Israel and Palestine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Sir Mark. From the outset, I am aware that this is a very sensitive issue and that we are talking of the loss of life, which is awful. At the beginning, I have to make a declaration so that it is very clear where I stand: I am a friend of Israel, and I have been all my life. I was a member of the Friends of Israel when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, and I am a friend of Israel speaking in Westminster Hall today. I recognise that many people around me may have a different opinion. I respect their point of view; I hope that Members will also respect my point of view when I put it over.

We are talking about the lives of women and children, and the loss not simply of their daily life but of their home and even their education. This affects communities on both sides of Israel’s border. Communities on the border of Israel have been displaced and homes have been destroyed, as well as in Gaza. This premise must underline everything that is said today: war is terrible, and the end of war is what any right-thinking person is hoping for. For those who are in a position to do so, it is what they are working for, I believe.

I am certain that, regardless of the result of this debate, Hamas terrorists—that is what they are—will continue this attack. Rockets will continue to fly from Hamas positions towards Israel’s positions—not military positions, but civilian positions; the murder of civilians is their intention—and the Israelis will continue their counter-attack and opposition. Over the past days, the war against Hamas has continued to focus on southern areas of the Gaza strip, and the Israel Defence Forces have sadly confirmed the deaths of a further seven Israeli soldiers since last Monday, who were defending and protecting their people.

The horror of Hamas and of their intention on 7 October has been outlined by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke very graphically of it. I am aware of some of the videos. I have to say honestly that I could not watch them, because they were so horrible: the beheading of men, the rape of women, the murders of children. They are depraved people who carry that out. Hamas terrorists must be destroyed. They must be dismantled. They must find themselves in a position where they can no longer have any influence whatever in the middle east. That is exactly what I believe.

The bombs continue to rain down on Israel. Indeed, the IDF confirmed that an Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, we are on a very strict time limit of five minutes. Everybody has to get in, and there are many other speakers.

The Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah in northern Israel, prompting Israeli responses against terror targets in southern Lebanon. This is an important consideration in this debate: the fact is that there are still numerous and sustained rockets being fired at Israel daily. In the time in which this debate has taken place, there have been more attacks on Israeli civilian places as well. People talk about the Iron Dome, but it must be remembered that it is not a power-up in a computer game—it is more than that. When the launcher is called into action, it saves lives, and that is very important.

The Iron Dome air defence system intercepts at least nine in every 10 munitions fired into Israel by Hamas terrorists. That means that rockets do land and do cause damage; again, we must recognise that. Israel has 11 Iron Dome batteries, and with the threat of a war breaking out on the northern border with Hezbollah, the US has reportedly pledged two more. I would very much like to see that happen. US help for Israel can and will make a difference, and it will save lives.

Brigadier General Doron Gavish, a former commander of Israel’s aerial defence force who worked on the Iron Dome when it became fully operational in 2011, has said:

“Unfortunately, Hamas is not shooting for the military installations, it’s directing all its rockets towards the cities and civilians. It is a system that is really designed to save people.”

As we sit in this warm building today, comfortable as we are, calling for a ceasefire, we must be certain about calling for the right thing. We must be helping to put in place sustainable solutions—long-term solutions. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe that when the war is over and Hamas are destroyed and dismantled, we can then have a peace that can last. Long-term solutions will allow hospitals and schools to be built in Gaza and people to return home to Israel and to health and safety. That is what this House should be calling for, should work for and should wave our unified flag for.

While Israel is suffering attacks, and while it continues to root out terrorists who are aiming at civilians in Israel, there are steps to be taken. Am I calling for a ceasefire? Yes, I am calling for a bilateral ceasefire. For those who do not understand that, it is very simple. Once Hamas are destroyed, they can no longer have an attitude towards Israel that means the destruction, annihilation and murder of all Israelis. That is what I am looking for, but under circumstances, when it comes to a ceasefire, that do not see more terrorism and a worse position in 10 days’ time yet again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Blackburn is in the top 10 for the number of signatories to two of the three petitions that we are debating this afternoon. In the short time available to me, I will speak to the core concern of the three petitions.

First, on the question of the UK’s neutrality, international law states that nations have the right to self-defence, but it also dictates that this right must be exercised proportionately. I am sure that future investigations will determine whether that is what is happening in Gaza today.

On 7 October, it was a dark day and I absolutely condemn the horrific terror attack carried out by Hamas. It left 1,200 Israeli people dead, and they were killed in such an horrendous manner, as has been described by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in his place. However, please remember that Hamas are not the Palestinian people; Hamas are not the innocent women and children who are suffering today.

[Richard Foord]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Kate Hollern]

I will make a bit of progress first.

The terrible crime does not justify the collective punishment of millions. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, around 18,000 Palestinians have now been killed. It is estimated that about 70% of them are women and children. While such deaths are occurring on a daily basis, the UK Government abstained in the votes on last week’s United Nations resolutions, which called for a ceasefire. They claim it will not happen: “Why call for it? It won’t happen.” Doing difficult things is what this Government should do. They say that it is too difficult to do things; they are taking the easy option. But we cannot stand by and watch the horrors we are witnessing every day.

Thousands of people have been left without sufficient food and water, and hospitals are on the verge of total shutdown as fuel runs out. Patients are undergoing surgery with no pain relief. Aid agencies continue to warn that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is worsening by the minute. Some 2.3 million people are homeless and trapped in a tiny, embattled enclave with little food, water or medical attention.

Finally, on the ceasefire, I believe that the only way forward is an immediate ceasefire that is binding on all sides. It is for that reason that I voted for amendment (h) to the King’s Speech: I could not, in good conscience, have done anything else.

[Kate Hollern]

I agree entirely. We must remember that this situation did not start on 7 October.

International calls for a ceasefire are numerous; they are coming from all over the world, apart from the US and the UK, and they will continue to grow. Yesterday, the World Health Organisation executive board adopted a resolution aimed at addressing the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and again called for a ceasefire. Some 76% of the UK public support a ceasefire. Why are this Government not listening?

We have now had some humanitarian pauses, which were welcome, but a brief respite and the release of more than 100 hostages and 240 Palestinians in detention are insufficient. It is regrettable that world leaders failed to use the time to broker a permanent ceasefire. The only solution is a diplomatically negotiated one: a two-state solution that comprises a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine is the only way to secure lasting peace.

[Richard Foord]

I echo the hon. Member’s calls for a two-state solution. Does she agree that it is outrageous for a senior Israeli official to reckon that one third of those killed so far in the war were combatants, because by deduction that would mean that two thirds of those killed—more than 10,000 people—must be civilians, and that we cannot dismiss those civilian deaths as mere collateral damage?

[Kate Hollern]

Absolutely. As I said earlier, I am quite sure that a future investigation will expose some of the information being released.

I appreciate that a negotiated ceasefire that is binding on all sides—that is the important part—will be difficult and a huge diplomatic task, but sitting on our hands will not achieve anything. The situation is growing worse by the day, and as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said earlier, we have a breeding ground for the future of Hamas unless we do something. We start by talking, we start by listening, and we start by putting pressure on people to stop bombing innocent women and children.

Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the reasons why the Government, and indeed the Opposition Front Bench, are unable to call for a ceasefire are very clear.

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

At the end of last week the US vetoed a Security Council resolution brought about by the UN Secretary-General triggering article 99. What are the Government doing to encourage our friends in Washington to support, or at least abstain on, a resolution that does refer to Hamas and that is acceptable to other permanent members of the Security Council?

[Mr Mitchell]

The team in our mission at the UN in New York works night and day to try and get progress on the terrible events taking place in the middle east and it will be encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s words that more can and should be done.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think the hon. Gentleman confuses the role of the British Government, which has been set out clearly by the Prime Minister and by me in the House. He will also know that when it comes to the use of intelligence assets and so forth, we do not discuss those matters across the Floor of the House.

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

It was welcome this weekend to see the release of Israeli child hostages. It was also welcome a moment ago to hear the Minister talk about a possible two-day extension to the pause in fighting. We heard two weeks ago from the Israeli Foreign Minister, who said:

“Israel has some two or three weeks until international pressure seriously begins to increase”.

He said that the pressure was “not particularly high” but was increasing. Given that the Israeli Government were not feeling pressured internationally a fortnight ago, how can the Minister be sure that the pressure from the UK Government is being felt now, so that the rules of engagement of the Israel Defence Forces will distinguish between terrorists and civilians?

[Mr Mitchell]

The people who serve in the Israel Defence Forces are taught, as part of their basic training, the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law. I would contrast the Israel Defence Forces, who seek to defend Israeli citizens, with Hamas, who seek to use their citizens to defend Hamas.

International Development White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The former Foreign Secretary unveiled Britain’s new women and girls strategy in Sierra Leone this year. It is a very good read—if I may add it to the hon. Member’s reading on international development. I was not an unalloyed fan of the merger, as he knows, but when I got back into the Government I saw that the Foreign Office had completely internalised the importance of putting girls and women right at the centre of everything we do in this area, and it is to be commended for that.

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

The Minister is exactly right to say that little development happens in the absence of security. Speaking in 2014, before he joined the Government and during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, he said that a ceasefire in Gaza should be made permanent before talks move on to addressing wider issues in the middle east peace process. Does he now agree that talks addressing the underlying grievances of the moderates would be part of a successful counter-insurgency campaign, part of bringing about greater security, and hence would foster international development in the middle east?

[Mr Mitchell]

The quote that the hon. Gentleman found from 2014 was made in very different circumstances, but he is right to say that development will almost always fail where there is no security. Indeed, as Sir Paul Collier memorably said, conflict is “development in reverse”. On the middle east and Gaza—that is not, of course, the subject of the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the sooner we can move to a political track in the region, at the United Nations and in the international Assemblies, and start working on what a future two-state solution would look like, with a state for both Israel and Palestine, the better.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the faith communities. We often talk about the Jewish faith and Islam but when it comes to this region, the Christian churches play an incredibly important role, and I pay tribute to them. I have heard his point, and I will continue to speak about the avoidance of civilian casualties, particularly in places of safe haven such as churches.

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

When seeking to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan over a decade ago, General McChrystal adopted a new concept for NATO soldiers: courageous restraint. This was to separate the insurgents from the civilians among whom they lived. Can the Foreign Secretary inform the House how courageous restraint can be urged on all combatants, including through the full resumption of the water supply to Gaza?

[James Cleverly]

Courageous restraint, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted, is now a well-embedded concept in professional military forces. I have discussed with representatives of the IDF my admiration for its professionalism and my expectation that it will maintain that professionalism through any military operations. Courageous restraint is not a concept in the heart of Hamas terrorists. We must be realistic about that. Therefore, we will work with Israel and other countries in the region to try to bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we maintain our support of Israel’s self-defence and we highlight the fact that Hamas are just as willing to see Palestinians killed as they are to see Israelis killed, to pursue their political aims.

Hong Kong National Security Law Anniversary

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I stand corrected. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is 11, which makes it even worse. Foremost among them is the Catholic entrepreneur and—most importantly—journalist Jimmy Lai, who languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge. I will come back to that point, because I have further questions to ask the UK Government, but I hope that the Minister has taken note of my hon. Friend’s comments about the actions of the United States. Our words about the transgressions have remained words; they have not given rise to actions that I would have expected from the UK Government. I am sorry to say that. They are a Government I support, but a Government who at the moment I have to say are in deficit in this area. I want to point out a few more areas where I find our Government in deficit.

What assessment have the Government made of all those figures we have been chucking out, as young political prisoners, three quarters of whom are aged 30 or under, bear the brunt of this oppressive regime? It is deeply troubling that minors face the longest sentences of all, averaging something like 27 months, further exacerbating their plight. What also bothers me is that the Government, having not gone to Hong Kong officially, suddenly sent a Government Minister there a few weeks ago. As I understand it, now that his visits and meetings have been published, Lord Johnson met no democracy campaigners, said nothing officially or publicly about the Sino-British agreement, said nothing at all about the breach of human rights, said nothing at all about those sanctioned, and, to my knowledge, said nothing at all about the plight of the British citizen Jimmy Lai.

I want to stay on that point because, of all the things the Minister could have said, he could have said something about the bad behaviour with regard to a British passport holder and citizen. I want to say it again: Jimmy Lai is a British passport holder and citizen. As much as every one of us sitting in this room today, he has rights. At the front of the passport, it states “without let or hindrance”. What is the worth of the passport that I and everybody else in this room carry, if my Government will not call him a British citizen with rights under international law for consular access? America refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. The European Union refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. What country does not refer to him as a British citizen and passport holder publicly? Sadly, that would be my Government—our Government. For some reason, the British Government take it upon themselves to know, beyond any other family member or Jimmy Lai himself, what is good for him. What is good for him is what he wants.

Jimmy Lai did not flee Hong Kong after the trashing of the Sino-British agreement. Why? Because he is a brave man who believed that as long as he stayed, he could be the guarantor of some of the rights that might disappear. He wanted to be the icon who believed in democracy and human rights, so that those who were fearful and fleeing, and worried for their lives and the lives of their family, would look to him and see a brave man standing on the hill saying, “I’m not going anywhere. This is my home.”

A British citizen, a brave man, now languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge that has nothing to do with reality. He faces a second court case later this year, where he will almost certainly be charged under the new security laws for sedition. Jimmy Lai knows, and his family know, that it is unlikely he will ever see the light of day outside that prison. He knew that from the very word go; he made his choices on the basis that he knew that from the very word go. He did not flee.

Surely Jimmy Lai wants us to say that he is a proud British citizen and passport holder. He is not a dual national, by the way. I wish the British Government would stop referring to him as a dual national: it plays into the Chinese Government’s hands, because they declare that they do not recognise dual nationals. He is not a dual national; he is a British passport holder. I want that to be very clear. His family, who I have spoken to and who had to flee to Taiwan, say he wants to be pronounced a British citizen and passport holder. All I ask is that at the end of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister gets up and says, “He is a British citizen and passport holder, and we intend to pursue the Chinese Government publicly for consular rights. He is a political prisoner, and there is no question beyond that.”

I congratulate and applaud my Government on the generous BNO scheme and on extending it. To give credit where credit is due, the Government have done well on that. The trouble is that after everything that has been going on and the failure to recognise even a British passport holder, many BNO passport holders in the UK are now fearful about their own status. We know that many of them have been hunted down in the UK by those terrible Chinese police stations, which are quite illegal but have existed in the UK for an unnecessarily long time. We know that they have been threatened and bullied about their status. They worry about their protections under a BNO scheme, which are far fewer than those of having a British passport and being a British citizen. I would like the Government to consider that our failure to act in that way for Jimmy Lai has consequences for those we would wish to protect in a wider scheme. One need only talk to them to understand their concerns. We need to make those changes and announcements.

On the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, when will the UK Government put Hong Kong officials, who were responsible in the first place for many of those human rights abuses, under notice that they will be sanctioned? They should have been sanctioned by now. Is there a chance that the British Government are reviewing it? I know what the British Government and the Minister will say: “We never discuss sanctions.” I wish he would say at least that he will take note of what we have said.

For Hongkongers facing the plight of having to risk entering the Chinese consulate for the renewal of their Hong Kong passports, this policy places them in a vulnerable position. They are worried. What alternative procedures will the Government pursue to give those people a greater sense of certainty, such as by providing other things like travel documents or establishing a successful and secure passport renewal process that does not necessitate entering the grounds of a Chinese consulate? I remind everybody that the last person I knew of who entered a Chinese consulate’s grounds was dragged there by the consul general, was beaten up and had his hair torn out. I met him afterwards, and he was traumatised. The Chinese Government did not do anything, and the British Government talked about the law, but he quietly disappeared later on and no apology was made. It was a terrible act. I understand why BNO passport holders here are fearful of what will happen to them if they enter the consulate. The big concern and fear is about whether they will come out again. Will the Government look for other ways for them to establish their legitimacy, other than being forced into this damaging process?

The visit of Liu Jianchao last week also sent a signal to many people who are here under the BNO scheme. It is deeply regrettable that the Government chose, for some reason, to host him. This is a man deeply involved in China’s controversial fox hunt operations, which hunt down Chinese dissidents around the world and seek to get them back to China using techniques that include threatening their families, televising that threat, and eventual torture and arrest on re-arrival. It is an example of China’s disregard for international norms and human rights that it behaves in that way so publicly. By welcoming this individual—there is a photograph of a Minister sitting next to him; given the abuse of international norms and human rights, I am astonished that we would allow a Government Minister to meet him and sit with him—are we not sending a chilling message to everybody else that we place that relationship on a higher plane than people’s human rights and liberties?

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

On the point about the Hong Kong national security law having extraterritorial reach, some in the People’s Republic refer to centuries of humiliation, when their forebears made concessions to other imperial powers. Does the right hon. Member think that since the crackdown in 2020 against students in Hong Kong who were simply singing songs and waving flags, it is reasonable to say that the People’s Republic is behaving in a repressive fashion that was typically associated with 19th-century imperial powers?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

These are abuses of human rights and democracy. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is an appalling return to a time we thought had long passed. We now respect people’s human rights, but that is not the case in China, and it is now not the case in Hong Kong. The worst part about the situation in Hong Kong, which he is right to raise, is that we were one of the guarantors, but we seem to be shuffling away from that guarantee. Where other countries have acted on the abuse, we seem to be stepping back. I am concerned about that. I would love to know more about it from the Minister.

Situation in Russia

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the nature of Wagner Group activities in Africa. I speak with African leaders, including those who have Wagner mercenaries in their country or near their borders, and I have highlighted that these are not people who can be trusted and that any country that relies on them for its defence is, as the Russians have now discovered, inherently vulnerable. Of course I will talk with our representatives in Africa to look at the impact of the Wagner Group activities and what we can do, in close co-ordination with our international friends and allies, to ensure those African countries are safe without the need for mercenary forces.

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

Many of us can accept the Secretary of State’s point that this is an internal matter in Russia and is for the Russian people, but it does of course have a bearing on Ukraine’s self-defence. The UK MOD estimates that about 60,000 Russians have been killed in the adventure in Ukraine and the BBC and its local partners have verified and confirmed a figure of about 25,000, yet the Russian state is suggesting only 6,000 have been killed. What can the Secretary of State’s Department do to improve awareness in Russia of the toll this is taking on conscripts, soldiers and their families?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes the important point that Vladimir Putin has not only been lying to the world about his motivations for this war of aggression but lying to the Russian people about the implications. Maintaining that lie became increasingly difficult because of the events of this weekend. Of course our primary sympathy is with the people of Ukraine—their country is being brutalised, their people are being murdered, their women and children are being raped or stolen—but it is also the case, as Prigozhin said in his comments, that Russian soldiers are being used as cannon fodder by a Russian leader who does not care for them or their families. The more Russians see this, the more they will realise that they are just as much victims of Putin’s ego as anyone else in the world. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is absolutely right that the leadership of Russia is exclusively for the Russian people, but I think the Russian people will now see how very badly they have been led.

Ukraine: Special Tribunal

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I call Richard Foord; it is a happy coincidence that I am wearing this blue and yellow tie.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a special tribunal on Ukraine.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.

It has become a cliché for politicians across the House to refer to “Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine”. Today we should unpick that phrase a little so that we can consider how states such as the UK might respond to the full-scale invasion, aside from our ongoing provision of materiel to Ukraine. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the crime of aggression, and I intend to set out why accountability for that crime should be sought by way of a special tribunal.

Last September, along with a few other Members of the House, some of whom are here today, I attended the Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv; I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Yalta European Strategy conference brings together politicians, academics and others from across Europe to discuss Ukrainian and European security—we also remembered a time, back in 2013, when the same conference was held in Yalta, Crimea. But talk to historians about Yalta and they are more likely to think of the conference that took place between the UK, the US and the Soviet Union in February 1945, which President Roosevelt approached with an aide-mémoire on the punishment of Nazi war criminals. The Yalta memorandum urged the use of the judicial method against the Nazi leaders because

“Condemnation of these criminals after a trial…would command maximum public support in our own times and receive the respect of history.”

The first international military tribunal at Nuremberg opened in November 1945. Major-General Nikitchenko from the Soviet Union was the presiding judge. He came from a small village about 50 miles from the border between Russia and Luhansk, and was reported to have said in the days before the opening of the trial:

“If the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays.”

Thankfully, other parties to the international military tribunal disagreed with him and due process was followed. The London charter of the international military tribunal set the laws and procedures for the conduct of the Nuremberg trials, and they defined three categories of crime: war crimes, crimes against humanity and—the closest to aggression—crimes against peace.

A special tribunal for alleged aggression against Ukraine would be the first aggression-focused tribunal since Nuremberg and Tokyo, which prosecuted the leaders of axis powers after world war two for crimes against peace. These days, there are courts and tribunals that have jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and allegations of genocide, and they include the International Criminal Court. However, there is no international body before which individuals may be tried for the crime of aggression, because the ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression unless both the victim state and the aggressor state have ratified and accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression. That is not the case for Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Russia is not a party to the ICC, and referrals to the ICC by the UN Security Council would be vetoed by Russia.

On 17 March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for the war crime of illegal deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia. Although that was very welcome, it starts a process that can run in parallel with the initiative to create a special tribunal. It does not change the fact that there is currently no international body before which those responsible for the crime of aggression can be brought from Russia or Belarus. Various acts of aggression can be traced back to the February 2022 full-scale invasion. If proven in court, those acts of aggression could constitute what the Nuremberg trials termed the “supreme international crime”.

A crime of aggression consists of

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of an aggression.”

That can include manifestly illegal acts of aggression such as invasion, attack or occupation. It is the crime of aggression from which other international crimes flow, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Bluntly, the videos circulating on social media in recent weeks of the apparent beheading, allegedly by Russians, of a Ukrainian soldier who was still alive show an atrocious act that was unlikely to have happened in the absence of the original aggression. A special tribunal would be the surest route by which to try the Russian leaders for international crimes. Trying senior leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide is difficult. It is difficult to link the crimes committed by soldiers on the ground, who might be ill disciplined, to senior military or political figures, who are often well aware of the risk of having crimes attributed to them. No, a special tribunal would focus on the single crime with respect to a narrow clique of perpetrators.

Russia’s use of force against a sovereign state constitutes an illegal act of aggression. It was not authorised by the UN Security Council. It was not an act of self-defence. Aggression is considered a leadership crime. Those exercising control over or directing political or military action with respect to the acts commit the crime of aggression.

Russia is not ignorant of the UN definition of aggression. At a meeting of the UN Security Council in March 1999, during the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, quoted the 1974 UN General Assembly resolution that defined aggression. Mr Lavrov said:

“No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.”

The UK Government announced in January that they are joining a core group of partners to shape thinking on how to ensure criminal accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Three primary models for a special tribunal have emerged, and I will outline those briefly. The first option is a tribunal that would be based on a multilateral treaty involving Ukraine and those states willing to support it; that is how the international military tribunal at Nuremberg was set up. It would be a strictly international tribunal—these days set up, perhaps, on the recommendation of the European Union or the Council of Europe through a treaty with Ukraine.

The second option is establishing a free-standing tribunal that would be based on an agreement between Ukraine and the UN. We could pursue endorsement through a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Precedents include tribunals established by agreements between the UN and Sierra Leone.

The third option is creating a special hybrid tribunal that would be based on Ukrainian domestic law, but which would incorporate international elements. The UK Government appear to have supported that third option. Yes, such a tribunal could be created without an international agreement and without statute, without applying strictly international law, and without using significant international prosecutors or judges. However, a tribunal based on Ukrainian domestic law would face various problems. It would be difficult to overcome immunities for key senior leaders in Russia and in Belarus. Ukrainians argue that establishing such a tribunal would not be possible given the domestic constitutional changes required of the Ukrainian Parliament. However, to my mind the main objection to a hybrid tribunal is that other states might feel emboldened to create their own hybrid tribunals in the future, which would have little or no significant international support. The hybrid model is too easy to replicate, unlike a strictly international tribunal.

We also know that Ukraine itself does not support the so-called hybrid model. Last week, President Zelensky called for the creation of a special tribunal in The Hague. Let me quote Zelensky’s Netherlands speech of 4 May:

“Not hybrid promises instead of human rights, but real freedom. Not hybrid impunity and symbolic formalities, but full-scale justice. Not hybrid peace and constant flashes of violence on the frontline, but reliable peace.”

The international nature of a special tribunal would serve to flag a degree of impartiality for the special tribunal. It would more easily overcome issues relating to immunity for serving Heads of State and Governments.

Setting up a special tribunal is alleged by some to risk sending a message that the west’s goal is regime change in Moscow. I do not accept that the call for a special tribunal is somehow tantamount to signalling an interest in regime change. At no point have Ukraine’s allies suggested that we are seeking regime change in Moscow. Kremlin propagandists are already depicting NATO as seeking to threaten Russia’s existence, to tie in with Russia’s victory day today, 9 May—the commemorations of the Soviet Union’s contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Kremlin is already considering that its options are to win, or to lose power and then face prosecution. I do not accept that the model that the UK proposes for the special tribunal will affect Russia’s suggestion that we seek regime change. We do not.

How to go about creating a special tribunal? The Foreign Ministers of the G7 said in a statement in April, just a few weeks ago:

“We support exploring the creation of an internationalized tribunal based in Ukraine’s judicial system to prosecute the crime of aggression”.

Solidarity across the countries allied with Ukraine is absolutely crucial at this time. Just as the UK has firmed up opinion among Ukraine’s partners in relation to providing equipment to Ukraine, it would be good to see the UK championing the special tribunal cause, which should be as international in character as possible. A special tribunal would signal the disregard in which aggressor states are held. Support for the special tribunal could give aggressors pause for thought in the future.

The late Paddy Ashdown visited Slobodan Milošević several weeks before NATO military action against Belgrade in 1999. Ashdown commented that Milošević

“seemed more frightened by the threat of indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, than … of NATO bombing”.

Writing in a more idealistic era, he wrote:

“these new courts and tribunals which the world has established in recent years…have the potential to become instruments not only for justice, but also for prevention, since they can represent a … warning to belligerent or tyrannical leaders.”

Thank you, Mr Davies.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that if they want to participate, they will need to bob.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Clearly, the asset seizures have been important. We need to work out how they could be used in the recovery. He knows—he is very astute on these matters—that there are complex issues, but we are working away on this, just as we are on the other issues that we have talked about during the debate.

The hon. Member also talked about Belarus. We are taking every opportunity to remind the Belarusian regime that there will be serious consequences if it becomes more directly involved in Russia’s war.

The UK is determined to hold Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions in Ukraine, and to ensure that justice prevails. That includes providing support for the Ukrainian and international justice systems, and working with the core group established by Ukraine to consider accountability, including the possibility of a special tribunal. Meanwhile, we will continue to supply aid to help the fightback and crack down on supporters of the war through sanctions, all while remaining at the centre of diplomatic efforts to secure the strongest possible support for Ukraine across the international community. We share Ukraine’s determination that Putin’s illegal invasion must fail and that justice must be done. As President Zelensky said last week in The Hague,

“there can be no peace without justice”.

12.30 pm

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this interesting debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reflected on the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and suggested that we should have been much more active in thinking about justice at that point, rather than waiting until the full-scale invasion in 2022. Perhaps the difference between those invasions is that in 2014 Russia denied the presence of its troops in Ukraine; what makes the invasion in 2022 so outrageous is that Russia did not seek to hide the enormous military presence it had put into Ukraine.

I agree with the hon. Member that we should not simply bandy about the term “special tribunal”; we should really drive it forward and seek action. I also very much liked the fact that he referred to the UN charter and to article 2(4) on the prohibition of the use of force and the importance of territorial integrity.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for his contributions about the Council of Europe. He pointed out that Ukraine will be high on the agenda at the Council of Europe summit meeting in two weeks’ time. He mentioned that there can be difficulty in getting agreement at the UN General Assembly. I accept that it can be difficult to get a majority or a super-majority in that body, but we proved last March, when 141 states came out and condemned aggression, that achieving these things is not impossible. I appreciate the Council of Europe’s reaffirming the need for strong accountability.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for pointing out that we have to think about how aggression can set a precedent. We have to think about how, if we leave this particular aggression to go unchecked or unaccounted for, it could encourage other states to perpetrate aggression in the future. The hon. Member will correct me if I have misunderstood him, but I think he cautioned against timidity for fear that future leaders in the UK and elsewhere might be subject to prosecution. I agree that we must not be timid in that respect. Of course, both his party and mine have opposed some invasions that this country has been involved in during the last 20 years, and one in particular.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke about the original sin. I very much liked the way he put that. He quoted President Zelensky on some of the shortcomings of the hybrid model. I liked the way that the hon. Member talked about “true and full justice”, and I agree that that is what is required.

The Minister talked about the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group. It is very welcome that the UK is taking initiatives in support of prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am also grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the additional £1 million contribution by the UK to the ICC for such things as psychosocial support for victims. That is all very noble, but I was pleased that he turned to the crime of aggression. I was particularly pleased to hear him say that the UK Government have not declared support for a particular option for a tribunal. That is welcome.

Back in January, the Foreign Secretary talked about supporting a special hybrid court so long as it did not duplicate the work of the International Criminal Court. I think that we have demonstrated today, as others have elsewhere, that there is no duplication here, and that a special tribunal will be complementary to the work of the ICC. With that in mind, I look forward to the UK Government being a strong voice in support of a special tribunal that will be as international in character as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a special tribunal on Ukraine.

Sudan

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is right about the scale of issues that we face in east Africa, with something like 72 million people already in need of substantial help because of them. What is happening in Sudan will make that infinitely worse, not least because there are 16 million people who, before this awful crisis struck, were profoundly food insecure and in need of assistance. We will scale up when there is a ceasefire and we are able to do so, as he will understand. The United Nations agencies, which are extremely good at moving quickly to do that when the opportunity arises, will certainly come into play, with organisations such as the World Food Programme and many others, but he will realise that the indubitable requirement is that there should be a ceasefire so that they can operate on the ground. As I have said, five humanitarian workers have been murdered during the last week.

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

I add my congratulations to those involved in this NEO, or non-combatant evacuation operation, and I would like to pursue the question from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) a little further. The British Government have supported many Governments in developing countries over the years with education in the civil oversight of defence, which includes educating senior military personnel in developing countries as part of our programme of defence diplomacy. Last year, a Liberal Democrat question served to find that no training has been provided by the MOD to counterparts in Sudan since 2020 because it would be regarded as military aid. Does the Minister think that education of the civil oversight of defence is worth categorising separately from military aid in those cases where a partner Government might be considering receiving it?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. Of course, through the pooled funding arrangements that we have, often that sort of work with the military can take place. I can tell him why he got that answer about Sudan last year: because all our efforts were bent towards trying to support the peace process and the negotiations that were going on to achieve a return to civilian rule. Sadly, all that is now very much on the back foot. But the aim, if we can get a ceasefire, is that those political negotiations should start so that there can be a civilian Government in Sudan.

Integrated Review Refresh

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The 2015 strategic defence and security review estimated that the Dreadnought acquisition programme was

“likely to cost a total of £31 billion…including inflation”.

We have learned in the past week that the programme remains within budget. However, the SDSR set a contingency of £10 billion. How much of that £10 billion contingency is being used on Dreadnought? Is the £3 billion announced today for nuclear separate from that £10 billion?

[James Cleverly]

Future expenditure will be set out in more detail by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have said, and the ways in which the Defence Secretary will spend the money allocated to him will be set out by Defence Ministers. I have to say that I am still completely lost as to what the Lib Dems’ defence posture is. When I look back on our time in government together, I certainly cannot help thinking that if we had not had the sea anchor of the Lib Dems in coalition, we would have progressed much more quickly in securing the defence of this country.