The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement, which covered events in Iran, Gaza, Syria and Yemen, and the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. That alone demonstrates the increasing instability we are facing globally. The Official Opposition are clear that the UK can and must play a full role in facing up to the challenges of our increasingly unstable world.
Beginning with Iran, we stand with those brave Iranians who have risked so much by exercising their fundamental right to free protest. Reports that at least 36 protesters have been killed during the Iran protests are extremely concerning. The violence perpetrated by the Iranian regime against protesters is appalling as well. Can the Minister say what practical steps the UK can take in looking at how we can support and bring those responsible to justice for these dreadful acts?
We know the Foreign Secretary raised the case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 19 December and we welcome that. Can the Minister give the House an update on their case and set out what further steps the United Kingdom Government intend to take to secure their safe release? In such an uncertain political context, it is essential that Ministers redouble their efforts in this area.
The Official Opposition welcome the progress that is being made towards a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Gaza conflict, but we remain concerned about the breaches of the ceasefire perpetrated by Hamas. In particular, can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made to secure the return of the body of the remaining hostage?
On Monday, Minister Falconer announced that the UK will establish a Palestinian embassy. Can the Minister provide further details on this, and can she confirm where the Palestinian embassy will be established and when it is expected to be open?
I will also take this opportunity to ask about reports of terrorists infiltrating aid agencies. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of these reports? Can the Minister give us a sense of the scale of infiltration that the Government are aware of?
On the situation in Yemen, it is now being reported that the separatist leader is going to take a last stand after rejecting the Saudi ultimatum. Can the Minister provide an update on the fast-moving situation there?
In Syria, we welcome the Royal Air Force’s successful joint operation with France on Daesh. We know that Syria is still facing huge challenges. Specifically on the issue of sectarian violence, what practical steps can the Minister take to support the Syrian Government in their work to tackle this?
Finally, on the Alaa Abd el-Fattah case, can the Minister confirm exactly when Ministers were made aware of the horrific social media comments that have been the source of so much debate over the Recess? The Official Opposition have called for his citizenship to be stripped; can the Minister confirm whether Ministers are considering this option?
I look forward to hearing the responses from the Minister.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am also grateful for the Statement, but I am also slightly disappointed that, given the linkages between the Middle East and North Africa and the crisis in Sudan, there was no mention of that emergency. I will return to that in a moment and I hope the Minister might be able to give an update and respond to a couple of points that I wish to make on that.
On the ongoing low-level conflict which continues in Gaza, it is palpably obvious from the Minister’s Statement that there is not what can be described as a “humanitarian ceasefire”. I agree with the words that the Minister outlined in the House of Commons. He decried the lack of a humanitarian response as a disaster. In the Minister’s words, it is “catastrophic” and “unjustifiable”. He went on to say that the hypothermia and sewage running in the streets is “unforgivable”. I also agree with his strong words on that.
It is a very long way from October, when our Prime Minister flew in a flurry to Egypt to, in his words, give special tribute to President Trump on a so-called historic peace agreement. Four months on, there has been little progress on governance and there continues to be far too little in food and medicine assistance to civilians. Peace, proper peace, seems a very long way away, especially with Hamas and gangsterism continuing.
We had been informed that our Government were playing a leading role in the co-ordination work of governance arrangements for Gaza. But can the Minister give some concrete examples of what impact the UK is having and what role we are playing in the Board of Peace? What is the board’s current impact? What is the Minister’s assessment of how far from the crucial next phase we are, in the Government’s estimate?
On Iran, the latest repression continues to alarm, and it is worth remembering the rhetoric at the time of the US air strikes that this would have weakened the regime and potentially hastened its end. But we continue to see the dictatorial human rights abuses of the Iranian regime. We also note the continuing abuse of Lindsay and Craig Foreman, and I also endorse the question as to what actions are being taken to secure their release.
For some young Iranians, especially young women, who continue to be targeted by the regime, especially those that have some connection with the United Kingdom, there continues to be no safe and legal route for them to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. Why is this? In opposition, Labour supported my amendment to the then migration Bill for a safe and legal route that would cover Iran. This is now opposed by the Home Office. Can the Minister outline why that is the case?
With regards to the violence in Yemen and the security impact in the Red Sea, we also hope that there will be some form of response to the initiatives for peace. But it does seem far away, and a further update from the Government would be welcome.
On Syria, is it still the view of the Government that Syria is considered to be a safe country as far as migration is concerned? Advice for travel is still restricted, and we still do not have an embassy.
I also wish to ask the Minister about comments made by her colleague, and I am fully respectful of the fact he has had to go during the dinner break business because he has been occupied under the legislation this afternoon. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece raised the case of 35 British children, half of whom are under 10, detained indefinitely and unlawfully with 15 women in northern Syria.
My noble friend asked the noble Lord the Minister what actions the Government are taking. The Minister said that those British nationals were able to avail themselves of “requests for consular assistance” and
“that facility is open to access”.
There is no consular provision in Syria for any UK nationals or joint nationals. The advice from the FCDO on its website is perfectly clear that no consular access is available. So, will the Minister write to me with clarification as to what kind of consular access within Syria is available?
Given the restrictive nature of the regime in Syria and the fact that the Government have lifted sanctions and provided relief against the sanctions without any conditions on that, I maintain the concerns that I have raised previously about the lack of conditions placed on the regime to make improvements on human rights, especially for women, within Syria.
Finally, on Sudan, the Minister is well aware now that an estimated 75,000 civilians have been slaughtered in the atrocities in El Fasher. The Minister is well aware of my concerns about El Obeid and other areas. What are the latest actions the Government, as penholder in the UN Security Council, are taking for the protection of civilians within Sudan? Can the Minister restate the view of our Government that the future of Sudan can be in the hands only of civilians, that civilian-led governance is the only way of reconstructing towards peace and that there should be no profit for combatants in any future? Would she be willing to meet me and Sudanese civilian leaders to discuss the protection of civilians and also the necessity of having a reconstruction of that country, potentially after peace, if we can secure it, which is in the hands of civilians?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for reminding us of Sudan, which, as he said, was not part of the Statement, which was specifically about the Middle East and North Africa. He was absolutely right to say that the events in Sudan, the Horn of Africa, and Yemen are connected in many different ways, and he is right to draw that to our attention.
At the risk of spending the entire time I have on Sudan, which I could quite easily do, El Fasher is a crime scene and the sheer hell of what happened there and the darkness of that is yet to be fully appreciated by the international community. But that will happen, and access will improve. I am regularly in contact with Tom Fletcher. He sent me a note just this week about what he discovered on his recent visit to Sudan, including to RSF-controlled areas, and it is bleak. But we continue to maintain our focus on Sudan, as does the Foreign Secretary. What the noble Lord said about how vital it is to have a civilian-led future is absolutely right. I agree with him and will of course be happy to meet him and those civilian leaders from Sudan whenever that is possible. I am very happy to agree to do that.
I turn now to the substance of the Statement made by my honourable friend Mr Falconer in the other place. On Iran, it is right, as the noble Earl said, that those who wish to protest, make their points and air their views about the regime under which they live, should be free to do so. They should be free to gather, protest, speak and make their case as they see fit, and it is wrong that they are being treated in the way they are. We are sometimes cautious about what we say about this because it is part of the regime’s position that these are events being facilitated and encouraged by foreign powers. That is absolutely not the case. We know that, but we do not want to say things that could enable the regime to make that incorrect assertion and cause harm to those protesters who are doing what they have an absolute right to do.
It is wrong that the Foremans are being held and have been charged with espionage. My honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, has met the family, and I believe the Foreign Secretary has been in contact as well. We will continue to work for their release, as both noble Lords have encouraged us to do.
As the noble Earl said, the remaining body of the hostage in Gaza needs to be returned to the family so that they can mourn and grieve, as they should be able to do, with dignity. It is outrageous that this has been going on for 820 days now. It is wrong and should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
On the issue of the embassy, I do not have anything further to add to what Minister Falconer said in the Statement. But it is a logical next step following our decision to recognise the State of Palestine.
The noble Earl asked about the infiltration of aid agencies. We are of course concerned about that, but our biggest concern when it comes to aid is that—this is in response to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—although we have been able to work to increase the amount of aid reaching Gaza, they are still around 100 or so trucks short of what is estimated to be needed. The restrictions on access still persist to too great an extent. Not all the crossings are open. Some commercial goods are allowed in, such as cigarettes and luxury goods, whereas some shelter kits and medical supplies are not being permitted. This needs to stop. We need to get the appropriate goods in to where they are desperately needed, and that needs to happen urgently.
Both noble Lords asked for an update on Yemen. We are pleased to see that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE are talking about de-escalation and that that is what they both wish to see. The Saudis have offered to host a conference. This is welcome and we will encourage it, because de-escalation and an end to the violence there are urgently needed. The situation is really quite desperate. Access for aid workers is difficult in some parts of Yemen, and the only way forward is for the fighting to stop. It is good that both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are saying the same things at the moment.
On Syria, clearly, as we have discussed many times, Syria is in a very precarious situation. This is an early stage of a new regime. It is not straightforward by any means. We are co-ordinating with other donors and providing technical assistance. We were one of the first countries to lift sanctions. The reason we did that was in recognition that if this opportunity that Syria now has is to come to anything at all, it needs the ability to strengthen its economy and build the security it needs.
The noble Lord asked about the return of refugees. Of the Syrian refugees I have spoken to—those here in the UK, some who have returned, and others who have been in Jordan—not everybody wants to return. Some feel that their children saw things they never want them to be retraumatised by. But many do want to return, and are desperate to, but not until they are sure that they and their families can be safe, their children can be educated and they can have access to healthcare. That is a completely understandable position to take. It matters to the UK because we want to enable the return of refugees who have been welcomed here. Refugees want that, and it is vital for the future of Syria that people who want to go home, and are able to, can do so and can contribute and take part in the rebuilding of their country. They tell us that that is what they want too.
I was asked to comment on the remarks of my honourable friend regarding the return of refugees in Syria who are in camps. There are a small number of UK nationals in those camps. The noble Lord will appreciate that there are serious security considerations around their status. Those are considerations that I am not privy to. He asked me to write to him and I am very happy to do that and to provide any further detail, particularly around the kind of access to assistance that might be possible. I agree with him that is incredibly difficult to imagine how that is at all straightforward in the circumstances, but I am happy to write to him with more detail on that.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the conflict in Yemen has now been going on for, I think, more than 12 years, with tragic consequences. Those of us who have observed this over the past decade or so have always regarded it as both a tragedy and a very complicated issue, all the more so because of the recent clashes between the UAE-backed forces and the Saudi forces. I was glad to hear the Minister say that initial contact has been made with a view to de-escalation, because the last thing we need in that area is a further complication, with two external powers contributing towards the tragedy. Is she in a position to tell me whether UK Ministers have had contact with their Emirati and Saudi counterparts and, much more difficult I know, whether they assess those initial contacts as mere superficial politics or they are convinced of the depth of understanding of the danger and the sincerity to de-escalate on the part of both of them?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can confirm that there is regular contact between UK Ministers and their counterparts in the UAE and KSA specifically about Yemen. They are substantial and meaningful, and they are not, as my noble friend described it, going through the political motions. This is serious. We want to see progress and de-escalation, and that is what we are hearing from the UAE and KSA as well. We need to keep up those contacts and try to make sure that we see the results of them on the ground.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, on Iran, refusing to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is the regime’s primary tool of repression and terror, sends a dangerous signal of weakness. At this critical moment, more than 10 days into the uprising, there has been no public statement of support for the people of Iran from the Prime Minister at a time when protesters are being killed, hospitals are being attacked and a nation is demanding freedom. Recent statements from the President of the United States warning the regime against mass killings and expressing support for the Iranian people have resonated strongly inside Iran. They offer hope, not because of rhetoric but because the people of Iran can finally express their protests, knowing full well that they have forces on the ground in their support. Can the Minister tell us when the Prime Minister is planning to stand up and condemn the atrocities being heaped upon civilians in Iran and, at the same time, when he will proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do not talk about proscription before we do it. As I explained in my response to the Front Benches earlier, we are careful of what we say. That is not because we think that people should not have the right to protest and be free to do so—and we do not agree with many of the things that they say when they do—but because we want to make sure that nothing this Government say puts at risk the lives of people protesting and making their case as they should. We do not want to do anything that would make their predicament even worse, because it is the position of the regime in Iran that we are somehow encouraging, facilitating, enabling and encouraging those protests. Clearly, we are not. These are very firmly the views of the people of Iran, who are choosing to take the steps that they are taking. We are mindful of what we say, and I think it is right that we are.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank Minister for the condemnation of the activities of the current regime in Iran. Despite what she has just said, will His Majesty’s Government condemn attacks by the regime on the hospital in Ilam and, yesterday, on Sina Hospital in Tehran, and the abduction of wounded people seeking help in those hospitals? Can they consider again the policy and perhaps demand the immediate release of all those arrested during the protests? How will His Majesty’s Government support the Iranian people and their organised resistance in the ongoing struggle for justice, human rights and freedom? Do His Majesty’s Government recognise the right of Iranians to bring about real change by establishing a democratic republic, as articulated in the NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan? In the light of the fact that there have been some 2,500 executions in Iran in recent times, is it not time for a change of policy and a more assertive and condemnatory policy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is right that the people of Iran should be free to live their lives as they wish and to have a Government who reflect their wishes, and that women, in particular, in Iran should be free to live and to conduct their lives in the way that they want. There is no ambiguity about the UK Government’s position on any of these things. We support the people of Iran in their endeavours to bring about the open, free society that we would all wish to see.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we primarily think about Russian aggression in Ukraine, quite rightly, but if we think of north Africa, despite the death of the Wagner Group, the so-called Russian Africa Corps is still very active in the Sahel and Libya and supports rather ugly regimes. It is there capturing important resources for Russia, and it fights in a way that is contrary to the rules of war and human rights. This seems to me to be rather understated and not seen enough, but it is quite dangerous to us and to Europe. I wonder how the Foreign Office see this and how its threats can be contained.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the reasons that I feel quite so strongly that the UK needs to be outward-facing and strong diplomatically, defensively and in our development work is that if we neglect areas of the world, such as the Sahel, then the conditions allowed to grow in Africa, and in that region especially, will make it a breeding ground for extremism, dangerous Islamism, and activities of states that do not wish us any good and certainly do not wish the people of the Sahel any good either. It is vital that the UK maintains its leadership role globally in fighting these things. We work as closely as we ever have with our allies and partners, especially in places where it is the most difficult, such as those that he describes.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to her usual position this week—I know it has been a long week, and it is only Wednesday—and I very much welcome the update on a wide range of issues. I want to ask her a question on Iran. I recognise that she, speaking on behalf of the Government, wants to be careful in her wording. However, those of us who are not in government, and are therefore free to say so, want to stand in strong solidarity with the protests in Iran, particularly about the repression that women and girls have faced in Iran over this past number of years. Given that the New York Times, citing Iranian officials, has said that Iran is operating under “survival mode”, will the Minister say whether our Government, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are ready for the potential collapse of the Iranian regime and the consequences that will bring, not just for that state but for regional security and UK interests?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We consider all eventualities and work these things through carefully, because some things seem imminently likely while others seem less likely but would have wide-ranging consequences should they occur, so we do the kind of work the noble Baroness has asked me about. I am not in a position to give a detailed analysis right now of what that looks like, but the Government’s position is that we support people who want to see an open society in Iran. We think that the repression that they have lived under is wrong, and they have tolerated it for far too long.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
I thank the Minister for all her valiant efforts on these intractable issues. Specifically on the fallout from the case of Mr el-Fattah, which dominated the agenda for so many days and now seems no longer to do so, the department is reviewing the process around such cases. Can the Minister throw light on whether that review will include a review of extant outstanding real-world consular cases that may throw up similar issues, or is the department only looking in scope at the process?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is going to be a review, and I hope it is very quick. I do not know about anyone else, but I would certainly like to draw a line under this. We need to understand what went wrong here. Mr el-Fattah was given British citizenship under the previous Government. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked me about this and I did not give him an answer, so I will do that now. It takes a lot for us to remove someone’s citizenship. I was asked whether we look at the previous social media of everyone we provide consular assistance to. No, we do not do that routinely. There may be occasions where that is appropriate. Some of our fellow citizens—how shall I put this diplomatically?—have views that we do not particularly appreciate, but that does not mean that we do not try to help them. We do not make a judgment in all cases about why they went somewhere we told them not to go to, or got themselves in a situation we would prefer they had not got into. We provide assistance judgment free, if you like.
This situation is slightly different because of its high-profile nature and because of ministerial involvement over successive Governments from all parties, so it is right that we look at exactly what went wrong here and why we did not know, because we may have made slightly different judgments at different points along the way. That is what this review is about. I hope it is quick so that we can share the findings and perhaps avoid this sort of situation in future.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on Gaza, I very much associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, about the lack of progress on the peace process. The Statement talks about NGOs being banned, aid being stuck at the borders and the huge continuing humanitarian crisis that is contributing to. With that in mind, I note that the Foreign Press Association has expressed profound disappointment that the ban on free and unfettered access for foreign journalists in Gaza has continued. In the last year, Gaza was the deadliest place to work as a journalist; 56 Palestinian media professionals were killed in the last year there. Clearly, getting international eyes on the ground is important for the world to understand what is happening. Are the British Government pushing for that to happen so the situation can open up to media scrutiny?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, that needs to happen, and it should happen. The world needs to have proper journalists able to report to a high standard about what is happening now and what has happened previously.
The 20-point plan is something we are going to stick with. It is all there is. There is no alternative peace plan: this is it, imperfect though it surely is. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of aid getting into Gaza. It is not enough. We do not agree at all with the registration requirements and the disclosure of names of personnel; we are fundamentally against that. It goes against the principles by which we work. We have said so, and we will continue to make that point.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the Statement contains the usual highly condemnatory statements on Israel’s behaviour, using very emotive terms such as unjustifiable and unforgivable. It spends eight paragraphs on Israel’s conduct but only 10 words on the other side of the issue, which are, “Hamas should disarm and allow a path to lasting security”—no emotive language and no criticism of Hamas. The Statement describes the ban on the 37 NGOs as “unjustifiable” but does not mention the actuality that the ban will take place in March if those NGOs do not disclose details of their staff and operations. Given that we know that UNWRA and other NGOs have been infiltrated by Hamas, why is it so unjustifiable that Israel requires this information, especially in the context of Hamas’s refusal to disarm and honour its side of the agreement? I ask the Minister whether she thinks there is a natural connection between Israel’s conduct and Hamas’s refusal to honour its side of the agreement.
I have an additional question, on the matter of Alaa el-Fattah’s tweet. If the Government had done their due diligence, would he still have been welcomed back to the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What he said was wrong. As to whether different decisions would have been made at an earlier point, I cannot answer. Maybe the point at which to have made a different decision would have been the point at which he was awarded citizenship, but this Government were not responsible for that choice. Once citizenship has been given, to remove citizenship—abhorrent though the things he said clearly were, and he has rightly apologised for them, I am not clear that they would have been sufficient cause to deprive someone of their citizenship, even though we fundamentally disagree with what was said. I think the noble Lord can appreciate the complexities around that.
On the issue of aid agencies and personnel, the Israeli Government are requiring the disclosure of the names of individuals working for aid agencies. We disagree with that. Other people will agree with it, but we do not. We think that is the wrong way to conduct access for aid agencies. We just think the Government of Israel are wrong on this point, and we will continue to make that case to them and explain why. These agencies are very effective at getting aid to people who need it desperately. The depth of need is still there. Things have improved somewhat—the latest IPC assessments of hunger show that things have improved a bit—but an awful lot more still needs to happen. Thousands of traumatised children are having difficulty with speech and language at school, accessing education and healthcare, and getting sufficient quality food. These are all things that I know everyone in this Chamber would want to see resolved, and we think the best way to do that is to allow the agencies to do their job.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
Returning to Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Paul Ovenden, who was until recently the Prime Minister’s own director of strategy, wrote the following remarkable paragraph:
“What I knew of his plight during my time in government was largely down to his status as a cause célèbre beloved of Whitehall’s sturdy, clean-shirted diplomats and their scurrying auxiliaries. They mentioned him with such regularity that it became a running joke among my colleagues: a totem of the ceaseless sapping of time and energy by people obsessed with fringe issues”.
He went on to complain of a stakeholder state that has gripped Governments of both parties. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s former director of strategy and, if so, what does she think should be done?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Paul is a very good friend of mine. I have worked with him for many years and I enjoyed reading his assessment of his time working in Downing Street. I think he was using that case to illustrate the point—and I think he is right—that there are often certain issues that are of concern to people who work in the Diplomatic Service, and who may have cause to be interested in human rights and other such issues, that may not be the concern of members of my family in the north-east or many others. That does not mean that diplomats should not care about them. Paul expresses his views in a characteristically straightforward and colourful way. I respect very much his right to do that. He makes a very good point, one that many of us in government can recognise, but does that mean that we should not do our jobs when it comes to British nationals being held overseas? Of course not.