UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her words, which underline the bipartisan support in this House. It was very useful for me to be in Washington DC with the Defence Secretary last May, when we underlined to colleagues across Capitol Hill that here in the United Kingdom this remains a bipartisan issue. It is a great indication of what we can achieve in this Parliament on matters of the greatest concern.

On the right hon. Lady’s last point, she will understand that today is inauguration day and it would have been a bit pre-emptive to have had discussions with the incoming Administration on the security guarantees and on Ukraine’s path to NATO. She knows that we set out an irreversible pathway to membership at the NATO conference when we came into office, and that remains the position. She also asked me about the security pillar, and that is important. Helping Ukraine to reach NATO’s standards, particularly across its military structures, to support Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership, is something that we in this country take very seriously.

Ukraine has defended itself resolutely in cyber-space in the face of Russian aggression, and the UK has been proud to support that defence, both in Ukraine and also in the next-door country. The right hon. Lady mentioned cyber. I was in Moldova seeing the work that we fund, which began before we came into power. It is good, hugely important work, and when we see the interference across the region in Romania and Georgia, the importance of this work is underlined even further.

The right hon. Lady rightly talked about the maritime context and strengthening our maritime capabilities. Working with Ukraine to protect Black sea security is essential to its future security and prosperity. Some 49% of Ukraine’s pre-war trade went through the Black sea, and I might say that that is why, for a substantial period of history, Russia has wanted total control of much of the Black sea. Through the agreement, we will work together to ensure the safety of trade in the Black and Azov seas through joint naval tasking and de-mining activity, which will be hugely important once this war comes to an end.

More broadly, it is important for me to be absolutely clear on the issue of third-party support. I raised concerns with my Chinese counterpart when I was in China on 18 October about the supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. The right hon. Lady knows that I went on to designate companies that we saw dealing with that dual-use technology. The direct participation of DPRK troops in combat operations is another dangerous expansion of Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine and further proof that he has no interest in peace. We have also imposed sanctions on a number of Iranian individuals, on 10 September and again on 18 November, including Iran Air, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want once again to thank the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for willing this partnership into life. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I fully support all nine pillars of the agreement, as I am sure all members of the all-party group do. Pillar 4 deals with the economy and trade, and there are many things we can do now to deepen and strengthen our trade relations with Ukraine, one of which involves joint ventures. What work will be done to remove insurance barriers and trade barriers, for instance, to give access to kindred or joint venture partnerships between UK and Ukrainian companies in all areas, including defence?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on the all-party group. He will be pleased that there are active conversations on this very issue at this time. He will know, too, that because of some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made on procurement, we are doing all we can to assist trade in Ukraine, as complicated as that is at this moment.

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. He is of course right, and that is why we have come here today. As I make progress with my speech, I will set out some of the arguments.

“Never again” leaves us with a moral question: how do we answer the genocidal abduction of children on European soil? It also leaves us with a strategic question, to which I will now turn.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, and for the wonderful way that he has started his speech. It is important to recognise that the abduction of children from Ukraine—from Crimea and the Donbas—did not start in 2022; it started in 2014. It has been going on for 11 years. The figures that he gives are broadly correct, I think, from meetings that I have had with Crimea Platform and others in Ukraine, but the second world war, to which he alluded, lasted only six years. The camps existed for only three years, and we are 11 years into this child abduction. International humanitarian law effectively started with Nuremburg. Does he agree that we will need to take a much longer and deeper look at resetting international law, post the Ukraine war?

[Mike Martin]

I agree. This is a war crime of stupendous scale, breadth and width. There is a question of not only justice, but getting those children back to their families in Ukraine. That is part of the work that we all must do once the war is over, with Russia defeated and Ukraine victorious.

Syria

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

There have been a number of propositions in the last few days, all of which merit further scrutiny and understanding. I am not going to back any single suggestion on behalf of the UK—I think it is important that those suggestions should come from organisations on the ground, and that we continue to work with regional partners. I stand by what I said before at the Dispatch Box: long gone are the days in which a plan is drawn up in the UK Foreign Office and presented as if it is the plan. That cannot be the way; we have to work with the grain of Syrian society, as complex and diverse as my hon. Friend rightly suggests it is.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like Minister Falconer, I was at the Doha forum this weekend, and there was palpable relief among the vast majority of delegates that the brutal murderer Assad had finally fallen. However, Sergey Lavrov also attended the Doha forum, and although I boycotted his session, the readout was that he was deeply uncomfortable in answering questions about Syria—rightly so, as he has so much Syrian blood on his hands, alongside his boss Vladimir Putin. Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for Russia to retain its two military bases in Syria, and that those bases must be closed down for the stability of the region?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about Russian capability and desire. The two bases that exist also run operations into Africa and support militia groups on the African continent, and Russia’s long-standing, cynical desire to have a deep sea port in the region is what sat behind Putin’s support for Assad in the first place. We see Vladimir Putin in this Parliament.

Ukraine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the psychology of this conflict. It is why it is so important, particularly in these desperate winter months, that we remain firm. I commend him and others for all their work on the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and all their work on security and intelligence, to provide that important, dedicated cross-party support to Ukraine. In the end, we know that it is for Ukraine to determine its position on its future, its just peace and its vision for its own people, but we will be behind the Ukrainians so that they know we can be relied on.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was heartened to hear the Minister say that we would support the self-defence of Ukraine for as long as it takes. One of the most important aspects of that is the development of new military technology, particularly through joint ventures between the UK and Ukraine on areas such as drones and unmanned aerial vehicles. One such example is the Black Arrow project. The first stage of that project has been completed and the drones have been manufactured, but they have been stuck here since May this year, because no export control licence has been granted. Will the Minister implore her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to facilitate those licences quickly, as those drones will help not just the defence of Ukraine, but our sovereign manufacturing capability for defence?

[Catherine West]

I commend the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine not just for his very long train trips across Ukraine to visit and offer his support, but for his technical knowledge. If he will give me permission, I will write to him with details of exactly where the project is at, so that he can give reassurance to all of his many followers in Ukraine.

Ukraine: 1,000 Days

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling and why, as a Back Bencher, he is doubling down on the issue. I think he will see that this Government have led and continue to lead in the debates right across our allies. He will also understand, however, that we need communication discipline on these issues. That is what we see with our opponents in Russia, the DPRK and Iran. I therefore lament a little some of the debate that we read across the newspapers. Members are not going to get those sorts of leaks or suggestions from me at the Dispatch Box.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for all their staunch work in support of Ukraine.

We have heard a lot of talk about escalation. Last week, we had a group of Ukrainian MPs in Parliament talking about the continued and escalating attacks on the country and particularly on Kharkiv, a city of 2 million people. Today, we have a Moldovan group here talking about an attempt by Russia, using dirty cash brought in suitcases from Moscow, to buy their elections. We are seeing a hybrid war against the whole of Europe, including us in the United Kingdom.

The threats of escalation by the Kremlin are happening irrespective of the action of the United Kingdom or any other country. North Korean troops are in Ukraine now, fighting on European soil. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that whatever the threats from the Kremlin, our support will be unstinting and we will not stand back from supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he does in the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine to champion the country’s cause in this Parliament and beyond, with the visits he has made and his updates to me over the past few years. He raises a number of issues and I want to assure him that we are alongside him and we continue to be alongside the Ukrainian people.

My hon. Friend raises an issue that I think is important and which has not come up so far: the malign activity of Russia and the hybrid threats it is engaged in right across the region. One country in particular—Moldova—is on the front line of Russian hybrid threats, and the interference in its elections has been entirely unacceptable. We stand in solidarity with the people of Moldova and continue to support them against the threats to journalists and the disinformation from the Russian regime, and the other extreme examples being received.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

The UK has encouraged dialogue between Ethiopia and Somalia on the Ethiopia-Somaliland memorandum of understanding. We have also expressed our full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Somalia. I would of course be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss any issue, including that one.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. I have discussed with many of them the chronic human rights situation in West Papua over many years. In 2019, President Widodo invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua, but that visit has not yet taken place. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that such a visit takes place, with both the Indonesian Government and the United Nations?

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interparliamentary work on that important issue. The UK strongly supports the efforts of the authorities and civil society to address the legitimate concerns of the people of Papua, as my hon. Friend has highlighted many times in this House. We continue to monitor the situation in Papua, including the ongoing issue of internal civil displacement caused by clashes between separatists and Indonesian security forces in Papua. The UK remains supportive of a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Ukraine

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I had prepared a speech but will now have to make a different one, given that last speech from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I think he is an outrider for his own party in his view. First, I want to take on this idea that Ukraine historically is just some sort of outcrop of Russia. I will start and go backwards.

My father wrote his PhD on the Viking incursion into Slavic lands. The Varangians created Kyivan Rus’—the Kyiv empire. It was an empire centred not in Moscow, but in Kyiv. Kyiv predates Moscow as the predominant city of the Slavic lands. If anybody wants to make a claim, it should probably be the people in Stockholm, because it was Swedish Vikings who settled those lands and established that kingdom—I do not think the Swedes now have any such ambitions.

If we move back even further, the Scythians settled Crimea and created the agricultural breadbasket that we know today in southern Ukraine and Crimea. They supplied the Greek empire with its grain. That established Athens and other republics in Greece and fostered the democracy that we know now, because the Greeks could rely on the Scythians for grain. That is the ancient legacy of Ukraine. It is not Moscow or the tsars, but the Scythians and then the Varangians. My first point, therefore, is that the Ukrainians have a clear and historic right to a nation. It is straight out of the Putin playbook to try to denounce the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state.

Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough that the UK, the United States and every European nation need to go on to a war production footing. We need to increase our production of basic military equipment, such as artillery shells and bullets—the Minister for Armed Forces knows how many times I have questioned him about this issue. We then need more advanced military equipment too. Actually, the most advanced anti-drone manufacturer in the world now is Ukraine. We have much to learn from that, and in future we can do many things in joint ventures for our own defence. But we now need to ramp up our own military production. We have underutilised factories here, in the US—they have promised to increase production by the end of the year—and in Europe. To be fair to the Germans, they have done exactly that, particularly in shell production.

It is estimated that the Russians are expending 10,000 to 15,000 artillery shells a day, while at the beginning of the war that figure was over 50,000, so they have depleted their reserves and are just using their current production. It is inconceivable that 30 or so countries in Europe and North America could not match that level of production if we went on to a war production footing.

I had not intended to talk so much about military production. I had intended to talk about how it has been my honour to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine since December 2022. In that time, I have organised three humanitarian aid convoys to Ukraine and three parliamentary delegations—I see hon. Members in the Chamber who have been on them.

The people of Ukraine owe us nothing, but we owe the people of Ukraine everything. The sacrifices I have seen—towns and villages destroyed; schools obliterated; men without legs or arms who still want to contribute to their country’s war effort. We cannot abandon those people. They did not ask for this situation; it has been meted out to them by a violent, brutal autocrat. I will not call him a dictator—I am not sure whether we are quite there yet—but the last Russian presidential election was not legitimate; it was a stolen election.

We are now in a situation where we are a bit weak minded —I agree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough on that—and Putin’s mind is like a ball of steel. He will stop at nothing. We need to take that same attitude and stop at nothing. He will back down only if he sees strength; he will not back down on weakness. That is an issue not just for the United Kingdom but, as I said, for the whole of Europe and North America and the rest of the democratic world. We need to ensure that we are doing everything.

I will finish shortly, because I know that others want to speak, but I want to make a few points. It is still not that easy for humanitarian aid to flow across the UK border and EU borders into Ukraine. We are still seeing issues with people from Ukraine gaining visas to travel here. It is not acceptable that people have to travel to Warsaw to get a visa. We need consular services. If they cannot be provided in Kyiv, they should be provided in Lviv.

We also need to look at how the funding that we have raised has been spent from end to end. A large proportion of the money raised by the Disasters Emergency Committee from the goodness of the British people has been spent outside Ukraine, because it has been deemed too difficult to spend it inside Ukraine. However, there are small aid charities, such as those that we have been working with, which are willing and able to spend money in Ukraine but have no supply of funding. We need to open up the books of all the charities. DEC will open up the books only for the money that it has collected, not for each individual organisation. We need to see more money being spent in Ukraine.

We have €300 billion sitting in Euroclear. We need to see that money not just frozen, but seized and then utilised for that war effort. Then we will see a change in the front. The biggest difference that could be made to see a swift conclusion to the war and no more Russian troops on Ukrainian territory is in air superiority. The Ukrainians are losing the war because, owing to the Russians’ air superiority, they cannot defend their troops on the ground. We have done a good job in training the first tranche of pilots from Ukraine, and now other countries are also training them, but they need the planes now. We had a setback following the election in Slovakia—we were about to see planes go, and subsequently they have not. We need other countries, and particularly the United States, to supply F-16s. We also need both variants of the Storm Shadow missile made in the UK to go to Ukraine, not just the export variant, which the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) expertly spoke about earlier. Finally, we need the resolve and long-term commitment to support Ukraine; not just to see this as something that happened two years ago and is slowly sliding off the agenda.

Israel and Gaza

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think I am right in saying that no country has suspended existing arms sales arrangements and agreements, but the fact remains that we have our own regime in that respect. We act in accordance with legal advice and we will continue to do so. In respect of UNRWA, I have set out for the House the processes that we are going through and the hon. Gentleman, like me, will hope that those processes are successful.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary enjoyed referencing Mr Gantz a number of times. Mr Gantz has set out his conditions for the end of the war and a “day after”. In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s spokesperson said:

“The conditions set by Benny Gantz are empty words whose meaning is clear: an end to the war and…establishing a Palestinian state.”

It is very clear now that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a forever war and is opposed to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. What are the UK Government saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that he understands where we and the international community stand on this issue—as do many Israelis, including members of his own Government? What action is being taken against Ben Gvir, Smotrich and the Prime Minister of Israel, who are clearly trying to prolong the war in Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

What the hon. Gentleman says underlines the fact that Israel is a pluralist democratic society where there are different views. He asked me what the British Government are saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I can assure him that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have frank, open and detailed exchanges on those matters.

Recognition of Western Sahara as Moroccan

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a long-standing issue that continues to be unresolved and has, to some extent, been frozen. At least in some respect, this debate is welcome, because it perhaps helps to move the wider debate along, but the obligations on Morocco and the other countries that are party to all this date to the Geneva conventions and that postcolonial legacy.

More recently, the Security Council has continued to adopt resolutions, and last year it called for a resumption of negotiations and movement towards

“a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution…which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.”

That is very important because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, a failure to settle these disputes can lead only to more suffering, grievance, frustration, regional political and military tensions and conflict, and a spiral thereafter.

It is clear that, whether the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and the Government who paid for his visit like it or not, Morocco is an occupying power in Western Sahara, which means it has obligations under the Geneva conventions to foster an environment that sustains human rights for all Sahrawi people, regardless of their political persuasion. That right to self-determination is fundamental. The Sahrawis are a distinct population group with their own heritage and history, and they deserve equal rights to peacefully determine their own future, as would any other similar people. Of course, the Scottish National party has a proud tradition of advocating self-determination. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has himself used the opportunity in Westminster Hall to argue for the right of self-determination for the people of the Chagos islands, and that they should be allowed to determine their future in a referendum.

Various different solutions have been proposed. The autonomy plan published by Morocco in 2007 has been seen in some quarters as the basis for a way forward, but a settlement under the auspices of the United Nations and its representatives would surely have more success and legitimacy, particularly as, ultimately, any solution needs to be endorsed in a referendum.

At a bare minimum, international standards suggest that an autonomous region must have a locally elected Government that cannot be abolished by the central state, so an autonomous Western Sahara would have to be free to manage its own affairs without interference from the Moroccan state. Proposals for a system where the Executive of such a body were appointed by and responsible to the King of Morocco would not meet that standard.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the effects of the lack of autonomous self-governance in Western Sahara is that, despite being one of the most climate-stressed places in the world, it cannot access international climate finance. Some 200,000 Sahrawis have been driven into the interior of the desert, which is basically unliveable, and even more are in Algeria, in refugee camps that are constantly flooded and in completely unliveable conditions, such as in tents in the summer. Should not the Western Saharan—Sahrawi—Government be able to access that international climate finance and become part of the international community, as they have a climate-adaptation plan?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and climate change is causing displacement around the world. Indeed, if the UK Government do not want people to make their way here by irregular means, then it is in their interests to help people who are displaced and oppressed to tackle the climate crisis and be able to live fulfilling lives in their countries of origin—and to ensure that that happens through peaceful, democratically legitimate ways.

In some respects, it is remarkable that the UK Government have not simply followed the United States in recognising Morocco’s claim to sovereignty, and presumably the Minister will not be announcing a change to that policy in response to today’s debate. That clearly does disappoint some Members on the Conservative Back Benches. There are some Conservative Members who give the impression that they would happily outsource the UK’s entire foreign and defence policies to the United States, irrespective of who makes up the Government of the USA at any given time, just as, at the same time, they would happily withdraw from the global conventions, treaties and charters that have maintained stability and defended human rights for the past 80 years or so.

I appreciate that that sometimes makes it difficult for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers to call for the observation of international law and respect for the decisions of the global bodies that uphold and interpret that law, while many of their colleagues in other Departments are running around insulting international tribunals and dismissing them as foreign courts that the UK does not need to heed. Indeed, sometimes, the FCDO itself decides that it does not like the findings of such tribunals, such as the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the status of the Chagos islands. All that said, in this instance, the UK is wise to support the UN Security Council’s resolutions relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, and the calls for self-determination and for freedom of expression and association in Western Sahara.

Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian Refugees

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered international support for Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The southern Caucasus is a melting pot of cultures, religions and ethnicities. Over the centuries, these different groups have at times co-existed peacefully and at other times experienced turmoil and bloodshed. In recent memory, we saw the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923, when an estimated 1.5 million people were killed by forces from the Ottoman empire. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late 1980s, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan, officially voted to become part of Armenia. Azerbaijan sought to suppress the separatist movement, while Armenia backed it. This led to clashes and eventually a full-scale war. Tens of thousands died and up to 1 million were displaced, amid reports of ethnic cleansing and massacres committed on both sides.

The most recent hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan show that conflict is never far away. Although they have recently negotiated a peace agreement, tensions remain high, and if there is a peace it is certainly fragile. Just last year, a number of us gathered in Westminster Hall to raise concerns about the blockade of the Lachin corridor, the main supply route from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. At the time, several hon. Members highlighted the potential for starvation and humanitarian catastrophe. The supposed Russian peacekeepers were at best observers and at worst actively supporting the ongoing persecution of the local Armenian population.

Sadly, the outcome we most feared was realised last September when, after a nine-month blockade, the Azeri military expelled the Armenian population. This forced displacement of a people has taken place when the eyes of the world are turned elsewhere. As Armenia is a small country with a population of 3 million, the arrival of more than 100,000 refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as a further 40,000 refugees from the war in 2020, has had a significant impact on it.

I was a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that visited Armenia last month. We met a group of refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, who described the events of the blockade and their eventual expulsion in harrowing detail. They described the so-called Russian peacekeepers travelling to Armenia—a privilege not afforded to the local population—and buying goods and supplies only to resell them to the starving people at massively inflated prices. They described the difficulty of acquiring medical supplies, fuel and even water. They described the violent end of the blockade, when the people were shelled out of their homes. We heard how the shelling started at 12.30 pm, when children were at school and separated from their parents. They described the chaos of people trying to locate their loved ones, and of people abandoning their home with just the clothes on their back.

The lucky ones had some fuel in their vehicles; the others just walked. The 40 km journey to Armenia took three days because of Azeri forces’ continued bombardment and because of obstructive bureaucracy by the Azeris at the border. The lack of water on the journey meant that many, especially the elderly, did not make it.

Many of the refugees are now staying with family members in border towns and in and around Jermuk, but every Armenian town has been impacted by the influx of refugees. The refugees are, of course, critical of Azerbaijan, but they are also critical of the Russian peacekeepers’ failure to protect them.

A number of officials we met believe that the Russian forces had been directed by Moscow to foster instability, not peace. This seems to be substantiated by Kremlin rhetoric. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov has insisted that Russia does not bear blame; he said that there was “no direct reason” for the exodus, merely that people were willing to leave. As an aside, non-intervention by Russian peacekeepers sets a dangerous precedent that international humanitarian law can be breached without repercussions, and opens up the risk of future Azerbaijani incursions into Armenia, for example to secure a path to its exclave of Nakhchivan.

When we met the mayor of Jermuk near the border, he described the triaging that had taken place and the intensive support, both practical and psychological, needed for these broken people. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed that, noting that the 100,000 refugees required critical support.

For many, this ethnic cleansing of a people has echoes of the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923. It is notable that while 34 countries, including the USA, Canada and France, have recognised the historic genocide, the UK has failed to do so. Several hon. Members have raised that point, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). In denying formal acknowledgement of the historic atrocity, the UK Government continue to delegitimise the collective pain endured by the Armenian community. A Foreign Office memo from 1999 is revealing as to the motivations behind the UK’s position. It reads:

“Given the importance of our relationship (political, strategic, commercial) with Turkey…recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK”.

I would appreciate a response from the Minister on whether the failure to recognise the historic genocide is simply an attempt to appease a trading partner.

Let me return to the situation on the ground in Armenia. In October 2023, UNHCR launched a $97 million emergency refugee response plan to provide urgent humanitarian aid and protection to the refugees and to those hosting them in Armenia. That support runs out at the end of this month, but not one refugee has been able to return home. Although there has been international support, for which the Armenian Government are grateful, far more is required. The US has committed $28 million since 2020, the EU has provided €17.5 million since September, and France committed €27.5 million in 2023. The UK, to date, has committed £1 million.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech outlining the scale of the crisis for Armenians who have left Nagorno-Karabakh and are now refugees. Does she agree that £1 million is woefully insufficient to support the Armenian Government in helping those refugees, and that we need to hugely scale up our support?