Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and a true honour to be part of this debate, which I have a feeling is going to be this place at its best. It is at its best when it speaks for those who cannot yet be heard, and when it confronts difficult truths in our society and makes a plan to act. I suspect that the Minister shares our concern on this matter and so we are pushing at an open door, because, sadly, this is something we have seen for many years.

Let me start by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) in honouring Baroness Helic and her work on this matter, as well as thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She made such a powerful opening speech, and I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has just blown us all apart with her powerful call to action.

International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict is 19 June, so the Minister has a mere couple of weeks to agree and put in place what we shall decide today should happen in this House. But that should be a very easy task, because the asks are very simple. We must act, because we know that this is getting worse. I am not going to join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in suggesting that we are in the end of days just yet, although I respect that as part of his faith, but I recognise that we live in a very uncertain world. Six out of seven worldwide are plagued by a feeling of insecurity. We are facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the second world war, and 2 billion people —a quarter of all humanity—are therefore in places affected by those conflicts.

The challenge that we face here today is that, too often, sexual violence is seen as an inevitable consequence of such conflict—as day follows night, so women will be violated. That is not the case. Women are not mere collateral damage to conflict. The first thing that we must do in this House is to challenge that notion—that complacency—that it is part of the process so our challenge is to find a way just to stop it. No; we need to prevent it, and we prevent it by, first of all, recognising that it does not need to happen. It is chilling to me that many non-governmental organisations talk about how, for those who fight wars, sexual assault is seen as more destructive than using fire to damage a community, because the resulting damage lasts for generations.

We should recognise that, across the world, there are 15 conflict-related settings where there are active concerns that sexual-based violence is taking place—Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. There are also three post-conflict settings where we are, again, concerned that this is a very live issue—the western Balkans, Nepal and Sri Lanka. And there are three situations of concern where the UN thinks that further sexual violence may be taking place—Ethiopia, Haiti and Nigeria.

It is little wonder that more than 3,500 verified cases of sexual violence were reported last year alone—a 50% increase in this reporting cycle. The highest numbers are being reported in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I suggest that that is because those conflicts have been going on the longest, and therefore the capacity to record is the greatest. We should recognise the evidence, speak out for the victims across the world, and stand with them in the way that, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd has rightly said, we stand with those women in Israel and Gaza.

In Sri Lanka, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recognised that, during the conflict with the Tamil Tigers, there has been a horrific level of violation and abuse, including indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings and the use of torture and sexual violence. While it is difficult to get accurate numbers, we know that at least half a million women were raped during the Rwandan genocide, and 50,000 in the war in Bosnia.

We know that rape and sexual violence are the hallmarks of the military genocide for the Rohingya women. The Women’s League of Burma documented more than 100 cases of conflict-related sexual or gender-based violence during the coup. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, we also know that there is a growing but emerging evidence base from Ukraine that, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, since the start of 2014, Ukrainians—especially but not exclusively women and girls—are victims of rape, gang rape and forced nudity perpetrated by Russian military troops.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd is right; so often in these cases there is denial and dismissal, and we are seeing that in Israel right now—and actually we are seeing it in Gaza too, because there have been very credible reports. In this country, those of us who want to tackle violence against women start from a position where we believe, because we know how hard it is to come forward and report in the first place. So we believe until the evidence proves otherwise, but the evidence basis that we have got is very clear. I want to mention this because I know that there will be people watching this, and I have seen myself the querying, the questioning and the double-bluffing about whether or not sexual violence is taking place. The evidence basis of the special representative of the Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict included interviews with 34 individuals —survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders, and health and service providers. Some 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of footage of the attacks were also reviewed. These are not in-passing recollections; it has been a systematic approach to identifying what has happened.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) have stressed the organised nature of what happened on 7 October, but no one has yet said what the reason was for that. The principal reason, as far as I can see, was to try to goad the Israelis into precisely the sort of overreaction—thus alienating world opinion from their cause—as that on which they have subsequently embarked. So, if it can be proven that the mass rape and other sexual abuse was planned by the organisers of Hamas, does it not follow from that, that they, as well as the actual perpetrators of these attacks, must face retribution in the international courts eventually?

[Stella Creasy]

Many of us have consistently called for all allegations of war crime—and the use of sexual violence in war is a war crime: we should be absolutely clear about that—to be investigated. I want to go on to develop an argument around that. I would just say that it is really important, today of all days and in this debate of all debates, that we centre our thoughts on the victims of sexual violence, and do not go down some of the rabbit holes about whether this is a strategy in war. Because those who study these situations point out that sexual violence is not inevitable; it is not an inevitable tactic. There are decisions being made. By switching our focus, we deny the women the right to have their voices heard—women who require accountability and justice. If sexual violence is something that happens as a matter of course in a war, when you end the war you end the problem: job done. But as I said at the start, the challenge is not just to stop sexual violence but to prevent it, and to take it out of this arena altogether. So I hope the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will understand if I am very firmly focused on the evidence of sexual violence and assault in war and the challenge that we face from the work that the UN has done.

The UN has also recognised concerns in Palestine. The special rapporteur also went to Ramallah and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, she highlighted instances of sexual violence in the context of detention, particularly invasive body searches, beatings, including in the genital areas, and the threats of rape against women and family members.

My point is that none of this is inevitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear before you once again, Sir Charles.

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who represents an area where I first stood for Parliament 41 years ago, for securing this debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. She made an excellent speech. I will not only try to respond to much of what she said but look at all the ideas she put forward and write to her afterwards about any that I do not cover. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions of all Members and will try to respond to the points raised. This has been an outstanding debate and I feel privileged to try to respond to it for the Government.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings so much to these debates, said that he has never known so much violence and misery in the world as he sees today. The fact that there is so much violence and misery is one of the reasons why Britain has put aside £1 billion this year to meet humanitarian need, and I am grateful to him for recognising that the UK is a global leader in that respect.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made an outstanding speech. She spoke up about the horrendous events of 7 October and about the lack of response by parts of the international community. She called for the immediate release of the hostages and spoke with great feeling when she said that the phrase “Me too, unless you’re a Jew” has resonated with parts of the community. She also spoke with great eloquence about Ukraine and Sudan. The House will be grateful for what she said and I hope that many people who are not able to be here will read her powerful contribution.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the importance of the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, which is 19 June. She also talked about the importance of focusing directly on the victims of this dreadful violence and made the point, which the whole House will echo, that there can be no impunity.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former leader of the Labour party, spoke about the DRC, Goma and the terrible humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded for years in the Kivus, an area I have visited on a number of occasions in the last 20 years, as has he. The Government urge all the military forces there to lay down their arms and support the various different political processes, particularly in Nairobi and Rwanda, to try to ensure that there is a political track to end the terrible violence. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what more can be done on minerals. He will know of the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Government want more effort to be made in that respect to follow and track minerals.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that this is a difficult subject to talk about, but then did so very well. Again, she spoke about there being no tolerance of impunity, and about the terrible legacy of the teenagers and young women who were taken by Boko Haram. She also talked about the role of women, including the voice of women in conflict resolution, the work to end GBV and—again—the importance of ensuring that there is accountability.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke for the Opposition about the whole of this subject, but in particular about Sudan and the terrible events there, including the particular role Britain has through the troika and through holding the pen on Sudan at the UN. She also talked about Darfur and the dreadful situation in al-Fashir, about which the Government have spoken up, and the clear evidence of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The demands of the international community are that the troops should return to barracks and enable the humanitarians to operate in those dreadful circumstances, and to open up a political track as soon as possible. Britain is supporting the collection of evidence through open-source means, and we will make sure that that evidence is retained for future use.

The hon. Lady also talked about the situation in Ethiopia. Britain supports the Pretoria agreement and we have done a lot of work to help to head off famine conditions, including in Geneva just a few weeks ago, where we supported a replenishment at a conference that I co-chaired with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, and which raised $610 million. The hon. Lady also talked about the harrowing evidence and work of NGOs such as Save the Children.

I am sure the entire House agrees that conflict-related sexual violence, or CRSV, is not an inevitable consequence of war. It is morally abhorrent and illegal and does not discriminate. It affects women and girls, and men and boys too, as we have heard, and has devastating consequences, yet it continues to take place in conflicts around the world and is often used as a deliberate tactic to terrorise entire communities. We are witnessing its horrific impacts in Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to name just a few.

The whole House was particularly horrified by the reports, which have been mentioned today, of sexual violence on and since 7 October. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West spoke eloquently about that in her opening remarks, as did the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and about the appalling violence perpetrated by Hamas on that day.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am afraid not because of the time, but if I have a second at the end, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will give way.

We have clearly and unequivocally condemned all allegations of reports of CRSV in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and led calls for a UN Security Council debate on that specific issue. We continue to call for thorough investigations, for hostages to be released immediately and for detainees to be treated with dignity and in line with international law. We have also, on a number of occasions, including at the UN Security Council, offered PSVI expertise and tools to help to ensure that victims and survivors of CRSV receive the support they need.

It is 12 years since the launch of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. For their tireless efforts I pay tribute to Lord Ahmad, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict; Lord Hague, who started the UK’s exceptional focus on the issue; and Baroness Helic. The UK is at the forefront of the fight to end this heinous crime, and I will briefly highlight five steps to demonstrate the impact of our work.

First, since 2012 we have used our influence and convening power to draw global attention to the issue. For example, at the PSVI conference that we hosted in London two years ago we brought together over 1,000 delegates, including survivors, experts, states and multilateral organisations. I personally led several sessions at that meeting and collectively we succeeded in getting 54 countries to sign an ambitious political declaration to deliver change.

At the conference we also announced the international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Lord Ahmad launched the alliance last year, and it brings together a range of global actors to prevent and respond to CRSV. Its membership continues to grow and it now has 26 members, including Governments, multilateral organisations, civil society and survivors. We are working closely with the current chair, Colombia, to drive action through the alliance. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, backed by £12.5 million, with four clear objectives: to strengthen global response, prevent sexual violence in conflict, promote justice and support survivors.

Secondly, we are coming up with creative solutions to prevent these crimes. For example, Britain’s flagship What Works: Impact at Scale programme is encouraging and supporting innovative ideas. We have invested £67.5 million into the second phase of the programme. That is the biggest global commitment by any Government to prevent gender-based violence.

Thirdly, we are setting a global benchmark by giving survivors a say in the decisions that affect them. Britain has appointed two PSVI survivor champions, Kolbassia Haoussou and Nadine Tunasi, and established a survivor advisory group to put survivors’ voices at the heart of policy proposals. Since 2018 we have committed almost £8 million to the global survivors fund to provide psychosocial and educational support for survivors. We know how important it is to ensure that we gather information from survivors safely, which is why two years ago we launched the Murad code with the Yazidi human rights activist and Nobel prize winner Nadia Murad, to collect information responsibly and ethically.

Fourthly, we are working to make these crimes punishable by law. Impunity may be the global norm, but that is unacceptable. The UK is taking steps to change that, and we have made some progress. We sanctioned 14 perpetrators over the last two years and we are boosting the capacity of countries to investigate and prosecute these crimes. In Ukraine, for example, we are supporting the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the crimes effectively.

We are also backing the draft UN crimes against humanity convention to make the global legal framework stronger and more effective, and we are working with the International Criminal Court to help survivors to engage with courts using technology. I am grateful to Baroness Helic, who is helping us to find new, innovative solutions to tackle impunity, but I agree that we still have a long way to go.

I want to share two examples of the tangible impact we have had on the ground. Since 2012, we have deployed our PSVI team of experts times across the world over 90. These highly trained independent individuals provide direct support to national and international bodies. They have helped to plan missions, convened workshops and supported Governments to execute their projects. UK programmes have also contributed to vital recent legislative changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The changes will advance the rights of survivors and children born of CRSV—for example, by enabling them to access finance for higher education.

To conclude, the five steps that I have highlighted show that we have come a long way and that our work matters, but there can be no doubt, particularly given what we have heard today, that we need to go further still and ensure that our efforts are bearing fruit. We are making progress, and the UK will continue to drive sustained, united and innovative action globally. That is the only way we can consign conflict-related sexual violence to the history books.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that the mass rapes on 7 October were not a biproduct of the attack but an integral part of the plan to provoke Israel? If that is proven, does it not mean the people who planned the attacks, as well as the perpetrators themselves, must be held to account in the international courts?

[Mr Mitchell]

I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend says about accountability. On 7 October there was the greatest murder of Jewish people at any time in one day since the holocaust and the end of the second world war. The impact of that, which we have heard about so graphically today, underlines why it is so important that we continue this work. We are making progress, above all because we have unity, drive and support in all parts of the House. That gives Britain a particular locus and focus internationally to make sure that this work is effectively pursued.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

What the hon. Gentleman says—the way he reflects on what the ICJ said—is not accurate. The ICJ called for hostage release, for more aid into Gaza and for Israel not to commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. The Government agree with those three points.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the message back to his boss that the insertion of British troops on the ground in Gaza will simply play into the hands of those who wish to divert attention further away from the existential conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Does he share my sadness that there is not a single mention of Ukraine in any of the questions on today’s Order Paper?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to help Ukraine. He will have seen the Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the increase in defence spending, and where that announcement was made.

I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not draw any conclusions from today’s Order Paper, but note specifically this Government’s driving ambition to ensure that Ukraine is successful in beating back the Russians.

Sudan: Government Response

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do the Government have any evidence that they can share with this House of the involvement of major foreign powers in what is happening in this terrible conflict in Sudan?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the open-source reporting of various outlets. The point the British Government make on all occasions is that any arms supply into Sudan merely prolongs this conflict, and we urge anyone who is thinking of supplying either side or supplying either side to think very carefully and to desist.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. I agree entirely with what he said about article 23. He chides me for not saying more on the issue of sanctions. The point I was making—I hope that he will accept that this is common to both parties when in government—is that we do not discuss our application or consideration of sanctions, or sanctions policy, on the Floor of the House, but when we feel it is necessary to act, we certainly do.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of the Foreign Secretary, given his long career and understanding of China from his time as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary has spoken out very clearly on the change that has taken place since he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the legislation is a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration; as I have said, we decided in 2021 that China was in ongoing breach of that. On the issue of whether it is a breach of international law, the Bill specifically says that it will be compliant with international law. I suspect that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The shadow Foreign Secretary slightly stole my script about the “golden era” of Sino-British relations trumpeted by then Prime Minister Cameron. While the Minister says that things have changed since then, one thing has not changed: communist China was a totalitarian state then, and it is a totalitarian state now. Is it not about time that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learned that lesson?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with him about the nature of China. The question was whether China would respect the Sino-British joint declaration and recognise the uniquely brilliant features of Hong Kong as an international trading city. It is a matter of great regret that politics have trumped economics in that respect, as perhaps it always will in the case of China.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Negotiations

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The point I made about practical and technical options is in relation to facilitating flights between Gibraltar and the EU more widely. The UK will only agree to terms that the Government of Gibraltar are content with and will not agree to anything that compromises Gibraltar’s sovereignty.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain to us his assessment of the attitude of the European Union towards the continuing sovereignty of Gibraltar, bearing in mind Spain’s long-standing ambition to infringe that sovereignty?

[David Rutley]

Our negotiations are with the EU. We continue to take those negotiations forward and will do, as I have said repeatedly, with the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar at the front of our minds.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

I think the very first sentence that I said was that we utterly condemn the Hamas attack and we implore them to release the hostages, but there has to be a pathway to reaching that.

When the shadow Foreign Secretary said that the vote today would not bring about a ceasefire, he was right, but to try to downplay the importance of the motion does not serve him well. I suspect that, as these moments do not come around very often, he understands only too well the importance of tonight’s vote. It is moments like these that shape the ethical identity of a country. It is the decisions that we take now that will reverberate down the decades, and they will define who we are and what we stand for. That is why we are calling so clearly and unambiguously for an immediate ceasefire. Anything else pre-supposes that there can be a military solution to this conflict. Any other form of words threatens to give credence to the idea that Israel’s deploying its massive military capacity in Gaza will somehow be enough to destroy Hamas. In reality, as everyone knows and as history tells us, the only possible solution to this crisis is a political solution.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I could understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument better if he were talking about what the Americans seem to call a temporary ceasefire to see whether more hostages could be released, but he appears to be calling for an unconditional ceasefire—I see people nodding—which would leave all the hostages at the mercy of Hamas. Does that not put Israel in the position where previously it has had to release 1,000 people who had been criminally convicted in order to get one soldier back? Indeed, one of the people Israel released was the person who organised the Hamas atrocities on 7 October.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I am absolutely clear that there has to be a roadway—a path—towards peace, and that has to start with an immediate ceasefire. If it does not, there is no pathway. I will address directly the issue of humanitarian pauses in a moment.

When the SNP last called for a vote on the ceasefire on 15 November, the death toll in Gaza stood at 11,320—already a heartbreaking number of people killed. Just yesterday, John Hopkins University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine released their analysis, which showed that if this conflict continues on the same trajectory there will be between 58,000 and 75,000 additional civilian Palestinian deaths in the next six months, so we know categorically what the consequences of inaction will be. No one can claim in the future that they did not know, or that they did not understand the consequences of what they were doing tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel no fatigue when it comes to our Ukraine policy. We have exceeded last year’s commitment in terms of lethal aid, and we will be contributing a huge amount of other aid and economic support. Since 2022, our total humanitarian, economic and military support has risen to more than £12 billion, which I think demonstrates that our resolve is unflagging.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about the attitude towards the Ukraine fight, and indeed towards NATO, of certain elements on the American political scene. Will our Foreign Office team do everything in their power to impress on our American allies that the peace of Europe depends on unquestionable American support for the NATO alliance in the future, just as it did in the past?

[Leo Docherty]

We continue to make that point to all our interlocutors. I should also say that we continue to make the point to all NATO member states that investing 2% of GDP in defence expenditure is a condition of membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for that question on an important subject close to the heart of several people in the Chamber. I assure her that there is ongoing engagement with, of course, President Ali in Guyana, but also all the regional players. I have personally had conversations with Brazil, Colombia, the Commonwealth and the United States to keep the focus on that area, and Maduro’s plans at bay.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

What assessment have the Government made of the threat to the future of the Baltic states if Putin is seen to succeed in seizing territory permanently from Ukraine?

[Leo Docherty]

The Baltic states are on the frontline, and we therefore take great pride in the enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states, which includes our magnificent men and women in Tapa. That is part of our enduring physical presence to ensure that NATO has security on the ground. The matter is sharply in focus.

Situation in the Red Sea

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I, for one, appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership of his party when Putin invaded Ukraine. Like us, he has demonstrated that the UK has been and remains totally united behind Ukraine and in confronting Russian aggression. I say to the Defence Secretary that one of the important things that the Government do by organising a debate in the House is signal the importance that all sides of the House give to the support to Ukraine. It is also a chance to explain to the British public why this matters so much, and why defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It is essential to our interests that Ukraine prevails, not Putin.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Perfectly done, Sir Julian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps he should refer to what was said by his hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee about the diplomatic effort. I thought that her point about Arab-led initiatives was well made. Perhaps the Government should listen to that as a future intention. I think that is more to the point than engaging in military action, which has been ongoing for some time.

My SNP colleagues and I gave the first round of strikes against the Houthi targets qualified support earlier this month, and we do so again in respect of the latest strikes, but as we begin to slide towards what seems almost like an inevitable longer-term commitment, it cannot be said often enough that the “what”, the “how’” and the “why” of UK grand strategy are, at least from my perspective, dangerously out of sync. Let us start with last week’s keynote announcement from the Defence Secretary, who I see is no longer in their place, that

“The era of the peace dividend is over and 2024 will mark an inflection point.”

On the surface, that is a pretty banal observation, but whether we call it the polycrisis or the age of grey-zone conflict, those of us who come to these debates on a regular basis have been talking about the possibilities of this type of thing happening at least since I arrived in 2015. I am not sure how 2024 will be anywhere near the inflection points that 2014 or 2022 were; none the less, that is a bold statement from the Secretary of State. It is important to say that he also backed it up with the announcement of a £405 million investment in so-called drone-killing Sea Viper missiles.

On the surface, it would seem that the Secretary of State has got his why and his what sorted. We just need a how, and that is where I think we begin to run into trouble. For all the high-falutin’ rhetoric from the MOD main building, I am not sure that anyone here really believes we are going to meet the how in the form of an increase in defence spending to meet these new threats, given the disastrous state of the MOD’s finances, as seen in the latest National Audit Office report.

We are in the middle of the cost of living crisis, as we all know well. Inflation seems to be coming under control; it is only worse in the defence sector, and the proliferation of US dollar-dominated contracts is not going to make things easier, especially with a soft pound and the reality that we are now living in one of the poorest countries in western Europe. Any increase in defence spending at this time means a cut elsewhere in the budget; that is simply a reality. Although there are those, particularly on the Opposition Benches, who are brave enough to say that they would like to make cuts elsewhere to do this, I have seen absolutely no indication from the Government that they intend to do so.

I am no economist—hard to believe, I know—but I believe that practitioners of that special art call it a “revealed preference”. An example would be when a potential leadership candidate advocates spending 3% of GDP, only to quietly drop the commitment when they become Chancellor. All our recent Prime Ministers have made all the right noises when it comes to the problems in international security, but none of them, at least from my perspective, has met that challenge with a significant increase. Indeed, I think we can all agree that if that redoubtable and dogged former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)—I let him know that I was going to mention him in the debate—was only able to secure an increase to 2.5%, and even then only by the end of the decade, I do not think anyone is expecting his successor to be any more successful.

I should point out—I say this as something of a sceptic about increasing the defence budget or even the value in such arbitrary targets—that we judge Governments based on their record, and this is what this one has. Once we start to scratch at the how in the UK strategy, the what and the why also start to come unstuck. Let us take the Sea Viper order: what was presented as an announcement to counter this new and specific threat has actually been on the table since 2012, only to be constantly shifted to the right because of pressures elsewhere on the budget.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am grateful, and I regard him as my hon. Friend too. Before he leaves the issue of percentages spent on defence, would he not agree with me that, crude though they are, these are indicators of a national priority? The trouble is that if we do not spend enough on defence in peacetime, and then a conflict breaks out—we are now beginning to hear talk of having to be prepared for major conflict in the next decade or two—we will be spending vastly more than 3% or 4% on defence. So how much better is it to spend a bit more in peacetime to prevent the conflict, and how much better than that is it that America should realise that investing in Ukraine’s effort is also helping to raise the deterrence threshold?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I both agree and disagree. Had the Ministry made sustained investment in capability, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to stay for my Adjournment debate on nuclear infrastructure, in which we might go into the number crunching in far more detail—he may try to pass on that.

Far from being a simple drone killer, Sea Viper is a sophisticated ballistic missile defence system that has been in development since the 1980s. Each Aster 30 missile costs £2 million a pop. Whoever in the main building thought it was a good idea to call it a drone killer evidently had not done the cost-benefit analysis on taking out mass-produced Chinese drones, costing £100, with a £2 million missile. That is before we even get to the platforms that deliver the capability.

The Minister might be able to correct me, but the MOD is now officially refusing to publicly disclose the size of its escort fleet, which the Houthis probably already know—maybe it is in one of the TikToks that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned. That refusal got a bit of play last week, although we should consider the why of it all.

If we can all agree that we are living in a world of increasingly complicated and interlinked threats, why is the Red sea important to the UK? I consulted two principal documents published since I became an MP—the 2015 strategic defence and security review and the 2021 integrated review—but, alas, there was no mention of the Red sea. Yemen was given a single cursory mention in each, and both in the context of other regional conflicts. The Government’s defence is that both documents were written before the Ever Given accident reminded us that the Suez canal and the Red sea are an important bottleneck for global trade.

Ultimately, neither document, one pre-Brexit and one post-Brexit, tells a compelling story about UK engagement in that part of the world, which makes it harder for me, and certainly for the public, to see why sustained engagement, if it happens, is in our long-term interest. Do not get me wrong: even as a committed north Atlanticist who believes that the primary commitment of Scotland and the UK should be to our northern European neighbourhood, I am open to being convinced. But the mood music throughout that time was on global Britain, without elucidating what that actually meant.

Do not get me started on the Indo-Pacific tilt either. The integrated review made the incredible assertion that the UK wishes to be the European state

“with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific”.

That claim received very little interrogation at the time. Again, as a committed north Atlanticist, I was perhaps never going to be on board with the idea of an Indo-Pacific tilt, but the more I try to find out about it, the less convinced I become.

The Indo-Pacific is a big place and is home to two of the three largest oceans in the world and three of the five largest states. Any tilt towards it would surely require some sort of prioritisation, but we have never heard any talk of this. The Red sea region could have been part of that, securing the freedom of maritime trade from the Indo-Pacific and bringing in European partners with a presence in the region, along with others, but there was a complete failure to communicate any of that to Members, never mind to the general public.

Forgive those of us who are sceptical about the what. With the strikes against Houthi targets, we can clearly see the how. The Royal Navy, which is doing a commendable job, is in its poorest and most diminished state for many years. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford alluded to that, and it is a consequence not only of budgetary pressures but of a complete failure of this and previous Governments to make the case for the why, be that in the Red sea or the North sea.

Instead, we have a manpower and retention crisis caused by over a decade of wage stagnation; the ongoing possibility that the two remaining landing platform docks will be mothballed, calling into question the long-term viability of the Royal Marines; and the admission in November that the entire fleet of SSNs was alongside at the same time. Yet if we were going by the MOD’s spin on things, all is well, because we can still field two carrier strike groups, even though everyone knows we would never have the manpower to do so at the same time; the AUKUS deal will allow Astute-class boats to operate in the Pacific ocean, even though, as we have heard, they sometimes cannot even get to the North sea; and—who can forget, from last week—we now have a space laser, or at least we will in 10 or 15 years’ time. So let me end with a general observation: when it comes to UK grand strategy in the Red sea, denial is not just a river you end up in if you take a wrong turn on your way there.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on a very wide-ranging speech, albeit somewhat remote from the situation in the Red sea, as you correctly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Defence Secretary, who is not in his place, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who both spoke with great care, diplomacy and sense. They fulfilled precisely what this place ought to be about, namely His Majesty’s Government laying out their views and the loyal Opposition scrutinising what they have done.

Before I say anything else, I make it clear that I strongly support the strikes in the Red sea and all the remarks made by my hon. Friends, most of whom are much better informed on these matters than me. I strongly support the strikes, the way they were carried out and the reasoning for them.

If I may, I will take a slightly different approach—rather than simply the diplomatic, foreign affairs and military approaches—and look at the way in which the strikes were ordered. Particularly after the first strike, a great many people, including a number of people in this House—perhaps we will hear from the Liberal Democrats later on—were of the view that it was quite wrong. “The House should be recalled,” they said. “We should have a vote in this House on whether the strikes were justified,” it was said. “It was quite wrong that Parliament should not have the opportunity to express our views on the most important matter facing us all, namely warfare,” it was said. I am glad to say that the Government resisted those calls, and the way in which the strikes were ordered seemed—I will come back to precisely why in a moment—to be absolutely right.

I have been talking about this subject for some time. Indeed, I wrote a book about it, which, if I may say so, is available in all good bookshops. When I expressed the view in a debate some 15 or 20 years ago that it was wrong that the House of Commons should vote on going to war, it was greeted widely with scorn. Everybody said, “That’s absurd; that’s a ridiculous thing to say.” We can check Hansard for that. Indeed, when Lord Hague wrote an extensive article on the matter, he said very straightforwardly and simply, “When we go to war, the House of Commons and the House of Lords must decide on it. It must be done by a vote.” I am glad to say that last week the noble Lord Hague went through a damascene conversion. He has changed his mind on the matter and now entirely supports my view. Equally in my view, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which wrote a report on these matters, got it wrong. It said that it thought the House of Commons should have a vote before deployment. I take a stringently different view, because there is a large number of very important reasons why that should not be the case.

First, all pretence of secrecy would of course be destroyed. We would have a debate in this place, and the enemy would know precisely what we were planning to do. Secondly, we could not take that kind of decision without consulting our neighbours. The decision might well be part of a NATO strike or, in this case, a joint UK-US strike. Are we ready to ask NATO, the United Nations or the US to wait while we discuss the matter here? What happens if we vote against it here, but those wherever else vote in favour?

Thirdly, we are galloping down a very dangerous road if we ask the Prime Minister to come to this House and share with us the secret intelligence, legal advice and strategic knowledge on which he makes these difficult decisions, as he would be exposing many of our professional supporters to criticism or, indeed, to attack one way or another. It would be quite wrong if he did so. I do not want to know the secret intelligence. I do not want to know the legal advice. I want the right to scrutinise what the Government have done after they have done it.

It is also extremely important that warfare should not be politicised. If we vote in this House either to go to war or not to do so, we as MPs are taking a view of it. We are sending people to war while squabbling among ourselves about whether the war is right, wrong or indifferent. That seems to me quite wrong from the point of view of the families, particularly of those who are killed, who would then say, “Well, one party or the other took a strongly different view from you.”

Before I come to the final reason for my strong views on this matter, I must point out to the House that, of the 274 wars that England has taken part in since 1750, we have voted in this House on only two. Only twice in all those years have we voted prior to deployment. The first time was in 2003, when Tony Blair asked this House to vote on Iraq and whipped the Labour party into supporting the war. The Conservative party was also whipped; I am glad to say I rebelled against the Whip, but none the less we were whipped into supporting the war, and what a bad decision that was—quite the wrong decision.

The second time in all that 300-year to 400-year history that we had a vote in this House on going to war was before a potential Syria strike in 2013, which did not then occur. The House voted against it, and very much of the bloodshed, the corruption and the disaster that we see in Syria to this day comes about as a result of those votes. America followed us the next day and equally did not strike against the use of chemical weapons. That was a wrong decision made by this House, as in my view was the Iraq decision of 2003, and those are the only two occasions when, prior to deployment, we have voted.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[James Gray]

My right hon. Friend disagrees with me.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am afraid I do. I agree with my hon. Friend’s main thrust, that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Executive have the right to take initial action and seek support afterwards. Having said that, the case of Syria in particular has become a byword for a wrong and terrible decision, because the ghastly Assad remained in power, but the alternative would have been another Islamist swamp such as we saw in Libya. It was because there was a strong feeling in the House that Syria would have been another Iraq or another Libya that there was such pressure to have a vote. For my part, I think the result was absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way in a moment; I just want to finish dealing with the comments by the shadow Secretary of State. He also asked whether HMS Diamond will be replaced on the station. The answer is yes, she will be replaced by HMS Richmond, but he will accept, I hope, that I cannot give any operational details about that.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of Israel and Gaza, which is adjacent to this debate if not directly part of it. That issue was similarly raised by the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), whose son we thank for his service, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and by the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Colleagues throughout the debate have raised this point, and I reiterate that there is no link between our action of self-defence in the Red sea, and the situation in Israel and Gaza. The Houthis are using events in Israel and Gaza as an excuse to destabilise the region further. They are trying to paint themselves as protectors of the oppressed, but their own track record of oppression shows them in a very different light.

Britain wants to see an end to the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible. We are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, and as a vital step towards building a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to destruction, fighting, and loss of life. To achieve that, we need Hamas to agree to release all the hostages. Hamas can no longer be in charge of Gaza, and an agreement must be in place for the Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza.

While I am on that point, may I say to the hon. Member for East Lothian a word or two about the reference to the International Court of Justice? The Government believe that the referral by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is unhelpful, but of course we respect the role and independence of the ICJ. I say to the House, particularly on Holocaust Memorial Day, that the suggestion that Israel is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people is both wrong and profoundly offensive. I make it clear on Holocaust Memorial Day that we also remember the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in Bosnia in 1995 and in Sudan in 2003, as well as in Cambodia in the 1970s. If I may update the House, the ICJ has announced during the course of the debate that it will deliver its decision on South Africa’s request for provisional measures at 12 o’clock UK time on Friday 26 January.

Let me return to the excellent speeches made by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members, and I will turn first to the speech by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

Before I do that, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is, as always, the model of courtesy. For the avoidance of any lingering doubt—I am sure this can be avoided as I am getting very positive signals from the Defence Secretary sitting to his left—will he confirm that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, whose planned out-of-service dates are 2033 and 2034 respectively, not only will not be scrapped ahead of time, but will not be mothballed either?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to detect the supportive view of the Secretary of State for Defence.

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I shall put forward a few random and hopefully connected thoughts that have occurred to me in the course of the contributions we have heard so far. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate, and I commiserate with him on the fact that he paid a high political price in losing the chairmanship of the Defence Committee, which I know he valued greatly, as a result of speaking out on this subject.

I can go part of the way with my right hon. Friend in support of his thesis about engagement, by saying this: no matter how much we detest a particular regime, a time always comes when, if in reality it has established full control over a country, it gets international recognition. That was true for the Bolsheviks, for example: Britain intervened in the Russian civil war in an attempt to prevent the Bolsheviks from establishing communist control in what became the USSR, but we failed, and, after a few years, that regime had eventually to be recognised. Where I find it hard to go further with my right hon Friend is in the belief that we can somehow manipulate the system to make significant improvements or avert significant threats from an Afghanistan run by the militant Taliban, even if he detects—rightly, I am sure—significant factions within the Taliban spectrum, such as it is.

As too many past speeches will attest, I came to the conclusion over a decade ago that the whole concept of the west trying to engage in nation building from the ground up in countries such as Afghanistan was largely futile, because—and I quote my right hon. Friend, who referred to this country’s democratic journey across the centuries—it often takes centuries for democracy to evolve in a society.

We have no reason per se to feel superiority over countries that we regard as undemocratic today, because we had so much longer than they have had so far to evolve the institutions, values and tolerances in which we have reason to be proud. The fact is that, if we were to go back 400 or 500 years into the history of our own country, we would find religious fanaticism that is not all that dissimilar to what pertains in countries that are subject to what has today been termed radical political Islam. If we then frame the proposition that some completely different society, seeking to impose their more modern values on the England of 500 years ago, could have managed to inculcate those values into a society with a belief that God Almighty was telling them to do one thing and to disregard all alternatives as infidel structures that must be destroyed, we can see that it is pretty unrealistic to think that societies could be transformed with that degree of rapidity.

I have therefore felt, and argued for over a decade, that what we needed with a country such as Afghanistan was not an approach whereby we would be able rapidly to bring it into the modern world, but that we should be able to contain the threats that it posed to us—for a very long period, if necessary—until, by its own evolution, it came to develop the sorts of values that would result in those threats ceasing to exist. That option has now been taken away from us by President Biden’s catastrophic decision to abandon everything and effectively betray all the people in Afghanistan who had put their trust in the NATO countries that had tried, over-ambitiously, to develop Afghan society.

What I feel very strongly, which came out so well in the remarks that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made about Afghan women, is that we may have pursued an unrealistic and utopian policy towards Afghanistan, but, in doing that, we created obligations to those Afghans who sought to travel along the route with us. We must not abandon them.

When I hear about the idea of our having a strategy towards the country, I think of our options as extremely limited. The strategy that we ought to have had is one of containment, whereby we would make it perfectly clear that we had intervened militarily once and would not get sucked in, but that, if there were to be any sign of further terrorist activity aimed at us or our allies, we would not hesitate to intervene militarily again. In that case, we would again make it clear that we would not get sucked in, but would continually keep the threat of counter-action available while avoiding seeking to transform the society in a way that was wholly impractical.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. He is talking about a situation in which a terrorist threat may emerge in the future. At the height of the UK’s presence in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister of the UK talked about Afghanistan and Pakistan in the same breath and had an AfPak strategy. That was because there was a fear of Islamist intent coming together with the weapons of mass destruction capability in Pakistan. Does the right hon. Member think that those threats have completely dissipated, or would he still regard the federally administered tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province as a threat?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I absolutely am concerned about the attitude of Pakistan and about the potential for Pakistani nuclear weapons to one day pass under the control of more radical elements than are currently running that country. What should particularly worry us—this is what I think David Cameron had in mind when, as Prime Minister, he talked about Pakistan facing both ways on the question of radical Islam—is the fact that there has been a wish in Pakistan Government circles to see the triumph of the Taliban. The reasons for that are probably more related to Pakistan’s relations with countries such as India, and have too little regard to the other effects that bringing in a regime such as the Taliban’s might have on the stability and security of the international system and the rules-based international order—about which we hear so much although we often wonder whether it exists.

I share the continuing concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I am far from satisfied that we are in a secure situation. On the contrary, I feel that the withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan have given a huge boost to those who say that the western system of society is degenerate and enfeebled, and will surely fail in the face of a radical Islamic alternative.

What do we do about this now? What I think we can do can be summed up in the following way. We will, indeed, have to recognise that the Taliban are in control. Therefore, just as we have a sort of relationship, however adversarial, with obnoxious and hostile regimes in other countries, so we will have to do that with the Taliban. We must not fool ourselves that having a relationship with them will result in any real reduction in the threat that they and their of way life poses, particularly when they have adherents within our own societies. We saw for many years how much damage people who owed a form of allegiance to the Soviet Union could cause, through their fifth columnists in democratic societies. There is an equivalent danger from radical political Islam, too.

Let us by all means face reality, but let us reassert that we know that this combination of politics, regime and religious extremist ideology is a total threat to us. We will do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Any aid and support that we give to the Afghan Government, as we will eventually have to call it, must be contingent on something in return at every stage. That will probably be in relation to the saving of groups, whether they be women’s groups or former military personnel to whom we owe obligations. That is the saving of people whose lives were changed by our intervention, and who have a right to look to us to help to protect them against the ghastliness of the regime that has sadly re-emerged and taken control of their country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Israel and Palestine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

No, but I can tell the hon. Member that, in respect of the humanitarian difficulties that he has identified, we are doing everything we can to try to secure unhindered humanitarian access, and we will continue to do so.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that Hamas will never accept a two-state solution, does the Minister agree that any two-state solution must exclude Hamas—or any renamed successor—from any role in the government of Gaza after this horror is all over?

[Mr Mitchell]

There is clearly no place in any future settlement for Hamas and their vile ideology and terrorist actions. The two-state solution must be driven forward by people of good will on all sides.