions are areas of growing strategic importance where geopolitics, climate and national security collide. Our national security strategy identified the Arctic and Antarctic as emerging areas of strategic competition. I discussed this with my international counterparts—as well as the hon. Member and the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions—at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavík earlier this month. To protect the UK’s interests, we know we must adapt. That is why I recently launched our updated UK Arctic policy framework.

It is good to be back. Given the accelerating rate of Arctic sea ice melt, we are not many years away from an ice-free summer in the Arctic, with huge implications for sea levels, ocean currents and weather systems, and growing commercial pressures for exploitation in the Arctic. Having been the Minister with responsibility for the British Antarctic Survey, I am delighted again to be chairing the APPG for the polar regions and to have joined the Minister at the Arctic Circle Assembly. Does she agree that in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, we are on the frontline of not only some very important science for global planetary sustainability, but geo-diplomacy and technology, with an increasing wild west, which this country has a major role to play in helping to regulate and convene good players in?

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I know that he has a long history of speaking up about these issues. He is absolutely correct: shifting geopolitical and climate dynamics in the Arctic and Antarctic are intensifying strategic interests in new economic opportunities in the polar regions. Those bring with them challenges and pose risks to regional governance and to UK interests overseas and at home, including challenges to our security and stability, domestic resilience and supply chains. That is why we have updated our Arctic policy framework, and it is why I urge Members across the House to join the hon. Member’s APPG for the polar regions, so that we have cross-party consensus on this work.

Yesterday I visited the National Oceanography Centre, with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to learn about the UK’s leadership in polar science, and the real highlight was that I got to meet Boaty McBoatface. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how the FCDO is co-ordinating cross-Government work to deal with emerging climate and security threats, as well as how we can leverage the UK’s leadership in science and technology, climate finance, diplomacy and defence to that end?

I regret that I was unable to join my hon. Friend on the trip yesterday to see all of our capabilities. She is absolutely right that our climate and research work in the polar regions is vital. We are working across Government and we have updated the UK’s Arctic policy framework on a number of these matters. That framework sets out our assessment of the key developments in the region, and recognises the Arctic as an area of strategic importance that is vital for UK national security and domestic resilience. It also ensures that we are playing our part in the climate resilience of the region, making sure that our world-leading scientists are there and have the support they need to ensure we play our part in the world.

I call the shadow Minister.

We hear warnings from allies about China’s Arctic ambitions, and the risk of Beijing and Moscow dominating emerging shipping routes. China is an Arctic Council observer, and two Chinese nationals were arrested in Norway in May on suspicion of espionage. What concrete action is the Minister and the Foreign Secretary taking with Norway and our NATO allies to protect Britain’s security, trade and undersea infrastructure from hostile Chinese activity, and to prevent research and investment becoming cover for Beijing’s Arctic mission?

We are clear that there is no UK security without Arctic security. We are working closely with our partners in the region, including Norway. We will contest malign and destabilising behaviours and activities that threaten our interests and the stability of the region. The United Kingdom is stepping up its investment in and capabilities for defence and deterrence in the High North, deepening the defence co-operation with allies through our NATO-first approach and the joint expeditionary force, to respond rapidly to the emerging threats in the region.

4. What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. (901721)

5. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the E1 settlement plan in the west bank. (901722)

9. What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. (901726)

16. What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. (901734)

On 8 September I announced new measures to tackle settlement expansion, including a sanctions regime to target those who support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. We are doing everything in our power to stop the prospect of a two-state solution being destroyed by the expansion of illegal settlements.

The Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din has found that between 2005 and 2023 more than 93% of investigations into settler violence in the west bank were closed without indictment, with just 3% resulting in convictions. With the olive harvest underway, Palestinian farmers continue to face threats from settler violence. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect Palestinian farmers and ensure that those responsible for violence are held to account?

My hon. Friend asks an important question. The UK has stepped in to support Palestinian farmers who lost their work permits in green line Israel, but her broader point is the most important one. I am very conscious that today is election day in Israel and that these are matters for the Israeli people. Whichever Government—it is their choice—are elected today, I hope that we can work with them to counter the settler terrorism that we see, because it is in nobody’s interests, not least in the interests of the security of Israel.

I call Nesil Caliskan—happy birthday.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Government’s new sanctions to address illegal settlement expansion in the west bank. We have all watched in great horror as Palestinians face injustice and ethnic cleansing. Indeed, a Human Rights Watch report found that Israeli forces had committed war crimes in the west bank. Will the Secretary of State stand by his words to this House, as I am sure that he will, not only to call out injustice and suffering, but to act? With that in mind, will the Government sanction Israeli Defence Minister Katz and Major General Bluth, who are implicated in these crimes?

Let me join you, Mr Speaker, in wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday. May I say how well informed you are? I credit your staff, myself.

In all seriousness, the situation in the west bank is horrifying. We are witnessing unprecedented levels of violence, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in some areas. I am not going to speculate on future designations of specific individuals, but we have laid legislation this month to expand the global human rights sanctions regime to target those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, and we will use those powers.

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. The E1 scheme is a further terrifying situation for Palestinians, who are vulnerable and have no protections. Will he say what sanctions are being put in place at present? What more are the Government doing to ensure that those working on the E1 scheme are sanctioned?

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that we have discussed in this House before. The E1 development is a direct threat to the prospect of a two-state solution. I want to be completely clear that those individuals and businesses that proceed with bids for E1 construction tenders risk facing the full force of UK sanctions—I said that on the day of the closing of the tenders. That is why what we are doing is about much more than symbolism; it is about substantively stopping the destruction of the prospect of a two-state solution.

As we speak right now, Israel is yet again pursuing its brutal policy of collective punishment in the west bank, with Hebron sealed off and more than 1,000 people due to have their homes demolished imminently. I welcome our Government boldly placing sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements. With Israelis going to the polls today, will the Secretary of State commit to maintaining the pressure until illegal settlement expansion ends once and for all and we can truly see the two-state solution that we all dream of?

My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues, and I agree with her. It is right to say that the very important finding we have made is that the occupation, not just the settlements, is illegal. Therefore, in furtherance of our policy of a two-state solution to the occupation of the west bank and Gaza, we will take action in relation to the economic relationships that we have. She is exactly right about this issue; this is about bringing peace to Palestinians and Israelis.

The Foreign Secretary mentions people running the risk of the full force of the sanctions regime, given the new powers that the Government have to sanction companies funding and building illegal settlements. The E1 tenders will open on 19 November. Will he commit to sanctioning those companies bidding before that date, not once the bulldozers arrive?

Governments of both parties have had a general approach, which is not to speculate on sanctions and designations before we actually do them, but I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised this issue. Let me say very clearly to her that we are determined to do all we can to prevent the settlement building in E1 from happening. We have brought the sanctions regime—not the sanctions regime that is coming in the next six months, but the extension of the GHR sanctions regime—precisely so that we can take swift action.

The Foreign Secretary pledged to take action against specific companies that provide services for settlement expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Delek Group, which supports illegal settlements through the provision of refuelling services to Israeli military vehicles and the operation of fuel stations in East Jerusalem and the west bank, has been flagged by the UN for human rights concerns and could receive more than £200 million in revenue through its majority stake in Ithaca Energy if the Rosebank field is approved. Given that the Foreign Secretary has already said that approval of Rosebank would be “climate vandalism”, what does he have to say about profits from Scotland’s oil supporting illegal settlement expansion in the west bank?

I am going to stick to my lane, as they say. We do not talk about specific companies in relation to sanctions before we take action, but the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about the purpose of our sanctions regime—to prevent the growth of illegal settlements, which is destroying the prospect of a two-state solution.

Alongside the expansion of illegal settlements, as we have heard, there has been growing concern about violence perpetrated by extremist settlers against Palestinian communities in the west bank. Does the Secretary of State believe that the UK’s current response is sufficient, and what further steps is he prepared to take to hold those responsible to account?

In all honesty, I do not think that the response of the international community as a whole has been sufficient, which is why I made the statement I did on 8 September. In my Department and across Government, we are continuing to think about how we tackle the injustices we face across the world—not just in relation to the west bank—and we will use all the powers at our disposal, including conversations with whatever Government the people of Israel choose to elect, to say, “This settler terrorism must end.” I think that view is shared right across this House.

On 14 October, the UN’s international commission of inquiry on the OPT and Israel published its latest report. I quote paragraph 43, which concludes that

“Israeli military operations in the West Bank since 7 October 2023 constitute a course of conduct that forms part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population”

and states that

“sexual and gender-based violence”

and targeted attacks against children form part of that co-ordinated action on the part of the Israeli military. This is not just settler terrorism; it is action by the current Israeli Government. Has the Secretary of State read that report of the independent international commission of inquiry? Does he recognise its conclusions? How can he continue to treat the current Israeli Government as an ally in that context, and what further action will he take to ensure that the UK is not complicit in these abuses?

I have seen that report, and I undertake to read it comprehensively. The reason we took the actions we did on 8 September was precisely to say that we will not stand by in silence as the suffering continues in Gaza and the west bank. We called out increasing evidence of war crimes in Gaza, and we called out ethnic cleansing by settler terrorists in the west bank. We are going to act, and we will work with the hon. Lady and others across this House to ensure we take the maximum possible action to achieve what we want to see, which is peace, security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians.

Just over a year ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) were detained and then deported by Israeli authorities as we tried to enter the west bank. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), and the former MP Sam Tarry were similarly detained by Israeli authorities for eight hours while they tried to enter the west bank. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning these cases and outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that MPs can visit the occupied west bank without obstruction or intimidation?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this case, because we are obviously deeply concerned about the denial of entry to the west bank to two Members of Parliament and, I believe, one Member of the Scottish Parliament. Of course, we have raised this issue with the Israeli authorities and been in touch with those MPs to offer assistance. More broadly, it is very important that as Members of this House go about their business—not just in the UK, but internationally—they have free access, so that they can do their duties to this House.

The Government have declared the occupation unlawful, and their measures on settlements depend on reliable evidence of what is happening on the ground. In April, the Foreign Office unit that tracked potential breaches of international law by Israel was closed because of cuts, with the work said to pass to a “different team”. Which team now does that work, and how many officials does it have?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that work carries on. We have excellent civil servants who work on all these issues, including potential breaches of international humanitarian law, and we take these issues incredibly seriously as a Department and as a Government.

6. What discussions he has had with European partners on defence and security. (901723)

In recent weeks I have been in Warsaw and Ukraine discussing defence and security with key allies. There is no bigger test of our values and our commitment to European security than Ukraine, and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people. We are also committed to building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO as the ultimate guarantee of peace and security.

The attack on the then British Prime Minister’s home last year was linked to Russian-backed proxies attempting to undermine our democracy, and it concerns me deeply that our nation has become so anaesthetised by online disinformation that we collectively shrugged and carried on doomscrolling. I commend the creation of a national centre for information defence to counter cognitive warfare, but given the continued threat of Russian cognitive warfare, may I ask the Foreign Secretary how we can co-operate with European partners to counter disinformation, shut down the networks and hold technology companies to account?

We do have a defence and security partnership with the European Union, but my hon. Friend speaks eloquently about these issues. As I said in an earlier answer, we want to do more work with the European Union on questions of information, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks. My hon. Friend also raised wider issues. Hybrid warfare is not just about information and misinformation; as we know from the recent incident in Leipzig, it is about sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks and a range of other issues, and we need to be extremely vigilant about it.

In the discussions that the Foreign Secretary is holding with European countries, is he also emphasising the vital role that soft power and the international development budget play in promoting security? Does he realise that since this Government’s cuts in spending on international development, we now allocate less for Africa from the development budget than we allocate to UK postcodes from that same budget for first-year asylum seeker costs?

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with enormous authority about these issues and has a proud record in that regard, and I could not agree with him more on the substantive part of his question about the role that international development plays. He may know that as part of our G20 presidency next year we have committed ourselves, in fiscally constrained times, to seeking to do more about the combination of the debt burden, climate breakdown, and the need to bring about growth and tackle poverty in developing countries. We must accept the fiscal constraints that we face, but that does not mean we cannot act through, for instance, the multilateral development banks. I look forward to working on these issues with the right hon. Gentleman, and with other Members on both sides of the House.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I learnt a great deal during my trip to Ukraine last month. I learnt that the Ukrainians see themselves as Europeans, that they know who their friends are and that they are incredibly grateful to Britain, but that they are also very disappointed as they hit this very difficult winter. We know that they will need about £90 billion to get through it. There are £200 billion-worth of Russian assets frozen in Europe; what can we in Britain do to ensure that those assets are unlocked and used in Ukraine? Might one answer be to lead by example? Is there something we can do about the £25 billion-worth of Russian assets that we have in the UK and—as we head towards the anniversary of Abramovich’s being told that he had to hand them over—the £2.5 billion-worth of Chelsea assets?

My right hon. Friend always speaks a good deal of sense on these questions. In response to the fundamental point, let me repeat what I said in an earlier answer: we are determined to tackle the issue of Russian sovereign assets. As my right hon. Friend may know, there is a renewed push in the EU to take action on it, and I have said to my EU counterparts that we are determined to act with them. That brings me to the broader point that she raised. Russia is seeking to test our resolve on Ukraine, and we must show that we will absolutely stand with the Ukrainian people until they prevail. There are a number of elements in that, but one of them is the financial question, and we are determined to act.

The Prime Minister told President Zelensky recently that he stood “in complete solidarity” with Ukraine over President Trump’s dirty diesel deal over Russian diesel exports, and I support the Prime Minister on that. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary mentioned hitting Russia in the pocket, so why are his Government still importing jet fuel and diesel, albeit through other countries? They have weakened the sanctions against Russian diesel and fuel, which I would suggest is a complete inconsistency in UK foreign policy.

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong about that. We have actually introduced a phased ban on maritime services in relation to gas, and that licence expires in January—I reassure him on that point. Beyond that, I am constantly seeking ways in my Department, with colleagues across Government, to ratchet up the economic pressure on Russia. I say to all our allies, including the United States, that that must be our aim, because that is the way we get a successful outcome in this conflict.

I call the shadow Minister.

In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?

I will not get into the details of that attack today, but we are absolutely happy to name those who are engaging in information warfare, and I have talked a lot in this session about Russia and what it is doing. The Prime Minister could not have been more eloquent at the UN General Assembly in talking about the more than £1 billion a year that Russia spends on information warfare. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I think there is cross-party agreement on this issue. We all want to tackle the information warfare that we face, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House in doing so.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Our defence and our economy are closely tied, and both depend on our relationship with our closest neighbours. The Prime Minister wants to have an “honest conversation” with the public about Brexit, and that begins with an honest assessment of its damage. The Conservatives’ hard Brexit is costing the Treasury up to £90 billion a year in lost tax revenues. The biggest lever we could pull to reverse that damage would be to join the single market and a customs union. That would deliver the revenues we need to cut taxes, grow our defence spending and invest in public services. The Prime Minister wants us to be led by evidence, so are the Government conducting their own impact assessment into the benefits of joining the single market and a customs union? If not, why not, and if so, can the Foreign Secretary confirm when it will be published?

I am not going to go all the way with the hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] Sorry; that was an unfortunate turn of phrase. In all seriousness, we have had 10 years of looking at the status quo and the Brexit deal we have at the moment. That Brexit deal is not serving our country well enough, so Members of this House have to make a decision: do they think that the status quo is right and that we should hang on to it, or can we do better? I think the most important date for us in Government at the moment is 20 November, the day of our EU summit, where we will do better on trade, on defence and security, and on all the other issues. Parties on all sides have to decide what they think about this. Do they think the status quo is right? We think we can do better, and that is what we are going to do.

7. What support his Department is providing to Afghan women and girls. (901724)

We are all deeply alarmed by the systematic discrimination and exclusion of women and girls from public life, education, employment and decision making in Afghanistan. That is why we are providing £105 million a year to support the Afghan people, and our aid reached 5 million Afghans last year, including 3 million women and girls. We continue to press the Taliban directly on women’s rights, and we work through our international partnerships to raise these important issues.

During Evidence Week, I met Dr Sara Polo to discuss violence against women and girls in conflict areas, including Afghanistan. Although many aspects of the national action plan on women, peace and security are encouraging, academics such as Dr Polo have pointed out that there are areas for improvement, such as including victims of non-sexual violence in NEP initiatives. What discussions has the Minister had with academics about the NEP, and how can academics engage further?

We engage with a wide range of experts on these issues, and I would certainly welcome a chance to discuss these matters with the academics the hon. Lady references, but I can absolutely assure her that the Department engages with a huge range of civil society and expert organisations. That is very important in informing our work on these issues.

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

It is not just Afghanistan where we see a rollback in the protection of women and girls. Last week, I was in Sierra Leone, working with parliamentarians there to try to prevent sexual-based violence. As part of that trip, we went to the maternal health unit in Freetown, where the UK has been supporting the health industry for the last 20 years. We cut all of our funding to that last year, which means there is now no money for procurement or for any healthcare in that country. What are we going to do for countries where we have cut all our funding to help them transition in a meaningful way, rather than presenting them, basically, with a death sentence?

The Chair of the Select Committee is a long-standing champion on these issues, even before her time chairing the Committee, and she and I have discussed these issues on many occasions. We always welcome a conversation with her about these matters, and I am sure that the Minister for International Development, who has responsibility for Africa, and indeed the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who works on preventing sexual violence, would be happy to sit down and discuss these issues with her.

8. What diplomatic steps he is taking to support UK nationals arbitrarily detained abroad. (901725)

We take all allegations of arbitrary detention very seriously, considering all available information and any opinions issued by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. Our support is tailored to each individual, and may include raising welfare or concerns about process, where needed. Reflecting our commitment to supporting British nationals detained overseas, we have appointed the right hon. Alistair Burt as our first envoy for complex consular detentions to work on these matters, and I am working with him very closely on this.

My West Dunbartonshire constituent Jagtar Singh Johal was released on bail 26 days ago, but Jagtar is by no means free. While he may have walked out of Tihar jail, having endured 3,254 days of illegal detention, torture and abuse, he still cannot return home to his family in Dumbarton, and still faces eight outstanding cases and the death penalty. Over the last 26 days, has the Minister escalated Jagtar’s case to the highest diplomatic level?

I can confirm that, most recently, the Foreign Secretary raised Mr Johal’s case with his Indian counterpart on 24 September at the UN General Assembly. I will be very clear: we recognise the immense toll that nine years in detention have taken on Mr Johal and his family, and I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for his constituent. His release on bail is a welcome development, but we recognise that eight cases remain outstanding, and it is crucial that those processes are resolved as quickly as possible within India’s independent legal system. We consistently raise concerns about his case at every appropriate opportunity.

British citizens Ryan Cornelius and his partner have now been detained for 18—nearly 19—years, without due process, by the United Arab Emirates. The reality is that the UAE supports a huge amount of terrorism in Sudan, where it is responsible for huge loss of life. To make matters worse, it has nominated Lana Nusseibeh of the UAE to be UN Secretary-General. Apart from demanding the release of Ryan Cornelius and his partner, will the hon. Gentleman condemn the UAE for its brutal involvement in Sudan, and block its nominee for Secretary-General, who should never be allowed to take over the UN?

As the right hon. Member knows, I take the case of Ryan Cornelius and Charles Ridley very seriously, as I do any of the other related cases. I have raised that case with the UAE at a high level, and I will continue to do so. Indeed, I have discussed it with our envoy, Alistair Burt, and I am very happy to discuss it further with him.

On Sudan, as the right hon. Member knows, the international community, including this country, must do more to tackle that crisis. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend announced further sanctions against suspected perpetrators of sexual violence and other atrocities, including in El-Fasher. We continue to raise concerns with all the countries that are in any way involved in that conflict to urge them to de-escalate, stop arms supplies and bring peace to Sudan.

I call the shadow Minister.

When President Trump met Xi Jinping last month, the US President raised with the Chairman the case of imprisoned British citizen Jimmy Lai. Has the Minister had a readout from that conversation, and what can he tell us about his own efforts to bring about Jimmy Lai’s release?

The Foreign Secretary and I take this case incredibly seriously, and the Prime Minister also raised it with President Trump. As I have said on a number of occasions, we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics. For someone who is 78, a 20-year sentence is tantamount to a life sentence. We are deeply concerned for his health. This is a priority for the Government, and we raise the case at every possible opportunity, both directly with China and with other partners.

10. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza. (901727)

21. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza. (901740)

Over three years, we have seen a devastating man-made humanitarian crisis unfold in Gaza. The UK is committed to improving humanitarian conditions in Palestine. We will provide £88 million in humanitarian and early recovery support this financial year to support the delivery of essential healthcare, clean water, sanitation and hygiene services. At the UN General Assembly last month, the UK, Jordan and Qatar co-hosted a meeting focused on driving action on humanitarian access and healthcare. We issued a call to action, urging the Government of Israel to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access throughout Gaza.

Palestinian children are the only children in the world who are systematically prosecuted in military courts. Those courts do not meet juvenile justice standards, and Save the Children has found that at every stage of detention, from arrest to interrogation, transfer and incarceration, Israeli soldiers and officials have inflicted physical, mental and emotional abuse and torture on children. What action are this Government taking, with our international partners, to prevent the abuse of well over 300 Palestinian children who are currently being held in Israeli military detention?

First of all, I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this incredibly important topic. Reports that hundreds of Palestinian children are being detained—as he says, many of them are being mistreated—in Israeli military detention are horrifying. Children’s rights must be upheld, in accordance with international law. Children must only be detained in line with internationally agreed juvenile justice standards, and we call for an end to military detention where it is incompatible with those principles. We continue to call on Israel to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate unrestricted access to all detention facilities, and we raised this issue with Israeli authorities in September.

Given the scale of civilian suffering in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, can the Minister please outline what discussions have taken place and will take place with international partners to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, and that humanitarian workers can work safely?

Gaza remains one of the deadliest places on earth to deliver aid. We have seen countless incidents involving humanitarian personnel over the past three years. The UK is a member of the Australia-led ministerial group that developed the declaration for the protection of humanitarian personnel, and lobbied other states to join. A total of 132 states have now signed the declaration, and just last month the Foreign Secretary met Australia and others at the UN General Assembly to maintain momentum and drive collective action to address this fundamental issue.

Three hundred and forty children in Gaza have died since the ceasefire of last year—an average of almost one per day—nearly half of them near the yellow line; aid workers call it the kill zone. UNICEF tells me that 100% of children are showing signs of stress because of trauma, hunger and the risk of attack from every side—from drones, which fire at them from above, and from unexploded ordinance below them. They face malnutrition, and have not had a formal education for three years. Whoever is elected today, what will the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that Palestinian children are protected, sustainable humanitarian aid gets in, the terms of the ceasefire are obeyed, education is provided, and Palestinians are given the chance to heal?

The hon. Lady speaks passionately and powerfully about the exact reasons why we have declared the situation a moral emergency. On average, four people have died every day since the ceasefire, over 300 of them children, as she rightly says. The civilians and children of Palestine will continue to be an enormous priority for our bilateral engagement with the Israeli Government, whoever the Israeli people pick, but the humanitarian situation could not be more severe. She can be assured that we will continue to press upon the Israeli Government, once elected, the need for unfettered access.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) talked about the impact on children, but there is also a significant impact on reproductive facilities, which means that there are more miscarriages and more children dying at birth. Effectively, it is the erasing of the next generation in Gaza. That must surely constitute a war crime. How are the Government working with international partners to ensure the future of Gaza, given the threat of there being no children?

We held an event at UNGA on precisely this matter. Maternal, newborn and child health will continue to be a priority for the UK Government. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the UK has acted fast to try to get sick children to the UK for treatment; a cross-Government taskforce supported 50 critically ill and injured children and their immediate families in leaving Gaza and receiving specialist support in NHS hospitals. As I am sure she will agree, however, that action is no substitute for ensuring that people can access their healthcare rights in the country where they live and were born, and where we hope to provide them with safety and security through a two-state solution in the end.

11. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of UNICEF UK’s “No Choice But Childhood” campaign. (901728)

I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for children; pressure for children’s rights will always be welcome to me. I share UNICEF UK’s commitment to advancing the rights of children globally, and am personally committed to putting children’s rights at the heart of all the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s development work. I am proud that the UK Government are investing in essential services for children, as well as maternal and newborn health and nutrition, childhood vaccinations, foundational learning, ending child marriage, and supporting children’s care reform. I will continue to prioritise children’s needs and rights across our development portfolio, and look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that.

A significant number of my constituents have written to me expressing support for UNICEF’s “No Choice But Childhood” campaign. When reductions are made to the UK’s aid budget, it is the most vulnerable children around the world who face the consequences of that decision first. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister commit to working with UNICEF to increase funding in the aid budget for children at this critical point? Conflict is increasing around the world, yet so many countries are decreasing their aid for those in conflicts.

As the hon. Member will appreciate, the money that we allocate for vaccination, and indeed the wider health portfolio, which was protected in our recent round of allocations, benefits children almost exclusively; the money that we spend on education also benefits children almost exclusively. There are other large parts of our portfolio, including humanitarian and climate action—I imagine that he shares our determination to achieve good outcomes in those areas—in which it is not possible or desirable to ringfence spending specifically for children, although children are outsized beneficiaries of that action. My job is to ensure that we get the maximum impact for every single pound of UK overseas development assistance. Some of it is specifically ringfenced for children, but much of it benefits their families and wider communities, too.

In Afghanistan, children, particularly girls, simply cannot enjoy their childhood. This summer marked a grim anniversary: it is five years since the Taliban began an assault on women and girls, banning girls from education. We have to stand with Afghan women and girls. Will we support calls from Afghan women to recognise gender apartheid as a crime against humanity, and will the Minister, or the relevant Minister, meet me, other MPs and, importantly, Afghan women to discuss what more can be done?

I would always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I commend her, other women and Members from across this House for all that they have done to draw attention to the horrifying, unspeakable situation facing Afghan women and girls. She will appreciate that there are sensitivities around the use of specific language in the international system, and I would want to be mindful of the views of other partner countries on this; however, I would be delighted, substantively, to meet my hon. Friend to see what we can do to advance the cause of Afghan women and girls, which is close to both our hearts.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (901742)

I want to express my thanks to police and security services for their response to the incident at RAF Fairford, including the action that they have taken today. As the Prime Minister has said, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “almost certainly” directed this outrageous attempted attack. This Government have designated the IRGC, sanctioned individuals within it, and reimposed snap-back sanctions on Iran.

Last Friday in Istanbul, I attended the first ever meeting of the E4 and R4 groups of Foreign Ministers. There was agreement that we must maximise the pressure on Iran to cease its reckless attacks on ships in the strait of Hormuz, and that a diplomatic way forward must be found to end the Iran war, which is having such a direct impact on the cost of living here at home.

Last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that Iran poses a widespread, persistent and unpredictable threat, and the director of MI5 has reported that the intelligence services have tracked at least 20 serious plots linked to Iran. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the Government’s assessment of the domestic threat posed by Iran? What diplomatic steps are being taken to tackle it?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this; Iran and its proxies are a direct threat to us; we need only look at the attempted attack at RAF Fairford to see that. We take this incredibly seriously. It is why we designated the IRGC and have sanctioned particular individuals. We use every channel to put pressure on Iran, including with our allies, such as last week in Istanbul, to cease its attacks, including attempted attacks—not just here, but elsewhere as well.

T2. Ten years on from the EU referendum, we are still seeing the negative impacts of Brexit. It has hindered trade, stunted growth and deprived young people of opportunity. I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s honesty with the public about that. With all that in mind, can the Minister please tell us what work is being done with our EU counterparts to improve ties with the EU, so that our economy and our young people can benefit? (901743)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the important question. I would like to inform the House that the UK will reassociate with Erasmus+ from 1 January 2027. Applications open this November, and they are not simply for undergraduates and other university students, but for educational institutions of all kinds. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members across the House to work with the British Council and get their institutions engaged. That is one of the concrete ways that we will help young people through closer a relationship with the EU.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Mr Speaker, I hope you will indulge me as I say a very quick thank you to the Clerk of the House, who is in his place and who was my Clerk on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is probably more to blame for me standing here today than many other people in the House.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he now accepts the Bill in the name of Lord Weir that has passed in the Lords?

Let me add my congratulations and thanks to the Clerk of the House. On the Chagos islands, which the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, we have always sought to find a way forward that protects our base at Diego Garcia; that is the most important thing, and I would have thought that aim was shared by Members from across the House. As has become clear, under this US Administration, we will not get consent for the current arrangements, but we continue to work with the US and Mauritius to safeguard our security interests.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comments. The reason I asked about the vote in the Lords is this: there seems to be a real problem with the way that we approach this debate. The will of Parliament, as expressed in the Lords only last week and in treaties signed in the ’60s and ’80s, is being superseded by courts that have no mandate over the issues that are being debated. I ask him again: does he accept the will of this Parliament—the elected will of the British people—or does he instead seek to accept the now politicised will of courts that have Russian and Chinese judges, and are fundamentally mis-shaping and distorting agreements that were signed decades ago? We have seen what China has done, from locking up Jimmy Lai to threatening the Marine reserves that he claims to champion. Whose side is the Foreign Secretary on?

I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons has primacy in our legislative arrangements. That is a long-standing convention, I would say. On his point about the courts, at a time when international law is under threat across the world, we should be defenders of international law, and we absolutely believe that maintaining a base at Diego Garcia is consistent with that.

T3. Dirty money fuels crime on our streets and conflict overseas, so I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to hosting an illicit finance summit next year. Getting this right really matters for our national security. Will the Minister use the extra time ahead of the summit to work with civil society and our international partners to ensure that the summit finally delivers the tough action we need so that we can turn the tide on the scourge of dirty money? (901744)

My hon. Friend raises an important topic. I thank him and all those across the House for their efforts on tackling illicit finance. We take the issue seriously and are working across Government, including with colleagues at the Treasury, the Home Office and the National Crime Agency. We are determined to ensure that next year’s illicit finance summit delivers tangible action. The plague of dirty money must be eradicated. As the Minister for overseas territories, I have been raising the issue and will continue to do so with elected leaders in the overseas territories.

T4. Last year, more than 7,500 Eritrean nationals entered the UK illegally on small boats. Following talks to persuade Eritrea to accept the return of those illegal immigrants, the Eritrean embassy dismissed threats of visa sanctions as “a perfunctory political gimmick”. Will the Minister please update the House on what she is doing to apply diplomatic pressure to countries such as Eritrea that refuse to take back illegal immigrants? (901745)

As the hon. Member will appreciate, every time we enter into one of these negotiations across the whole of Government, our objective is to uphold the integrity and impact of our migration policies. The FCDO has responsibility for ensuring that our policy position is communicated forcefully bilaterally, and we will continue to do that. I have been in dialogue with the Eritrean ambassador to convey exactly the seriousness with which the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the wider British Government take this matter. There will be no resiling from the forcefulness with which we promote our policy that Eritrean returns are central to this Government, and we will pursue that until they are secured.

T5. While knocking on doors in Denton Burn in Newcastle on Saturday, a resident said to me that we see these terrible images of families putting children on to small boats and of floods, wars and droughts all around the world, but we never hear what Britain is doing to help people stay and flourish where they are. I thought, “Well, he’s right actually.” Could the Secretary of State tell us what is the most successful or effective thing that the Department is doing to reduce migratory pressures? (901747)

My hon. Friend, as always, speaks a great deal of sense, as do her constituents. She is right, and the role of our G20 summit and—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) made this point earlier—the work we do on debt, development and climate with our partners across the world is not just right for our values but right for our security, because failed states and climate breakdown are a threat to our security as well as to our values.

T6. Canada is now part of the EU’s €150 billion fund to rearm Europe while British firms are stuck on third country terms. Will the Minister prioritise joining that fund as part of a wider growth and defence partnership so that British firms can compete on equal terms with European firms? (901748)

I am pleased to confirm that talks about our security and defence co-operation with the EU will be an important part of the summit that the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his earlier answer. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to SAFE—Security Action for Europe. It was a shame that the UK was not part of it, but we are continuing our discussions with the EU to ensure that we can play our full role in Europe.

T8. While successive Governments have cut the international aid budget, the reality is that the public are still donating in their millions to causes that are dear to their hearts. Those usually relate to disasters, but the public also care about women and LGBT communities in other countries and many other issues. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can extend UK Aid Match beyond disaster recovery? (901750)

We do not currently have plans to expand UK Aid Match beyond the Disasters Emergency Committee funding appeals, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, are focused on crises that require a large-scale rapid response. She is right, however, that the British public continue to care deeply about equality and the human rights of those overseas. The FCDO formally supports that through our women’s rights organisations programme, our grassroots sexual and reproductive health and rights programme and our LGBT+ rights programme. I would be delighted to talk to her and, indeed, any other hon. Members across the House about what more we can do to give life to the British public’s impulse towards deep solidarity on questions of equality.

T7. The Foreign Office facilitated a trip to Dublin for the Scottish First Minister, John Swinney. There, he met the egregious Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin to discuss the break-up of Britain. Why are British taxpayers paying for such nonsense? (901749)

Our belief in the United Kingdom and in keeping our United Kingdom together is absolute and clear. The First Minister of Scotland can have his visits.

About 13 million people have been displaced in Sudan, but they are far from safe. Earlier this month, a drone strike near one of the displacement centres in Blue Nile killed 31 people, mostly women and children. This is the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster. Where are the protests on the streets? Where is the round-the-clock media reporting? Where is the online coverage? Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to raise awareness of that catastrophe and how we can galvanise international action?

My hon. Friend is right. Just yesterday, I attended an event in Parliament to mark the one-year anniversary of the fall of El Fasher. At that event, I heard testimony that I will never forget as long as I live. We heard about, and I spoke about, bloodshed so overwhelming that the ground was soaked with blood so deeply that it could be seen from space. That should be a matter of ongoing, daily outrage in our country.

Last month, at UNGA, the Foreign Secretary and I met international partners to galvanise further action, including through an event focused on the devastating use of drones to terrorise civilians, alongside our UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention. I am proud that just yesterday, the UK announced further sanctions against commanders suspected of involvement in the atrocities in Sudan.

T9. Given the increasing evidence of hybrid attacks by Russia on British targets, will the Foreign Secretary rule out shaking hands with Sergey Lavrov at the upcoming G20? (901751)

We do not engage in that way with the Russians and have not for a number of years. As I have said throughout this session, we are absolutely clear about the need to counter the Russian hybrid threat.

With Israelis heading to the polls today, the world will be watching anxiously. Hard-line figures such as Ben-Gvir and Naftali Bennett are emerging as potential kingmakers in the next Government. Given that both have supported policies relating to settlement expansion and the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, there is real concern that the next Israeli Administration could move even further away from compliance with international law. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK’s commitment to international law is upheld in their relationship with any future Israeli Government?

I assure my hon. Friend that the UK’s commitment to international law does not depend on the outcome of elections. We have been clear that settlements are illegal under international law and that Israel must comply with its obligations. We have been clear that the occupation is unlawful.

Firms such as Thales in Templecombe, Needles and Pins Aerospace in Somerton and Leonardo in Yeovil are at the heart of a Somerset aerospace and advanced engineering sector, yet Britain remains outside the SAFE defence fund. Will the Minister commit to securing UK participation in SAFE and any successor fund on fair terms so that our defence firms and the communities that depend on them are not left behind?

I represent the great city of Lincoln, which also has an aerospace background. We are making important progress in our relationship with many of our European friends, including, notably, with the Italians, on the Global Combat Air Programme. As I said in my earlier answer, we will discuss security and defence co-operation as part of the summit on 20 November.

As online abuse such as the sharing of intimate images without consent increasingly crosses borders, what are the Government doing with international partners and technology companies to protect women and girls, and ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences in countries’ laws to escape justice?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic. The Government are taking action at home and internationally to tackle appalling online abuse towards women and girls, including AI-generated deepfakes and the sharing of intimate images without consent. The UK has introduced some of the strongest measures against this abuse, including making the creation and sharing of deepfakes a criminal offence. We are co-developing a model national framework to reduce opportunities for offenders to exploit differences between jurisdictions. There is a global partnership for action on gender-based online harassment and abuse. I will continue to raise this issue with international counterparts and at our summit next year.

I have had a great deal of trouble getting a straight answer from the Government on this for some months now, so I will give it one more go: on what specific date in August 2024 was Jonathan Powell appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory?

I think we have answered this question before. I do not have anything further to add to previous answers.

Have any funds been allocated to Ukraine’s water infrastructure—for instance, within the UN WASH cluster project? Has the UK provided funds for defence barrier systems for water infrastructure and/or for a consistent power supply for water and sewerage systems? My counterparts in Ukraine said to me that this is a top immediate priority to ensure that water and sewage do not overwhelm them.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a topic that he has been speaking about passionately and eloquently for many years. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary visited Kyiv, where he met Ukrainian people still living—almost five years on—under the constant threat of Russian strikes, energy blackouts and death. While in Kyiv, he announced a £54 million combined humanitarian and energy support package, which includes £20 million to protect and maintain the electricity, heating and water supply for Ukrainian families ahead of the winter. Alongside that, our £34 million humanitarian package will help about 700,000 vulnerable people, including by maintaining and restoring heating and water services.

The Foreign Secretary and I represent communities 15 miles apart—decent, hard-working people who are finding life very tough at the moment. In that context, how would he justify to working people and pensioners spending £6 billion on foreign aid while freezing the tax-free personal allowance and cutting the state pension? [Interruption.]

I think the answer came from Members in the right hon. Gentleman’s former party. The money that we spend on foreign aid is absolutely about preventing the problems from elsewhere in the world coming here—to his constituency and mine. At one and the same time, he complains about small boats, which is an issue partly caused by fragile states, and says that we should not be taking action to prevent it. I am afraid that I do not agree with him.

There is cross-party concern about an extremely concerning situation in Tanzania—the trial of Mr Tundu Lissu, the chair of the party for democracy and progress, Chadema. Mr Lissu has been charged with treason after calling for electoral reform at a public rally during an election campaign. If found guilty, he could be sentenced to death. The UK has long enjoyed close and constructive relations with Tanzania, so can I ask what action Ministers are taking to raise concerns about this serious matter?

We remain gravely concerned about the continued detention of Tundu Lissu, and we will continue to raise his case through ministerial channels and the British high commission. We note the UN working group opinion that his detention is arbitrary, unlawful and lacking in sufficient legal basis. We await the 6 November verdict and underline its significance for Tanzania’s democratic freedoms and the rule of law. I also take this opportunity to say that the UK remains firmly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances in every country.

His trial was unfair, and the 20-year sentence extension was arbitrary and outrageous—will the Secretary of State now unequivocally say that Ryan Cornelius should be released?

Yes, I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is something that we are discussing with our UAE counterparts. Alistair Burt’s role will also be important in this. We absolutely want to see his release.

As winter bites and the humanitarian situation worsens, will the Secretary of State commit to supplying food aid to Gaza, at least to last year’s levels? Will he use his welcome new sanctions regulations, laid earlier this month, to sanction those Israeli figures blocking aid from getting into Gaza?

The issue of health and humanitarian access in Gaza is essential, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the blocking of aid is absolutely outrageous. I do not speculate on the sanctions regime, but it is important that we have it. We want to ensure that we unblock the aid.

What role will the Secretary of State’s Department play in the new national centre for information defence, and when will the Government update the House about the composition, roll-out and scalability of that new capability?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The role we will play is to bring home some of the lessons we have learned from taking action with allies, for example in relation to disinformation in Moldova, to ensure that we learn those lessons here in the UK.

I am grateful to the Government for their additional round of sanctions one year on from the massacre at El Fasher, but outside actors, including the United Arab Emirates, continue to fuel that war, as the UN’s fact-finding mission has shown. Will the Government confirm that it remains their position, as articulated by our representative to the UN, that we welcome that report and do not contest it?

We absolutely welcome the fact-finding mission’s report. Indeed, we were the initiator of the fact-finding mission, and we remain a huge champion of its work.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the question I have just asked the Foreign Secretary, I have asked several times for a straight answer about the appointment of Jonathan Powell. I put in a freedom of information request on 23 June. That FOI was delayed to 22 July, then to 20 August, then to 18 September, then to 18 October and then again to 13 November. What can I do to get a straight answer from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, given that it has now been delaying a response to an FOI for five months?

The hon. Member seems to put in a lot of questions and FOIs, so I am sure he will pursue the matter through the Table Office and take good advice, but I cannot continue the debate. I am not responsible for the answers from the Foreign Secretary. If the hon. Member were to sit with the Clerks to come up with another way, I am sure that we might get somebody to hear what he said. I am sure that the Front Benchers will have heard it as well.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hang on—you did not ask a question. No, you cannot raise a point of order.

It is on a matter relating to one of the questions.

Mr Farron, I take points of order only from people who have asked questions. You did not ask a question—it must be one of the few times you have not managed to get a question in. If you are eager to raise a point of order, it will come after the urgent question. I am sure you will want to wait to do so.