G7

16:11:00

With permission, I shall make a statement about last week’s meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers. We met at a pivotal moment. Some Members of this House may have doubted that we could find common ground, and some of our global competitors may have hoped that we would fail, but after 36 hours of talks, we were united. Britain united with our allies to make our citizens more secure. National security is a foundation of this Government’s plan for change, and we are leading from the front. The overriding priority was, of course, Ukraine. Last week in Jeddah, the United States and Ukraine reached a common position. A ceasefire offer is now on the table, and American weapons and intelligence are flowing once again. This demonstrated what this House has always known to be true: under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine is serious about peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war, and unrelenting in its determination to ensure that Ukraine remains democratic, free, strong and prosperous. At the G7, the UK and our allies were united in our unwavering support for Ukraine’s defence of its freedoms; united in support for Ukraine’s pursuit for peace; and united on what is required to make that happen. Now it is Putin who stands in the spotlight, Putin who must answer, and Putin who must choose. Are you serious, Mr Putin, about peace? Will you stop the fighting, or will you drag your feet and play games, and pay lip service to a ceasefire while still pummelling Ukraine? My warning to Mr Putin is this: if you are serious, prove it, with a full and unconditional ceasefire now. On whether Putin will deliver, I must tell the House that I see no sign yet that he will. The G7 meeting helped us ready the tools to get Russia to negotiate seriously. We are not waiting for the Kremlin. If it rejects a ceasefire, we have more cards that we can play. We can all see the impact that the G7’s unprecedented sanctions have had on Russia’s faltering economy—social spending is down, and inflation and interest rates are sky high. There can be no let-up in our efforts. In Canada, we discussed where we can go further to target Russia’s energy and defence sectors, further squeeze its oil revenues and use frozen Russian assets. At the same time, we will keep up our support to Ukraine; Europeans clearly need to shoulder our share of this responsibility. We in the UK are stepping up on drones, munitions and training, sending more than 400 different capabilities to Ukraine and training more than 50,000 recruits. We have also announced the biggest increase in UK defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are urging our allies to do the same so that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position now and in any peace that follows. Tomorrow, I will be hosting EU High Representative Kallas—the first such visit since we left the European Union. In this moment, Ukraine’s friends should be working hand in glove, and that requires a new era in UK-EU security co-operation. Finally, we are taking steps to ensure that Russia does not come back for more. We know the history—Budapest, Minsk and paper promises betrayed by Putin. Together with France, we are establishing a coalition willing to deter Russia from invading again. To be credible, it will need US support, but Britain and our allies recognise that we need to step up, and this Government are leading the effort on multiple fronts. In the past week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister convened the biggest gathering yet of those willing to play their part in ensuring Ukraine’s future security. That followed my visit to Canada and the trip of the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), to Paris. This week, military planners from allies will gather for further discussions in the UK, which will be co-chaired with France. Ukraine was our top priority, but our unity extended beyond Ukraine. The G7 united in support for the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages and unhindered humanitarian aid into Gaza. Let me be clear to this House about what I said to the G7: Hamas must release the hostages. For Israel to be secure, these terrorists can have no role in Gaza’s future, but the complete blocking of aid in Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool, and we urge the Israeli Government to change course. The G7 also discussed the Arab reconstruction plan for Gaza—an important signal on which we should build. The G7 also united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria. Stability in Syria bolsters UK security at home and abroad. We condemned the recent violence in Syria’s coastal regions and called for those responsible to be held accountable, and we were united in increasing the pressure on Iran. Tehran is producing highly enriched uranium at a rate that makes a mockery of the limits set in the joint comprehensive plan of action. Iran can never be allowed to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Trump has written to the Supreme Leader, and this weekend the United States has responded strongly to the Houthi resumption of unacceptable attacks on international shipping. Iran must now change course, de-escalate and choose diplomacy. The G7 also kept the spotlight on the conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We denounced the atrocities in Sudan. The warring parties must protect civilians, cease hostilities and ensure unhindered humanitarian access. There was strong support for the conference that I will host on Sudan next month, which is an important opportunity to get a political process moving. We also condemned the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity. The M23 and Rwanda Defence Force must withdraw. All parties should support African-led mediation processes. The G7 also reiterated our call for the restoration of Venezuelan democracy and reaffirmed our strong support for Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As the G7 met, Armenia and Azerbaijan concluded negotiations on an historic peace agreement. We warmly welcome that achievement and encourage both sides to move to signature as soon as possible. It was a pleasure to be back in Canada. It is a proud, sovereign nation, in which I have family who I have visited since childhood, and with which we share a long history and a royal family. Its new leader, Prime Minister Carney, is in London today, and I am sure that the whole House will congratulate him on his appointment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My fellow G7 Ministers and I received a warm welcome to Quebec, home of my good friend Minister Mélanie Joly. We united behind a new Canadian-led initiative on maritime security, an example of Canada’s strong leadership. With growing threats from the Red sea to the South China sea—trade routes on which growth and all our economies rely—a strong collective response from the G7 matters to us all. Fifty years ago, a small group of western leaders met just outside Paris—the origins of the G7. They did not agree on everything; they were from different political sides, with three from the left and three from the right. It was a time of upheaval, with war in the middle east, an oil crisis, a recession, and the Bretton Woods system falling away. Many, then as now, were pessimistic about the ability of democracies to navigate the turbulence, but that generation rose to the challenge. With the G7, they tried something different—its format allowed leaders to be honest with each other, and so find common ground. Today, we must rise to these new challenges. In that same spirit of honesty and common purpose, Britain and our partners are stronger when we stand together. We are standing together right now. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

16:21:00

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. In the light of the vast global challenges that we are all witnessing, there is much ground to cover in this statement. First, we continue to support Ukraine in this fight, and to support the freedoms and values it is defending —democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. It is very welcome that US military aid and intelligence sharing has resumed, and it is vital that the US and Ukraine continue to work together in the face of this appalling conflict. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary hold with US counterparts about the impact of the suspension of intelligence and military support, and what is his assessment of its consequences? While we await further details of the proposed 30-day ceasefire, Russia’s response shows exactly why the Euro-Atlantic community must be resolute in the face of Putin’s aggression, and that Putin will seek to pursue long-held strategic objectives that he has not achieved on the battlefield through hypothetical negotiations. That means that we must be robust: Britain must apply maximum pressure on the Kremlin, boost defence production, and maintain our support for Ukraine’s battlefield efforts. We must also use our convening role to work with allies who have other types of equipment that could plug capability gaps and to broker extra support packages. In the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement, there is a commitment to use “extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets”. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether this means that the UK will go further than the £2.26 billion loan already announced off the back of the profits from sanctioned assets, and can he give an update on when proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club will be in the hands of those most in need? Over the weekend, we heard the Prime Minister say that his planning for his potential peacekeeping initiative is now moving into an “operational phase”. Is the Foreign Secretary able to explain what this means in practice, especially for our armed forces? What planning is under way? What will our contribution to peacekeeping consist of? Over what timeframe would deployment be launched, and how will our armed forces be supported? Which allies in this coalition of the willing have expressed interest, what will they offer, and what discussions are under way with the US on deterrence and security guarantees to ensure that an invasion like this can never happen again? Turning to the middle east, we are absolutely united on the position that the Iran-backed terrorists Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but what have the Government done to pursue an end to that brutal regime, and what discussions has the Foreign Secretary held with middle eastern counterparts on their proposed plan for the future of Gaza? Now is the time for maximum pressure on Hamas from the international community. They must release every single hostage. Is the UK directly involved in discussions to drive action in a positive direction? On Syria, was there discussion about the ongoing status of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a proscribed terrorist group? Following the Government’s lifting of 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime, does the recent violence change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting these kinds of sanctions? We understand from the BBC that the UK did not directly participate in the US airstrikes on Houthi targets at the weekend, but that our armed forces provided routine refuelling support to the US. Can the Foreign Secretary share with the House what the precise nature of the UK support was, particularly given that the UK conducted multiple joint airstrikes with the US last year against Houthi militant targets to degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation? Can he explain why on this occasion it was decided that we would not deploy our own strike capabilities? Does he assess that there has been an increase in threats to freedom of navigation in the Red sea and to British vessels and personnel? If so, what is the Government’s overall approach to this threat and to the Houthis? Are hard power options still on the table, as they were last year? Will the Government ramp up sanctions and pressure on the Houthis and importantly on Iran, the malign force in the region that continues to back them? What steps are the Government taking to interdict weapons flowing from Iran to the Houthis? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his American counterparts on the US approach to Iran more broadly, and where does the UK fit into that? The G7 statement also made reference to the range of challenges posed by China. Our key partners are alert to the threat China poses, but this Government seem oblivious to it. As China threatens global security and our national interests and puts bounties on the heads of Hongkongers living here, we have seen the Energy Secretary following the kowtowing of the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Communist party, and the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, who are responsible for national security, are now the cheerleaders for the Chinese super-embassy planning application. Will the Foreign Secretary disclose in full all contacts and communications between his Department, Downing Street, the Chinese authority and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about this matter? Does he recognise the anxiety that this planning application is causing to the groups threatened by China? Will he accept that the threats and risks mean that China must join Iran on the enhanced tiers of the foreign influence registration scheme? Finally, was the Chagos surrender deal discussed with the Foreign Secretary’s US counterparts? Will he commit to present a draft treaty to the House before it is signed? How can he justify handing over billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, instead of defending our sovereignty?

I am grateful in particular for the cross-party nature of what the Secretary of State for the Opposition said—I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am a little jetlagged. I got off a plane at 6 am, and I hope the House will forgive me. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the manner of her remarks, particularly on Ukraine. There were a number of questions, which I will seek to deal with. The right hon. Lady is right that Zelensky has made it absolutely clear that he is committed to peace. She asked me about the US decision on a pause in military aid and intelligence aid. I am pleased to say that our assessment is that that pause, as she will know, was for a short period, not an extended period. It therefore has not had a material effect, but we were pleased to see that aid resume. We were pleased to see what flowed from Jeddah: the United States, European allies and President Zelensky and Ukraine absolutely square with the need for that ceasefire. It is for Putin to accept unconditionally that ceasefire: the ball is in his court. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with Secretary Rubio over the course of the three days at the G7, and with Vice-President Vance yesterday morning at his residence in Washington. The right hon. Lady rightly asks about Russian assets. Let me make it clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing Ukraine. I am delighted that the first £752 million of the UK’s £2.26 billion loan—to be repaid by the profits generated on Russian sanctioned assets— has been paid, but she knows that there is rightfully a discussion about moving from freezing to seizing. If we were to move in that direction, it would be important for there to be unanimity among the G7, and a way forward within the European Union for the most exposed countries. As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are discussing those very issues apace. The right hon. Lady asked about UK troops on the ground. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine, but the collective security of our continent and, therefore, Britain’s direct national interest. That is why the Prime Minister has said that Europe needs to step up, and the UK is, of course, prepared to consider committing British troops on the ground; but there must be a US backstop. There will be a further meeting in London this week to continue to get into the operational detail. The Prime Minister and I are pleased, alongside the Defence Secretary, that the coalition of the willing is growing. It is right that we consider carefully what would be required on the ground, but the right hon. Lady will know, too, that the exercise of monitoring what is put in place is very important. No doubt she, like me, will have seen the operation that was run by the OSCE. I saw it in January 2022, just before the fighting began in the February. That would not be adequate this time round, so, rightly and properly, we must get into the granular detail of what would be required—as the European family, of course, but also involving nations such as Canada. I received a commitment from Minister Mélanie Joly that Canada was willing to step up to be part of that coalition, but there will be others in that coalition of the willing, and we will look at these issues in detail over the coming days. The right hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Gaza and the middle east. Let me make it absolutely clear that we were all united in saying that there could be no role for Hamas. We welcome the work that has been done by the Arab Quint as a direction of travel. The United Kingdom wants to continue to work with the Quint on strengthening that proposal, particularly on the security guarantees that the Israelis would rightfully need—their assurance that 7 October can never, ever happen again. The right hon. Lady raised the situation in Syria. The awful clashes during the weekend of 8 and 9 March led to the deaths of more than 1,000 people. We condemned the violence at the time, and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), updated the House on 10 March. It is critical for the interim Administration in Syria to respect and protect all Syria’s minorities, which is why it was heartening to see the agreement last week between the interim Administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces, particularly in north-east Syria. This was obviously a topic of much discussion. The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the strikes by the US. Since 19 November 2023, the Houthis have targeted international commercial shipping in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden and attacked British and American warships. That cannot go unchecked. It is totally unacceptable, and it must be dealt with. We do not, of course, comment on other nations’ military operations, but I can confirm that, while we did not take part in the strikes over the weekend, we are in close touch with our US friends on the need to act in respect of the Houthis and what they are doing in the Red sea. The right hon. Lady talked about the Government’s approach to China. I can assure her that there will not be seven different approaches to China from this Government, which is what we experienced under the last Government, who were ping-ponging about over the course of those 14 years. As for the calamity of a United Kingdom Prime Minister having a beer with the leader of the Chinese Communist party, I can give her a guarantee that that will not happen under this Government. Quite properly, as the right hon. Lady knows, I and the Home Secretary made representations to the planning process about the security issues that must be kept in mind as the proper procedures are followed for China’s application. She also knows that we, too, have concerns about our embassy in China and its proper operation.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I am so pleased to see the Foreign Secretary continuing to lead our allies in support of Ukraine, and equally pleased to see that he has expressed his support for moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets—we have £18 billion-worth of them held in the UK. However, if we are serious about doing that, we need to start getting on with it. What moves is his Department making—for example, putting legislation on the books to allow us to seize those assets when the right time comes? I am glad to hear that there are discussions on that, but has pressure been put on our G7 and EU allies, who still sit on the remaining £300 billion-worth of assets, which perhaps need to be seized at this stage? Has he considered putting forward a UN General Assembly resolution to provide the legal basis for co-ordinated asset seizures?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question and, of course, for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I reassure her that we continue to work closely with our allies on this issue, including through the lengthy discussions that we had at the G7, but let me emphasise that it is important in this particular area that any way forward involves a pooling of that exercise. I do not believe that it would be right for the UK to act unilaterally in this instance; therefore, this is a multilateral endeavour and discussion. She is right to emphasise that we should work at pace, and I reassure her that we are doing so.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I will focus on Ukraine. Last week, President Zelensky announced his willingness to accept an immediate ceasefire. In response, Vladimir Putin intensified his attacks on Ukraine. This gives the lie to Putin’s cheap talk about agreeing with the idea of a ceasefire. His goals remain the same: to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and turn it into a satellite state of Russia. The only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is by strengthening Ukraine in the face of Putin’s brutality, so I was slightly alarmed to hear the Foreign Secretary say that we can seize Russian assets only if we progress by unanimity. If the US refuses to seize Russian assets, will the Foreign Secretary take a lead with European partners so that the support can flow? Can he also say what is stopping him unlocking the £2.5 billion generated from the sale of Chelsea football club, which is held here in the UK and should have already been used to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine? The Foreign Secretary referred to the work that Ministers have been doing to build a coalition of the willing to support any final peace agreement in Ukraine, which my party strongly supports, but can he be more specific? What levels of support have other countries committed, and what progress has he made in securing a backstop security guarantee from the United States? The Liberal Democrats have warned repeatedly that Donald Trump’s actions are emboldening Putin. Last month, Trump said that Russia should rejoin the G7 if a peace settlement is agreed. That would be unjust and wrong. Did the Foreign Secretary make it clear to his G7 counterparts that the UK would oppose Russia rejoining the G7? Given that Donald Trump is not a reliable ally, the Liberal Democrats have argued that the UK must lead in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on the United States. We support the creation of a pan-European rearmament bank so that Europe’s defences can be rapidly rebuilt, yet last week we saw proposals from the European Commission for EU structures that could leave the UK out. Will the Foreign Secretary use his meeting with High Representative Kallas tomorrow to make sure that the UK plays a full part in European efforts, to the benefit of our security and our defence industry?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for continuing the cross-party unity. He is usually pretty on top of the details, but I just say to him that it is not the United States that has raised consistent concerns about sovereign assets. It is not the United States in this instance that is more exposed than others; it is actually in Europe. Belgian colleagues have found themselves more exposed, and German colleagues have previously been resistant on this issue, but there is of course a change of Administration coming in Germany, so we will see what their assessment is. On those funds from Abramovich, which of course we want to use, I just say—and I should have said this to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—that we inherited this matter from the last Government. In two and a half years, no progress was made. I am frustrated with that lack of progress, and I am doing everything I can to reach a resolution. If we do not, I will have to consider all the tools available to Government. However, what I want at this stage is to be able to act quickly, given that the hon. Gentleman knows, I know and we all know that Ukraine needs those funds now. Therefore, working with other colleagues and Mr Abramovich’s lawyers, we urge action now. I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was no discussion of Russia joining the G7—no discussion whatsoever. The G7 is a family of democratic nations committed to the rule of law. Russia under Putin has put itself way outside that club and that necessary partnership. I see no basis at the moment on which Russia could enter the G7, and indeed there would be other candidates way ahead of Russia were that to be the case. I am delighted that the Lib Dems have a proposal for a rearmament bank, but I would just say to them that Ursula von der Leyen got there before them.

Order. To ensure that all colleagues can get in, questions will have to be short, and if the answers continue to be long, there will be some disappointed Back Benchers.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s strong statement that blockading all aid into Gaza, including UK aid, is “appalling and unacceptable”. What discussions did he have with G7 colleagues about what can be done about this provocative action during Ramadan, and what consequences are there for what people are saying is a breach of international law?

My hon. Friend is right: this is a breach of international law. Israel, quite rightly, must defend its own security, but we find the lack of aid—and it has now been 15 days since aid got into Gaza—unacceptable, hugely alarming and very worrying. We urge Israel to get back to the number of trucks we were seeing going in—way beyond 600—so that Palestinians can get the necessary humanitarian support they need at this time.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and all his hard work in travelling all around the world trying to make us all safer. He mentioned the OSCE, and while the previous model in Ukraine may not be fit for the future, I hope he recognises the important role that the OSCE will play in future elections in Ukraine, perhaps with a new model alongside a security force. May I bring the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the joint statement from Canada? It highlights that “Iran is the principal source of regional instability”, and some would argue of global instability and insecurity. In his statement today, he said: “Tehran is producing highly enriched uranium at a rate that makes a mockery of the limits set in the joint comprehensive plan of action.” If Israel, with or without US support, takes direct action to make the world a safer place and to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, will the UK Government support that action?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of Iran’s desire to have nuclear capability. We stand in the way of that. Working with the Germans and the French, we are determined to use all diplomatic efforts to bring about a conclusion to that desire. I of course discussed that with Secretary of State Rubio, alongside my French and German counterparts, at the G7. But we also discussed maximum pressure, and we discussed that nothing is off the table as we discuss these issues with Iran. We are running out of time to reach a resolution to this issue.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s uncompromising message to Vladimir Putin. I wonder whether he would add to that a clear message that there can be no peace while tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, who have been stolen from their parents and scattered across Russia, are not returned? Does he share my concern at reports that Yale University’s humanitarian research lab has been defunded by Elon Musk while it was tracking hundreds of those abducted children? Will he work with international allies to ensure that that data is not lost and that it contributes to getting those children back to their anguished families?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his question about the horrors of what the Russian regime has done to those children. He will be pleased to know, as will the whole House, that we have, through our official development assistance budget, supported efforts to retrieve and work alongside those children. I was so pleased to spend time, alongside Madam Zelensky, with some of those children on my last visit to Ukraine, but also on a previous visit. We keep the issue absolutely in our sights. It cannot be a negotiating tool in any future discussions with Mr Putin.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rightly set out, very well and in detail, the broad range of challenges that were discussed at the G7. One area he touched on was the threat of the Houthis, who of course are being supported by al-Shabaab in Somalia. The Republic of Somaliland is the only democratic country in the area that is valiantly trying to fight the terrorist threats. Will he commit to his Department working with the Government of the Republic of Somaliland to deal with the threats it faces, and which we also face?

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that, too, was raised in discussions with G7 colleagues. He is absolutely right: al-Shabaab is a deep concern, and the terrorism that emanates from its activities is something that we closely monitor and work on with partners. Yes, of course I can give him that assurance.

Happy St Patrick’s day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And happy birthday to my dad, who is no doubt watching—he likes to keep an eye on me. [Interruption.] A lot of time in front of the TV. The Secretary of State will know that there are a number of Sudanese British people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as I have raised some of their cases with him. They remain devastated by what they see on television and in the media about what their family members are going through, so I thank him and his team for the support they have given me and my constituents so far. In advance of the conference to which he has just referred, may I urge him to engage with the African Union, the Commonwealth and the Arab League to ensure that the political process to which he referred in his statement is fit for purpose?

I wish my hon. Friend’s father all good wishes on his birthday, and I thank my hon. Friend for the way he has continued to raise in the Chamber these issues of conflict in Africa. He will be pleased to know that I met the African Union at the G20 a few weeks ago. We will work with it for the conference on 15 April. We expect it to attend alongside other African nations. It is hugely important that we make some breakthrough, not just on the humanitarian side but on the political side, to bring this conflict to an end.

The Foreign Secretary is clearly a busy man, so I understand why we have not seen him since the Prime Minister announced a 40% cut to the overseas development budget on 25 February. Can I ask him now, then, whether the consequences of slashing overseas aid were discussed at the G7, and how he explained to our partners that withdrawing lifesaving aid to the poorest people on the planet, thereby making them even more dependent on Russia and China, would, in the long run, make us all safer and more secure?

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he is, occasionally, wrong? [Laughter.] Very occasionally. The Prime Minister made a statement about defence spending, which was applauded right across the European families, and certainly in the United States. It was essential. He came back the following week and made another statement on leading efforts within Europe, and I was sitting right next to him. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to get his eyes tested. On development aid, which is an important issue, we have not made an ideological decision. We do not want cliff edges. It is important that the hon. Gentleman knows that foreign policy, diplomatic efforts, development efforts and, of course, hard power are part of a family of tools. He should never forget that war in Ukraine has cost the African continent $7 billion. That is why it is right that we develop our defences and continue to spend aid in Ukraine.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), must have been reading my notes earlier. I will raise the same issue again, though, because I do not believe we can say enough about the 19,546 children stolen from Ukraine. The humanitarian research lab at Yale University, which has just had its funding cut by the United States, was not only trying to reunite those children with their families, but documenting some of the war crimes taking place. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how we will ensure that that work is not lost, and will he also say what we are doing to support the families reunited with children who will be so severely traumatised?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I want to reassure her that the UK continues to track Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children, which is a clear violation of international law. I met Madam Zelensky in Kyiv back in February on this issue. The UK was very pleased to see another group of children returned via Qatari mediation in September 2024. We consistently raise awareness of child deportations in our comms and across multilateral forums such as the OSCE. Of course, we are ensuring that in any changes that we make to development spend, our commitments to humanitarian efforts are made to Ukraine. This is an area where my hon. Friend could expect to see the UK continue to fund support.

It is good to hear that the G7 believes that Iran should not be allowed to build a nuclear bomb, which is a statement of the obvious. It is also good to hear that President Trump has sent a strongly worded letter to the Supreme Leader. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the JCPOA was dead in the water the minute that President Trump pulled out in 2018? He talks of what we might do now, and says that nothing is off the table—would the Foreign Secretary confirm that that includes military action?

I must let Mr Trump speak for himself when he says that nothing is off the table in dealing with Iran. I am pleased that, in working alongside the Americans, they recognise the important role that we, the French and the Germans play. And that maximum pressure is essential. We have made it clear to the Iranians that that snapback and the sanctions that would follow, squeezing the Iranian economy at a time when everyone accepts that Iran is weak, is not what they want. They need to get serious about their nuclear ambitions. We will work on all tracks. The right hon. Gentleman will have read, as I have, that military endeavour is an option—one that our Israeli colleagues remind us about on a pretty regular basis.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and thank him for the leadership that he has shown over the past few weeks, in particular on Ukraine. He mentioned his discussions with his Canadian counterpart; following the G7 meeting that he attended, can he share what further progress he has made in building the much needed coalition of the willing in order to guarantee Ukraine’s security?

A number of nations are stepping up and coming forward alongside the United Kingdom and France, and Canada is one of them. I do not want to give a running commentary because there are further meetings this week. My hon. Friend will understand that, when talking about committing troops, different countries have different requirements for going to their own Parliaments and speaking to their own nations about these matters. It is right that I leave them to do that and do not make announcements from the Dispatch Box.

On 25 February, the Foreign Secretary told me in this Chamber that he was minded to “move from freezing assets to seizing assets.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 626.] I note that he has used that phrase again this afternoon. Given the increasingly mercurial nature of our American allies’ support of Ukraine, what progress has been made? What is the Foreign Secretary’s best estimate of when our Ukrainian friends will be able to benefit from those frozen assets?

I understand why the hon. Lady raises her question. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), this is not an issue where the US is a blocker. There are nations within Europe that are more exposed than others. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), it is best that we act multilaterally. That is the issue, but we are working at pace.

It was a big weekend for the Foreign Secretary in Canada representing our country, and a big weekend for the Royal Navy in Plymouth. The Foreign Secretary alluded to increased co-operation with our EU NATO allies in defence activity. In Plymouth this weekend the deputy French ambassador was down to unveil Ariadne—a new capability that the French and British Navies now hold. It is an unmanned, uncrewed, completely autonomous end-to-end, 12-metre-long underwater mine countermeasure vessel—a remarkable feat of technology. Will he join me in celebrating this feat of co-operation?

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He will be pleased that maritime security was such a big discussion point at the G7, and I thank Canada for that. We are a great maritime nation working with our colleagues, and I assure him that there will be more on this issue in the strategic defence review, which is to follow.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It seems to me that Putin views the failure to seize the frozen assets as a sign of western weakness. If there are some reluctant countries, given that the Prime Minister is rightly leading a coalition of the willing, would he and the Government lead a coalition of the willing nations who will seize those frozen assets?

As right across Europe we see a cost of living crisis, it is right and proper that we pool our efforts, and that respective Treasury Departments and Finance Ministers are satisfied that seizing those assets would not have a detrimental effect on the global economy. Those necessary discussions are being held. The hon. Gentleman knows my emphasis, but I assure him that Europe is more united on these issues than Reform is currently.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Last week, I hosted a Westminster Hall debate on the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Was the Foreign Secretary able to raise that matter at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting? Might he commit to a further meeting with MPs to discuss the UK’s commitment to that fund?

We were able to discuss Gaza and to link that to a broader discussion on development spend and our commitment to Gaza. My hon Friend will know that the United Kingdom supports the Palestinian Authority and the necessary reforms that they need to make. I assure him that I, or indeed the Minister for the Middle East, will meet and discuss these issues further.

The Foreign Secretary described the blocking of aid to Gaza in his statement as “appalling” and “unacceptable”. Why does he not also confirm that it is illegal and in breach of international law, as is the continued bombardment of Gaza and the bombardment of the west bank? When will the British Government finally say to Israel, “We will no longer supply weapons to you and we will no longer continue security co-operation while you continue to illegally occupy territory and commit war crimes in both Gaza and the west bank”?

I did say in my contribution that Israel is in breach of international humanitarian law. Of course, we have spoken to the Israelis about those concerns. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the decision that I made back in September to suspend arms sales, which was largely because of that breach.

Earlier today in Parliament, I chaired an event to remember the victims of the appalling chemical weapons attack at Halabja on 16 March 1988 carried out by the vicious Saddam Hussein regime. They thank the UK for our help and friendship over the years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that and current crises show the need for a strong UK? What I mean by that is: strong armed forces; strong diplomacy through our superb diplomats; soft power with the World Service and the British Council; and our alliances in Africa, in the Gulf and in Europe. Those are vital to preserve and protect the international rules-based system that we all rely on.

My hon. Friend put his remarks incredibly well. May I associate myself with his remarks about that appalling atrocity? I make it crystal clear that it is hugely important that the United Kingdom, as a P-5 member, continues to support our armed services and hard power, but our soft power, our diplomatic efforts and our development spend—we will still be the sixth biggest development spender in the world—are hugely important.

Last spring, the UK joined the United States in conducting five combined joint naval and airstrikes against the Houthis. This weekend, the US conducted airstrikes without participation from the RAF except routine refuelling support. Why the change? What does that signal about British foreign policy? Does the Foreign Secretary consider that getting US involvement in a backstop in Ukraine is more challenging when the US has to operate alone against the Houthis?

The United Kingdom was involved to the extent of supporting US efforts on refuelling. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the detail of any military exercise, but I reassure the hon. Member that we continue to work closely with our friends in the United States. As he would expect, I was briefed on these issues alongside the Prime Minister and others.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his strong words, which are much appreciated. I welcome the reaffirmation of support for Ukraine contained in the statement as well as the continuation of support for a peaceful resolution in Israel and Gaza. However, peace cannot come at the price of appeasement of Russia or of the Hamas terrorist murderers that they are. How will the Secretary of State ensure that peace will have at its foundation respect rather than threat? What more can be done in the interim to ensure that children on both sides of the Israel-Gaza border and in Ukraine can have food, medicine, clothing and an education while these complex things are sorted out?

I am sure the whole House is hugely grateful for the humanity that the hon. Gentleman has shown once again on the issue of children on both sides of this conflict. It is horrendous, when one looks at the scenes of those hostages coming out, that among those hooded young men with Kalashnikovs there are children. That cannot be right or proper, but at the same time, it cannot be right to starve children of the humanitarian aid and medical supplies that they need while we seek to deal with the problems of Hamas and getting those hostages out. I always hold up the prospect of a two-state solution as a way through this most complex and difficult challenge. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has made his remarks in the House today. Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Ordered, That the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1.	Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
Second day
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 2 and Part 3; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration.	Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.—(Kate Dearden.)