Conflict in Gaza
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With the permission of the House, I shall make a statement about the conflict in Gaza. In January, I outlined to the House the deal agreed between Israel and Hamas. It was a moment of huge hope and relief. In the weeks that followed, hostages cruelly detained by Hamas were reunited with their families, and aid blocked by Israel finally flooded into Gaza. A path out of this horrendous conflict appeared open. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that I have to update the House today on a breakdown of the ceasefire and yet more bloodshed in Gaza.
On the night of 18 March, Israel launched airstrikes across Gaza. A number of Hamas figures were reportedly killed, but it has been reported that over 400 Palestinians were killed in missile strikes and artillery barrages. The majority of them were women and children. This appears to have been the deadliest single day for Palestinians since the war began. This is an appalling loss of life, and we mourn the loss of every civilian.
Yesterday morning, a UN compound in Gaza was hit. I can confirm to the House that a British national was among the wounded. Our priority is supporting them and their family at this time. Gaza has been the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, and I share the outrage of the UN Secretary-General Guterres at this incident. The Government call for a transparent investigation, and for those responsible to be held to account.
The UK is working closely with partners, such as France and Germany, to send a clear message. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities. We urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Hamas must release all the hostages, and negotiations must resume. Diplomacy is the one way to achieve security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The House will know that the ceasefire in Gaza had lasted for almost two months—the result of dogged efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States. The deal reached in January saw the nightmare of captivity for 30 hostages end, and the bodies of eight further victims of Hamas returned to their loved ones. We all remember the joy of seeing Emily Damari reunited with her mother and family. Desperately needed aid began to flow back into Gaza—food, medicines, fuel and tents. Children in Gaza had respite from relentless fear. The severely injured could cross the border again for treatment. Palestinians had begun to return to their homes, and to consider how to rebuild their lives.
In the first days of the ceasefire, the UK moved swiftly to invest in the peace. We released £17 million in additional emergency humanitarian funding for the promised surge in aid. We brought our total support this year for Palestinians across the region to £129 million. We accelerated work on the pathway to reconstruction, supporting our Arab partners’ very welcome recent initiative. We worked at every level to support negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and the return of every single hostage in a backed extension to phase one of the current deal.
But negotiations have been gridlocked for several weeks. Hamas has been resisting calls for the release of further hostages in return for a longer truce. Israeli forces did not begin to withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor as agreed, and on 2 March, the Israeli Government announced that they were blocking all further aid deliveries until Hamas agreed to their terms. For weeks now, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked, leaving over half a million civilians once again cut off from clean drinking water and sparking a 200% surge in the price of some basic foodstuffs—a boon to those criminals who use violence to control supplies.
As I told the House on Monday, this is appalling and unacceptable. Ultimately, of course, these are matters for the courts, not Governments, to determine, but it is difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to a civilian population can be compatible with international humanitarian law. Although it is important to say that I could have been a little clearer in the House on Monday, our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law.
The consequences of the ceasefire’s breakdown are catastrophic. For the families and friends of the remaining 59 hostages, including Avinatan Or, the agony goes on. Hamas’s kidnapping of those people and treatment of them in captivity, the cruel theatre of their release, depriving them of food and basic rights—those are acts of despicable cruelty. Hamas must release them all now.
Palestinian civilians, who have already endured so much, now must fear a re-run and a return to days of death, deprivation and destruction. Civilians have once again been issued with evacuation orders by Israel. Only 4% of the United Nations flash appeal is funded—not even enough to get through to the end of this month. Health centres have had to close, even as the devastated Gazan health service has to treat another surge of those wounded in strikes.
Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but a collapsed ceasefire will not bring the hostages home to their families, an endless conflict will not bring long-term security to Israel, and a deepening war will only set back the course of regional normalisation and risk further instability, shortly after the Houthis resumed their unacceptable threats to shipping in the Red sea.
Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, I have spoken to Secretary Rubio, to EU High Representative Kallas and to UN emergency co-ordinator Tom Fletcher, and I will shortly speak to my Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar and Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa. We and our partners need to persuade the parties that this conflict cannot be resolved by military means. We want Israel and Hamas to re-engage with negotiations. We continue to condemn Hamas, of course, for their actions on 7 October, their refusal to release the hostages, and their ongoing threat to Israel, but we are also resolute in calling on Israel to abide by international law, lift the unacceptable restrictions on aid and demand the protection of civilians.
Many months ago, only weeks into office, I concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching international humanitarian law in Gaza. It was that risk, which I first set out in the House back in September, that meant that the Government suspended relevant export licences for items for use by the Israel Defence Forces in military operations in Gaza. The actions of last week only reinforced that conclusion. In the days and weeks ahead, we will redouble our efforts to restore a ceasefire, but we will also continue to work with our partners on the security, governance and reconstruction arrangements. Those issues are not going away. There remains no military solution to this conflict. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace.
At this Dispatch Box in January I called the ceasefire deal
“a glimmer of light in the darkness”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 511.]
It feels like the darkness has returned. Former British hostage Emily Damari said that the resumption of fighting left her heartbroken, crushed and disappointed. I am sure that she speaks for the whole House. But we must preserve hope for the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza, and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long. We will keep striving for a return to the path to peace. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and let me make clear regarding the charity worker who was injured, that of course our ambassador and the Foreign Office are in touch with his family. As she would expect, we have made representations to the Israeli Government, and I will be speaking to the Israeli Foreign Minister in the coming hours.
The right hon. Lady talks about Hamas, and I have said at this Dispatch Box that the scenes of those young men in balaclavas with Kalashnikovs parading hostages are obscene, and I condemn them. I said in January that we would continue to stand with the hostage families, and we will. There are still dozens of families waiting, hoping, praying that their loved ones can return, but the right hon. Lady will also have seen overnight that many of those families are saying that this is not the way to bring them home. They fear that as a consequence of this resumed action, their loved ones will perish, and I thought that the tone of some of her remarks did not sit with what I see coming out of Israel at this time. No one could not be absolutely touched and affected by the gaunt and malnourished hostages paraded around in a sick propaganda exercise. We all condemn Hamas.
The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. What we are doing, and what the previous Government did, is supporting the Palestinian Authority with reform. There has to be an alternative to Hamas, and that alternative is the Palestinian Authority. We must work with it; we have to give people hope and prospect that is not about terrorism, and that is about supporting Prime minister Mustafa in all his efforts. That is what we have been doing, and why we have been working particularly with the Arab Quint. She asked about how we are working with partners in the area, and there was to be a conference, a gathering, in Egypt this weekend. It has been postponed, but it will be important that we attend that gathering, and work with our Arab partners. I put on record our support for Egypt and Qatar in their conversations with Hamas. She knows that we do not talk to Hamas, but we do work with those partners who can.
The right hon. Lady asked about future operations in the Red sea, and she knows well that I would never comment from the Dispatch Box on operational issues in the Red sea. She asked me if there is any moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government. Of course there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government, and none of us has ever suggested that that is the case. She asked, rightly, about the role of Iran. She is right about the malign affect of Iran in the region, and we will act to ensure that it does not get the nuclear capability that it is seeking to secure —I discussed that issue with Secretary of State Rubio and my counterparts in France and Germany.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his passionate and articulate plea for peace from the Dispatch Box. In doing so he speaks for us all, and I know that he has witnessed the suffering and feels it very deeply, as we all do. The renewed bombing in Gaza cannot be justified, the renewed siege of Gaza cannot be justified, and it is difficult to see how either of those things are compatible with international law. It will be for a court to decide, and there will be a reckoning.
The question, however, is what is going to happen now, because whatever it is that the British Government are doing in the region, it is clearly not working. What is plan B? Now that the Israeli Government have abandoned the fragile course of peace, what is plan B for the west bank, which still faces the threat of annexation? Following reports that the strikes may have American endorsement, what is plan B when it comes to uniting our international allies, to make sense of this senseless violation of the peace process? We must ensure that this is met not just with words, no matter how passionate or articulate. We have to do something internationally and with our allies. It is time to stop talking about it, and to do something.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I know that she was in the region recently, discussing these very same issues at the Knesset. I understand that the US envoy, Steve Witkoff, is flying into the region as we speak, and I hold out hope that we can once more get a ceasefire that gets us to the plan, which was to the end of the Passover period—I cannot give up hope on that. She says that we must have more than words, and she knows, as I do, that the business of diplomacy is words, conversations, and using our influence to bring this about. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our Arab partners and, of course, with our E3 partners, in particular, and the European Union at this time, and I will do everything I can to get us back to that ceasefire.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Israel’s resumption of its military campaign in Gaza is heartbreaking for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and for the world. For two months, the fragile ceasefire provided space for the release of hostages and, until early March, the flooding of Gaza with vital aid to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. The resumption of fighting now threatens the lives of Israeli hostages still held in captivity by Hamas, and of Palestinians, who have already seen their homes and communities devasted by 15 months of war. A new ceasefire must be secured as soon as possible. To that end, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Israeli Government on rapidly recommitting to a ceasefire?
Even before the resumption of military operations, the Israeli Government had cut aid routes into Gaza, as well as the supply of electricity. That was illegal and wrong, contravening Israel’s obligations under international law. In this House on Monday, and today, the Foreign Secretary stated that Israel’s aid blockade was a breach of international law. Will he outline what action he is taking to ensure that there are consequences to breaching international law? Hamas must now immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, the treatment of whom while in captivity has been despicable. We are also deeply concerned by reports that a British bomb disposal expert has been injured in an explosion at a UN facility in the strip, and our thoughts are with their family. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on his safety and condition?
Arab states have a vital role to play in supporting the transition back to a state of ceasefire. Their plans for the reconstruction of Gaza also provide a pragmatic proposal for rebuilding the strip, particularly when compared with the reckless proposals put forward by Trump, who described his intention to remove Palestinians from Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has engaged closely with Arab partners in the region around their plans for reconstruction? As conflict returns to Gaza, we must also give Palestinians hope, and show them that we support their right to statehood. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK must now move to officially recognise a state of Palestine, as a vital part of a two-state solution that offers dignity and security to Palestinians and Israelis?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will assist the shadow Foreign Secretary once the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has finished her question. Please continue.
Melanie Ward
Yesterday, the Israeli Defence Minister threatened the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to stop that and to hold the Government of Israel accountable for their actions?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the point of order absolutely relevant right now?
Priti Patel
I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the suggestion—a misrepresentation—that I have not spoken about the Palestinian Authority in this House, because I have done so from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a very sensitive and important debate. We need to ensure that language is temperate and respectful at all times. Our constituents are watching, as indeed is the world, so we must ensure that we in no way inadvertently misrepresent our colleagues. The right hon. Lady’s point is noted. We will now continue because we have a lot of people to get through. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary has said, in particular that we have to give hope to the Palestinian people. To be fair to the Israeli Government position, Hamas could solve the problem now by releasing the hostages. Having said that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that is quite wrong for any member of the Israeli Government to say that the Gazan people could rise up against Hamas? If they did that, they would be tortured, at best, and probably killed. The people of Gaza are victims of Hamas as much as anybody, and it is quite wrong for the Israeli Government to inflict collective judgment on the people of Gaza: that will bring death, destruction, more radicalism and we will never get the hostages home.
G7
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful in particular for the cross-party nature of what the Secretary of State for the Opposition said—I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am a little jetlagged. I got off a plane at 6 am, and I hope the House will forgive me. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the manner of her remarks, particularly on Ukraine. There were a number of questions, which I will seek to deal with.
The right hon. Lady is right that Zelensky has made it absolutely clear that he is committed to peace. She asked me about the US decision on a pause in military aid and intelligence aid. I am pleased to say that our assessment is that that pause, as she will know, was for a short period, not an extended period. It therefore has not had a material effect, but we were pleased to see that aid resume. We were pleased to see what flowed from Jeddah: the United States, European allies and President Zelensky and Ukraine absolutely square with the need for that ceasefire. It is for Putin to accept unconditionally that ceasefire: the ball is in his court. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with Secretary Rubio over the course of the three days at the G7, and with Vice-President Vance yesterday morning at his residence in Washington.
The right hon. Lady rightly asks about Russian assets. Let me make it clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing Ukraine. I am delighted that the first £752 million of the UK’s £2.26 billion loan—to be repaid by the profits generated on Russian sanctioned assets— has been paid, but she knows that there is rightfully a discussion about moving from freezing to seizing. If we were to move in that direction, it would be important for there to be unanimity among the G7, and a way forward within the European Union for the most exposed countries. As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are discussing those very issues apace.
The right hon. Lady asked about UK troops on the ground. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine, but the collective security of our continent and, therefore, Britain’s direct national interest. That is why the Prime Minister has said that Europe needs to step up, and the UK is, of course, prepared to consider committing British troops on the ground; but there must be a US backstop. There will be a further meeting in London this week to continue to get into the operational detail.
The Prime Minister and I are pleased, alongside the Defence Secretary, that the coalition of the willing is growing. It is right that we consider carefully what would be required on the ground, but the right hon. Lady will know, too, that the exercise of monitoring what is put in place is very important. No doubt she, like me, will have seen the operation that was run by the OSCE. I saw it in January 2022, just before the fighting began in the February. That would not be adequate this time round, so, rightly and properly, we must get into the granular detail of what would be required—as the European family, of course, but also involving nations such as Canada. I received a commitment from Minister Mélanie Joly that Canada was willing to step up to be part of that coalition, but there will be others in that coalition of the willing, and we will look at these issues in detail over the coming days.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Gaza and the middle east. Let me make it absolutely clear that we were all united in saying that there could be no role for Hamas. We welcome the work that has been done by the Arab Quint as a direction of travel. The United Kingdom wants to continue to work with the Quint on strengthening that proposal, particularly on the security guarantees that the Israelis would rightfully need—their assurance that 7 October can never, ever happen again.
The right hon. Lady raised the situation in Syria. The awful clashes during the weekend of 8 and 9 March led to the deaths of more than 1,000 people. We condemned the violence at the time, and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), updated the House on 10 March. It is critical for the interim Administration in Syria to respect and protect all Syria’s minorities, which is why it was heartening to see the agreement last week between the interim Administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces, particularly in north-east Syria. This was obviously a topic of much discussion.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the strikes by the US. Since 19 November 2023, the Houthis have targeted international commercial shipping in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden and attacked British and American warships. That cannot go unchecked. It is totally unacceptable, and it must be dealt with. We do not, of course, comment on other nations’ military operations, but I can confirm that, while we did not take part in the strikes over the weekend, we are in close touch with our US friends on the need to act in respect of the Houthis and what they are doing in the Red sea.
The right hon. Lady talked about the Government’s approach to China. I can assure her that there will not be seven different approaches to China from this Government, which is what we experienced under the last Government, who were ping-ponging about over the course of those 14 years. As for the calamity of a United Kingdom Prime Minister having a beer with the leader of the Chinese Communist party, I can give her a guarantee that that will not happen under this Government. Quite properly, as the right hon. Lady knows, I and the Home Secretary made representations to the planning process about the security issues that must be kept in mind as the proper procedures are followed for China’s application. She also knows that we, too, have concerns about our embassy in China and its proper operation.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am so pleased to see the Foreign Secretary continuing to lead our allies in support of Ukraine, and equally pleased to see that he has expressed his support for moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets—we have £18 billion-worth of them held in the UK. However, if we are serious about doing that, we need to start getting on with it. What moves is his Department making—for example, putting legislation on the books to allow us to seize those assets when the right time comes? I am glad to hear that there are discussions on that, but has pressure been put on our G7 and EU allies, who still sit on the remaining £300 billion-worth of assets, which perhaps need to be seized at this stage? Has he considered putting forward a UN General Assembly resolution to provide the legal basis for co-ordinated asset seizures?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question and, of course, for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I reassure her that we continue to work closely with our allies on this issue, including through the lengthy discussions that we had at the G7, but let me emphasise that it is important in this particular area that any way forward involves a pooling of that exercise. I do not believe that it would be right for the UK to act unilaterally in this instance; therefore, this is a multilateral endeavour and discussion. She is right to emphasise that we should work at pace, and I reassure her that we are doing so.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I will focus on Ukraine.
Last week, President Zelensky announced his willingness to accept an immediate ceasefire. In response, Vladimir Putin intensified his attacks on Ukraine. This gives the lie to Putin’s cheap talk about agreeing with the idea of a ceasefire. His goals remain the same: to destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and turn it into a satellite state of Russia.
The only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is by strengthening Ukraine in the face of Putin’s brutality, so I was slightly alarmed to hear the Foreign Secretary say that we can seize Russian assets only if we progress by unanimity. If the US refuses to seize Russian assets, will the Foreign Secretary take a lead with European partners so that the support can flow? Can he also say what is stopping him unlocking the £2.5 billion generated from the sale of Chelsea football club, which is held here in the UK and should have already been used to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine?
The Foreign Secretary referred to the work that Ministers have been doing to build a coalition of the willing to support any final peace agreement in Ukraine, which my party strongly supports, but can he be more specific? What levels of support have other countries committed, and what progress has he made in securing a backstop security guarantee from the United States?
The Liberal Democrats have warned repeatedly that Donald Trump’s actions are emboldening Putin. Last month, Trump said that Russia should rejoin the G7 if a peace settlement is agreed. That would be unjust and wrong. Did the Foreign Secretary make it clear to his G7 counterparts that the UK would oppose Russia rejoining the G7?
Given that Donald Trump is not a reliable ally, the Liberal Democrats have argued that the UK must lead in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on the United States. We support the creation of a pan-European rearmament bank so that Europe’s defences can be rapidly rebuilt, yet last week we saw proposals from the European Commission for EU structures that could leave the UK out. Will the Foreign Secretary use his meeting with High Representative Kallas tomorrow to make sure that the UK plays a full part in European efforts, to the benefit of our security and our defence industry?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that all colleagues can get in, questions will have to be short, and if the answers continue to be long, there will be some disappointed Back Benchers.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s strong statement that blockading all aid into Gaza, including UK aid, is “appalling and unacceptable”. What discussions did he have with G7 colleagues about what can be done about this provocative action during Ramadan, and what consequences are there for what people are saying is a breach of international law?
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible.
Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security.
Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending.
The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA?
The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely.
There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily.
This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years.
The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again.
From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage.
I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told:
“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.”
The speaker continued:
“Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.]
That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues can see how heavily subscribed this debate is. I need to fit in another debate before 7 o’clock, so many colleagues will be disappointed that they will not be called to speak. They can judge that as they may. We shall set a speaking limit of four minutes so that I can get as many people in as possible.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and four fellow members of the Committee.
I make it clear that I strongly support the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. I fear that that may not be enough and that we will have to spend more if we are to maintain our security against the threat that is now clear. I therefore accept that part of the funding of that needs to come from ODA, although I feel the pain of both the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That makes it even harder to swallow the £9 billion bill we face paying to maintain a base on the Chagos Islands.
I will focus specifically on soft power. I welcome the establishment within the FCDO of the Soft Power Council; it is very important that strengthening hard power should not be at the expense of Britain’s soft power. A number of Members have already talked about the BBC World Service, which is one of our great assets. It was very welcome that in the Budget, the Government increased their contribution by £32 million, but it was concerning that the BBC recently announced a reduction in its contribution of £6 million, with the loss of 130 jobs. While all 42 language services are being maintained, the World Service defence committee has already pointed out some of the damage that those reductions will do, with the loss of regional editors, science coverage and business programmes. I am particularly concerned about the letter that the Chair of our Committee received a few days ago from the director general, in which he said:
“In the last few days we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in Overseas Development Spending.”
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be no reduction in the Foreign Office’s funding of the BBC World Service. Indeed, I hope he will give serious consideration to the BBC’s request that in the longer term, the Government consider taking on the full funding of the World Service.
We on the Committee have also heard from the British Council, another aspect of soft power. It is absurd that the loan of £250 million given to the British Council has to be renewed each year, creating huge uncertainty. I hope that a solution can be found to put that funding on a long-term basis.
I finish by referring to an issue of huge concern to me and many others: media freedom. Both this Government and the previous Government have very good records on supporting media freedom around the world; we set up the global Media Freedom Coalition. However, as the Minister knows, media freedom is under huge threat. I urge the Government to continue to press the cases of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen imprisoned in Hong Kong, and of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen imprisoned in Egypt. The Minister also knows that in Ukraine, 97 journalists have been killed since 24 February 2022, 12 while on duty, and the most recent withdrawal of funding—that of USAID—will put at risk over half the media outlets that are bravely reporting what is happening in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can provide support to them, too.
Mr Mitchell
Yes, it is. As far as I am aware, it is not true that the office in East Kilbride is being closed. It is being moved to Glasgow, and I am advised that the Government have no plans to change that arrangement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The point of order is noted, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Time is limited, so we will go back to Joani Reid.
Joani Reid
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, East Kilbride is not Glasgow. Closing the development office and shifting the jobs to Glasgow is not just tinkering with the administration of the FCDO; it is a blow to our community, which has built itself around the development opportunities that the office provides. It is taking well-paid, skilled jobs from a town and centralising them in a city—the kind of decision that too often leaves towns behind. I know that many of my hon. Friends share my concerns about the hollowing out of towns such as East Kilbride, and I urge the Government to think again.
The decision to close the development office has been made at a moment of deep uncertainty for the civil servants working in international development. The Government have already made this very difficult and painful decision. It is not a decision that I celebrate, but I support it, because governing means taking tough choices, not easy ones. However, closing the office and moving it to Glasgow, at a time when there is such deep uncertainty about the international development budget and no clear evidence that it will do anything other than cost money in the immediate term, is ill advised.
Labour has a proud legacy, built by pioneers such as Judith Hart, and we must not allow it to be weakened by short-term thinking. We are now in an era where words are not enough and an era of show, not tell. If we really believe in the role that East Kilbride can continue to play in shaping Britain’s international engagement, the answer is clear: take the closure off the table, and use the money to focus on the announced priorities in international development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are dropping the time limit down to three minutes.
Alex Ballinger
Absolutely. I think that those of us who have served would recognise that development and defence are completely complementary. When we reduce our development spending, our defence spending needs to go up.
After leaving the Royal Marines, colleagues and I worked with civil society in Syria, helping to keep hopes of a different, more tolerant country alive during that civil war. Those groups are probably now the best hope for Syria’s civil society and for a more tolerant and stable country.
Aid helps to mitigate the worst impacts of conflict and to prevent further conflict. I am concerned that cutting our development budget so deeply will undermine our ability to stabilise fragile states, reduce the drivers of extremism and stop further conflicts emerging. The implications of that will be felt here in the UK, with a greater chance of spikes in food and energy prices, increased migration and threats from extremist groups. Our military and security services will face those challenges at a time when their attention should be on Ukraine. While I wholly support raising our defence spending, I encourage the Government to look over the next two years at opportunities to avoid such drastic cuts to our aid budget, in particular our investments in conflict zones and on conflict prevention. Each pound we spend on conflict prevention can save £16 in aid to mitigate the destruction caused by conflict.
I welcome the pledge the Prime Minister made for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace last December, and I hope that that remains a priority for the FCDO after the latest announcements. I strongly support the increase in defence spending announced last week, but, as a former marine, I also urge the Government to value the critical role our aid budget plays in delivering vital aid in conflict zones and preventing conflicts altogether.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Due to time constraints, we now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that they should refer to other Members by their constituency or by their title if they are a Minister, not by their first name.
Sudan and Eastern DRC
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know he did a lot of work with my predecessor in Tottenham on issues to do with the African continent. He has been raising these issues consistently for the past three or four decades, and we are very grateful to him for that.
I seek to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when I say that we want to convene and come together with regional partners and those neighbouring Sudan, as well as with the international partners that take a big interest and play a big role, as the UN penholder, we are of course aware of some of the motivations; there is gold, for example, in Sudan. We urge everyone to step back and get to a ceasefire. This cannot go on forever; there has to be a ceasefire. We need that ceasefire now because of the women and children who are suffering. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been to Goma. We have been talking about the coltan in our mobile phones for many years. It is why there are so many external actors engaged in the DRC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If questions and answers are short, I can squeeze in just a couple more Members.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful that that is the subject of the last question. One reason why the world is not paying attention to these crises is that they are in the continent of Africa. The second reason, I fear, is gendered: it is women who are suffering. It is men who are doing the fighting and women who are being left behind. We cannot go backwards. For all those reasons, I urge parliamentarians to secure debates and raise these issues with the colleagues they meet from other parliamentary democracies, so we get attention back on these women and children in both conflicts and across so many others, who are suffering horrendously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Foreign Secretary. We got through quite a lot of questions.
Detained British Nationals Abroad
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady, and I welcome her to the debate as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is absolutely right, but the problem in this case is that dual nationality was used as an excuse for why the Government did not want to raise the matter, because China did not recognise that British citizenship. She is right that if someone is a British citizen, they are a British citizen, and the inside of the passport tells us why that is important. It seems to be ignored too often.
We know that sanctions are a vital tool for deterring and punishing state actors involved in arbitrary detention, yet that tool is often underutilised by UK Governments. I will touch on that later, because compared with the Americans, we fail to utilise it as a possible way to leverage changes to what is going on outside.
Another area of concern is the inconsistent application of Government policy regarding international legal standards. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he confirm the Government’s official definition of arbitrary detention? How does it align with international legal standards, such as those established by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention? I have never been able to get an answer out of any Foreign Minister yet, but I ask him, given his experience in the Department, to kindly find out the definition for us and let us know.
I said I would raise specific cases, so I will run through some of the list. Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen unjustly detained in Dubai for more than 16 years, originally in isolation. His case represents an egregious violation of human rights and, importantly, of due process. He was arrested in 2008 on false fraud allegations relating to a $500 million Dubai Islamic Bank loan, and his 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years in 2018 through retroactive application of a new law without proper legal proceedings. The bank seized assets worth $1.6 billion from Mr Cornelius, far exceeding the original loan amount. The UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled categorically that Ryan’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law, calling for his immediate release and compensation. However, there still appears to be FCDO resistance.
Mohammed Ibrahim Al Shaibani became DIB chairman shortly before Mr Cornelius’s arrest. He appears to have orchestrated Mr Cornelius’s continued detention and the asset seizure. Mr Al Shaibani holds influential positions in Dubai’s Government, indicating an abuse of power. Mr Cornelius is now 70 and has suffered severe health issues in prison, including tuberculosis that went untreated for 18 months. Meanwhile, his seized property, originally claimed to be “worthless” by the bank, is now being redeveloped as a luxury project called The Acres, worth, strangely, $3 billion.
Under the last Government, I raised Mr Cornelius’s case finally with the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron while he was Foreign Secretary. Subsequently, he engaged personally in seeking clemency for Mr Cornelius. He met the family, raised the case with the UAE Foreign Minister and wrote personally to the ruler of Dubai. That was a first, because everybody else seemed to have shied away from this one, not wanting to upset the UAE, it appears.
To be fair to Lord Cameron, he got the issue and he started to tackle it, and that was important. The present Foreign Secretary, who replaced Lord Cameron in July, failed to raise Mr Cornelius’s case in his recent visit to the UAE in September, which perplexes me, given that it had already been raised. That just encourages a country like the UAE to carry on and to double down. I do not understand why.
In response to my written question to the Foreign Secretary, I received this answer:
“The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of consular issues, although not this specific case, during his visit to the UAE on 5 September and first meeting with Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed.”
I understand that on Sunday, the Prime Minister is expected to visit the UAE and, I think, Saudi Arabia. Will the Minister make it clear to the Prime Minister— I believe this is the view that will be expressed in this debate—that he must not only raise the case, which is important, but demand categorically that Ryan Cornelius is released into the hands of his family without delay? I hope that whatever is summarised from his meetings, that specific issue is there in black and white for this House to record.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) raised Mr Cornelius’s case several weeks ago in an Adjournment debate, when he was reassured by the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), that:
“the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities”,—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 241.]
and yet it was not. If Ministers give assurances in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, do you not agree that they should actually back up those assurances? I wonder if the Minister present will explain why that was the case.
Although individual cases are raised with international counterparts, often no concrete action follows. I hope the Minister agrees that once a case is raised, it will be followed up. In Mr Cornelius’s case, I believe the path could culminate in sanctions, so there is a process. It is clear that raising the case with the UAE authorities has yet to produce a result. What we want is a real record that the authorities are now being warned that should they fail to take action, individual sanctions under the Magnitsky rules will follow.
Will the Minister therefore now look to imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizures? There are a number of them: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani, who was the chairman of the DIB; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, the vice chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, who was a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi, a board member; Dr Hamad Buamim, a board member; Javier Marin Romano, a board member; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb Al Mheiri, a board member; and Dr Cigdem Kogar, a board member. All were involved in this case; all are eligible for Magnitsky sanctions. Mr Cornelius should now be released immediately, or sanctions, I believe, should follow.
I will deal reasonably quickly with the case of Jimmy Lai, and then I will give way to others in the debate. Jimmy Lai is a renowned pro-democracy campaigner, journalist and media owner. I wear the badge to free him with pride. This man has been treated abominably—he is a hero, and we should recognise that. He is 77 and a proud British citizen. He is also a Catholic, and has been denied the normal communion that he would expect as a believer in Catholicism; it has been shut off from him for a long time, which matters a great deal to him. He is a prisoner of conscience. He could have fled Hong Kong after the Sino-British agreement was trashed, but he chose to stay. Why? He wanted to set an example for the many who could not flee and who were going to be arrested—that he was not going to run away just because he had money. This is a brave man.
Mr Lai is currently on trial in Hong Kong for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition, said to arise out of his work as a newspaper publisher and his pro-democracy activism. His case is emblematic of the crackdown on the media in Hong Kong, civil society and the rule of law. On 15 November 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained and called for his immediate release. The working group found multiple violations of Mr Lai’s rights and freedoms, expressed alarm at his prolonged detention in solitary confinement and stressed that he should not be on trial at all.
This case, I say to the Minister, is very urgent. Mr Lai has been arbitrarily detained in prolonged solitary confinement for nearly four years, often in insufferable heat during the summer months. Securing Jimmy Lai’s release requires effective action across the Government to bring him home and reunite him with his family in London. At the moment, he is bravely giving evidence in his trial—at which, by the way, a number of Members present have been named. I have been apparently named. I am already sanctioned by the Chinese, but I have also been named as being party to the case being brought against him. I have to say publicly that I have, sadly, never met Jimmy Lai or corresponded with him. I wish that I had. I wish that I could tell him what a brave man he really is. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Minister outline today what urgent steps the Foreign Office is taking to secure Jimmy Lai’s release?
I remind the Minister and others that what we see in front of us now is a rise in hostage taking by nation states. The biggest abuser of this process is, of course, Iran. I worry about this abuse growing more and more in Iran. In January 2023—we must not forget about this—Iran executed British-Iranian national Alireza Akbari, who was arrested, charged and executed on spying charges, which he denied and which were totally untrue. It was the first execution of a dual national since the 1980s. Only four months later, the Iranian authorities executed a second dual national, Swedish-Iranian Habib Chaab. In October 2024, it executed a third dual national, German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd. At least one more dual national, Swedish-Iranian Ahmad Reza Djalia, has been sentenced to death since 2023.
I conclude on the simple basis, as I raised at the beginning, that we can no longer go along with the idea that we somehow lose influence if we raise these cases publicly. We can no longer go on with this idea that we can manage a generalist approach to this in the Foreign Office. As has already been raised, we need a much more professional, deliberate and permanent status in the Department to deal with this matter.
Finally, we have in our hands the Magnitsky sanctions legislation. With the case of Ryan Cornelius and others, it is high time that those who were party to the arrest and incarceration of innocent British citizens find themselves facing Magnitsky sanctions, unless they recant and that individual is released. That at least gives us a tool. I ask the Government to get to the Dispatch Box, when the time comes, and commit to that process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Jim Shannon
I brought the case up in Westminster Hall. Jimmy Lai was denied the Eucharist when it is his right to practise his religious belief. When there is that attack on someone’s religious belief, along with persecution, human rights abuses and the denial of that very right, we thank God that Jimmy Lai has that relationship with God in heaven. He may not have the Eucharist, but he has a greater faith, which hopefully will strengthen him. However, when someone wants to outwardly express themselves and is denied that—that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—that is totally wrong. The Chinese Government, particularly those in Hong Kong, should be criticised for the way that they have denied Jimmy Lai his rights.
Furthermore, we must act to ensure that the international community does not normalise the repression of freedoms in Hong Kong. The cases of Mr Johal and Mr Lai are not isolated. They reflect a troubling global trend where authoritarian regimes act with impunity to silence voices of dissent. Whether they are targeting activists, journalists or those practising their faith, these regimes seek to erode the very freedoms that form the bedrock of a just society.
I am reminded of Amanda Damari, who I think is a British passport holder. Her daughter, Emily, was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. I met Amanda just after Easter when I was on a visit to Israel. I was incredibly impressed by her courage and determination to see her daughter once again. I believe that we, in this House, have a duty to fight Amanda Damari’s case for the release of her daughter.
The United Kingdom has a moral and diplomatic duty to lead by example. Words of condemnation, as important as they are, are not enough. I call on the Government to do three things: prioritise these cases in all diplomatic, bilateral and multilateral engagements; explore the application of targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in these human rights violations; and advocate for stronger mechanisms of accountability at forums such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth. We cannot always fight battles on our own, but we can fight them better together. I urge that we do so in a positive way.
We must also be mindful of the human stories behind these injustices. We try to express the human stories behind each one of these cases in the way that we can, but perhaps we do so without using the individual knowledge that we have. Jagtar Singh Johal is a husband, a son and a brother. Jimmy Lai is a father and a tireless advocate for freedom. Amanda Damari just wants her daughter home. Both those men are people of faith, and so too is Amanda. Their families bear the heavy burden of waiting, hoping and fighting for their return. We owe it to them and to ourselves as a nation—this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Strangford, but he knows better than to refer to the Minister as “you” because it ends up meaning me in the Chair.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this vital debate. He is an impressive champion on this issue, as I know from my time spent serving as an officer with him on the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation.
It should be a primary function of any given state to protect its citizens. It should not matter where in the world a British national or an individual with strong ties to the UK gets into trouble; we as a nation should be right alongside them trying to get them out. Arbitrary detention abroad and related human rights abuses, such as torture, are unacceptable. They often have profound, long-lasting physical, psychological and social impacts, not just on the individual concerned, but on their loved ones, friends and wider social network.
Many Members have spoken in depth today about individual cases of British nationals or UK-linked individuals detained abroad, so I will touch just lightly on two that I have followed mostly closely. First, as the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has mentioned, there is the unacceptable continued detention of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu in Azerbaijan, whose son, Ibad, I had the pleasure of meeting just last month. Ibad and his siblings are hugely impressive advocates for their father, and I know that he will be proud of the tenacity and dignity with which they have conducted their campaign for his release.
Dr Ibadoghlu has spent more than a quarter of a century advocating for a democratic Azerbaijan. He has tirelessly fought for fundamental human rights and campaigned against corruption in Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry. He has been detained since July 2023 on clearly spurious charges, under threat of spending 17 years in prison, while contending with serious health issues. The European Court of Human Rights has demanded that he be transferred to a specialised medical institution so that he can receive the treatment that he so desperately needs. But, all the while, the Azerbaijan Government have denied this request, claiming spuriously that his health is “satisfactory”.
I wish to place on record my support for the immediate release of Dr Ibadoghlu. As a British resident and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, the UK should be standing by him and using all available diplomatic levers to show the Azeri Government that their flagrant human rights abuses will not be tolerated.
Secondly, I wish to join the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maldon, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in raising the case of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy has been held in solitary confinement in Hong Kong for over four years for publishing content critical of the Chinese regime. I have a significant Hong Kong community in my constituency of Bolton West, and I know from speaking to many of them that they worry that, if it is Jimmy detained today, it could be them tomorrow. Indeed, many of my constituents were effectively forced from their homes in Hong Kong due to China’s disruption of Hong Kong’s democratic freedoms, which we have heard about in this Chamber today. Only last week, in a debate on the status of Taiwan, we heard how Jimmy’s treatment is part of a broader pattern of behaviour, which is China’s consistent and blatant disregard for the international rules-based system.
In both those cases, I fear that the UK Government have not done their utmost to fulfil that very central function of protecting our nationals. I share the view of colleagues that, unfortunately, the Foreign Office lacks a clear, centralised and proactive strategy for dealing with arbitrary detention of UK nationals. Given the severity of the issue, I believe that a dedicated UK envoy in this area, in a similar vein to the US role of presidential envoy for hostage affairs, should be considered very swiftly by the Foreign Office. While in opposition, the Foreign Secretary pledged to look at that, so I hope the Minister can give me an update on how this pledge will be realised in fairly short order.
A good first step, however, would be to consider greater transparency in the Foreign Office. It could, for example, share with us information about how many British nationals are currently being arbitrarily detained. I hope the Minister will speak to that in his wind-up. At the very least, we should be able to hold statistical data on the number of victims of arbitrary detention, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green quite rightly said.
I welcome this Government’s manifesto pledge to give British citizens the legal right to consular access when they get into legal difficulties overseas. I find it extremely concerning that that is not already the case. As colleagues have already attested to, consular assistance not only comes with protection against the very worst excesses of arbitrary detention, but is sometimes the only link between the individual suffering in absolutely harrowing circumstances and the outside world. It is no exaggeration to say that it can be life-saving, and I wish to go on the record to commend the work of dedicated officials in the Foreign Office when such assistance has been provided.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to say one final word on the diplomatic levers available to us. Magnitsky sanctions are a critical tool for ensuring that there is a cost to hostage taking and arbitrary detention, and they should be deployed in a consistent manner in cases such as those mentioned in the Chamber today. In addition, we know that asset freezes can be a very effective tool, as can denying sanctioned individuals access to London’s financial sector and property market. Sanctions must be used in a holistic manner against those responsible for arbitrary detention of British nationals. To deter states from engaging in arbitrary detention, we must also ensure that they bite as much as possible.
On a related point, just last month, Financial Times analysis found that companies registered in the British overseas territories exported $134 million worth of goods to Russia in 2024, in an apparent breach of UK sanctions. The lack of open ownership records in our British overseas territories complicates efforts to establish who is involved in such shipments. The same principle applies to assets that we would seek to freeze. That matters for today’s debate, because without fully public registers of ownership, we will never be totally comfortable that we are not unwittingly allowing individuals who are subject to sanctions to evade them.
I place on the record my thanks to the organisations campaigning on this issue, including Redress, and my deepest sympathy with the families of those who have been arbitrarily detained abroad. Their suffering, and of course the suffering of those detained, is why this debate needs to be had, and why the Government must act on the concerns raised by colleagues on both sides of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To make the final Back-Bench contribution, which I have no doubt will be just as impactful as the others, I call Douglas McAllister.
North-West Syria
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
Last week, we witnessed a major new offensive by opposition groups in north-west Syria. On Wednesday 27 November, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—HTS—along with several other opposition forces started to move towards Aleppo. By late Friday night, they were in control of the majority of Aleppo city. They had also captured Saraqeb, which intersects Syria’s most strategic motorways. As I stand here, we do not know if HTS will succeed in pushing further south towards the city of Hama, which sits approximately 100 km south of Aleppo. What we do know is that these developments mark the biggest shake-up of the conflict lines in Syria since 2020.
In response, Russian airstrikes have increased on Idlib province—HTS’s heartland—and on Aleppo. There have also been reports of Iranian-aligned groups moving into Syria to back up the Assad regime. Events are moving quickly, and the trajectory is unclear. My primary concern, in the immediate term, is the impact on civilians and, of course, the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It will be particularly worrying if we see more large-scale attacks against civilians by the regime or Russia. I call directly on all actors involved, including Iran and Russia, to act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and not to target civilians or civilian infrastructure, including health facilities. Humanitarian actors should be granted full humanitarian access on the ground.
In response to recent developments, we have been rapidly engaging key partners and interlocutors to assess the situation and co-ordinate responses. I spoke earlier to my Turkish counterpart, and I reiterated my concern about the potential for new escalation and the impact on civilians. I will be travelling to the region this weekend, where I plan to engage with a range of partners on the latest developments, and on Wednesday I will be speaking to the UK-funded White Helmets, a Syrian organisation operating in north-west Syria, to better understand how it and other non-governmental organisations are responding to the situation and supporting people on the ground.
The UK issued two statements over the weekend, including one with the US, Germany and France calling for de-escalation and the protection of civilians to prevent further displacement and disruption of humanitarian access. This is the right focus as the situation develops, but the current fighting underscores that the situation in Syria is not sustainable.
Thirteen years into the conflict, no side has won or can decisively win on the battlefield, including Assad. A frozen conflict is not the same as peace. Syrians continue to flee the country, drugs and arms smuggled from Syria threaten the region, and Iran and Russia continue to exert influence, propping up the Syrian regime. The underlying reasons for this conflict remain unaddressed.
Recent developments in the north-west only underscore the urgent need for a Syrian-led political solution to the conflict in Syria, in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254. We urge all parties to re-engage with this process and the efforts of UN Special Envoy Pedersen.
I recognise that this escalation raises other questions. First, on consular assistance. I make it clear that my Department’s long-standing advice is against all travel to Syria due to the ongoing conflict and unpredictable security conditions. Consular support is not available within Syria, and all British embassy services in Damascus are suspended. I reiterate our long-standing advice: any British nationals in Syria should leave the country by any practical means.
We are closely monitoring the wider humanitarian situation. In north-west Syria, 4.1 million people, 80% of whom are women or children, were already in need prior to this escalation. There is currently no humanitarian corridor for those fleeing, which increases terribly the risks to their safety.
The UK has spent over £4 billion since 2011, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. In October, we announced a further £3 million to provide lifesaving emergency assistance and healthcare to the most vulnerable citizens fleeing the Lebanon conflict into Syria. Many of them will be in north-west Syria.
Too many Syrians have tragically been displaced multiple times as a result of conflict. They bear the brunt of horrific violence. Sadly, more still will be displaced by this latest escalation, and I underline my concern about what we might see should Russia or the Assad regime start a campaign of bombardment on the area.
The UK has stood by the Syrian people, and we will continue to do so. Our assistance aims to improve humanitarian conditions for those in the direst need. We work with local and international NGOs and UN organisations to provide health, nutrition, child protection, water, sanitation and education services throughout Syria, including in the north-west.
As the situation develops, we are working closely with humanitarian actors on the ground to understand the impact and the need created by the latest escalation. We call on all parties to ensure full and unhindered humanitarian access throughout the affected areas and to protect civilians. For too long, the Syria conflict has been considered frozen. But if we have learned one thing in recent years, it is that there is no such thing. It is incumbent upon us to use this moment to find new momentum for the political track and to address the underlying causes of this conflict.
I commend this statement to the House.
Hamish Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She raised a lot of issues and I will endeavour to address as many as I can.
The right hon. Lady asked what regional co-ordination is under way. We are talking to partners in all the regional capitals, as she would expect, but let me be clear about who we are not talking to. We do not talk to HTS, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation—it is proscribed for a reason and remains proscribed, and we are concerned by many of the public statements it has made. We are not talking to the Assad regime; the right hon. Lady paints well the horrors that Assad and his regime have perpetrated across Syria. However, we are talking to all those with an interest. As I said, I will travel to the region at the weekend and undertake further consultations. I am talking to NGOs and other actors on the ground.
The right hon. Lady asked whether access is sufficient. As she will have seen, the frontlines are moving very quickly and we are concerned that practical access for aid agencies will be difficult to maintain. We are working with our partners to try to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors, and to ensure that a population that is already at great risk will be provided with the assistance it needs. At a moment of such quick changes, that is difficult, but we are working day and night to ensure that happens.
The right hon. Lady asked about cross-Government co-ordination. We are very alive to the terrorist threats that could emanate from Syria, not least from Daesh, which may be down but is not out. We continue to monitor those issues very closely, including the status of prisons, which she referred to.
On the dynamics in the region, clearly the region is in very significant flux. The position of Iran and Russia is in flux, which is why I call on them and say clearly that they must not conduct the large-scale attacks on civilians that I fear are their go-to in such a situation.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
During the Syrian civil war, millions of Syrians moved to Turkey and southern Lebanon, so they have already been displaced once. In Turkey, Erdoğan has been encouraging them to go home to Syria, and in southern Lebanon they have had to move back into Syria to flee from the invasion. Multiple traumas have been suffered by multiple innocent families, who have no guilt in any of this but are simply victims again and again. When families face such multiple traumas, what assistance are the British Government able to give them?
Hamish Falconer
It is incredibly difficult to provide appropriate and sustained care in north-west Syria. As my right hon. Friend says, many people have been displaced, not necessarily by the current conflict but by the Lebanon conflict, which we have discussed in the House recently. People who have been displaced on multiple occasions are in a situation of acute vulnerability. Whether they have been displaced by the Lebanon conflict or the conflict in north-west Syria, we are extremely concerned and we will do what we can. The assessments are ongoing.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join hon. Members across the House in expressing our deep concern at the toll of the latest outbreak of conflict on the innocent civilians of Syrian. They have borne the brunt of more than a decade of horrific conflict, and we should not forget the devastating impact of the 2023 earthquake on parts of the country as well. I offer my support to the Government in urging all parties to uphold international law. It is vital that the Government do all they can to prevent a deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria, and in the region more broadly.
I spoke this afternoon to the Jordanian ambassador to the UK. He underscored the potential impact of this conflict on his country, with its long and porous border with Syria. With an estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and another 1.3 million in Jordan, providing necessary support to neighbouring countries that host those refugees is crucial. Yet thanks to successive cuts to the international development budget, including by the new Government, too often we approach such crises with one hand tied behind our back. Will the Minister set out what new development assistance we are providing in response and whether he is seeking additional emergency funds from the Treasury?
It appears that the fighting reflects interference in Syria by both Iran and Russia, as the Minister has said, each seeking to serve their interests during a period of instability. There is a very real risk that this new conflict in the north-west of the country may create a vacuum in the south of Syria that allows terrorist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and Daesh to re-establish. Does the Minister share that concern?
The UK must hold others to account and press for an end to the use of proxies that show no regard for the rights of civilian populations or the role of international law. Will the Minister say how the UK is using its influence in international organisations and with our allies to achieve that?
Hamish Falconer
We are conducting rapid assessments about where the needs will be, in a situation that is rapidly changing. As I mentioned, we announced further funding for north-west Syria in October. It is not yet clear what further allocations will be required. I will update the House when those assessments are complete and our plans are clearer.
On counter-terrorism, I agree with the hon. Member. As I mentioned in my response to the shadow Secretary of State, there remains an extant threat from Daesh and other groups from Syria. We will continue to monitor those issues very closely. Our first responsibility as a Government is the safety of British nationals; that will continue to be the case and we take our responsibility seriously.
Hamish Falconer
We are talking to the United Nations about its plans. I will not give undue comment on operational matters, but the UN’s system is under strain in north-west Syria, as my hon. Friend would expect. In the coming days I hope to be able to say more about what assessment we have made and what actions we will take about whether there will be an increase in ODA; that will be a question more properly for the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is in the region now. I am conscious that there are significant needs across the middle east that we are trying to meet as best we can.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Assad and his family have reportedly gone to Moscow, which is probably significant. Let us hope that he stays there; they deserve each other. However, HTS is very much worse. As HTS takes territory, people will be on the move in very large numbers. Historically, the United Nations has managed the situation in northern Syria and triaged those who are claiming asylum. This country has been generous in taking refugees, particularly from the most disadvantaged groups: old people, women and children. What discussion has the Minister had with the United Nations and will that process continue, because I feel sure that the British people will want to continue to be generous?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The best thing would be to ask for the question in writing so that the Minister can respond—I have done it on your behalf, Minister.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I would try to repeat the question, but I did not catch it myself.
I hope that it is recognised how interconnected the conflicts are in the region, which includes connections to Russia, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and even further afield. This escalation creates serious risks not only for the population of the immediate area, but for regional stability. How can we recognise that in our security and diplomatic policy? What measures are the Government taking to look at this collective series of risks that are increasingly interconnected?
Hamish Falconer
My hon. Friend is right that the security situation in the region is interlinked. Clearly, what is happening in Lebanon, in Iran and, indeed, in Moscow, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned, is having an effect in north-west Syria. I am concerned by reports of militia groups reinforcing the Syrian regime from Iraq and by reports of Hezbollah’s actions in Syria. I assure my hon. Friend that we take a regional approach to these issues. I am the Minister responsible for all these areas, and we view them in the round.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Stephen Gethins, whose question will no doubt be very clear.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; hopefully I will be clear in my question.
I concur with the Minister’s reflection on the devastating humanitarian consequences over the past 13 years. On the interconnectivity of conflicts, he mentioned the Russian attacks, which he will agree are of a similar nature to those we have seen elsewhere targeting civilian infrastructure. As such, what discussions has he had with European partners in particular, given the lack of reliance we may soon have on the United States, when it comes to a common approach on any political process, the targeting of disinformation, such as that rightly highlighted by the White Helmets, and a humanitarian response to international agencies?
Taiwan: International Status
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blair McDougall
Absolutely. Although first and foremost in our minds should be the impact on people in Taiwan of any crisis, it would also be felt by our constituents in their cost of living and everything that happens in this country.
It is right that this is a worldwide debate, given the military incursions into Taiwanese territory, cyber-attacks, disinformation, interference with shipping and aircraft—all the things that make the headlines—and I welcome the new Government’s expressions of concern about aggressive moves in the strait. However, this needs to be a global conversation, because the People’s Republic of China is involved in an aggressive worldwide diplomatic strategy, especially across the global south. The strategy aims to secure international acceptance for its expansionist One China principle, which is to say that Taiwan is part of a single China and the PRC is the only legitimate Government of Taiwan, denying Taiwan’s democracy any distinctive international status.
Of course, resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan at all, and it does not address in any way the political status of Taiwan. It does not establish the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is silent on the participation of Taiwan in the United Nations and its agencies. Importantly, it has no force of impact on us as sovereign nations and the relationships we choose to have with Taiwan. The current strategy by Beijing is a distortion of international law, but it is also at odds with the long-standing policy of the United Kingdom. It is essential that that is contested, and this debate offers the Minister and the new Government the opportunity to make it clear that the UK opposes that effort by the communist Government to rewrite history, or to unilaterally decide the future of Taiwan.
Debates about Taiwan are famously full of symbolism: which flag is flown, what nomenclature is used, and which seemingly synonymic words cause offence. It would be easy to write off discussions about the interpretation of resolution 2758 as yet another finer detail that distracts from a bigger picture, but that would be a mistake. This is not pedantry from Beijing; this is predation. Chairman Xi watched the near-unanimous diplomatic disapproval of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, and he is seeking to reduce the chances of a similar chorus of condemnation towards any move against Taiwan.
If the PRC’s position that the UN resolution endorses its sovereignty over Taiwan were accepted, it would later use that consensus to argue that any future coercion of Taiwan through arms or other means—whether blockade or annexation—would be legal. Similarly, any acceptance of Beijing’s interpretation would be used to argue that moves to prevent such coercion by Taiwan’s democratic supporters were unlawful. This is not a technical issue but another source of increased risk for conflict across the Taiwan strait.
Will the Minister confirm today whether, as has been reported, any assurances have been given to the PRC that the UK will not seek to counter internationally its efforts on the One China principle, and whether promises have been made privately that we will not make the case with third-party nations for UK policy, namely our position that Taiwan’s status is undetermined? Does she recognise that any UK Government acquiescence with the idea that the status of Taiwan is an internal matter for the PRC alone risks giving legal cover to any future aggressive acts? Does she recognise that distorting resolution 2758 to pursue the exclusion from international organisations of Taiwan—a democratic, self-governing people—undermines the legitimacy of the international rules-based order, not least as it appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of other disputed territories? Will the UK advocate for meaningful Taiwanese participation in all international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite?
Past moments of crisis in the strait of Taiwan have flared up and subsided—in particular in 1996 and 2000 after presidential elections—but three things that have changed since then should make us more concerned. First, China is far more heavily armed. Already possessed of the largest naval fleet in the world, Beijing has been adding to it the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. It will soon have the largest air force in the world.
Secondly, people on both sides of the strait have grown apart. The Taiwanese now have more of a sense of their own identity, and their democracy is deeply embedded, while China’s populist nationalism has grown, and the PRC, which was hardly ever a free and open society, has moved even further in an authoritarian direction, from Xinjiang to Tibet and Hong Kong. Chairman Xi previously proposed to apply the “one country, two systems” approach to Taiwan. However, the systematic removal of Hongkongers’ civil liberties means that any promise from the mainland to maintain the freedoms that Taiwan enjoys could not be trusted. We know that Beijing does not keep its promises.
Thirdly, if we are honest, the west has been found wanting. We have been less than united and less than determined in our defence of democratic allies and democracy around the world. Xi has learned from Putin’s years of slowly boiling the frog, dividing western opponents from each other, manipulating our populations and operating in the grey zone where a gradual increase in aggressive acts avoids a strong strategic response from the west.
That mixture of Chinese armament, growing nationalism, increasing authoritarianism and western weakness is a potentially deadly combination. Indeed, the military exercises and provocations around Taiwan are a recipe for unintentional disaster. Last year, there were more than 1,700 occasions when PRC military aircraft deliberately entered the air defence identification zone of Taiwan. PRC jets turn away when they are just minutes from Taipei. During exercises, we see Taiwanese and PRC vessels in stand-offs on the edge of Taiwan’s nautical buffer zone. Meanwhile, we do not have agreed red lines around Taiwan with other like-minded countries, and worrying ambiguities remain. For example, a maritime and air blockade is normally classed as an act of war, but that is not clear in this case because of Taiwan’s ambiguous state.
Will the Minister assure the House that the legal status of a blockade around Taiwan is being looked at? I worry that we could have a situation where Governments use that ambiguity as an excuse for inertia in the event of a crisis. Will she take the opportunity to say that a maritime and air blockade around Taiwan would be a red line for the Government?
On so many occasions during the cold war, catastrophe was avoided due to essential de-escalation protocols that prevented the misinterpretation of either side’s intentions. I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of whether there are sufficient procedures of the kind between the military commands of Taipei and Beijing, as in such a febrile and nationalistic atmosphere, a mistake could easily be misunderstood as deliberate escalation, and control of volatile public opinion could easily be lost.
As was said earlier, let us not forget who paid the price for the collective failure of the international community to deter Putin’s aggression. It was first and foremost the Ukrainian people, but ordinary working people around the world also found themselves with unaffordable bills. If Bloomberg is correct, escalation across the strait would be, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, five times worse than the economic contraction post Ukraine. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
When we discuss Taiwan, we talk a lot about protecting the status quo, but we must recognise that the PRC is already actively working to change that status quo. Beijing has not paid any price for that. Xi’s diplomatic offensive has not been met with a commensurate effort from western democracies. As the PRC isolates Taiwan within international institutions, we have not increased our engagement in response. Above all, there has been no sanction for the constant military intimidation or grey zone attacks.
I recognise, of course, that careful diplomatic language is needed on this issue, but we live in a world where free and open societies are retreating in the face of authoritarian regimes who no longer recognise the old order or even international boundaries, and who are seeking to recreate the world in their image. I do not expect the Minister to depart from the delicate, long-established language that has defined the UK’s position towards Taiwan since diplomatic relations were established with the PRC, and the motion does not ask for such a departure. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s concern about Beijing’s distortion of the international law around Taiwan, and about the editing of historic UN documents by Chinese officials. I hope that is seen not as an outlandish or hawkish request, but merely as the least we can do when confronted with such troubling behaviour.
Finally, putting all diplomatic language aside, the debate is an opportunity to acknowledge the truth: Taiwan is not China in one important way that no amount of economic, military or diplomatic bullying by Beijing can obscure. It is this: the people of Taiwan are free and the people of China are not. Now more than ever, we must stand with democracies and against dictatorships. We must stand up for freedoms that we claim are universal, regardless of where people live in the world, and we should stand with the democracy of Taiwan.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) mentioned sanctions; it gives me huge pleasure to call my co-sanctionee, Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will see what I can do to speak on your behalf—even though you have no opinion on this matter.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
We will see if we can ascertain one in passing. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing the debate. That is not easy, as he knows, and it is really good to see so many hon. Members in attendance. As you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am one of nine political sanctionees, and it is always worth reminding ourselves that there are two others outside Parliament who are also sanctioned. They spoke to me the other day and said, “We’re often forgotten in this matter, but we can’t do business. It’s very difficult.” I wish to remember them, while we are at it; they were unnecessarily sanctioned.
Everything that the hon. Gentleman said is absolutely correct. The problem is that we are dealing with a power that is growing in potency and totalitarianism while it also grows in other ways. Let me add something on the size of the growth in its military capability. He mentioned China’s naval capacity; right now, China has 230 times the capacity for naval shipbuilding of the United States. Any one shipyard in China outbuilds the whole of the United States in naval shipbuilding. Someone please tell me that that is for a peaceful purpose. I have no conception of why it would need that many naval ships if its purpose was peaceful. The answer is that it is not.
This whole business of Taiwan has been obscured constantly by refusals from Administrations from both sides of the House. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who will respond to this debate, that I am not having a go at this Government; I have been having a go at every Government for a long time. It seems that whoever is elected, I am in opposition. She should not take personally the point I am about to make gently to her. Politicians are elected to take decisions based on the principles that we govern by. Our principles are simple: we believe in free speech, base freedom, the rule of law and human rights. We may debate the elements and range of that, but we believe in the fundamental right to decent treatment.
I was sanctioned, along with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and others, for raising the then undiscovered genocide that was going on in Xinjiang, which has now become public knowledge. This Parliament—Members on both sides—voted to agree that the genocide was taking place, although the Government said that they could not vote to agree with that, or do anything about it, because that action would need to be taken at the UN, through the International Court of Justice. That is never going to happen, because it gets vetoed, straight off. The Labour party, in opposition, agreed that genocide was taking place, and agreed on many occasions with those of us who had real problems with China’s treatment of people and of human rights; the Labour party was constantly in support of our position. I simply say that as a base reminder, because this is really about what we believe.
From one Government to the next, we have genuinely, deliberately obscured the question of Taiwan’s status. People have argued with me that the question was settled by resolution 2758, which is often misquoted. They say that it somehow settled the status of Taiwan. They have argued that it was clear from that resolution, now that the PRC was responsible for China at the UN, that Taiwan was a part of China. It said no such thing, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said. In fact, it was deliberately obscure about that idea; it was not settled.
Under the whole reign of the Communist party in China, Taiwan has never been a part of a Chinese Administration or a Chinese Government. Taiwan right now is a democracy and an upholder of human rights. It has an agreement, as we do, that the freedom of individuals to speak out without let or hindrance, and without fear of arrest—we see such arrests in Hong Kong—remains important. The Government should speak out in Taiwan’s defence and argue that China has no right to extinguish that, unless there is a deliberate indication that Taiwan wishes to be part of China. Taiwan has never wished that, and the last election demonstrates that is still not the case. Taiwan does not wish to join China, as it has never been part of China.
This military build-up is not for a general purpose. It is ultimately to try to displace the US’s position in the Pacific, so that it will be unable to act, should China decide at some point to blockade or invade. The incursions that are taking place would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world. There are huge numbers of planes overflying Taiwan. Ships are threatening it by coming right up close, past the border of Taiwan. They are deliberately provoking, in the hope that action will take place that allows the Chinese to take action themselves.
If we move our gaze slightly further south, we come to the South China sea. China has occupied it and declared it to be a historical part of China. The UN has said that that is not the case, and has told China categorically that it has no right to occupy or build military fortifications in the South China sea. What has China’s reaction been to that? Nothing. It said that the UN has no right to interfere, and now it is trying to blockade. In fact, US navy ships still sail through there, but every other ship, including recently the Philippines coastguard, has been hounded out of the area. Ships have been rammed and threatened, and military naval vessels from China now occupy that space.
We know what China thinks of these things. We know what it plans to do, because it has already done it. We wonder: if we do not say very much, will that obscurity allow China to back away? The Chinese have no intention whatsoever of backing off. That is part of their absolute creed now. In fact, it is clear even from China’s constitution that it sees Taiwan as part of China. I do not know how many more indications the Foreign Office needs of China’s direction of travel.
What do the Government plan to do about this? To what degree will the Government challenge the misinterpretation of resolution 2758 publicly, and recognise that Taiwan has a right to self-determination, as we and all other democratic nations do? Will the Minister take the opportunity to state Government policy clearly from the Dispatch Box? Will she agree to make a public statement to the House about what is going on in Taiwan? The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire asked for that, and I back him up. We would love clarity from the Government on the fact that what is taking place in and around Taiwan is utterly unacceptable; we should even think about moving to a sanction at the Security Council. China will veto that, we know, but it is important for the world to understand China’s position.
To return to covid, we remember when all that happened as a result of a failure in China, but we were unable to get any figures about what Taiwan was doing—and that was rather important, because it had advanced methods of dealing with covid that we could have learned a lot from. We were not allowed to get those figures; they all had to come through China. China refused to let us know what was going on as it embarrassed China, because it had taken very little action early on, and the result was millions dying around the world. My point is that when we acquiesce and give way, as we did at the World Health Organisation, where we no longer insist on these things, that weakness is seen as a success for China. The Chinese take that and move on. How do we know that? Because back in the 1930s, every time we acquiesced to a new demand by Hitler’s Germany, it took that and moved on.
We do not appease communist or fascist dictators by saying, “Well, if we are reasonable, in due course they will be reasonable.” By definition, a dictatorship is not reasonable. Fascist Germany told us what it was going to do, and China tells us categorically all the time what it will do. We in the west do not want to believe that. We think that if we are reasonable, the Chinese will be reasonable. They are not reasonable. They intend to take Taiwan back one way or the other.
Today and going forward, the question for us and for the Foreign Office, the unelected body that sits across the road, is: why do not we get serious about this, understand it, and say all this? If we do not tell the Chinese that there are limits, they assume that we do not believe that there are any, and they go ahead. The financial chaos that would ensue from merely a blockade—not even an invasion of Taiwan—would be devastating to our economies.
I had an argument the other day with one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless—[Interruption.] There we go; he is not in the Chamber. That individual said to me that Taiwan has nothing to do with us; it is a long way from us, and we have no arrangements with it. When I made the point to him that the whack to our economy would be enormous, I added one other figure, which is that 72% of everything made in the world is made in the area around the South China sea, including China. I said to my colleague that it is not far away; it is our neighbour. Without Taiwan—if anything happens to Taiwan—we go down, too.
The real point of this important debate is to try to persuade the Government to be much bolder about this matter and to recognise the threat, to recognise the need for a British Government to say enough is enough, and to recognise that what happens to Taiwan is not just a matter of interest to us, but a matter of vital importance. Many Members were at the conference in Taipei recently, where we heard about all the terrible problems that Taiwan now faces as a result of China’s actions. One only has to be there to realise just how devastating this situation is to many Taiwanese people, whose lives are genuinely threatened by it.
With this huge build-up, the clear threat that China poses, the brutality it has already demonstrated in the South China sea and the illegality of its actions, and its complete failure to take any actions other than those it wishes to take, it is important for us to demonstrate stage by stage, at every moment and at every opportunity, that we regard China’s behaviour as unacceptable and that we will oppose it. One way this Government could start doing that would be to go back and look again at the risk register that we started under the previous Government. We should now move China on to the higher tier of that risk register. That would send a very strong signal to the Chinese Government that we are serious about our behaviour.
I will end simply by saying the following to the Minister. I know the Government want to increase and improve trade with China, and I understand why they want to do that. My concern, at the end of it all, is that we cannot detach our desire for commercial engagement from the real engagement, which is about the way a state treats the people who live there and the way it behaves to its neighbours. We did so in the past, and look what happened: 60 million people died because we ignored what was going to happen. They told us what was going to happen, but we wanted to do business with them. This time we have to learn that appeasement does not work. There is no chance it will work this time. We need to be clear to China, as America is and as others are, and say that this shall not stand, that we in the UK will stand for the freedom of those people whose self-determination is always a matter of high concern to us, and that we will defend it at whatever cost.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank all Members who have spoken. Their contributions are always exceptional and I am very pleased to hear them. I commend the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for securing the debate. He also secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the Uyghurs, so I thank him for giving us an opportunity to participate. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) always brings his personal touch to these issues. He has a deep passion for this subject matter and I thank him for that.
In speaking about the future of global democracy and the protection of human rights, the situation of Taiwan, the actions of the Chinese Communist party and the increasingly concerning violations of religious freedom and human rights in China, let me begin by expressing my firm support for the sovereign status of Taiwan, a beacon of democracy in a region where its survival is threatened by the growing authoritarianism of China. Taiwan stands as a stalwart defender of liberty, democracy and human rights—values that we in this House hold dear. We all say that and when we say it, others will follow.
It is essential that we as a nation stand with Taiwan as it faces increasing aggression from the Chinese Government. The relationship between Taiwan and the United Kingdom has always been one of mutual respect and shared values. It is vital that we strengthen those ties in the face of growing threats from Beijing. Taiwan is not just an ally in the fight for democracy; it is a living testament to the success of democratic governance in the face of adversity. Since the 1980s, Taiwan has undergone significant political and social reforms, transforming from a one-party state under martial law to a flourishing democracy with free and fair elections. In fact, Taiwan rose 20 places in the Economist Democracy Index, ranking as Asia’s No. 1 democracy and 11th globally, marking its commitment to the principles of liberty, freedom and human rights.
In contrast, just across the Taiwan strait, the Chinese Communist party seeks to erode the very foundations of liberty. China’s increasing aggression towards Taiwan through military provocations, cyber-attacks and political pressure must be met with a strong response. The United Kingdom, along with other liberal democracies, has a responsibility to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty and to advocate for its rightful place in the international community. That is why today’s debate in this House is so important. It is so important that Members from all parties, on all sides of the Chamber, put that on the record.
In 2021 alone, we saw a staggering 950 intrusions by Chinese military aircraft into Taiwan’s airspace—a sharp increase of 150% on the previous year. It is very clear what China is doing. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, why is China building all these ships? There has to be a purpose. Where is it going? It shows the increasing military threat posed by China, and we must not ignore these acts of intimidation.
On the Chinese Communist party’s gross violations of human rights within its own borders, the Chinese Government have been responsible for some of the most horrendous human rights abuses in recent memory, particularly against religious minorities. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right. You and I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all know that in this House and we all know how important it is to say it. China continues to systematically violate this right, both within its own borders and beyond.
One of the most concerning examples of those abuses is the ongoing persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Reports from credible international organisations indicate that over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are detained in so-called re-education camps. They are torture camps. They are intimidation camps. They take away liberty and freedom, and subject families to forced labour, torture and indoctrination. The camps are part of China’s broader campaign to erase Uyghur culture, religion and identity. This brutal repression is compounded by horrendous reports of forced sterilisation, sexual violence and organ harvesting.
China’s treatment of Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and Christians is equally alarming. Tibetan Buddhists continue to face severe restrictions on their religious practices, with reports of monks and nuns being detained, tortured and even killed for peacefully protesting or for their religious beliefs. The ongoing efforts to erode Tibetan culture and religion include the imposition of Chinese Communist party-approved religious leaders. My goodness! Just pluck that man out there and he can be a religious leader. He doesn’t know anything about the religion, but he’ll do it! That is the China that we speak out against today. It is a direct assault on the freedom of conscience. For Falun Gong practitioners, the situation is equally dire. Thousands have been detained and subjected to forced labour, torture and execution for their beliefs. The crackdown on Christians in China is every bit as severe. Church closures, the destruction of crosses and the imprisonment of pastors have become all too common. Religious worship, whether in a mosque, temple, church or private home, is increasingly subject to government interference and repression.
China’s efforts to silence opposition extend far beyond its borders. We are looking at Taiwan today, but there are other parts of the world where the focus is equally clear. Through its belt and road initiative, China has sought to extend its economic and political influence across the globe, often using debt-trap diplomacy to entangle countries in its sphere of influence. That has included pressuring countries to withdraw their diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and to instead align themselves with Beijing because, “You owe us so much money and this is part of the deal.” It is a gross violation of the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and it is essential that we, as a nation, continue to support Taiwan in the face of those pressures. Moreover, as others have said, China’s technological influence is a growing concern. The CCP has made significant investments in surveillance technology, which it uses both domestically to monitor and control its population, and abroad to further its strategic objectives.
As a leading global power, the United Kingdom has a unique responsibility to defend the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It is essential that we not only stand with Taiwan, but take concrete steps to ensure its security and sovereignty. The UK must work closely with allies, particularly the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to build a co-ordinated response to China’s growing aggression and evil attitude to everyone in the Indo-Pacific region.
In addition to our military and diplomatic support for Taiwan, the Government must also continue to raise the issue of China’s human rights abuses at every available forum. The UK must lead the charge in holding China accountable for its actions and ensure that the international community does not turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions of people under the CCP’s control. We must also ensure that our economic relations with China do not come at the expense of human rights. It is unacceptable that economic interests should override our moral obligation to stand up for the oppressed.
In conclusion, Taiwan is a shining example of the power of democracy and freedom in the face of authoritarianism. We must stand by Taiwan, not just because it is in our national interest, but because it is the right thing to do. We must also continue to speak out against the CCP’s brutality and human rights abuses, and work tirelessly to hold China accountable for its actions. The United Kingdom must remain a champion of freedom, democracy and human rights, and we must be so in the firm belief that these values will ultimately triumph over the forces of oppression. I believe they will. I believe we will do the right thing.
Ms Rimmer
I do not want to go on too much about organ harvesting, because it gives me sleepless nights. China takes organs from 28-year-olds because it gets more for them, as there are better chances of succeeding if the organs are taken fresh from people who are still alive. People can order a kidney and so on, because there is a database of the people going to “re-education schools”. China says to the world, “Don’t worry; we can get what you need. You can have it in days.” How many people have been prosecuted? We know there has been one prosecution in the UK, but how many people have come back from China having received an organ? Is the law being enforced?
The exclusion of Taiwan from international bodies meant that it could not share with the world its successful methods of dealing with covid when we needed them the most. The World Health Organisation is only one example of an international body from which Taiwan has been excluded. China has consistently blocked attempts by Taiwan to join the UN, including in 2009, which means that over 23 million people in one of the finest democracies in the world have been blocked from being heard at the United Nations. In the event of a conflict breaking out across the Taiwan strait, only one side would be able to put forward their case at the United Nations. That is not how the United Nations was intended to operate. Why is it like that? I shivered when Putin’s Russia was allowed to use its veto at the United Nations. People thought I was mad, but we are seeing the consequences now.
There are troubling reports that former Taiwanese President Tsai was blocked from visiting this place to address MPs and peers last month. President Tsai has had successful visits to Canada, Brussels and Czechia, yet apparently she was not allowed here. That is despite Taiwan being an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom in the Indo-Pacific. Sadly, it seems as though China’s intimidation campaign continues to work.
One of the best ways to push back against the People’s Republic of China’s intimidation campaign is to elevate the status of the Taiwanese Representative Office here in London, in a similar way to the action taken in the United States and Lithuania. Right now, the Taiwanese Representative Office is not afforded the protection it clearly needs. It cannot even get a bank account. Elevating Taiwan’s diplomatic status would send a clear message that the British Government do not accept an enforced One China principle, and instead consider both Taiwan and China to be individual partners.
The People’s Republic of China was founded 75 years ago, and Taiwan has never been part of it. Taiwan is a thriving and successful democracy that shares our values. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, what is happening in Taiwan is just part of China’s plan. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong. Instead of waiting 50 years to review everything, China smashed it and moved on to the next one: Taiwan. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point today.
It is time to show our strength by throwing off the shackles of intimidation and giving Taiwan diplomatic status. If the British Government lead with our allies, other nations will follow suit. Taiwan is a self-governing democracy that has succeeded despite not being allowed into the UN and other international organisations. It is a shining light of democracy in an uncertain region, and this world is desperately short of such shining lights of true democracy in operation. The world is in desperate need.
I urge Members to vote for the motion today, to send a clear message that this House believes Taiwan has every right to be part of international organisations in its own right. That is what resolution 2758 was about.
Some people would have me be ashamed of my religion, but I am not. I am a Roman Catholic, but not holier than thou. A shudder went through me when, last year or the year before—time seems to go very quickly now—Roman Catholics in China were required to register as Roman Catholics, and our Pope accepted it. What did Hitler do? This is how he started. I thought, “Dear Lord, this sleeping tiger has not half woken up, and it is going to cause harm.” It is about time that other nations, not just ours, got their act together. It is about time that so-called democratic countries sorted this out.
China is to be feared more than Russia. It is part of the evil axis that would take over this world if we do not all stand up for democracy and for people.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly given your considerable contribution on this issue throughout your parliamentary career, as other Members have said.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), whose passionate love for her community and her family reflects well on her and gives her constituents faith that she will act on their best behalf in this House. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), whose contribution to this debate has already been warmly noted.
Experts often talk about the pressure points of geopolitics, the places where the strategic aims of different countries coincide, clash and create tension. What is far too often left out of these conversations is the reality for the millions of people who live in those pressure points. The Taiwanese people are living in real fear at one of these pressure points.
It should be telling for all of us that, despite being an advanced economy and a thriving democracy with high living standards and strong manufacturing, and with cultural links to the rest of the world, Taiwan feels increasingly isolated and vulnerable in the face of the Chinese Government. That is testament to the fact that, no matter how hard people have worked to build a robust democracy on that island, that does not, in and of itself, protect the liberty and security that we all deserve. Taiwan deserves our support as we enter the second half of this decade, and this motion can help us to continue doing that.
The Liberal Democrats stand with the people of Taiwan. Any Chinese aggression or threat to their free speech and human rights is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats will continue to support our friends in the Democratic Progressive party, which is the governing party of Taiwan, a long-standing member of Liberal International, and a founding member of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats.
In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for the building of new diplomatic, economic and security partnerships with democracies threatened by China, including Taiwan, and it is something that we will gladly work with the Government to deliver because an issue of this importance should transcend party politics. I am reassured by the voices and the statements we have heard from Members on both sides of the House in this debate.
Fundamentally, what is at stake in Taiwan is a question of moral obligation, one that we have always had to confront and that liberals have always been clear in answering: can we stand up for people living outside recognised sovereign states, who cherish the same freedoms we do and have the same inviolable right to self-determination that we do, against neighbours with increasingly imperial objectives? Or are we forced to live in a world where, as was said in antiquity, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must? Put simply, does might make right?
The people of Taiwan deserve us to answer that question with our clear and resounding support as they go about trying to integrate into the system of international governance. The Government should therefore listen to the story being told in this House today and make it clear that, in their dealings with the Chinese Government, they will establish clear red lines that call out violations of Taiwan’s territory at land and sea as unacceptable.
The Government should work with their international partners to remove the obstacles to Taiwan joining various international bodies. As other Members have said, Taiwan’s exclusion from the World Health Organisation serves to prove this point. Despite a successful approach to the covid-19 pandemic, Taiwan was again rebuffed in its attempts to join the WHO, with China vetoing its accession until such time as Taiwan gives in to China’s territorial claim on the island. This compromised our ability, and the ability of countries around the world, to learn from the lessons of Taiwan’s successful response to covid-19, and it will have cost many, many lives.
Taiwan finds itself unable to properly access and work alongside Interpol, leaving it excluded from the international crime-fighting network that it needs, not least because international criminals are known to operate in the South China sea. This should concern all of us.
Taiwan’s exclusion from these bodies makes international co-operation harder. It weakens a strategic ally in the region, and it emboldens states such as China and Russia to feel that their attempts to undermine the liberal world order will succeed. Indeed, how can we justify the liberal and democratic world order without ensuring that it offers protection to those who subscribe to it and who wish to join and collaborate with the institutions that are so key to maintaining that very world order?
We have already left so many countries around the world vulnerable to the influence of states such as China. The last Government made short-sighted and naive decisions to continually cut the UK’s foreign aid budget, to slash our international development credentials, to shrink our world-renowned diplomatic service, to force cuts to our BBC World Service output and to undermine our standing as a major power on the world stage. Those steps have left a vacuum in Africa, in Asia, and in parts of Europe, too. We should not be remotely surprised that China has increasingly sought to fill that gap with debt traps and political influence through its belt and road initiative. It is up to this Government to do something about it, to show that the One China policy is not the policy of this Government and that Taiwan will be supported in acceding to various international bodies. That would be a key step in the right direction. They must be willing to discuss Taiwan with the Chinese Government as they embark on a new era of bilateralism with President Xi.
I note that in its manifesto earlier this year, the Labour party committed to a new approach to China, as part of a wider audit of its China strategy. The manifesto said:
“We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.”
Those were welcome words, so it is disappointing to read coverage this week of the leaked news that the Foreign Office intervened to cancel a visit last month that Taiwan’s former President Tsai Ing-wen had been due to make to the UK, when he would have spoken to MPs. Will the Government respond to that claim and explain to the House exactly why former President Tsai, as it seems, was denied a visit?
We all recognise that diplomacy is difficult, and I sincerely hope the Government will put my mind and those of other hon. Members at rest by confirming that this was an oversight. However, if it was not an oversight and that decision was taken out of deference to the Chinese Government ahead of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with President Xi, the Government will not be surprised to hear me say that that is unacceptable.
The Government’s new approach to China should be characterised by a defence of our values and the robust support of Taiwan. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights, effective rules-based multilateralism and working with our European partners centre stage. Without that, we risk further backsliding into a world where China feels able to act with impunity and Taiwan will continue to suffer. Will the Minister provide an update on when the Government will provide the House with an update on its China strategy audit, so that we can scrutinise it and ensure it lives up to those values?
Just last month, China simulated a full-scale invasion of the island through war games in the South China sea. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) said, in late 2021 and early 2022, we watched Russian forces massing on the Ukrainian border and attempted to convince ourselves that the inevitable was not about to occur. I will quote a great man, who hangs heavy over many of us in this place:
“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Imagine living with the threat of such a war on the doorstep. We have all been paying close attention to the terrible scenes unfolding in Ukraine and the middle east in recent years. We all know that the horrors of war have not been eased, but rather compounded by modern technology. Imagine people witnessing those scenes on their TV screens, while knowing the very same could happen to their homes and families in the very near future.
The journey to recognition and accession to international bodies for Taiwan is long and will not be solved overnight, but the Government can play a key role in making the journey easier by showing its support for Taiwan as clearly as they can. They can do the right thing on human rights in China more widely too. They can choose to recognise the genocide happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang autonomous region. They can stand with Hongkongers who are already living with the experience of creeping authoritarianism from Beijing. And the Government can champion the cause of international laws and norms, in the face of growing disorder and violence around the world. I invite them to do so and to regularly report back to the House on how such a China strategy is developing, because Britain is at its best when it stands with those facing oppression and says clearly, with one voice, that the days of “might makes right” are well and truly consigned to history.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who always brings such knowledge and expertise to the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). I congratulate her on making her making speech and thank her for sharing her passion for her constituency with us. It is apt that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of your great knowledge of this policy area.
Although we do not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, there is nonetheless a valuable and dynamic relationship between London and Taipei, underpinned by strong commercial, educational and cultural links. We also have a solid partnership in other important areas, including health, as we saw particularly during the pandemic. The work of the British Office Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in London is highly commendable and benefits both of our peoples, for example with a wide range of exchanges and visits, including on environmental, educational and judicial themes.
We also have a significant trading relationship, which we call on the Government to continue to promote. Trade in goods and services rose from £5.5 billion in 2014 to £8.3 billion in 2023, which is a substantial increase. We want more British businesses to benefit from Taiwan’s impressive economy and prominent trade and investment links with the wider region. Within the current structure of our unofficial relationship, there is more we can do to maximise the benefits to both of our peoples, and we will push the Government to do so.
It is right that the UK continues to lobby in favour of Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. In her response, will the Minister update the House on the Government’s current plans on that front, including on the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organisation technical meetings?
The Government must not overlook the risks Taiwan has to contend with. There have been some worrying early signs, which we want to see put right. Members on the Conservative Benches harbour concerns that the relationship Labour is carving out with Beijing is all give and no take. Today provides the Minister with an opportunity to dispel the widespread impression that this Government are making concessions with nothing in return. Labour has called in the application for a new super-embassy in London and is desperately performing verbal contortions on issues that should be very straight- forward, including the national security law in Hong Kong. We firmly believe that law should be repealed and we are not afraid to say so publicly.
Will the Minister name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices or human rights? As far as I can see, we are yet to receive a convincing answer. We are very clear that what Labour must not do is sacrifice the UK’s voice on the threats facing Taiwan on the altar of closer relations with Beijing.
We have already seen signs of naiveté. Within a day of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, which the Prime Minister hailed as an opportunity to bring about a “strong” and “consistent” relationship where “surprises” would be avoided, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. It makes the Prime Minister’s boast that the UK would be a partner
“committed to the rule of law”
look rather hollow. The Prime Minister’s response to these entirely unjustified jailings and his inability to sufficiently publicly condemn them has raised eyebrows too. It has not gone unnoticed and we will not let that point go.
The Government need to be much more clear eyed about the threats and challenges posed by China, whether in relation to Hong Kong or Taiwan. We are concerned by reports that the Foreign Office tried to exert pressure to postpone an inward visit by the former President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. The FCDO has said it “does not recognise” the description of events set out in the reports, which in Westminster language means that it does not deny that this happened. Will the Minister give the House the explanation it expects? What actually happened? Will the Minister also confirm that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have explicitly raised serious concerns in their respective meetings with President Xi and Wang Yi about any activity that risks destabilising the cross-strait status quo? Did they say, in no uncertain terms, that we stand firmly against any unilateral attempts to change the status quo?
For reasons that are well understood, we have a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. It is our deep conviction that the tensions, which have understandably received a great deal of attention in this afternoon’s debate, should be resolved peacefully. That is what will best serve people on both sides of the Taiwan strait, as well as the Indo-Pacific region and the wider world. That peace and stability matters for the rules-based order, for trade and for the health of the global economy, and we should not shy away from saying that. We hope that people on the two sides of the Taiwan strait will renew efforts to resolve differences peacefully through constructive dialogue and not under a cloud of coercion or threats.
Much of the debate on this subject revolves around the constitutional status of Taiwan and its relationship with China. Yet we should never lose sight of Taiwan’s domestic achievements in its own right, because they are deeply impressive: a flourishing and vibrant democracy, a strong judiciary and one of Asia’s most dynamic economies. Taiwan is also a vital manufacturer of semi- conductors, which is one of the most important pieces of tech in the world. For all those reasons and many more, we will press the Government to deepen and grow our relationship.
Ukraine: 1,000 Days
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I thank Liberal Democrat Members for their continued support. The hon. Lady is right to evoke the huge volunteer spirit across our country. I think of the thousands of people driving trucks to Ukraine, and the faith groups, non-governmental organisations and others gathering heaters and goods, and ensuring they get to Ukraine. They are doing that month after month. They do not need encouragement and sometimes their work is not in the news, but they know the importance of their endeavours.
This morning I met Foreign Ministers from France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain. There is no wavering in our support for Ukraine. If anything, there was a commitment to double down on that support, a determination to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position in 2025, and a renewed effort to ensure that we co-ordinate even better, particularly over the coming months.
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming Chair of the Defence Committee. He asks a question that is in the news at this time. We continue to discuss with Ukraine and international partners how best to support it going into winter. However, I know he will understand that I have nothing new to say on this, because I will not get into operational decisions, which would, frankly, be a gift to Putin. We have gifted military aid to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks in accordance, as my hon. Friend would expect, with international humanitarian law.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It has been a thousand days of Ukraine fighting for Europe’s future, but more than 3,900 days that Ukraine has been under attack and under invasion—3,900 days of bravery, terror and loss. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for all she did to create the Homes for Ukraine programme when many thought it was impossible. Consistently, though, Ukraine has been underestimated and Russia overestimated—militarily, economically and beyond.
We all know here that personalities matter, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we know that Trump likes winners. The US Government’s new leader needs to see success and victory for Ukraine as a personal victory for him. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to make sure that Trump sees it in those terms and no other?
Chagos Islands
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Points of order come after urgent questions and statements, unless they are directly relevant to the UQ or statement. Is the point of order directly relevant to the urgent question?
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Obviously, the issue of cost is of huge importance, because it is public money, and the Opposition think that the public should know about the cost involved in this agreement. The Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) that the Government do not give out the figure because they do not state the cost of overseas bases. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has clearly stated the cost of the base in Kenya. The Foreign Office Minister said that that is only a training base, but I can confirm to the House that back in November 2022, James Heappey, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, stated the cost of running the base in Akrotiri to the then Member for East Lothian, and that is not a training base at all. Mr Heappey gave three years’ worth of figures. Such a request is therefore clearly not unprecedented and it is an extremely important point of public interest, because this is public money. How can we hold the Government to account if they will not tell us what they will pay to rent back the base that we already own?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his robust point of order on the record.
International Immunities and Privileges
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention, and so far I gather that the Government are prepared to listen to external expertise. I was encouraged to hear that Fiona Hill will be very much at the pinnacle of this review, and I know as an example that she has a great deal of insight into matters Europe, and in particular in relation to Russia. The defence review will need to look not only at means, which is what we are discussing today, but at ends and ways, so that it comes to thinking about means only after thinking about ends and ways. The problem with pre-empting a review and leaping straight into talking about particular procurement programmes is that it only serves, at this stage at least, to start to raise questions about what programmes have not been confirmed so far.
In this, the week of the Farnborough airshow, lots of questions have been raised about GCAP, or “Tempest” as the fighter aircraft will be known in the UK. On Saturday, one headline warned:
“RAF jet may never get off the ground”
and on Monday a subheading read
“questions are being asked about whether it should be scrapped to save money.”
On Tuesday an opinion column warned:
“The Government’s silence over the future of the Tempest fighter is deeply concerning.”
Sometimes the question is not as simple as whether to spend, but whether to spend in the near term or the long term, or on procuring equipment today or in the future. There is a trade-off in combat power between the near term and the long term.
I appreciate that the Government will be seeking to confirm to our allies that GCAP will proceed, and they will want to reassure Italy and Japan, as well as offer reassurance to commercial partners. Those of us from the west country need look no further than Yeovil to see what a success Leonardo has been for industry in our region. Defence exports from Yeovil amounted to £1.6 billion in 18 months. This issue clearly does matter a great deal to UK industry, but we must think about what else is happening in the commercial space.
We have heard about the European future combat air system—SCAF—consortium made up of France, Germany and Spain, which is developing a fighter jet in parallel. I urge the Government to consider whether the two systems can be as interoperable as possible. The pyramid open systems architecture that we anticipate will be part of GCAP would do well to be able to speak with whatever the SCAF comes up with.
Aside from GCAP, the strategic defence review should consider the UK’s existing capabilities, and existing combat air in particular. Twenty-six tranche 1 Typhoon fighter aircraft are due to be retired from service at the end of next March. The option remains for those tranche 1 aircraft to be brought up to the standard of tranche 2 or tranche 3. BAE systems provided the previous Government with the structural and avionic modifications that would be required, but they chose not to take that up. Instead, they intended to put the 26 tranche 1 aircraft on to a so-called reduce to produce programme to strip them of usable parts for the Typhoon fleet’s inventory of spares. I wonder whether consideration also could be given to whether they could become tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft instead.
An initial order of 150 F-35 Lightning aircraft has already been scaled back to 138, in part to release funding to GCAP. We can see that there is always a trade-off between thinking about future combat air in 2035 versus what we might need today. Upgrading the 26 tranche 1 fighter aircraft would grow the UK’s Typhoon fleet from 107 to 133. Of course, they will not have the latest air-to-ground capabilities of the F-35, and they certainly will not have the range, payload or stealth capabilities that we will expect of GCAP and Tempest, but they would be available soon. In recent months we have seen Typhoon intercept Russian long-range maritime patrol bombers north of the Shetland islands within NATO’s northern air policing area. Now does not seem to be the time to cannibalise Typhoon tranche 1 for spare parts.
I recall from my own service the phrase used in the armed forces that we should “deal with the crocodile nearest the boat.” In announcing that GCAP will go ahead, I trust that the defence review will also appraise those near-term risks in our near abroad rather than simply carrying on with existing programmes because they are already in train.
In closing, I will pose three questions to the ministerial team. First, is GCAP still too linked to the assumptions about geopolitics from the 2021 integrated review? Is it taking into full account the integrated review refresh of 2023, and particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, if there is to be a parallel development of GCAP and SCAF by other European allies, will the Government reassure us that consideration is being given to interoperability such as in relation to open systems architecture? Thirdly, if there is not enough money in the pot to upgrade Typhoon tranche 1, buy more F-35s and develop GCAP, which of those three initiatives is the UK unlikely to do?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your victory. You will be brilliant and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship in the three or four years ahead.
May I say how very much I support the statutory instrument? I do not support the Prime Minister’s lukewarm words at Farnborough. I think the concerns we have on the Conservative Benches are to do with the hares he set running not by what he said, but by what did not say. My advice to Ministers would be, “For goodness’ sake, up the rhetoric around this.” No Government in their right mind would cancel this project. This project is not only essential to our defence; it is the bridge to the unmanned future of defence that will come by mid-century. Kick away that bridge and we are left with very little: we undermine fundamentally the defence of these islands; we destroy the reputation of this country not just with the Japanese and the Italians, but with practically any partner in defence, present and future, that we can imagine, not least the Saudis; and it means that we will not be able to successfully translate our defence industrial base to the future, which we all appreciate is largely unmanned in each of the four domains that defence these days has to consider. Words mean what words say, except when they trip from the lips of politicians. Then, it is very often what is not said that influences the conversation, particularly in the media.
My plea, in the very short time available to me, is for Ministers, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister to correct what was said this week and, in particular, to ramp up the rhetoric on our support for this fundamentally important programme that is vital to our defence and our defence base. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a problem, in that he has failed to commit to 2.5% of GDP within a recognisable timeframe, which is no commitment at all, and he has launched a largely unnecessary defence review, which will be a distraction for at least 12 months. I am confident in the sound good sense of Lord Robertson and Richard Barrons. I cannot image that they will be party to the cancellation or delay of this programme.