Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

A few days ago, Dr Tarek Loubani came to see me. He is a Canadian who last year was volunteering in Gaza. When the protests began—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At this stage, the shadow Foreign Secretary simply asks for a statement from the Minister—just a sentence.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. Everything is so topsy-turvy at the moment; I seem to have lost myself.

[Mr Speaker]

Just blurt it out—ask the question. One sentence, for the record.

[Emily Thornberry]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We have all been in the right hon. Lady’s position; I appreciate the question and am happy to respond.

The Government remain deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza. The violence over the past year has been and continues to be shocking, and the loss of life and large number of injured Palestinians are devastating. Since 30 March 2018, more than 23,000 Palestinians have been injured and 187 killed.

We have been clear that the UK fully supports the need for an independent and transparent investigation into last year’s events in Gaza. Our Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the former Foreign Secretary, made that position clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu last year, and we continue to urge the Israeli authorities to look into the Israel Defense Forces’ contact at the perimeter fence.

We have repeatedly made clear to Israel our long-standing concerns about the manner in which the IDF policed non-violent protests and the border areas, including the use of live ammunition. We call on Israel to adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality when defending its legitimate security interests. It is totally unacceptable that Hamas and its operatives have been cynically exploiting the protests for their own benefit. Hamas and other terrorist groups must cease all actions that proactively encourage violence or put civilian lives at risk.

We welcome the fact that the Israeli Military Advocate General has recently ordered five criminal investigations that relate to 11 separate instances of Palestinian fatalities during the Gaza border protests. Those investigations are ongoing. Given the importance of accountability, it is vital that the investigations are independent and transparent, that their findings are made public, and that, if wrongdoing is found, those responsible are held to account.

In May 2018, the United Kingdom abstained on the UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for a commission of inquiry on the basis that the substance of a resolution must be impartial and balanced. We could not support an international investigation that refused to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas. This morning, the UK abstained on the item 2 accountability resolution at the 2019 Human Rights Council, which included references to the commission of inquiry report. Although the report looks into Israel’s actions, it is highly regrettable that it did not look comprehensively at the actions of non-state actors such as Hamas.

The perpetual cycle of violence does not serve anyone’s interests, and it must end. The impact of the protests has been severe and catastrophic, particularly on Gaza’s healthcare system. I am considering what more the United Kingdom can do to support those in desperate need in Gaza, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement in the coming days.

The situation in Gaza remains unsustainable, set in the context of a stalled middle east peace process that remains, in the view of the UK, vital to pursue and preserve. A long-term strategy for Gaza itself is desperately needed to improve humanitarian and economic conditions and reduce the restrictions that are damaging the living standards of ordinary Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live their lives in peace and security. It is vital that all parties redouble their efforts to move towards renewed negotiations and the shared goals of peace and a two-state solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Emily Thornberry.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will have another go.

As I was saying, a few days ago, Dr Tarek Loubani came to see me. He is a Canadian who was volunteering in Gaza last year. When the protests began on the border last spring, he went to help the many protestors who had been wounded by gunfire or affected by tear gas. He said that, on 14 May, the situation was relatively calm. He stood chatting to his colleagues 25 metres away from the protestors, wearing his green hospital scrubs. He said:

“We could clearly see the IDF sniper towers…And they could see us”.

When he turned sideways, that was when they shot him—one bullet, through both legs. The paramedic who came to his aid, clearly marked in high-vis clothing, treated his injuries, then resumed his work elsewhere and was shot dead an hour later. That paramedic was one of 189 Palestinians killed during last year’s protests— 35 of them children—while Dr Loubani was one of 6,000 shot by snipers.

The UN report into these actions may have its faults—I accept that, and I agree that it plays down the role of Hamas in orchestrating these protests, but it provides clear and compelling evidence that live ammunition was used in a way that cannot be explained or justified against individuals such as Dr Loubani and thousands more like him. Yet this morning, as the Minister said, the Government have abstained on a resolution endorsing that report, in effect telling the Israeli authorities, “We refuse to find fault with your actions.”

[Alistair Burt]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I believe it does. Yesterday, we read the explanation for that decision in an article by the Foreign Secretary, along with the announcement that the UK would vote against all resolutions before the Human Rights Council under standing item 7 of its agenda—even those in line with official UK policy.

I want to ask the Minister about the logic of the Foreign Secretary’s argument. He argues that because item 7 gives disproportionate attention to the situation in Palestine above all other conflicts, on principle the Government will veto all resolutions falling under that heading. By that logic, would it have been this Government’s position to veto all Council resolutions on apartheid, which was a standing agenda item for 26 years, or all Council resolutions on Chile under Pinochet, which was a standing item for 15 years, simply on a point of principle?

Even if we accept that argument, let us look at what the Foreign Secretary says next:

“Britain will continue to support scrutiny of Israel…in the HRC, so long as it is justified and not proposed under Item 7.”

But the report into events in Gaza debated at the Council today is being considered under item 2, not item 7. Surely the Minister cannot deny that its criticism of the use of live ammunition is justified. By the Foreign Secretary’s logic, why have the Government refused to support the report? If Dr Loubani cannot be given justice for the injuries he has suffered and the killing of his colleagues, surely he deserves at least to hear the world, including our country, unequivocally condemn it.

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s remarks, some of which I very much agree with. I also met Dr Tarek Loubani and colleagues from Medical Aid for Palestinians during the week. There is no doubt about his sincerity and the pain that he has experienced in relation to his injuries and the death of his friend. Any encounter with those who have been involved in the actions that resulted from the protests and the move towards the fence brings into sharp relief our discussions, when we confront the reality of what has happened—the loss of life, the life-changing injuries to a child hit by a bullet, a lifetime of disability and the loss of paramedics. Whatever the context of a right to protest and a right to defend, if such things result that is a tragedy, and such actions are shocking and appalling in equal measure. Whatever the context, that cannot and should not be an end result.

In relation to the procedural matters that the right hon. Lady raised, there are two parts to dealing with matters at the Human Rights Council: the vote itself, and the explanation of vote. The United Kingdom has not been alone in abstaining in relation to this accountability, and the votes were spread across the Human Rights Council. There are reasons for both.

The United Kingdom has taken a principled position in relation to item 7 for a period of time. When item 7 was introduced, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, Ban Ki-moon, the then UN Secretary-General, voiced his disappointment, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world, that there was one specific item relating solely to Israel, and Israel was the only country that faced that. That has been the long-standing concern about item 7. At the same time, we have been at pains to make it clear that when issues came under other items, as with item 2 and this accountability report, the matter would be looked at entirely on its own merits, and we would support those actions that we believed we could.

In relation to this particular matter, at the time the inquiry was set up, we said that because of the nature of the inquiry—it would not be looking at the actions of those who were responsible for taking people to the fence and took some complicit action in relation to what happened—the inquiry could not be even-handed and balanced. That is why we abstained in the first place, and it is why we abstained again. If I may, I should put the explanation of vote that has been given in Geneva on to the record so that colleagues here can read it. It says:

“Our vote today follows on from our position in…2018 when we abstained on the resolution that created the Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza protests. Our expectation is that accountability must be pursued impartially, fairly, and in a balanced manner. We did not and cannot support an international investigation that refuses to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas, and we cannot support a resolution that fails to address the actions of all actors, including non-state actors. The UK continues fully to support an independent and transparent investigation into the…events in Gaza. We note the IDF opening potential criminal investigations into a number of cases…But equally we have publicly and privately expressed our longstanding concerns about the use of live ammunition and excessive force by the Israel Defence Forces. Our decision to abstain reflects”—

our concern and our balanced position. That is the reason for it, but it does not stop us calling out those actions we consider to be wrong. We welcome the fact that there will be some criminal investigations, and we wait to see the result of them.

Jammu and Kashmir

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who I know also sought an urgent question today.

At the outset, let me make it quite clear that we condemn the despicable terror attack carried out in Pulwama on 14 February, and I believe that we speak on behalf of the whole House when we do so. India has been absolutely right to take action against the terrorist group responsible and to urge Pakistan to follow suit. It is also high time that China lifted its veto so that the UN can designate the head of JeM as a global terrorist.

Will the Minister join me in urging the Indian authorities, at national and regional level, to protect those innocent civilians of Kashmiri origin who have faced reprisals across India following the Pulwama attack? On the airstrikes and dogfights of the last two days, will the Minister of State join me in calling for immediate talks between India and Pakistan to de-escalate that crisis, but also in urging them to put an immediate stop to any military activity that risks escalating it further? We have heard both sides claim that their actions have simply been designed to send a message, but it is all too easy in those situations for messages to be misinterpreted and for grave and fatal mistakes to be made.

Finally, will the Minister of State join me in asking both India and Pakistan to think first and foremost of the innocent people of Kashmir, who are literally caught in the middle of this crossfire and have been so for 70 years? Their human rights have been serially abused, their humanitarian needs have been neglected, and their own wishes about their own future have been treated as unimportant. No one in India, Pakistan or this country wants yet another generation of Kashmiri children growing up facing the same cycle of instability, violence and fear that has afflicted their parents and grandparents for decades. Only peaceful dialogue can break that cycle. All parties must commit to engaging in that dialogue.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that we want a broad-based dialogue, and that the whole House condemned the original attack that took place on 14 February. I have to say that the concern about China’s veto is unfortunately not isolated to issues around Kashmir. There are other areas, not least in relation to the Rohingya population from Burma, on which, as she knows, the prospect of a veto and of a lack of co-operation does not make life easy within the UN Security Council. There are other organisations, such as the European Union and the UN Human Rights Council, through which we will try to utilise as much muscle as we can, again in collaboration in with other countries, to try to bring about the peaceable progress to which she refers.

The right hon. Lady also raised the humanitarian situation. We recognise that there are and have been long-standing human rights concerns in both Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. We believe that any allegation of human rights abuses is of great concern and has to be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. I reassure the House, as I did the Members here who were at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on 23 January, that we will continue to raise issues relating to Kashmir, including human rights, at all opportunities with the Governments of both India and Pakistan.

I reiterate the right hon. Lady’s words. It is important for us, given the importance of the diaspora that we have here, to make it clear, as she rightly says, that the worst of all worlds would be many more decades of deprivation and humanitarian problems in Kashmir. To intervene or interfere, or to try to mediate in a broader way, is not necessarily the role for the United Kingdom. Our role, not least because of that diaspora, is to at least try to present that there must be a better future for future generations of Kashmiris than the last 70 years. We need to focus more attention on the future, rather than past. I very much hope that one way in which our diaspora here can make a contribution is to try to help to build up industry, to provide some prosperity for future generations of Kashmiris.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I am happy to answer that in short order: yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas has worked tirelessly in that regard and we will continue to do so. I think that those in the diaspora in the UK, both Turkish and Greek Cypriots, recognise that it is important that we put 45 years of great difficulty behind us. I think that the UK has had an important part to play in helping to bring those sides together.

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

We are discussing soft power. I want to ask the Minister about an issue where the exercising of that power is growing long overdue. When we gather for the next Foreign Office questions on 2 April, it will be six months to the day since Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in Istanbul. Will the Minister ask his boss, the Foreign Secretary, to guarantee to the House that before we reach that sad milestone, he will present the Government’s findings on who, ultimately, is responsible for that murder and what actions the Government are taking in response?

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going to Saudi Arabia this week, and I hope that there will be progress in relation to the very serious issues the right hon. Lady raises. She will be aware that we will be hosting a conference in this country in July—again, a very important part of British global soft power—that will look at the dangers journalists face across the world. I think that the fact we are doing that will reflect well, and I hope that she and the Labour party will want to play an important part in that role. We need freedom for journalists to be able to go about their everyday business. The situation with Khashoggi is the worst and most glaring example, but some 80 journalists were murdered going about their business last year and many hundreds have been locked up. Internationally, we need to come together to stand up for those values.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Minister for that answer. While a conference is important, it is hardly an answer to the question of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. There are no official answers and there are no official actions. Worse than that, the Foreign Secretary went to Berlin last week and told one of the few Governments willing to act on the Khashoggi murder, by banning arms sales to Yemen, that they are wrong to do so. May I ask the Minister to once more ask his boss the Foreign Secretary—it is a simple request—whether he will, by the time of the next Foreign Office questions, six months on from the Khashoggi murder, be telling us all the people he believes are responsible and what action they are going to take in response?

[Mark Field]

As I said, my right hon. Friend will be in Saudi Arabia and clearly, this issue will be discussed. I hope that he will be in a position to update the House on 2 April or, indeed, prior to that time. The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the arms trade. We are proud to build on the contribution made by Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary that means that arms sales regulations here in the UK are among the strictest across the western world, and they will continue in that vein.

Counter-Daesh Update

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

May I say that our first thoughts are with the members of our armed forces who are involved in the campaign against Daesh and who every day put their lives on the line in the service of their country? We also recognise the heroism of Flight Lieutenant Thomas Hansford. We owe them all a very great debt.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement for this, the first supposed quarterly update on Daesh since 3 July, almost seven months ago. That is all the proof we need—if we need it—that this truly is a Government who do not know their quarters from their halves or their halves from their elbows. There is a serious point, though, because the commitment to provide Parliament with quarterly updates on the campaign against Daesh was included in the motion on which this House voted when it authorised intervention in Syria. It is not acceptable that we have had to wait for more than half a year for this statement, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will apologise for that failure to comply with the terms of the 2015 motion.

In the time I have, I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary to address a much more serious and profound issue regarding the status of the 2015 motion. As the whole House will recall, that motion stated explicitly that it was designed to

“eradicate the safe haven”—

that ISIL had—

“established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 323.]

During the debate in December 2015, the former Prime Minister repeatedly made it clear that the motion had been worded in that way explicitly to address the concerns of Members that this military action should not lead to a wider open-ended intervention in Syria. That was the rationale on which many Members supported the motion, and now we are in a position where we have been told that that rationale no longer exists by the President of the United States himself, who claims that Daesh has been all but destroyed and that, as a result, US troops will be withdrawn within a matter of weeks.

Before we get to the implications of that announcement for our own engagement in Syria, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to address the implications for Kurdish cities and towns in northern Syria? Does he agree that, after all the sacrifices made by Kurdish forces in the war against Daesh, and still being made by them today, it would be a disgrace for America and the world if they were now abandoned and left to the mercy of Turkey and its militias? Will he make it clear that that will be avoided at all costs?

Next, what estimate has the Foreign Secretary made of the remaining strength of the Daesh forces still in Syria in terms of numbers and firepower and does he agree with the White House that it is just a matter of weeks until they are destroyed? Furthermore, does he agree with the President’s conclusion that, once those Daesh remnants have been destroyed, the coalition’s military engagement in Syria can be brought to an end?

We are all aware that many people, including President Trump’s own advisers, strongly oppose that conclusion and argue that an ongoing military presence is required to prevent the re-emergence of Daesh until such a time as Syria is peaceful and stable, with a new, strong and unifying Government in place who are able to tackle the threat on their own. Indeed, many of the President’s advisers argue that continued military presence is necessary for other reasons, including the need to contain Iran. However, if the Foreign Secretary subscribes to the views of the President’s advisers, rather than the President himself, can he spell out for us where, in the 2015 motion, it was made clear to the House that our intervention was not just designed to eradicate the safe haven established by Daesh, but would include maintaining an open-ended military commitment in Syria in case Daesh should ever return? Given that that was never the policy that this House was asked to support, will the Foreign Secretary accept that the 2015 mandate for military action will need to be renewed if our engagement in Syria is going to continue even after those Daesh remnants have been destroyed?

I am afraid that I must close by asking the Foreign Secretary about the civilian death toll from coalition airstrikes in Syria. As he will know, there is a large disparity between the official military estimate of just over 1,000 civilian deaths, and the estimates produced by organisations such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which puts the toll at 3,300, including 1,400 women and children. May I ask the Foreign Secretary what estimates the Government have made of the true level of civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes and, based on the investigations into those airstrikes, how many does he estimate have sadly been caused by British planes and British drones?

[Mr Hunt]

First, I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her questions. I will do my best to answer them as clearly as I can. I apologise for the fact that we did not keep the House updated as frequently as we promised and that this statement is long overdue, so she has my apology without reservation for that. We did lay a written statement just before Christmas, but that is not good enough; the commitment was to verbal statements.

The right hon. Lady is correct in what she said about the 2015 motion. There is a very important matter that we need to address in my response to her comments. The motion did talk about eradicating safe havens, but it is very important to say that the territorial defeat of Daesh does not mean the defeat of Daesh. The President of the United States has talked about a territorial defeat. Daesh now holds just a few square kilometres of the Middle Euphrates valley, so its territory has come down massively from an area nearly the size of the United Kingdom, and it is possible that it will lose that even this week, according to some of the comments that the President has made. But that does not mean that it will be defeated. However, it also does not mean that we are saying to the House that our commitment to a military campaign is indeterminate. The right hon. Lady used the phrase “open-ended military commitment” and that it is not. We are committed to the defeat of Daesh in Syria. That is what the mandate is and we will stick to that mandate.

The right hon. Lady talked about the Kurdish SDF fighters. I want to put on record to this House the incredible courage of those fighters. I stand in the House today to report what I think most Members would consider to be an extraordinary and—dare I say it—rare success in foreign policy, whereby it is possible to see an evil organisation a shadow of its former self. That would not have been possible without the incredible courage of the SDF fighters. It would absolutely not be acceptable to this House, the Government or the country were there to be adverse consequences to those fighters from other regional powers. I had that discussion with the United States when I visited there on 24 January, and it shares that view. Indeed, Turkey also knows our opinion on that issue. The SDF plays an important role for us right now, because it holds a number of foreign fighters captive and is responsible for looking after them, so its role will continue to be extremely important for some time.

In this battle, it is important not to claim victory too quickly. If we do so, we risk Daesh re-establishing a territorial foothold. Indeed, concerns are already being expressed that that is beginning to happen in parts of Iraq now. We do not want to declare victory too quickly only to find shortly afterwards that the very thing that we thought we had defeated is back. That is why we need to continue until we are confident that Daesh will not be able to establish a territorial foothold, but that is not an open-ended commitment. This is a military commitment to make sure that the military job is properly completed.

On the deaths from coalition strikes, I am not aware that the Government have an internal estimate that is different from the estimates that the right hon. Lady told the House, but I will find out and write to her, if I may.

I fully recognise that the whole matter of military intervention overseas is a very difficult issue for many Members of this House. It is something that this House takes its responsibilities on extremely seriously, and that we rightly debate very carefully. I think that we can all think of military interventions that have not been successful in the way that was promised, but this is not in that category. This is a military intervention—not by Britain alone, but with a global coalition of allies—that has been extremely successful in reducing the threat to British citizens. It has also been one in which Britain played a particularly important role, because we led the part of the campaign that was countering Daesh disinformation and online propaganda, which was one of the main recruiting sergeants. We can, as the right hon. Lady rightly did, pay enormous credit to the members of our armed services who have done such a remarkable job.

Venezuela

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he has been following the situation closely, as have all members of that Committee. I am pleased to say that I am not the only one who is doing what he says. The entire Government are, and I sense that our view is shared by many Opposition Members.

We have clear opinions about what the plight of the Venezuelan people is, but some say that our concern is based on a colonial mentality. It most certainly is not; it is based on genuine concern for the plight of millions who have had their faces driven into the dirt by Maduro. The steps that may have to be taken are based on law, and we are looking at the legitimacy of their Government, not just our view of the state of the people.

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

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for securing it.

Last Saturday, I condemned Venezuela as one of those countries where democracy has ceased to function in any meaningful way. Sadly, what we have seen over the past week has simply confirmed what I said then. The political, economic and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is totally dire and will get ever worse as long as the Maduro Government continue to ignore human rights, free speech and the rule of law. What the Venezuelan people need instead is a Government who respect the rule of law, and uphold human rights and democracy—a Government who understand the scale of the crisis they face and who have a clear plan to resolve that crisis. Judging by their record in recent years, the Maduro Government fit none of those descriptions.

I also believe that it is a mistake in such situations simply to think that every problem will be automatically solved by changing the leader, let alone the kind of US-led intervention being threatened by Donald Trump and John Bolton. Instead, if we all genuinely believe in resolving the crisis in Venezuela and in restoring peace, democracy and stability, I hope that the Minister will agree that our chief priorities should be encouraging all parties to engage in dialogue, working towards a peaceful resolution and, ultimately, allowing the Venezuelan people themselves to decide the way forward through the holding of new free and fair elections.

The Minister will be aware that, across the Caribbean sea in Honduras, there were similar violent protests this weekend against another repressive, authoritarian Government who abuse human rights and jail their opponents. But our Government do not criticise them; instead, they sell them arms and surveillance equipment. Only two months ago, they sent them what the Foreign Office boasted was

“the most senior British trade mission in…years”.

Will the Minister tell us why this double standard exists and why the Government are not consistent in their condemnation of all Governments who abuse human rights?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

May I, at the very least, welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of the Maduro regime? In that, at least, we find common ground, which I hope can be shared across the House. I am only sorry that it is not even shared across her own Front Benchers, as it is quite clear that the sympathies of the shadow Chancellor are at odds with the tone of her contribution to these proceedings.

This is not just about changing the leader, as the right hon. Lady put it; it is about applying the proper constitution of Venezuela, which is why the legitimate claimant to the presidency has been very careful to describe himself as the interim President, which is exactly what is stated in the constitution. On the back of that he, like every right thinking person, is calling for prompt fair and free elections so that the people of Venezuela can properly elect the leader they want to govern them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

What makes no deal more likely is if parties like the hon. Gentleman’s continue to vote against sensible proposals that this Government bring to the House of Commons. Any Government have to be responsible and prepare for all eventualities, but the best way to make sure that we do not have that eventuality is to do the preparation.

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

May I take the Foreign Secretary back to our last debate on Brexit? He gave me an answer that was not exactly convincing, so I thought I would give him another chance. [Interruption.] I am nothing but kindness—it is my new year’s resolution. Four days after the referendum, he said that

“we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh general election…we will trust the British people to decide on whether or not it is a good deal”.

So can I ask him again why he no longer believes in trusting the British people to decide whether they want the Prime Minister’s deal?

[Mr Hunt]

I do. We have had a general election and over 80% of voters supported parties that wanted to leave the EU and end free movement. I will happily take criticisms of our Brexit policy on the chin the moment Labour actually has the courage to have its own Brexit policy in the first place. This morning, the shadow Business Secretary, on the “Today” programme, could not even say whether Labour supported a second referendum or not. That is not policy—it is politics. I simply say to the right hon. Lady that to play politics with Brexit in a hung Parliament is a total betrayal of ordinary voters.

[Emily Thornberry]

Well, that is not a very convincing answer, is it? It is the same sort of unconvincing answer that we got last time. We always know when Government Ministers are getting a bit desperate when they decide that they need to ask the Opposition what their policy is instead.

The Foreign Secretary said in the very first paragraph of the article that I am quoting that

“we did not vote on the terms of our departure.”

So his entire argument was that we should trust the people to decide the terms on which we would leave. But let me also remind him that in the same article he warned of the danger that

“we could be thrown out with no deal at all.”

So even if he no longer believes that the public should have a say on the final terms of a deal, does he still at least believe that they should have a say if we are risking leaving with no deal at all?

[Mr Hunt]

If the right hon. Lady is worried about no deal, there is a very easy way to stop it, and that is to talk to the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition talks without preconditions to Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA, but not to the British Prime Minister. The reason is that Labour’s objective is not to have a deal but to have a crisis—and what a betrayal of ordinary families that is.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

It is very good to see my hon. Friend in her place.

This is not simply a question of keeping the case in the public eye, which, understandably, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband has sought to do, as have other colleagues. It is very much about the communication that goes on more on diplomatic channels, and that is constant. I can assure my hon. Friend that the case is raised on every possible occasion, as with other dual nationals, and we will continue to do so. Her access to medical care at present, bearing in mind her condition, is a matter of supreme importance to the United Kingdom. We would hope, on purely compassionate grounds, that medical access, which has been assured in the past, will continue.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing it, and I thank her on behalf of the whole House for her tireless campaigning to bring Nazanin home.

I can only echo what my hon. Friend has said regarding the latest terrible turn of events: the denial of medical treatment to Nazanin and Narges Mohammadi, with their announcement of a planned hunger strike in protest; and the cruel, vengeful response of the Iranian authorities in stopping Nazanin’s weekly phone calls with her husband, Richard, and in cutting food rations. This would be inhuman treatment of any prisoner, but to pile this torment on an innocent woman, whose mental and physical health is already suffering, is nothing but barbaric. I join my hon. Friend in calling on the Iranian authorities not just to restore Nazanin’s basic rights, but to restore her freedom without any further delay.

We must remember that, as we know, the Iranians face a twin threat this year from crippling US sanctions, affecting their trade and investment prospects worldwide, and from dangerous military escalation, as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia gear up for a more direct conflict. Those of us who look at those dual prospects with horror, and despair that the path of progress of progress and peace that the Iran nuclear deal opened up is growing increasingly narrow, know that Iran will need us to fight on its behalf to preserve that deal, preserve trade and stop the descent into war. However, Tehran needs to hear this: every day that Nazanin’s inhumane treatment continues and every time we see fresh human rights abuses in Iran, it makes it more and more difficult to summon the stomach for that fight.

Does the Minister of State agree with me that when the Foreign Office says Iran is holding Nazanin for diplomatic advantage, Tehran needs to realise that in fact the opposite is true? Every day it continues her unjust detention, it is simply digging its own diplomatic grave.

[Alistair Burt]

I am extremely grateful for the way in which the shadow Foreign Secretary puts the case. She is right to say that in Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s situation, access to medical treatment as requested is absolutely essential. The United Kingdom will continue to make that point very clearly. Indeed, the work through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran to try to clarify the situation on calls is continuing with urgency.

On the wider issues that the right hon. Lady mentions, she makes a very fair point which we have stressed in our contact with Iran. We have sought to understand Iran’s concerns about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement which it signed and which we abide by. We do indeed seek to make a case to others about the importance of abiding by agreements and international norms. It is not easy in this context, but it is made that bit more difficult if we see a situation where there is an obvious humanitarian response, quite outside any other considerations. People would notice and no doubt approve if there was a swift return of Nazanin to her daughter. I can only hope that those remarks are well noted. The United Kingdom will continue to press along the same lines.

Yemen

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary, not just for advance sight of his statement but for the attention he has devoted to the Yemen cause since he came to office. Many of us have spent countless hours in this House over the past three years debating how to end this dreadful conflict and the appalling suffering of the Yemeni people. We all appreciate the time, effort and focus that the Foreign Secretary has brought to addressing this conflict over the past five months, alongside the Minister for the Middle East. We thank them for that. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute not only to Martin Griffiths but to Mark Lowcock for the excellent work that they have done, in incredibly difficult circumstances, in trying to forge a path to peace and a path to the end of this humanitarian crisis. They are both living proof of the old truth that our British diplomats do their job not just because it is a career but because it is a vocation. We owe them a great debt for that service.

Over the past three years, there have been precious few moments of hope in relation to Yemen. This is indeed a moment of hope, and one that we must seize, so I want to use the time I have today to ask the Foreign Secretary about the next steps in this process. First, I greatly welcome his confirmation that a resolution is to be tabled this week at the UN Security Council, to underpin this ceasefire and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Will he give us his assessment, based on his talks, of whether the United States stands ready to support the resolution this time around? Will he also address the crucial issue of what mechanisms there will be to monitor compliance by all sides with the terms of the resolution? What penalties or sanctions are proposed for any breach of those terms?

Secondly, I think that we all warmly welcome the appointment of General Cammaert to oversee the logistics and security of the operation in Hodeidah. Someone of his experience and toughness is ideally suited to what we all recognise will be an incredibly difficult task. Will the Foreign Secretary give us more details on how the security operation on the ground will be staffed? What is the thinking behind the decision that it should not be an armed blue-helmets operation? Will that decision be kept under review should General Cammaert decide that that is what is required once he is on the ground?

Thirdly, we have spoken previously about the fact that the ceasefire agreement will apply initially only to Hodeidah. We all understand that that is the most urgent priority in tackling the humanitarian crisis, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us what the proposed next steps are in brokering a wider ceasefire in other areas of the conflict, including Taiz, and, indeed, in brokering a wider political settlement for the whole country, including southern Yemen?

Fourthly, this is another issue that we have discussed previously, but I am sure that we all believe it is an important principle. In Yemen, as in Syria, while the immediate priority is to foster the hope of peace and get humanitarian aid to those in desperate need, we must also ensure that there is proper accountability for all alleged breaches of international humanitarian law committed by both sides in the conflict. That can happen only when we have a comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation into all those alleged crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether such an investigation is proposed in the UN resolution to be tabled this week? If not, what are the proposed next steps on that front?

Finally, there is another important principle that it would be easy to sweep under the carpet at this time, when we are keen to keep Saudi Arabia on board with the ceasefire and get its support for the proposed UN resolution. However, I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree that it would be manifestly wrong if Saudi Arabia were able to trade its compliance with ending the conflict in Yemen for the world turning a blind eye to the question of who was responsible for ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Tomorrow, it will be 80 days since he was murdered. In Washington, the CIA has given evidence to Senators that led those Senators to conclude overwhelmingly that Crown Prince bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr Khashoggi, yet in this Parliament we are still waiting for any official conclusion from the Foreign Office or the security services on who was responsible. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear today that the issues of peace in Yemen and accountability for the murder of Mr Khashoggi are entirely separate? Will he tell us when he will present his conclusions on the latter?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her comments and for crediting Mark Lowcock and his team at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for the very important role that they are playing at the moment. Indeed, it is important to say that the draft text of the Security Council resolution that the UK is putting together puts as much emphasis on the humanitarian aspects of this terrible conflict as it does on the peace talks in Stockholm, very much because of Mark Lowcock’s specific and important requests.

Let me go through the points that the right hon. Lady makes in order. First, I am confident that we have US co-operation in the process of tabling the Security Council resolution. We have had extensive discussions with the US, as well as with all the other sides in this terrible war. I am speaking to Secretary Pompeo later this afternoon, and this will be one of the things that we discuss in detail.

The right hon. Lady asks about the mechanism to monitor compliance. She is absolutely right that General Cammaert and his team of monitors will be essential. They are due to arrive in Hodeidah on Saturday. Their monitoring of what is going on is only made possible by having a UN Security Council resolution, which is why people have come together to make the passing of the resolution possible.

The draft resolution will require weekly report backs by the Secretary-General to the Security Council based on General Cammaert’s evidence as to whether we have compliance with what was agreed in Stockholm. The right honourable Lady is right that that is extremely important. She is also right to say that it is not just Hodeidah. The draft statement talks about the other ports—Saleef and Ras Isa—that are extremely important, but, of course, what we actually need is peace in the whole country. Hodeidah is strategically the most important place to start with, because if we can open up the road between Hodeidah and the capital Sana’a, then we can start to get humanitarian supplies in. The Stockholm talks gave a three-week period, starting from midnight last night, by when that road, the port and the city of Hodeidah have to be cleared of all combatants, and that is what we are holding our breath for.

On accountability, I have the draft wording of the resolution here. First, it underlines the obligation on all parties to act in accordance, at all times, with principles of international humanitarian law. It also underlines the need for transparent, credible and timely investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law and for those found responsible to be held to account.

The right hon. Lady also raised the issue of Khashoggi. She is absolutely right that these are separate issues and that they cannot be linked, and I do give her that reassurance. As far as the UK Government are concerned, the issue of Khashoggi is not closed. We do not think that all the facts have been established and we have not seen proper conclusions from the Turkish investigation as to what actually happened. As soon as we have those conclusions, we will share them with the House.

Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on his Department’s funding of the Institute for Statecraft’s integrity initiative.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The Institute for Statecraft is an independent UK-based charity whose work seeks to improve governance and enhance national security. It runs a project called the integrity initiative, which is working to counter disinformation overseas by bringing together groups of experts to analyse and discuss the problem posed by Russian disinformation.

The Government are funding this initiative with nearly £2 million this financial year. That funding covers its activity outside the UK and it does not fund any activity within the UK; nor does it fund the management of the integrity initiative’s social media account. Recent reports that Foreign Office funding has been used to support party political activity in the UK are therefore wholly untrue.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister of State for his opening remarks.

Let me make it clear at the outset that I have no interest today in debating the integrity initiative’s purpose of countering the very real threat of interference in western democracies and the spread of disinformation by the Russian state. If a debate needs to happen on how that objective is best pursued, it is best left for another day. The issue before us today is much more simple and fundamental: it is a cardinal rule of public life in our country that official resources should not be used for political purposes, a rule we saw symbolised this very morning when the Prime Minister delivered her statement outside Downing Street with the usual Government coat of arms removed from her lectern because of the political nature of her statement. There is, I am afraid, absolutely no doubt that the publicly funded integrity initiative has broken that rule repeatedly by using its Twitter accounts to disseminate articles attacking the integrity of Conservative and Labour officials, of Conservative peers and, repeatedly, of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

I greatly welcome the Minister’s statement on Monday, in which he totally condemned such behaviour by a publicly funded organisation, and said that not only must it stop, but that he wanted to know

“why on earth it happened in the first place”.

That is doubly important in this case, because the integrity initiative’s use of Twitter as a tool for disseminating information has not been a fringe activity, but is an integral part of its applications for Foreign Office funding over the past two years. Indeed, the budget for its agreed objectives of increasing reporting in the media and expanding the impact of its website and Twitter account amounted to £275,000 in this financial year. In the list of key deliverables it promised the Foreign Office this year, it stated explicitly that one of its instruments of delivery will be its

“600-plus Twitter followers, including influential players”.

In the light of all that, I hope that the Minister of State can answer some more questions to explain, as he put it, why on earth that misuse of public funds has taken place. First, were Foreign Office officials monitoring the integrity initiative’s social media output, given that it was an integral part of the activity for which it was being funded? If so, why did they not flag up concerns to him about the dissemination of personal attacks? If not, why was this misuse of public funds going unchecked? Secondly, does the funding agreement governing the integrity initiative make clear that its use of funds and its public statements must comply with Cabinet Office rules? Finally, if the Government intend to renew that funding for the next financial year, what arrangements and agreements will be put in place to ensure that nothing of this sort ever happens again?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a matter of regret, Mr Speaker, that the right hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. Let me explain to the House what has been going on. The Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago and numerous documents were published and amplified by Kremlin news channels. The Russian state media campaign that followed fits with a wider pattern of Russian disinformation against the UK. This campaign’s objective is clear: it is yet another example of Russian disinformation intended to confuse audiences and discredit an organisation that is working independently to tackle the threat of disinformation. The current Russian disinformation activity is precisely the sort of disinformation that this project is designed to counter. It is regrettable, but perhaps rather unsurprising, that some have been fooled, and have used this to make accusations about British politics in exactly the way hoped for in this malign activity.

While that is going on in the UK, the sort of activity that we do fund is doing its utmost to counter Russian disinformation overseas, which is undermining democracy and its institutions ever more widely across the world. The FCO has given a grant to the Institute for Statecraft this financial year of nearly £2 million. Our agreement, written into the contract with the institute, specifically states that the grant must not be used to support activity intended to influence, or attempt to influence, the UK Parliament, Government or political parties. We have not seen any evidence that the integrity initiative has breached this obligation, and the accusation that Government money has been used for domestic political purposes is utterly unfounded.

[Emily Thornberry]

What?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I say once again to the right hon. Lady that no Foreign Office funding is used for the initiative’s UK domestic activity. She can look at me as aghast as she likes, but the money that comes from the Foreign Office is used for activity overseas, and she should accept that as the—[Interruption.] If she does not accept it, she should say in terms what she is accusing me of, because that would be a breach of the forms of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is right to be. The whole House should appreciate that this is an ever-increasing challenge, and one that we need to meet in the cyber field, as we do in the information field. That is what we are doing.

[Emily Thornberry]

In a united way.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position “in a united way”—yes, and she could add to that unity by recognising the truth of what I have said, instead of denying it in her normal way.

[Emily Thornberry]

I’m not a gentleman. I have never been a gentleman.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago. Will he clarify for the House whether that hacking extended to the Twitter account of the integrity initiative, which has been retweeting articles that are undoubtedly critical of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition’s policy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. In fact, I raised that issue when I was in Tehran on 19 November. It is essential that we give full support to media freedom in all parts of the world. We have a lot of common ground on that with other European countries that share concerns about the recent deterioration in the situation.

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

Only a month ago, the Foreign Secretary was one of eight Cabinet Ministers who said that they could not decide whether to back any Brexit deal unless they had seen the full, unedited legal advice given to the Prime Minister, saying that they could not repeat the failures of the Iraq war and rely only on an edited summary. The Foreign Secretary was right to take that entirely sensible and rational position just four weeks ago, so why should the same principle not apply to the whole of Parliament?

[Mr Hunt]

For the same reason that the previous Labour Government did not publish all the legal advice that they received: it would make the practice of Government totally and utterly impossible. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has come in on this question, because she said on TV on Friday:

“I like the idea of us remaining in the EU.”

On this side of the House, however, we rather like the idea of implementing the will of the British people in a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. Indeed, he oversaw those export conditions when he was working in government. It is because of the contracts that we have with the Saudis that we are very closely involved in looking at things like their targeting to make sure that they are indeed compliant with international humanitarian law.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his update on the Yemen peace talks. I would like to ask him some more questions about the UK’s draft UN resolution. May I ask him a question that I have asked three times now—at the Dispatch Box, by letter and in a written parliamentary question—without ever getting an answer, yet it is such a simple question? Did the version of the draft UN resolution shown to Crown Prince Salman by the Foreign Secretary on 12 November include a call for independent investigations of war crimes—yes or no?

[Mr Hunt]

First, I did not show a text of the draft resolution to King Salman or the Crown Prince when I went to Saudi Arabia, but I can confirm that both the original text and the current text refer to international humanitarian law. But in the process of getting that text agreed, did we make compromises to please the Saudis? Yes. Did we make compromises to please the Houthis? Yes, we did. As a result of that diplomacy, the talks are happening this week. Rather than criticising that, the right hon. Lady should be celebrating the brilliant work done by British diplomats.

[Emily Thornberry]

It would be very helpful, in those circumstances, if the Foreign Secretary put a version of that draft resolution in the Library so that we can all see it for ourselves. In the meantime, the House will be aware that this week the US Senate is due to vote on whether America should continue supporting the Saudi assault on Yemen, even as millions of children face starvation. If the Foreign Secretary genuinely believes in the sovereignty of this Parliament, when will he show it? When will he ask Members of this House to vote on whether the UK support for this war can any longer be justified?

[Mr Hunt]

I simply say to the right hon. Lady that when it comes to the question of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, she seems to feel rather more strongly about it today than she did in 2007, when Labour Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells talked about shared values with Saudi Arabia following a big arms deal. The truth is that we follow the guidelines put in place by a Labour Government. That is what we do. They are the strictest in the world, and if she wants to change them, she should say so.