Yemen

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on the humanitarian and political situation in Yemen and the implications of the conflict for regional security.

Her Majesty’s Government remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen, and the impact that recent restrictions are having on what was already the worst humanitarian crisis in the world and the largest ever cholera outbreak. We recognise the risk of a severe deterioration of the humanitarian situation if restrictions are not quickly removed, and call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies through all Yemen’s land, air and sea ports.

We should be clear about the reality of the conflict in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition launched a military intervention after a rebel insurgency took the capital by force and overthrew the legitimate Government of Yemen as recognised by the UN Security Council. Ungoverned spaces in Yemen are being used by non-state actors and terrorist groups to launch attacks against regional companies, international shipping lanes and the Yemeni people.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we strongly condemn the attempted missile attack against Riyadh on 4 November. This attack, which has been claimed by the Houthis, deliberately targeted a civilian area and was intercepted over an international airport. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Saudi Arabia to address its legitimate security needs. We are therefore deeply concerned by reports that Iran has provided the Houthis with ballistic missiles. That is contrary to the arms embargo established by UN Security Council resolution 2216 and serves to threaten regional security and prolong the conflict. I understand that a UN team is currently visiting Riyadh to investigate those reports. It is essential that the UN conducts a thorough investigation. The UK stands ready to share its expertise to support this process.

We recognise that those who suffer most from this conflict are the people of Yemen. We understand why the Saudi-led coalition felt obliged temporarily to close Yemen’s ports and airports to strengthen enforcement of the UN-mandated arms embargo. It is critical that international efforts to disrupt illicit weapons flows are strengthened. At the same time, it is vital that commercial and humanitarian supplies of food, fuel and medicine are able to reach vulnerable Yemeni people, particularly in the north where 70% of those in need live. Even before the current restrictions, 21 million people were already in need of humanitarian assistance and 7 million were only a single step away from famine. Some 90% of food in Yemen is imported and three quarters of that comes via the ports of Hodeidah and Salif. No other ports in Yemen have the capacity to make up that shortfall.

Our non-governmental organisation partners in Yemen are already reporting that water and sewerage systems in major cities have stopped operating because of a lack of fuel. That means that millions no longer have access to clean water and sanitation, in a country already suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in modern times. The current restrictions on access for both commercial and humanitarian shipments risk making an already dire situation immeasurably worse for the Yemeni people. We have heard the UN’s stark warnings about the risk of famine. We call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies to avert the threat of starvation and disease faced by millions of civilians.

We also call for the immediate reopening of Hodeidah port and the resumption of UN flights into Sana’a and Aden airports, as the Foreign Office statement on 15 November made clear. Restrictions on humanitarian flights are causing problems for humanitarian workers, including UK nationals, who wish to enter or exit the country.

We have been urgently and proactively seeking a resolution of this situation. Our ambassador in Riyadh has been in frequent contact with the Saudi Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary has discussed the situation in Yemen with His Highness the Crown Prince, with whom we have emphasised the urgency of addressing the worsening humanitarian crisis. The Secretary of State for International Development, since her appointment on 9 November, has spoken both to the UN Secretary-General and the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs about the situation in Yemen. We also continue to work closely with other regional and international partners, including the UN.

The Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General on 18 November. Central to this discussion was how the security concerns of Saudi Arabia can be addressed to enable these restrictions to be lifted. It is vital that the UN and Saudi Arabia enter a meaningful and constructive dialogue on this. More broadly, we will continue to support the people of Yemen through the provision of life-saving humanitarian supplies. The UK is the fourth-largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, and the second-largest to the UN appeal, committing £155 million to Yemen for 2017-18. UK aid has already provided food to almost 2 million people and clean water to over 1 million more.

The only way to bring long-term stability to Yemen is through a political solution. That is why peace talks remain the top priority. The Houthis must abandon preconditions and engage with the UN Special Envoy’s proposals. The UK has played, and continues to play, a leading role in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution. This includes bringing together key international actors, including the US, Saudi Arabia, and Emirati and Omani allies, through the Quad and Quint process. We intend to convene another such meeting shortly. It is vital that we work together to refocus the political track.

The United Kingdom will continue to play a leading role on Yemen through the UN. In June, we proposed and supported the UN Security Council presidential statement, which expressed deep concern about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. The statement called for an end to the fighting and a return to UN-led peace talks, and stressed the importance of unhindered humanitarian access. It is vital that the words of the text are converted into action. The international community’s unified and clear demands must be respected. I commend this statement to the House.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I am standing in today for the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has a child in hospital.

As we discuss the human cost of one seemingly intractable conflict, I am sure that the whole House will join me in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai. I was able to visit the tunnels under Arras—the Carrière Wellington—last Thursday afternoon and to salute the service of the Royal Tank Regiment, for whom this day rightly remains sacred.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I will not address all the points he made at this stage, given that there may be another opportunity to do so later in today’s proceedings. For the time being, I wish to address the urgent matter of the escalating humanitarian crisis in Yemen, as he has done in his statement. On that point, the Minister has joined a long line of Foreign Office Ministers who have come to this House since 2015 and told us, time after time, that they are doing everything they can to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to limit civilian casualties. Yet, time after time, whatever the Government’s good intentions, the humanitarian crisis keeps getting worse and the civilian death toll continues to rise ever higher. We now face a dramatic escalation of that crisis, with millions of lives in even more immediate danger. I am afraid that more good intentions on the part of the Government will simply not cut it this time. Instead, we need urgent action.

We are all familiar with recent developments, as summarised by the Minister. The Saudis have reacted with understandable anger to the Houthis’ firing of a ballistic missile at Riyadh—an act that all Labour Members unequivocally condemn, in the same way in which we have condemned all the thousands of Saudi air strikes against civilian targets inside Yemen. Following the Houthi missile strike, the Saudis strengthened their blockade of all rebel-held areas of Yemen. As a result, what little supplies there were—of food, medicine and other humanitarian goods—have now ground to a halt. Millions of children, who were already facing severe malnutrition, a cholera epidemic and an outbreak of diphtheria, have had their very last lifeline cut off.

Let me quote this weekend’s joint statement by the World Health Organisation, the World Food Programme and UNICEF. They say the tightening of the blockade

“is making an already catastrophic situation far worse.”

They say the supplies the Saudis are blocking

“are essential to staving off disease and starvation. Without them, untold thousands of innocent victims, among them many children, will die.”

They estimate that if nothing is done over the coming months, 150,000 already malnourished children could starve to death. They conclude:

“To deprive this many from the basic means of survival is an unconscionable act and a violation of humanitarian principles and law.”

The Minister has said that he shares those concerns and is urging the Saudis to open up humanitarian access, but at what point will he admit that that strategy is not working? At what point will he warn the Saudis that Britain will withdraw its support if they carry on with this blockade? And at what point do we say that this is no longer a question of diplomatic persuasion but a matter of international law?

International humanitarian law is clear, and Britain’s “Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict” is clear: the starvation of a civilian population cannot be used as a weapon of war. Let me quote specifically from the British manual:

“The…establishment of a blockade is prohibited if…the damage to the civilian population is… excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage”.

It also states:

“If the civilian population…is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such…essential supplies”.

So if the Saudis continue to enforce the blockade in its current form and deny humanitarian access, will it be the judgment of the Government that the Saudis are in breach of international humanitarian law? If so, will the Government suspend the sales of British arms that are being used to enforce that blockade?

The truth is that the Government have invested considerable political capital in their relationship with Saudi Arabia. They have championed Crown Prince Salman, the architect of the conflict in Yemen and the man who is calling the shots on the blockade. If that diplomatic strategy has been worth anything, now is the time to prove it. Now is the time for the Government to show that we can have influence and impact on the Saudis and to persuade them that, as a matter of urgency, they should open up the ports to humanitarian supplies and bring relief to the millions of children facing starvation and disease. If the Government cannot achieve that, it is time for them to change their approach.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, a large part of which I would not disagree with.

May I start by passing on the good wishes of all of us on the Government Benches to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)? We trust that all is well with her child. Secondly, I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about the first world war battle. We all saw tweeted pictures of the tanks yesterday, which brought a glad smile to many hearts, so I thank him for reminding the House of that.

The hon. Gentleman was right to recognise, first, the frustrations in terms of the conflict. The actions to bring it to an end are not solely within the power of the UK Government; we have to work with partners to achieve that. I set out what we have been seeking to do ever since it became clear that the conflict would require political negotiation, and not a military solution, to bring the parties together and find an answer to something that has already taken too many lives.

This is very much about two sides. There is an awful lot of concentration on the Saudis and on the coalition, but very little attention is paid to the activities of the Houthis and their supporters, and to those who have been involved in human rights abuses on their side. It does take two sides.

The efforts that the United Kingdom has made, at the UN, through our ambassador in Yemen and through our work with the Quad and the Quint to try to bring this to an end have been significant, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our frustration is that this has not yet produced the end of the conflict, which is the only thing that will resolve the humanitarian issues we are talking about. I do not in any way quibble with the concerns that have been raised by agencies. I am in touch with the World Food Programme and others who have warned, as has Mark Lowcock of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, of the severity of the problems to be faced if the restrictions are not eased.

I would challenge the hon. Gentleman and put a different complexion on his comments about what happens if the representations that we are continuing to make on the political solution do not work. We are pressing on these representations. We do not know what the answer will be, but we are making very clear the seriousness of the situation, as have other parties, and we expect and trust that there will be a change—there has to be.

I also challenge the hon. Gentleman in relation to international humanitarian law, which he says prevents starvation of civilians as a means or method of warfare. That is quite correct. The publicly made statement by the Saudis on their intent was that it is not to cause starvation but to ensure that missiles do not enter Yemen. To that extent, the solution still lies in the remarks I made in my statement. It is about a combination of two things. First, there is the support that those who wish to prevent missiles entering Yemen need in order to protect themselves, and that comes through the work being done by the UN and the coalition to try to secure the entry ports to make sure that there are no threats in the same way that there was to the airport in Riyadh. At the same time, it is vital to make sure that there is humanitarian access. We believe that concentrating on both those things will relieve the humanitarian situation while securing the safety of those who wish to protect their own people. We will continue to do that in addition to the work that we are continuing to do on the political negotiations that are the only solution to the conflict.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been most helpful in coming to the House today. I thank him and the Opposition spokesman for their comments about my old regiment, which will be celebrating and commemorating the events of 100 years ago in Cambrai next weekend.

On Yemen, are not three features of our engagement absolutely clear? First, the current policy on Yemen is doomed to strategic failure both for Saudi Arabia and, by extension, for the UK. Secondly, Saudi policy violates international law, as clearly set out in the United Nations Secretary-General’s letter of last Friday. Thirdly, we are dangerously complicit in a policy that is directly promoting a famine and the collective punishment of an entire population. Are we not on the brink of witnessing in Yemen a totally preventable, massive humanitarian catastrophe the likes of which we have not seen in decades?

[Alistair Burt]

On my right hon. Friend’s last point, it is for the very reason that we wish to prevent the concerns raised by agencies and the UN from coming to fruition that we are bending all our efforts to working with those who have put on restrictions to the ports in order to preserve their safety and prevent arms getting through to make sure that humanitarian access is indeed given. He is right to raise these concerns, which are shared by the whole House. That is giving the United Kingdom Government every extra incentive, as if we needed any, to try to continue to do all we can to raise those issues with those who fear for their own safety to make sure that they are not putting others at risk in the manner described by so many agencies.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement. I am glad to hear that there is dialogue, but we need to hear an awful lot more in this House about actions.

I, too, understand the difficulties facing the Saudis regarding the attack on Riyadh, which of course we also condemn. There needs to be a recognition of the two sides to this conflict—at least two, if one counts al-Qaeda. We know about the sophisticated weaponry that the Saudis have because the UK sold it to them. The £155 million in aid that the Minister talks about is dwarfed by the £3.8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. There are daily reports of Yemeni civilians on the ground being hit by Saudi airstrikes. Will he speak a little more about those?

Aid agencies have reported for years the difficulties of getting aid into Yemen and across Yemen, including the difficulties involved in getting visas and moving goods and people around the country. Only recently, I heard from the head of Islamic Relief. When he visited to see how the organisation’s projects were going, he was unable to travel around the country because of the visa system that is in operation.

Despite the UN verification and inspection mechanism, Save the Children reports that 13 ships carrying vital humanitarian aid were denied entry to Yemen. What are the UK Government doing to get air and sea ports open, especially when those aid convoys are quite clearly aid convoys and they do not contain missiles? It is fine to say that the Government are providing funding, but without access and without workers on the ground who can deliver it, it is almost meaningless.

The population of Yemen are deliberately being starved by the country’s neighbours, which are key allies of the UK. Today is International Children’s Day. Save the Children reports that 130 children in Yemen will die today, tomorrow, the next day and each day until this conflict ends. Will the Minister tell us how he will stop this?

[Alistair Burt]

Again, I come first to the hon. Lady’s last point: how will this conflict come to an end? This conflict will come to an end when both sides are brought together by people who make it clear that there is no military solution to it, and that there has to be a political one. That is what the United Kingdom has sought to do for many months, through meetings with appropriate parties here in London, in New York and in the region. We share her frustrations because, like others, we can see the impact.

I will comment on one or two of the hon. Lady’s other perfectly proper remarks. First, the key test for our continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia in relation to international humanitarian law is whether there is a clear risk that the items that are subject to the licence might be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law. That situation is kept under careful and continual review, and, like all other aspects of the United Kingdom’s arms control policy, it is subject to rigorous examination here and by the law.

Secondly, the hon. Lady is right to raise the question of access, as we have done. The restrictions on access do not mean that our work now is meaningless, as she indicated; I am sure that she does not mean that. We are working through partners who are there on the ground, but distribution is, of course, harder. That is the case not just in coalition-controlled areas, but in Houthi-controlled areas; I have to remind the House that there are two sides to this.

Lastly, I will deal again with the subject of arms exports, because I know that it is fundamental. I related this to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) the other week, and I shall do the same thing again; I do not mean to be harsh about it. If we thought that our not sending support to our allies—who are facing attacks on their own soil, from missiles imported into ungoverned space, where they are trying to support an elected Government against the insurgency—would send the right signal in the region and would prove to be of any use, it would be a course of action, but I do not believe that that is the case. I do not believe that if we were to take that action, it would not fundamentally undermine a number of other regional issues and make our allies wonder, when they faced an attack on their Heathrow, whether we were making the right judgments. We have to pursue other means of bringing the conflict to an end, and that is what we seek to do.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Is Yemen subject to a blockade?

[Alistair Burt]

Yemen is subject to restrictions brought in by the coalition parties following the attack by a Houthi missile on Riyadh, and because of the smuggling of arms and weapons that has threatened the coalition in the UAE and Saudi Arabia for some time. I am not sure that the nomenclature adds a great deal, but that is the reality of the situation.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think it is pretty clear that this is a blockade, and the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis must now require urgent action by this Government and our partners to press the Saudis to lift the blockade. The Minister said in his statement that our NGO partners in Yemen are already reporting that water in major cities has

“stopped operating because of a lack of fuel.”

Can he tell us how extensive the fuel supplies are? When will it no longer be possible to distribute food? The level of death will increase dramatically as a result.

[Alistair Burt]

We of course hope that we do not reach such a case. Mark Lowcock from OCHA has made it clear that both these issues will become critical within a number of days. On what we have done since the attack on 4 November and the response from the coalition, on 5 November, an FCO statement condemned the missile attack; on 13 November, the Secretary of State for International Development called Mark Lowcock to speak to him about the circumstances; on 15 November, we issued a further statement stressing the need for immediate humanitarian and commercial access; and on 18 November—just this weekend—the Foreign Secretary conferred with the Secretary-General. Conversations are taking place in Riyadh all the time to reassure the authorities there on the security they need to deal with weapons capable of launching an attack on their civilian areas. At the same time, however, humanitarian and commercial access is absolutely vital.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I fully understand why the Minister has made a statement at the Dispatch Box today, but may I remind him that there have been 15 oral statements, 16 written ministerial statements and nine urgent questions on Yemen since 2010? Through your good offices, Mr Speaker, may we tell the Minister to spend more time in the Department sorting out the problem, and less time coming to the House to discuss it?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a former Minister, for his support, and I understand his point. Since 2010, when I first stood at the Dispatch Box to speak about Yemen, we have had all sorts of opportunities for a different future for the people of Yemen: the end of the presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh; a process that resulted in a national dialogue; an opportunity for a new democratic future; and an opportunity for voices that had never been heard—those of young people and women—in the governance of Yemen. However, those opportunities were dashed by the current conflict and an insurgency by a group seeking to take power with violence, removing the chances we had seen for people to benefit from the development and building of democracy. The United Kingdom has been engaged right the way through the process to encourage all the right things. Reporting to the House is important, and it has not taken any time away from the time we have needed to spend on Yemen itself.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The Minister is of course right to say that a political solution is essential and the only route to solving the humanitarian crisis in the medium term, but access for aid is vital in the short term. I am glad that the UK Government have raised this issue with the Crown Prince. What was his response, and do the Government, if they stick to their current position, have any hope that the Saudis will let in vital supplies of food and medicines in the near future?

[Alistair Burt]

The Crown Prince’s response, on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was to point out the need to control weapons that might threaten Saudi Arabia being smuggled into Yemen and used by those with whom the Saudis are in conflict, as has been the case for a period of time. We worry that the sophistication of the missiles being smuggled in has increased, which has thus increased not only the risk to Saudi Arabia and neighbouring places, but the risk of the conflict escalating and becoming still worse. There is a serious concentration on trying to prevent that, because it looks likely to prolong the conflict and make the humanitarian situation still worse.

At the same time, I understand that the Crown Prince was absolutely aware, as the public statement by the Saudis made clear, that the restrictions were intended not to cause the humanitarian situation about which there are now concerns, but to deal with the arms supplies being smuggled in. The partners, the agencies with which we work and we ourselves are impressing on the coalition that such a situation may be the unintended effect. That is why the restrictions need to be lifted, and there has to be the access for which the hon. Lady is looking.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Given that the United Nations has recently said that if the blockade is not lifted we are likely to see the worst famine for decades and given the outbreak of the deadly disease diphtheria and the 1 million cases of cholera, may I urge my right hon. Friend to make some kind of statement—not necessarily an oral statement, but one in writing—to this House every week, because the situation is developing daily and weekly, and we must be kept informed about it? I hope there will be a turn for the better.

[Alistair Burt]

I will talk with the Department and the House authorities about what the best way to do that would be. I quite understand my hon. Friend’s point. If there is a way to make sure that adequate information from Government and the other agencies involved is made available rapidly and effectively, of course I will try to do that.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many others, I utterly condemn the missile attack on Riyadh. I would argue that arms should not be supplied by anyone to any of the sides in the conflict, given the humanitarian catastrophe, but may I press the Minister on access to the airport and to Hodeidah? In discussions with the Crown Prince, did the right hon. Gentleman get any idea of timescale, or have the UK Government expressed any idea of timescale? Is there any reason why Sana’a airport should not be reopened to UN and humanitarian flights within the next 24 hours, for example?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his condemnation of the missile attack, echoing his Front- Bench spokesman. On the timescale, we have asked for the restrictions to be lifted immediately. No, I cannot speak for the coalition regarding its timescale, beyond the fact that it wants to be assured that the ports are adequately protected against the sort of attack that was carried out. That is why we are urging that the UN has access to the ports and works with the coalition authorities, with neither side demanding that the other side moves first, to make sure that there is an opportunity to secure the ports against weapons being smuggled in and at the same time immediately to improve access.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The missile attack on Riyadh takes the conflict to a new and dangerous phase, sending ripples through the Muslim world, with Muslims urged to take sides, Sunni versus Shi’a, in a regional cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is supplying missiles to the Houthi. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s efforts to tackle the political deadlock and secure humanitarian access?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her perceptive question, which sadly goes to the heart of the situation. This is another conflict in the region being fought out over people who ill deserve it, where the issues between regional powers have brought them into direct confrontation. She is right to say that the sophistication of the missile launched at the Saudi equivalent of Heathrow takes the conflict into a different sphere. Had that missile landed on the airport and destroyed civilian airliners carrying passengers from all over the world, perhaps including the United Kingdom, we would be facing a still greater crisis. My hon. Friend is right to say that our actions are seen in relation not only to this conflict, but to a wider issue of legitimacy and those who seek to disrupt it. That is why we need to bend all our efforts first on the humanitarian side, and secondly on making sure that the political negotiations and solution improve the regional situation, rather than make it worse.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

All of us condemn the missile attack on Riyadh, but may I express some surprise at the Minister’s reluctance to use the word “blockade”? When the UN is warning that diesel and petrol will run dry within a month, when we know that in that month 150,000 already malnourished children will die and when Save the Children is saying that 130 die every day now, as well as pushing for the political solution, which the Minister rightly says is necessary, is he indicating in any way to Saudi Arabia that it could be accountable for the deaths of potentially millions of people?

[Alistair Burt]

I think the descriptive term used is less material than the impact. The impact of the restrictions is clear: they have led the situation in which the agencies warn about running out of food, fuel and water. That is one of the reasons why the UK has called, as we did in a statement last week and have again today, for the immediate lifting of the restrictions, subject to what we believe are reasonable controls by the coalition authorities to protect themselves. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Whether it is called a blockade or restrictions, it is the impact that is important, and that is why we must work to relieve it with our partners as quickly as possible.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given the supposition that the rebels will not engage in the important UN-led process unless Iran allows them to and that there is no interest in Iran in thawing relations with Saudi Arabia or improving Saudi Arabia’s perception in the world, how does my right hon. Friend see peace being delivered?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend speaks with knowledge of the area and asks a question that goes to the heart of the issue. Our perception is that channels are always available to different parties in conflict, which is one reason why all parties to the Quint process are so important. We hope that common humanity prevails in terms of what is being inflicted on the people of Yemen as a result of the insurgency—the attempted removal of a legitimate Government and all that has flowed from it—and that the parties appreciate that there is no military solution and that therefore there has to be a political solution. That applies to all parties. There are skilled negotiators, not least the UN special representative, those working with the Quint and those in the countries in the area who wish to see an end to this conflict because of the pain being suffered. I pay tribute to the Governments in the region who are attempting to mediate with both sides. The United Kingdom will give them every support.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister say a little more on how Saudi Arabia’s security concerns can be addressed to allow humanitarian aid access into Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

There is a UN verification and inspection mechanism, which works through UN professionals and technicians, to provide the tools to ensure that supplies coming into ports are subject to the right sort of testing. My understanding is that the UN and Saudi Arabia are in contact on this matter, and we would wish them to get onside as quickly as possible to do this. The problem with the smuggling of weapons is that they can go through various routes, which is always difficult, but we have to respond to the concerns of those who have had improved and increasingly sophisticated missiles targeted against them before there is a further catastrophe. It should not be impossible to be able to satisfy security conditions as well as to relieve humanitarian problems.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I highlight my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As someone who has spent time in Yemen on a number of occasions in the past, I associate myself with the remarks made by those on both sides of the House about the tragedy befalling this special country. The Minister is absolutely right. The immediate priority must be the alleviation of humanitarian suffering. Does he agree that the UK should, and indeed must, continue working to facilitate a multilateral ceasefire followed by a political solution, but that for that to have any long-term chance of success, it must emerge ultimately from the Yemenis and other parties to the conflict and not be imposed externally?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with some knowledge of the area and the subject. First, I commend Matthew Rycroft, our permanent representative at the UN, and our ambassador to Yemen, Simon Shercliff, for their efforts in driving the UN process and trying to bring the parties together. Secondly, ultimately there must and should be a Yemeni solution. If we could go back to the opportunities presented by the national dialogue—the people of Yemen were so close to something different before those in the country who have traditionally held power through the gun reasserted themselves—that is the solution we would all wish for. The reality, however, is that that will only come about when there is agreement between the current parties to the conflict, who have to find a way to set their weapons aside.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

The closure of Sana’a airport has reportedly cost over 10,000 lives as it continues to restrict humanitarian assistance. It is therefore paramount that the airport is reopened immediately. What recent representations has the Secretary of State made to the Saudi-led coalition on reopening Sana’a international airport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

We agree with the hon. Lady, and it is not just a question of getting supplies in; it is about getting humanitarian workers in and some medical cases out. There is worry about the airspace around Sana’a, hence the restrictions and concerns there, but I say again that we recognise the importance of Sana’a airport. It is one of those areas of access we wish to see reopened as quickly as possible.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is highly commendable that the UK is the fourth-largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, but equally we play a key role in diplomatic talks, not least with Saudi Arabia, so will the Minister give assurances that all pressure is being kept on Saudi Arabia to open access lines, especially given that Yemen is pretty much completely reliant on food imports?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend speaks with knowledge. Some 90% of the food and supplies that Yemen needs is imported. That is why the issues of the ports and airport are so important. Her question makes it very clear how important these issues are to the people of Yemen and why the United Kingdom is so engaged in dealing directly with parties to the coalition, whose security concerns we understand, but who must also appreciate the humanitarian consequences of the actions they are taking to protect themselves.

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is worth noting that the Houthi-Saleh alliance, which started this war against a legitimate Government, is a brutal army that has done some brutal things, as Members will see if they read the UN reports. Not only that, but it is 750 miles to Riyadh, so we are not talking about missiles made at the local foundry; this is the import of high-tech equipment. Moreover, the vast majority of people suffering are suffering in Houthi-held territory, and the Houthis are blocking the peace process. What can the Minister do to unblock the process and get the Houthis involved in peace in Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge on this subject and puts a necessary balance into the conversation. It is much easier to pick up on media interest in the Saudis and the coalition, so it has been harder to talk about what the Houthi insurgency has done, but he rightly points a finger at its numerous atrocities and human rights abuses. Its willingness to bring in sophisticated missiles to spread the conflict emphasises how important it is to bring it to an end and to support those trying legitimately to prevent it from taking over the country and subjecting its people to still more conflict and ill rule.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

As previously pointed out, today is the UN’s Universal Children’s Day, and the UN estimates that more than 2 million children are starving in Yemen, so will the Minister assure the House that the Government are doing all they can to lobby the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to allow aid into Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we are doing that, but again I draw attention to remarks made in the House about there being two sides to the conflict and the need to make sure that both contribute to an end to the conflict. That is the only way to ensure access to food, medicines and water in those areas currently under Houthi control. The heart-rending pictures of suffering children are an affront on a day like today, which is why we must continue to bend all our efforts to supporting a conclusion to this terrible conflict.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Minister says he hopes the crisis will be addressed via diplomatic and political means, but if this strategy fails and the blockade continues, will the British Government and other countries, given the pressing nature of the crisis, also consider sanctions against the Saudis, especially on arms exports?

[Alistair Burt]

I say again that we are some way away from that. First, we are working extremely hard with the coalition to understand the impact of those who would bring missiles to target their airports and civilian population, and in those circumstances, threatening them with sanctions is not appropriate. Secondly, to recognise just one side in this conflict only gives comfort to those who might wish to prolong the conflict because it puts pressure on others. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not mean to convey that, but it is why we are working so hard for a negotiated solution through the good offices of other states in the region.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The conflict in Yemen has led to a cholera outbreak that has affected more than 902,000 people and caused the deaths of more than 2,000. Given that the Yemeni medical system has collapsed, what engagement have the United Kingdom Government had with key international allies and the World Health Organisation to help to stem the rapid spread of cholera? It is treatable and also preventable if people have access to clean drinking water, which for too many has been out of reach owing to rising prices, lack of fuel for delivery and the blockade.

[Alistair Burt]

Two or three things are worth mentioning. One of the problems in the region has been the non-payment of public health workers. I have had three conversations with the current President of Yemen in which I have urged the Yemeni Government to make finance available to pay the workers whose job is to try to assist those who may be likely to get cholera. I know that some of the aid agencies have stepped into the breach and paid people to do the same, which has been magnificent. However, the United Kingdom has played its part. We have given £27 million to UNICEF to treat children with severe acute malnutrition, provide safe water supplies and critical hygiene items and support mobile health clinics, and £6 million has been specifically allocated to cholera response. We have been supporting the vaccination programme to try to make a difference. Of course access is vital, but we work through partners, and that is the way to help tackle the cholera epidemic.

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

May I, like my hon. Friends, condemn in the strongest possible terms the missile attack on a civilian target in Riyadh? There have also been many attacks on civilian targets in Yemen. What plans have the Government to apply the arms trade treaty to Saudi Arabia in future licensing decisions?

[Alistair Burt]

As has been mentioned before, arms licences in the United Kingdom are subject to strict controls. Everything is done on a case-by-case basis. I stress that we regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the coalition. Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that it is investigating reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law, and that lessons will be acted on. The coalition’s Joint Incidents Assessment Team has announced the findings of a total of 36 investigations, and the most recent were released on 12 September 2017. It is all being taken very seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to condemn that missile attack.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

What are the Government doing to bring all parties together, so that we can find an overall, collective solution to this tragedy?

[Alistair Burt]

The efforts to bring all parties together have pursued a number of different lines from the summer onwards, and, indeed, for months before that. At the New York General Assembly I hosted a meeting of the so-called Quad, which consists of the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations, to see what could be achieved. There is shortly to be another meeting of the Quad, and also a meeting of the Quint, which includes the Omanis, because we believe that they are key to the mediation in the area.

We are working to support the UN special representative, who has been tireless in his efforts to seek a solution, and working with all those who are using back channels and direct contacts to try to make all parties see that there is no future in the conflict. However—I must be clear about this—there are people in the region who make money out of the conflict, and numerous Yemenis have said that at present too many people who are involved in the conflict are comfortable about its going on. It is hard for us to understand how dreadful that is, but it is true. We must ensure that achieving peace is more beneficial for more people than those who wish to perpetrate war.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The firing of short-range ballistic missiles by Houthis towards Riyadh is designed to be provocative. I am worried that there are some reports that the Houthis are now able to manufacture a short-range ballistic missile, perhaps a Qaher 1, but I cannot believe they have that level of sophistication. What is my right hon. Friend’s opinion?

[Alistair Burt]

There are some matters on which I am unqualified and on which the backgrounds of my hon. Friend and others in the House is rather greater. I have no comment to make on the detail of the sophistication of the weaponry being used in the conflict, except to say that some very sophisticated weaponry appears to be coming in. That is a threat to the region as a whole and, through that, to all of us.

[Mr Speaker]

The self-effacement of the Minister of State is not only unsurpassed; it is unequalled in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and comments so far in recognition of the humanitarian disaster, which is almost of biblical proportions. Can he say a bit more about the work we will be doing as a member of the Security Council to help the UN get the aid that is so desperately needed into Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

The UK holds the pen at the UN, which means we have the primary responsibility among Security Council members for efforts to secure support for a negotiated peace, and the UK sponsored a presidential statement agreed on 15 June. That was an important signal of international concern, particularly about the deteriorating humanitarian situation. Our focus at the UN remains on encouraging all parties to convert the words of the text into action, and that work is going on in the UN all the time.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House today yet again to make a statement and to continue to keep us updated. What efforts are the Government and diplomatic staff undertaking to unlock the political deadlock of this terrible situation?

[Alistair Burt]

Part of the problem, as I alluded a moment ago, is that some parties have become comfortable with the conflict, and some parties in Yemen have been able to make a living with the conflict going on. There have to be incentives to people to make sure that a peace can be reached. To most of us, it is horrendous that anyone should be in that position, but the realities after a couple of years of conflict in the region have to be understood, and we only have to talk to Yemenis themselves to understand their despair and frustration. Accordingly, that is where the will of states must come in, in order to make sure that they can enforce a negotiated peace, but above all to make sure that those responsible for others realise that the only future for the people of Yemen is not in a continual state of conflict, but is in having government with the consent of the people, which can take a wonderful country, which is full of culture, music, architecture and all the good things we rarely talk about, and give its people the chance of the future they richly deserve.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

UNICEF has praised the UK for the aid it has already contributed to the country. Will the Minister say a little more about what pressure he feels can be brought on Iran to end its supply to the Houthis, who are still indulging in things like forced marriage and the use of children as soldiers?

[Alistair Burt]

Our relationship with Iran is changing: since going to the inauguration of President Rouhani we have made it clear that, although there are many differences between us—not least Iran’s support for what we consider to be insurgencies and terrorist action—it sees the world differently from others in the region, but the logical consequence of that not being addressed is dire. Accordingly, if there are pathways to encourage people to see their region differently and to try to create relationships that at present seem difficult, the UK’s role these days is to encourage that. There are already relationships between certain states in the region that 50 years ago we would not have expected, so who knows what can happen in the future, but we will continue to work with those in the region, including Iran, to encourage them towards a regional situation that no longer relies on confrontation, but relies instead on consensual support for their peoples.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Considering the awful humanitarian situation, and despite the missile being smuggled into Yemen and fired into Saudi, does my right hon. Friend believe that it is possible to get more aid, perhaps trusted UK aid, to the Yemeni people?

[Alistair Burt]

Although there is some access through some of the southern ports, the quality of access is not yet good enough and does not cover enough areas. We are looking to use any means we can—with our partners the World Food Programme, UNICEF and others—to get aid in, but more access is needed, which is why we want to ensure that the ports are safe for those who fear weapons coming in and are also open to the humanitarian access that is so badly needed.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Following the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), does he share my concern that there appears to have been a serious breach of United Nations Security Council resolution 2216, at the ultimate cost of a worsening of the conditions of the people of Yemen and of greater regional instability? Alongside supporting humanitarian efforts, what can the UK do to assist the UN in the ongoing investigation to which he has referred?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right to say that a UN investigation is taking place into the circumstances surrounding the missile. We are certainly concerned about where the parts for that missile might have come from, and that could indeed involve a breach of the arms embargo. We have offered the UN all our technical expertise because it is essential that the incident is fully investigated, and it is unfair to cast aspersions if they are not correct. It is also essential to get to the root of this and, above all, to stop the smuggling getting in. That is part of the key to improving humanitarian access.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Minister of State and to colleagues. I fear that it will almost inevitably be necessary for these matters to be aired again in the Chamber before very long.

Ukrainian Holodomor

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate, which, for her, is not just a matter of routine. She spoke eloquently, and with emotion and passion, about the difficulty of the events we are describing today. It was one of those speeches, like that of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), that I wish there were more people around to hear; but I have no doubt that, through the miracles of modern science, more people will get the opportunity to hear the speeches. I congratulate hon. Members on what they have said.

I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), whose portfolio includes Ukraine. He is travelling on ministerial duties, but would have been pleased to answer the debate. It therefore falls to me to do so.

The powerful opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and the contributions of other hon. Members have brought home the immense suffering and brutality of the Ukrainian holodomor. I remember my own contact with the Ukrainian community in north Manchester very well. My wife and I visited the Smedley Lane community centre numerous times. We went one year at Eastertime to decorate the eggs. I think my children, who are now 30 and 32, still have them somewhere in a corner of the bedroom. We watched beautiful dancing, and we enjoyed being with the Ukrainian community in Bury and north Manchester. It is nice to have the opportunity to pay tribute to their courtesy and friendliness towards one of the local MPs, and to thank them.

The hon. Member for Ealing North spoke as fluently as he always does. He puts us all to shame. There is never a note in sight, and he speaks with a fluency clearly based on deep general knowledge and understanding of the situation. He represents his community very well, and, having travelled with him to eastern Europe with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I know that those patterns are very deep. He spoke with immense clarity, on the Armenian issue and on Ukraine, and other issues; it was a powerful speech. His kindness towards me is appreciated, particularly when, as I am sure he knows, I am unable to agree with his conclusion and change the Government’s position. I appreciate the way he put things.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), speaking for the Scottish National party, drew attention to a part of British history—the Irish famine and the highland clearances—with echoes in the present context. My ancestors, the Robertsons, are buried in a common grave on Culloden field, and the story of the highland clearances and the writing of John Prebble have influenced many of us to try to understand more about rather forgotten elements of British history. Scots brought up in England do not hear a lot about Scottish history. However, history and memory more than a legal definition are at the heart of the matter. Definitions matter, and names and what things are called matter; but memory probably matters more—how communities remember what happened in the past, and recognising atrocities for what they are, whether a particular label is put on to those things.

When a community survives such a thing, the things that are highly pertinent are the development of tight relationships, as well as commemoration through poetry, song, dance or—particularly in the cases of communities that move abroad—spending time together and continuing the language and affection for the region. The debate must focus on the legal definition of genocide as the United Kingdom sees it, and the fact that, as I shall explain, the UK cannot change its position; but that does not detract from the understanding of memory on which this afternoon’s speeches have been based.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire movingly quoted a poem, but there are others, such as “Through the Eyes of a Child” by Halia Dmytryshyn. The poem describes Ukraine as a land of song and plenty whose soil is enriched with minerals, and all the food that is available, and then moves on to death and famine stalking the land like ravaging wolves. Such language in a way does more than a legal definition of genocide.

Having made those general remarks, let me return to the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. She certainly made clear the immense suffering and brutality of the Ukrainian holodomor. It was a devastating chapter in Soviet and Ukrainian history. My hon. Friend and the Ukrainian community in her constituency—and throughout the country—deserve credit for keeping the memory alive. In doing so, they honour the victims and strengthen our resolve to ensure that such horrors never happen again. The famine, which reached its darkest depths during 1932 and 1933, was a tragedy of such magnitude that it is difficult to comprehend; 85 years later it remains a shocking reminder of the deadly consequences of the policies and political goals of the Soviet Union. As the hon. Member for Ealing North made clear, it is hard to comprehend how such an event would be covered today when, with modern communications, we would be able to see much more of what was happening, or to know what the impact of that awareness would have been.

There is still some debate about the exact number of people who died during the holodomor and the extent to which Stalin and his Government set out systematically to destroy Ukraine alone. However, it is not in question that the famine caused appalling suffering, and that responsibility for it lay squarely with the leaders of the Soviet Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has called on the Government to recognise the holodomor as a genocide. I understand the basis for her request. I remember dealing with a debate in this Chamber with similar aims, about what happened to the Kurdish community under Saddam Hussein, and how difficult it was to respond. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) mentioned, there are certain legal requirements that successive British Governments have believed we must follow. It was hard, in responding, not to give the legal recognition that people would want. However, we believe that there are sound reasons to refrain from doing so.

The matters in question are essentially criminal ones, and we believe that the appropriate courts are best placed to make a judgment on them, taking all the evidence into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire asked in particular about direction to UK courts; but it is not necessarily for UK courts to decide. The legal definition can be decided by any court anywhere. Our approach has guided successive UK Governments in relation to other atrocities. The decisions to recognise as genocides the holocaust, the 1994 killings in Rwanda, and the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica came about only following judgments by appropriate courts in line with the definition set out in international law. Having been to Rwanda and Srebrenica and seen the after-effects, and spoken to people, I am aware that the definition matters. The definition was found appropriate in those circumstances, and used.

[Stephen Pound]

Earlier the Minister mentioned the contribution that Ukrainian people have made to this country. They made a huge contribution to coal mining and steel; there is a huge Ukrainian community in Sheffield. There was even a Member of Parliament—Simon Danczuk, who is no longer in the House—of Ukrainian origin. Many Ukrainian people will be listening today. Does the Minister agree that if the holodomor took place today, there would be no doubt that it should be called a genocide?

[Alistair Burt]

It is a good question, but I am not sure that I know the answer. As I have said, that is how the Kurdish community regards what happened to it under Saddam Hussein, and the chemical warfare inflicted on its people in relatively recent times. Because most, though not all, countries have recognised that the definition of genocide is a legal one, rather than a political act, I am not necessarily certain about what the hon. Gentleman says. I should hope that the world’s response would be not to allow something of that magnitude to happen, but I have spent the past couple of hours dealing with events in the middle east, from Yemen through to the activities of Daesh in Iraq. It would be nice to say that we live in a world where “never again” means never again, but I do not think for a moment that we do. I am not sure what the definition would be.

However, the world might be able to stop such events, and action might be taken against the perpetrators. That is now possible, as it was possible after Srebrenica, when people were taken to court through the work of the International Commission on Missing Persons, which identified those who had died. The identifications of the dead and of the places where they had died led to the identification of those who had killed them, so justice could be done. That is certainly something that would probably happen in the modern day. The purpose of today’s debate is the world’s recognition of the atrocity for what it was. That is the reason for the work of those who keep its memory alive—whatever dates are most appropriate for commemorating it.

[Mrs Latham]

The Minister mentioned what happened in Rwanda. That was never known as a genocide while it was happening, although the population talked about a genocide; it came afterwards. Does the Minister have an answer to the question why the world does not want to recognise something as genocide while it is happening? There is the Rohingya crisis at the moment, and there have been continuous genocides happening, but the world does not want to recognise them until they are over, which is too late to do anything about them.

[Alistair Burt]

I honestly do not believe that it is too late to do anything about them; the definition or designation of events, whether at the time or afterwards, does not prevent Governments of the world from taking appropriate action to deal with them. The fact that since 1948 it has been possible to designate events, and to strengthen the hand of the international community if it wants to take action in those cases, is important. Rwanda and Srebrenica were dealt with by a legal definition, and that is what the United Kingdom still depends on when dealing with more contemporary events. That the Ukrainian holodomor happened some 85 years ago makes no difference to the depth of pain and suffering endured, or to the horrors that my hon. Friend rightly described.

I am afraid that the Government remain convinced that recognition decisions should be based on credible judicial processes, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr agreed with that. Our stance on the holodomor will continue to follow that approach. He asked a couple of questions, to which I would like to respond. On our engagement with Ukraine, the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people in upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we remain committed to providing political and practical support to Ukraine over the long term. The UK has been at the forefront of international efforts to hold Russia to account for its aggression in Ukraine, and the EU, NATO, the G7, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN will continue to do so.

We remain clear that sanctions are linked to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements and the end of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and we will continue to push for that commitment to be upheld. We believe that sanctions should continue until the Minsk agreements are fully implemented, and I have seen no suggestion that that should change in any way as a result of our leaving the EU.

As Members will know, my view is that our political relationships with the EU should be as close as possible. The United Kingdom has benefited enormously politically from our relationships throughout the EU when dealing with common crises in a common and united way. One of the more unfortunate consequences of the people’s decision to leave the European Union is that that is called into question, but I see no need for that to be the case. It is clearly in the United Kingdom’s interests, following March 2019, to ensure that political relationships remain close. We will not be at Council of Ministers meetings in future, but Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are particularly concerned to find alternative ways of ensuring the sorts of relationships that one could develop in the margins of those meetings.

Although I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, which it is perfectly fair to raise, my sense from the Department for International Development and the FCO, both of which I represent, is that there is determination to ensure that those close relationships with our friends and partners in the European Union are not broken in any way by our decision to take a different path in the future—a future in which they will be partners, but in a slightly different manner.

Before I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire to conclude the debate, let me say that our approach to the legal definition should in no way diminish the importance or enormity of the Ukrainian holodomor and what the Government think about it; nor does it diminish the horror that we feel about it. It remains vital to remember and reflect on such tragedies, and to recommit to working to ensure that they do not happen again. The importance of that cannot be overstated. In the 85 years since the beginning of the holodomor, countless people, both inside and outside Ukraine, have fought to keep alive the memory of those millions who died, and the Government pay tribute to their efforts. This chapter in Europe’s history is too important to be forgotten, and it is vital that it be commemorated, so that lessons can be learned for generations to come. We are indebted to all colleagues who have taken part in the debate for doing just that.

Yemen

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of the escalation of Saudi Arabia’s blockade on the humanitarian situation in Yemen.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)]

First, it has been made clear where the Secretary of State is, and we have apologised for her being on a visit to Africa. Let me answer the question.

Yemen is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis: 21 million people in Yemen are in need of humanitarian assistance, and nearly 10 million are in need of immediate help to support or sustain life. As the third-largest humanitarian donor to Yemen and the second-largest donor to the UN appeal, the UK is already leading the world’s response to the crisis in Yemen. Our funding of £155 million this year will provide enough food for 1.8 million people for at least a month, nutrition support for 1.7 million people and clean water and sanitation for an expected 1.2 million people. 

As penholder on Yemen at the United Nations Security Council, the UK was responsible for a presidential statement earlier this year that called on all parties to provide safe, rapid and unhindered access for humanitarian supplies and personnel to all affected governorates in Yemen. We continue to call on all parties to the conflict to respect the statement and take action accordingly.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement on Sunday 5 November, the UK condemns the attempted missile strike on Riyadh this Saturday in the strongest terms. The ongoing ballistic missile attacks by Houthi-Saleh forces against Saudi Arabia threaten regional security and prolong the conflict. This latest attack deliberately targeted a civilian area. We therefore recognise the coalition’s concern about illicit flows of weapons to the Houthis, in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolution 2216. 

We also recognise that, following Saturday’s attack, Saudi Arabia needs to take urgent measures to stem the flow of weapons into Yemen. At the same time, it is vital that the country remains open to humanitarian and commercial access. The Saudi-led coalition has confirmed that it will take into account the provision of humanitarian supplies. We are encouraging it to ensure that humanitarian supplies and access can continue. Our ambassador is actively making this case directly to the Saudi authorities.

Finally, there remains a desperate need for a political solution to the Yemen conflict, to help to end the suffering of the Yemeni people, to counter destabilising interference and to end attacks on neighbouring countries. It is vital that this situation does not escalate further. The United Kingdom will continue to work towards a political settlement that supports regional stability, and calls on all countries in the region to support that goal. We will also continue to support our partners in the region in protecting themselves against security threats.

[Stephen Twigg]

I join the Minister in condemning the missile strike on Riyadh by the Houthis, which has been described by Human Rights Watch as

“most likely a war crime”.

We have seen alleged violations of international humanitarian law on all sides of this conflict. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards the independent investigation that was agreed at the recent United Nations Human Rights Council? I welcome what he says about seeking to bring all parties back to the table in Geneva. Can he tell us what progress has been made towards securing a ceasefire, so that a political solution can be achieved?

The scale of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is truly appalling. The cholera outbreak is considered the worst on record, and as the Minister said, the UN estimates that more than 20 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian assistance, with 7 million on the brink of famine. The Saudi-led coalition has now intensified its blockade. With 90% of Yemen’s food imported, that risks making the dire humanitarian situation even worse. Does the Minister agree that that blockade could constitute unlawful collective punishment of the people of Yemen?

The Minister mentioned the representations that our ambassador was making. What representations has he and the Foreign Secretary made to Saudi Arabia to have the blockade lifted as soon as possible? I urge the Minister and the Government to do everything in their power to get that inhumane blockade lifted.

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chair of the International Development Committee, for raising this issue. Let me try to take matters in order. On the reaction to the incident, we should in no way mistake the intent of the direction of that missile or where it came from. An Iranian-supplied missile to the Houthis was deliberately fired towards Riyadh airport, with all the implications that that involves. That the Saudis would take immediate steps to safeguard their country and ensure that the flow of missiles into Yemen was further checked is not unreasonable.

At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman makes clear, it is vital that humanitarian and commercial access should continue. We have consistently urged the coalition to take all reasonable steps to allow and facilitate rapid and safe access for humanitarian assistance and essential commercial imports of food and fuel. We are actively engaged with the coalition and those responsible for humanitarian support in Yemen to try to find a way that will enable the blockade not to affect the humanitarian access, while still safeguarding the important rights of those in Saudi Arabia who might be under attack. I spoke to the Saudi Minister on Saturday, shortly before the attack took place. I intend to speak to him again shortly, either today or tomorrow. Since Saturday night, the ambassador has been actively engaged in Riyadh in trying to deal with these issues.

In relation to cholera and malnutrition, we try to be at the forefront of international efforts on both those topics to provide support to UN agencies that are actively involved, and we will continue to do that.

Importantly, on the political negotiations, I am well aware of what is happening there. We had a meeting in New York recently, and there is likely to be another ministerial meeting shortly at which we will be trying to find a pathway through to the descaling of the conflict. This is not just about the coalition forces. It is about the Houthis and those who support them, and about whether they have any willingness to take regard of the appalling condition of the people of Yemen, which has been caused by their actions in starting the conflict and usurping a legitimate elected Government.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK is playing a leading role in the response to the appalling humanitarian crisis in Yemen, as the third largest humanitarian donor to Yemen in the world and the second largest donor to the UN appeal?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to make that case. The United Kingdom has played as big a part as it possibly can, whether through its bilateral support or through UN agencies. In September, we announced a £16 million uplift in funding to Yemen, which took our total funding for this year to £155 million, as I detailed earlier. This will support millions of people with food, clean water and sanitation, and other life-saving interventions. We recently reallocated £8 million specifically towards the cholera response, but further work is necessary and the United Kingdom is contributing what it can.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for asking this urgent question. The escalation of the conflict in Yemen in recent weeks, resulting in the Saudi-led coalition closing all land, air and sea entry points, represents a particularly alarming development, even in a protracted conflict that is now more than two years old.

The country is already facing the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history, with more than 800,000 cases, and more than 20 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. The blockading of ports will only add to the already catastrophic humanitarian situation, and the UK must do whatever it can to ensure that we mitigate the impact of this new development.

With the UK’s own actions in mind, will the Minister tell us how the Department for International Development is responding to this new development, and what assessments have been made of the blockade’s impact on DFID’s humanitarian operation across Yemen? Given that other countries, such as the US, refused to sell arms to countries that impose humanitarian blockades, will Her Majesty’s Government now finally re-evaluate their decision to continue to sell arms to the Saudi-led coalition and suspend further arms sales immediately?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. The first and most important thing is to try to ease any impact of the blockade in relation to humanitarian access. I returned to the fact that missiles flow into Yemen through ports and through other areas. The firing of those missiles puts innocent civilians at risk, both in and outside Yemen, and it is not unreasonable to seek to ensure that that does not happen. We stand by those who want to take such measures to prevent that action from happening, while at the same time ensuring that there is appropriate access for humanitarian and commercial supplies. The commercial supplies feed people, as well as the humanitarian aid, and they are therefore essential.

Since the events at the weekend, and as part of the Government’s approach, DFID has made representations because we want to ensure that the UN agencies that we fund have that access. But of course, the situation is particularly difficult in the immediate aftermath of an event that could have had catastrophic consequences, including for UK citizens, has that missile landed on Riyadh airport. The hon. Lady is right, however, to concentrate on the blockade. We will do all we can to press the point that we have to find a way through for increased humanitarian and commercial access.

On the arms control issue, the House knows that this matter is extensively trawled over by the Department and that we have a rigorous arms control regime in place. Every request for support is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Government were recently successful in the legal action in relation to that, but that does not stop us being very careful about any supplies. The important thing is to end the conflict, and that is what the United Kingdom is devoted to. However, too little attention is given to the fact that there are two sides to this conflict and that it could come to an end tomorrow if the Houthis and those who support them would agree to the negotiations that are necessary to end it, so that Yemen can at last emerge from a period of some years in which the people have not been well regarded by those who purport to govern them, to give them the chance they deserve.

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

Have the Government made an assessment of the current political convulsions in Saudi Arabia? If so, might there be implications for the situation in Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

Well, if the House has 20 minutes—[Laughter.] In an ever-fascinating region, to add to what we know about what is happening in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the moment would take a little while. Recent events in Saudi Arabia include Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman consolidating his already strong position by taking action at the weekend on corruption as part of his efforts to drive Saudi Arabia forward. He believes that the “Vision 2030” plan—the economic and social advancement of Saudi Arabia—cannot be achieved without dealing with corruption, which is so widespread across the region. The decision that certain individuals had to be arrested and questioned about their activities has had a clear impact.

The relevance to Yemen is limited, but there is no doubt about the impact of the missile strike on Saudi Arabia, in addition to the missile strikes that already take place. The House does not always concentrate on the number of civilians in Saudi Arabia who have lost their lives as a result of missiles from Yemen. My right hon. Friend is right that the combination of the two factors means that we have to work even harder to try to find a negotiated solution, which is what all parties now seriously want.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The scale of the devastation and cruelty outlined by the Chair of the International Development Committee and by the Minister should haunt us all, but the Minister sees his Government’s record through somewhat rose-tinted glasses. The Saudi Government have benefited from the sale of £3.8 billion-worth of weapons from this country, yet the Government have given only £200 million in aid to Yemen. Will the Minister explain that large disparity? As other Members have said, should we not join countries such as Germany and the Netherlands by suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Does the Minister not see that there is an inconsistency in the Government ending a prisons contract with Saudi Arabia over human rights concerns, but not suspending arms sales over the humanitarian crisis in Yemen? Finally, will he outline what he hopes to achieve at the joint Foreign Ministers meeting with Saudi Arabia, the United States, Oman and the UAE on 14 November? What will Her Majesty’s Government be calling for, and what is he hopeful of achieving?

[Alistair Burt]

Let me start with the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We have convened that meeting, which we hope will be in London, and it follows a meeting that I hosted in New York at the end of the General Assembly of the United Nations that involved what is known as the “quad”—the United Kingdom, the United States, the UAE and Saudi Arabia—meeting the UN special envoy for Yemen to discuss progress on the negotiations and talks. The engagement of Oman is about trying to provide the link that will get the Houthis and those who support them to engage in the talks and use the good offices of Oman to try to achieve that in Muscat. It is part of an effort made over many months to support the work of the UN special envoy, to try to make political progress, which the United Kingdom is doing all it can to facilitate. What do I hope comes out of it? I hope that we get a detailed plan for the de-escalation of the conflict, but that will work only if all parties agree to it. It is a matter of utmost concern to the United Kingdom that we do that and that is what we are engaged in.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, I spoke earlier about the arms control situation. It is not the United Kingdom’s policy to change matters in relation to Saudi Arabia, but to continue to use rigorous arms controls mechanisms and our legal obligations, not least to ensure that international humanitarian law is applied in relation to the use of any United Kingdom weapons by the Saudis. Any allegations that that is not happening are open to legal challenge.

As I have indicated, we are the third largest donor of humanitarian aid to Yemen. We have supplied £150 million this year to provide nutrition for 1.7 million people and clean water and sanitation for 1.2 million people. However, I fully appreciate that unless the conflict comes to an end the handing over of aid is a plaster over the situation. The whole House should be united in wanting to see the negotiations succeed, and that is what the United Kingdom is spending all its efforts on.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no-one should envy the Saudi-led coalition and the complexity of the task it has set itself, under a unanimous mandate from the UN Security Council, to deliver some security and stability in Yemen? Is he able to give us some sense of the number of Saudi civilians who have been killed by missiles coming from Houthi-held areas, as illustrated today by the missile that was fired at Riyadh?

[Alistair Burt]

The number of deaths among the Saudis is measured in hundreds and relates to a variety of missile attacks over a significant period. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the complexity and difficulty of the situation that the coalition is trying to deal with: an insurrection against an elected Government that is complicated by all the history of Yemen. That is why it is taking such effort to try to pull it all together. There is also the unwelcome involvement of those who are supplying weapons to the Houthis, instead of contributing to the peace process. There is always a chance for any of the parties involved to play a part now, recognising the seriousness of the humanitarian situation.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The profile of Daesh terrorism in the region is increasing. What are the United Kingdom and the international community doing to prevent the collapse of Daesh in Syria from further prolonging the horrific humanitarian situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman is mostly right in his questions, and he is back on form with that one. As Daesh collapses elsewhere, he is absolutely right that it will look for other areas of instability to exploit. Al-Qaeda is already exploiting the peninsula, which is why the prolonging of this dispute, particularly the engagement of those outside who are supplying weapons to the Houthis, makes life much more difficult. The United Kingdom is trying to end the conflict by negotiation, but in the meantime we support the coalition’s efforts to prevent any further conflict and damage to civilians.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of the Iranian Government both in Yemen and in the wider region are having a direct impact on the lives of millions of people in the Arabian peninsula? Does he agree that the position of Her Majesty’s Government must be to face the enemies not only of our own country, but of our allies? In this region, the situation points to Iran.

[Alistair Burt]

How my hon. Friend perceives the situation is correct. In many ways, we are trying to understand a future Iran that is looking for engagement with the wider world on the one hand, but is engaged in disruptive activity on the other, whether in Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Bahrain. There is always the opportunity for those who have been responsible for such disruption to change, and our engagement with Iran is partly about providing the opportunity for it to be part of an answer, rather than part of a problem.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Is it not a bit misleading for Ministers to suggest that there is rigorous control of arms exports in this House when the Committees on Arms Export Controls have not met for several months for several reasons? They will be meeting soon, but almost a year has gone by without a meeting, and the outcome on exports to Saudi Arabia may have been different.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s question. Having been at the receiving end of Sir John Stanley on many occasions, I know how rigorous the House can be. However, re-establishing the Committees is more of a matter for Parliament than the Government. The Government would be entirely open to that, but the rigorous control of the law is certainly clear and very much in the Government’s mind.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

The Minister highlights easing the blockade and supporting innocent civilians as a priority. Will he update the House on the viability of peace talks and on the role the UK is playing in cajoling everyone to come to the table? How likely are such talks, and what could be the outcome if we get around the table?

[Alistair Burt]

I commend the actions of our ambassador to Yemen, Simon Shercliff, and our permanent representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, both locally and internationally in support of the work I mentioned earlier to get the various parties together and to find a negotiated outcome. They, in particular, are doing all they can, and they have the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

How does the Minister reconcile the fact that the urgent humanitarian disaster in Yemen, which we are rightly sending aid to try to address, has been made worse by the weapons the UK has sold to Saudi Arabia?

[Alistair Burt]

If no further weapons were supplied by the United Kingdom, the conflict would still go on. [Interruption.] That simply happens to be true. There has been conflict in the area for some considerable time, and there are many issues to be decided. I wish it were as simple as the United Kingdom making a single decision and all the conflict in the area comes to an end, but I cannot see it.

[Jo Swinson]

That’s not what I said.

[Alistair Burt]

It is exactly what the hon. Lady said. I make it very clear that I do not believe it would assist the situation; I think it would make it more difficult for the United Kingdom to play the part it is playing in the negotiations—that is the most important thing.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the UN appeal for Yemen raised only just over half its target? Does he agree it is now time for other countries to follow the UK’s lead by making pledges or by honouring the pledges already made?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sadly, there is appeal fatigue at present. Whether it is new issues such as the Rohingya or the pressures in northern Iraq with the fall of Mosul and Raqqa, as well as Yemen, it is true that efforts to raise money through UN appeals have been very difficult, which is why it is important that the United Kingdom keeps up its extraordinary record. I am proud that the United Kingdom has been such a donor, both bilaterally and through these appeals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There seems to be a softening of attitudes towards human rights in Saudi Arabia and, I hope, towards a more secular society. Will the Minister indicate whether he has had discussions with Saudi Arabia’s new leaders about resuming peace talks, using the scheduled meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Oman and the United Arab Emirates on 14 November?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already engaged in direct conversations with His Royal Highness Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. I engaged with the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Minister of the UAE and others at the weekend. There is a constant conversation. We all desperately want to see an end to this conflict and crisis. More than just the coalition is involved, which is why efforts have to be made with the Houthis and those who support them. The involvement of Iran is so important, as Iran could also make a contribution to peace. All efforts are being made, and my right hon. Friend is working extremely hard on the situation.

Israel: Meetings

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding her meetings in Israel in August 2017.

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

I start by explaining that the Secretary of State is on a pre-arranged Government visit to Africa—[Interruption.] She is currently in the air. She is on a pre-arranged visit to Africa, to focus on how we are breaking down barriers to trade, helping African countries achieve their development ambitions, reducing dependence on aid and helping build Britain’s trading partners of the future.

I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the Secretary of State’s trip to Israel earlier this year, and I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The Secretary of State made a public statement yesterday. In that, she explained that she had the opportunity to meet a number of people and organisations in Israel. A list of who she met and what was covered was published in yesterday’s statement.

The Secretary of State realises in hindsight that those meetings were not arranged following the usual procedures, and she has apologised for that. The Foreign Office has said that UK interests were not damaged or affected by the meetings on that visit. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree that now she has made that apology and published details of the meetings, we should accept that and refocus on our vital work of tackling extreme poverty and humanitarian crises across the world.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the Minister for being here, but it is simply unacceptable that the Secretary of State is not here before the House to answer this question and explain herself.

The British public are outraged that the Secretary of State held 12 secret meetings in Israel, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu, without telling either the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister, and was accompanied by a pro-Israeli lobbyist. She then misled the British public with comments on Friday that she finally corrected yesterday. It has now emerged that the Prime Minister met her Israeli counterpart last week without even knowing about the secret meeting in August.

Today we learned that the Secretary of State has applied pressure to her Department to divert humanitarian funding to the Israeli army in the Golan Heights. Will the Minister tell the House exactly what was discussed in those secret meetings, and exactly what pressure the Secretary of State applied on her Department when she returned to the UK?

It is hard to think of a more black and white case of breaking the ministerial code of conduct, but rather than change the Minister, the Prime Minister somehow decided last night that the ministerial code itself needed changing.

We have a Prime Minister who has lost her authority and her control of the classroom. Does the Minister accept that it is time the Secretary of State either faces a Cabinet Office investigation, or does the decent thing and resigns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

First, I repeat that the Secretary of State is already on her way to Africa on a pre-arranged visit. She is already flying and it is not possible for her to deal with the question, but that is why I am here. The Secretary of State published a statement yesterday, with an apology.

Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions as she put them. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was informed of the Secretary of State’s visit during the course of the visit, but not before. The Secretary of State has been very clear and absolutely contrite. Her statement yesterday recognises that of course she should have informed the Foreign Office before the visit, but she did not. That is why the statement was made and that is why she has apologised. In the statement, she also gave full details of the meetings she had. They are not verbatim accounts, but she has given details of who she saw and the subjects that were discussed, which I think is quite appropriate. I do not think that that means they were particularly secret meetings, particularly as the Foreign Office was aware, during the course of the visit, that she had been seeing people in Israel.

On the ministerial code of conduct, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has apologised to the Prime Minister for her handling of this matter. The Prime Minister has accepted her apology. The Foreign Office was aware of her visit to Israel while it was under way. The Foreign Office is also clear that UK interests were not damaged or affected by the meetings on this visit. The Prime Minister regards the matter as closed.

I would like to make a couple more points, if I may. Let us look at who my right hon. Friend met: leading politicians; an emergency humanitarian aid non-governmental organisation; Pears Programme for Global Innovation; and a group that works on water, farming, solar and hospital projects in Africa; she visited Save a Child’s Heart to talk about a co-existence project; the Galilee International Management Institute and held a meeting with a group of start-ups with a focus on Africa. Does the hon. Lady think that she should not have met those people? If I had been in Israel on a two-day visit, I would have wanted a programme just like this.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

You would have told the ambassador.

[Alistair Burt]

I would have told the ambassador—of course I would. But if we look at the quality of the meetings, who my right hon. Friend saw and what her job is, they are all absolutely pertinent.

One last point if I may, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) raised the question of pressure on the Department afterwards. As the Minister responsible for development in that area, I can say that two issues were raised by the Secretary of State on her return. One related to aid currently being provided by the Israeli army for those in Syria who could not get medical assistance or cross the border to get it from the Israeli Defence Forces. The second issue she raised was whether there was room for more co-operation between the UK and the Israeli aid agency, as we look at issues right across the region.

We looked at both issues. The Department’s view is that aid to the IDF in the Golan Heights is not appropriate —we do not do that—and that was the advice given to the Secretary of State. We are looking hard to see if there is room to co-operate with the Israeli aid organisation, as we do with others around the region. There was no pressure put on the Department. They were perfectly pertinent questions to raise on her return. She raised them in an entirely the proper way with the Department and with me, and we are dealing with it. She is doing her job as Development Secretary. That is what she is doing today and that is what the meetings disclose.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

The spotlight is on the proceedings and behaviour of all of us in this place as never before. What people want is transparency and accountability. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is time, finally, to address the issue of privileged access, lobbying and funding if we are not to have this repeated time and time again? Does he not agree that all organisations involved in active lobbying of Members of Parliament and Ministers should open their books and be entirely transparent, so that we can see who is lobbying whom and who is providing the funding?

[Alistair Burt]

Questions about lobbying and transparency are really important for the House and for Ministers, which is why it was important for the Secretary of State to disclose who she was with and the organisations she went to see. Wider questions about lobbying and funding are for others, but I think the Secretary of State has, having made the statement yesterday to disclose what she had done, been entirely transparent in relation to her visit.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I share the astonishment of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that the Secretary of State is not here to defend herself. It would appear that the Government have such little credibility left that Ministers are now freelancing on foreign policy. I wonder if the Minister will answer these questions. Will he confirm whether the Chancellor was briefed about the outrageous development that UK aid funding was to be given to the Israeli army? What action is the Prime Minister taking to ensure the matter is investigated in terms of the ministerial code? Does he have faith that the Secretary of State still has the ability and credibility to carry on?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I do not think the Chancellor was informed, because it never became a policy, or had the chance to become a policy, to fund the Israeli Defence Forces in the Golan Heights. Secondly, as I said a moment ago, as far as the ministerial code is concerned, the Prime Minister has seen the Secretary of State, who has explained and apologised again for not informing people beforehand. The Prime Minister regards the matter as closed, but she is looking to tighten up the ministerial code to make it very clear what the process should be. Do I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend? Of course I do.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

When I met the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, he stormed out of the meeting. The Secretary of State got a much more cordial reception. Is it just because she is a lady?

[Alistair Burt]

I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to answer on either how my right hon. Friend was treated or the reception for the Secretary of State for International Development, but I am quite sure that both meetings were perfectly proper and appropriate.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister read out an incredibly long list of meetings that the Secretary of State held in Israel on what I thought was supposed to be a family holiday. Did she have any meetings with the Palestinian side? The Minister will, as Middle East Minister, appreciate the importance of a wholly balanced approach to the middle east peace process and not a one-sided one. If she is in the air now, she could have delayed her departure, couldn’t she, and shown some courtesy to this House. It is very difficult for us to know, Mr Speaker, whether the Secretary of State for International Development or the Foreign Secretary has the worse relationship with accuracy. If we had a Prime Minister who was not so weak, both would have been sacked.

[Alistair Burt]

The Secretary of State says, in her very full statement yesterday, that she was on a family holiday between 13 and 25 August, which is 12 days. She took two days out of that holiday to have a series of meetings with Israeli politicians and political people, and a number of different charities, including, as I said earlier, Save a Child’s Heart, which works with Palestinian children as well as Israeli children. The list of meetings has been published. I do not see that she specifically had a set of meetings with those representing Palestinian interests, but of course she has met those on other occasions. It is a full disclosure of work. She had two days off in the middle of a holiday. I suspect that is not particularly unusual for Ministers, who sometimes do other things. But you would, of course, let the Foreign Office know in advance, which my right hon. Friend did not, and that was the error for which she has apologised. The meetings were really pertinent to her work, to our work and to British interests.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Given that Foreign Office Ministers and International Development Ministers now share responsibilities across the two Departments, and that we have two Secretaries of State, is there not a need to clarify the position for Ministers visiting particular countries—whether the Foreign Office or DFID is informed —so that we clear this matter up once and for all?

[Alistair Burt]

Having been around a bit, I would hope that the ministerial code makes it clear what the sequence of events ought to be. Most Ministers should let the local embassy know they are going to be there, in case something happens while they are—that is reasonable practice, including sometimes for holidays. Certainly, if a Minister is going to have meetings in a country, they need to make it very clear that they want to have them and get them set up. That is the appropriate process. Again, my right hon. Friend has said very clearly that she did not do that, and she has apologised, and I suspect that someone will not be doing something like this for a very long time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a real shame that the Minister is acting as an air raid shelter here—I think if he reflects later, he will not be proud of what he has done today. The honest truth is that if the Secretary of State had said in this House what she said in public last week, when she misled the public, by now she would have been referred to the Committee on Standards. I honestly say to the Minister: either there is a Government with collective responsibility in which people talk to one another before they potentially meet significant people in other Governments, or there is not a Government, and if there is not a Government, it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State should resign, but a question of whether they should all resign.

[Alistair Burt]

To return to the core of the issue, my right hon. Friend accepts that she should have discussed the visit before she went and made it very clear what she was going to do. In relation to what she said to The Guardian last week, again she has made it clear that her words left room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, which is why she issued the statement yesterday and is clarifying matters. She regrets not being clearer in her language, which is appropriate, and I think it perfectly reasonable that I have been asked to do this today, given that she is continuing her work as International Development Secretary abroad and so could not be here.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s apology. My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that we often come to this issue with history and positions previously taken: he is a former treasurer of the Conservative Friends of Israel, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State are regarded as very strong supporters of Israel. My right hon. Friend will know how important it is, when people get into these positions and hold responsibilities for whole-of-Government policy, that they understand all the perspectives around this awful conflict, which is at the heart of so many of the problems in the middle east. He is probably the best equipped of her Ministers to take her gently in hand, and I hope that he does.

[Alistair Burt]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcome for my right hon. Friend’s apology. He is right; many Members have history in relation to this terrible and long-standing conflict. Those in ministerial positions have to be particularly careful that whatever their background they apply themselves honestly and objectively to the issues. We all try to do so. We cannot pretend we did not have affiliations, but we make sure, when we are acting in the UK’s interests and on UK foreign policy, that that—and absolutely nothing else—is our guiding light. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Secretary of State takes a different view.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that the Foreign Office was made aware of the Secretary of State’s visit to Israel during her visit. Can he give us more information about when the Foreign Office was made aware? Was it before or after the meetings with Israeli Ministers and politicians? At what level was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made aware? Did someone in the embassy find out, or did the Secretary of State tell London she was in Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

My understanding is that FCO officials became aware of my right hon. Friend’s private visit on 24 August—during her visit. I do not have the dates of all the meetings, but I suspect it was after the meetings took place, and I believe that it was she who told the official abroad that she was there and having these visits. That is my understanding of the case.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Has guidance now been reissued to Ministers and Secretaries of State that they should not freelance on foreign policy—or on policy in relation to any other Department—when on their holidays, with or without Tory donors present?

[Alistair Burt]

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the ministerial code would be tightened in relation to this matter, and I am quite sure that it will be. I do not think it has been reissued this morning, but—again—the common sense of this is very clear. That is why my right hon. Friend has recognised that she should have done this differently, as I am sure we all would were we in a similar position.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister has been clear that neither his Department nor the Home Office knew about these meetings. He said that they were not set up in the usual way. Can he explain how they were set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked about when the FCO was made aware of the meetings. Is it not important that that question be clarified? If it knew beforehand, did the embassy make any attempt to attend the meetings and make sure the Secretary of State knew her responsibilities?

[Alistair Burt]

As far as I am aware, no officials sought to attend the meetings. As I said, I think the Foreign Office was made aware of the visits after they had taken place.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That’s not what you said.

[Alistair Burt]

That would seem to be the appropriate thing. The root of this is that my right hon. Friend knows that she should have told the embassy and the Foreign Office in advance.

[Mr Jones]

That’s not what you said.

[Alistair Burt]

I am sorry. I thought I said clearly what I understood the sequence of events to have been. The meetings were set up by Lord Polak through his contacts and interests with Israel, which are widely known.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

This appears to have been a gross breach of the code of ministerial conduct—certainly every code I have ever seen—and, as a Minister of nine years’ standing in previous Governments, I would have thought that this was a resigning matter. The Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, has said that no officials attended the meetings. Has the Secretary of State provided a full minute to the Department, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister of the content of the meetings, which she appears to have attended alone, without any officials, so as to fill this appalling gap that she has created?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend supplied in her statement yesterday a list of the meetings and the subjects covered—nobody would expect a verbatim account of those meetings—and has spoken to the FCO and the Prime Minister about them. I again draw the House’s attention to these meetings, however, with parties ranging from the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and the Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs to several charities. There is nothing in this programme that anyone interested in Israel and the middle east would quibble with. The difficulty was that they were not spoken about in advance, as my right hon. Friend recognises, but none of these meetings themselves would be considered untoward. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office are satisfied they were in the UK’s interests and that nothing has happened that is detrimental to the UK’s interests.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I feel for the Minister—he has been sent here to answer these questions—but it is not unreasonable to have expected him to arrive able to furnish the House with full details about what was disclosed, to whom, when and under what circumstances. [Interruption.]. He says he has. In response to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), he was unable to provide accurate and factual responses about who was met—[Interruption.] Will he stop waving bits of paper, just for one moment, and getting hot under the collar? At what point was the Foreign Office informed? What exactly was it informed about—was it the full scope and content of the meetings? At what stage was it informed? Under what circumstances was it informed? Those are the key questions. Finally, there has been some controversy about this issue with the IDF. Did the Secretary of State discuss funding for the IDF in her meetings in Israel? If so, it was not disclosed in the ministerial statement.

[Alistair Burt]

I was holding the piece of paper because on it is the statement that my right hon. Friend issued yesterday. It lists the meetings that she attended and the subjects for discussion. It is not a verbatim account, but it is pretty detailed in respect of the matters that she discussed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When did the embassy know about it?

[Alistair Burt]

I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. The embassy was aware on 24 August, which I think will have been after some of the meetings. As for who was met and what was said, details have been provided.

I am sure colleagues do not believe that the Secretary of State should not have discussed the Pears Programme for Global Innovation with Dr Aliza Inbal, discussed with IsraAID emergency humanitarian aid and the work that the organisation does, or visited Save a Child’s Heart. If I were on a development-related visit to Israel, I would want to have exactly the same meetings. The root of the matter and the heart of the concern is the fact that my right hon. Friend did not disclose her visit at the outset. She has addressed that, and the details of the meetings have been made clear in her statement.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier, the Deputy Leader of the House accused Labour Front Benchers of pursuing this matter because they were vehemently anti-Israel. I freely admit that I have profound disagreements with the perspectives of some of my Labour colleagues on this conflict, but let me say to the Minister and to all Members that, as a former proud chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am appalled by what has happened. The Minister is right to say that the meetings were not heinous in and of themselves, but the lack of accountability is highly suspect.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Does the Minister not agree that it is beyond credibility that the International Development Secretary thought that it could be an appropriate use of UK public funds to divert them to the Israeli Defence Forces in the Golan Heights? This is surely an example of her seeking a position within the Conservative party and bringing the country into disrepute.

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to defend any suggestion that the matter is being pursued because of an Israel angle, but it is a perfectly legitimate matter for the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) to have raised because, as we know, the substance of it is already contained in a ministerial apology. My right hon. Friend accepts that she got the sequence wrong, and that she should have done something differently. Therefore, I accept the question in a perfectly straightforward way. However, I think it is a stretch to say that, having learnt on that trip—if she did not already know—of the Israeli army’s work in looking after people from Syria who cannot get medical aid for their acute injuries there and who cross the border into Israel where aid is properly and freely given by the Israeli Defence Forces, she should not have come back and said that that was an extraordinary humanitarian gesture, and asked whether there was anything that we should do. The answer to that question is no, for the reasons that I gave earlier, but not to believe that it is a perfectly genuine question to ask, on a humanitarian basis, strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is dismal to see the Minister having to defend the indefensible in this way. He is doing his very best to put a positive gloss on the issue, but does he really believe that, when the Secretary of State offered to make financial assistance available to the Israeli Defence Forces to aid that settlement development in the Golan Heights, she did not know, or did not care, that the UK does not recognise the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights? Will he clarify that point, please?

[Alistair Burt]

Let me make it clear that there is no question of supporting any settlements in the Golan Heights. What the Israeli Defence Forces do is open information, which the hon. Lady can find on the internet. Civilians from Syria come to the Israeli Defence Forces with their injured, for whom they cannot get help on their side of the border, and ask for medical help, which the Israeli Defence Forces give. That is an extraordinary humanitarian act, and it has been going on for some time. I do not think that my right hon. Friend was unreasonable to look at the work that was going on and ask whether there was something that the United Kingdom could do to assist it. Because we regard the Golan Heights as occupied territory, and because we cannot support the Israeli occupation, the answer to her query was no, but I think it entirely reasonable for her to have come back and thought about it—and, of course, the Department provided the appropriate answer.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand the concern that the public will feel when it seems that British foreign policy on Israel and Palestine is being run by a Conservative-linked lobby group rather than by an independent civil service and an elected Government? Is this not just another example of a Government who are in disarray as lobby groups, not Downing Street, run our country?

May I also ask whether the Secretary of State has been referred to Sir Alex Allan or to Sue Gray, the director general of propriety and ethics, in connection with the ministerial code of conduct?

[Alistair Burt]

The short answer to the hon. Lady’s second question is no, because the Prime Minister considers the matter to be closed. As for her first question, it is palpably obvious that policy on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is not made by any lobby group anywhere, but is made, perfectly properly, by the Government. Since my right hon. Friend returned from Israel, support for the west bank, and for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the emergency appeal from Gaza, has come from the Department for International Development. Ministers quite properly make the policy. The Government are informed by lots of people, but they make the policy, not lobbyists.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This feels like another case of shooting the messenger, but are we supposed to believe that—according to the Minister—the Secretary of State had all those meetings that were so beneficial, so worth while, yet did not fully brief people when she came back? This has never come up in parliamentary questions.

We are supposed to believe that the Secretary of State is so capable and has the ability to carry out her role, yet we are also supposed to believe that it was a good idea to give the Israeli Defence Forces money in the Golan Heights—oh wait, we cannot, because we do not recognise the territories; we regard them as occupied territories. That does not sound like someone in whose ability to do her job we can have confidence.

May I also ask a question about demolitions? Did the Secretary of State express any concern about international aid for the villages of Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya?

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I do not have a verbatim account of all the meetings, but I can say that the Secretary of State is fully behind the Government’s policy, which has been to oppose the demolitions in both Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya. I went to visit those villages in August, and the policy has not changed.

As for the issue of the Israeli Defence Forces, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw, as we all have, the extraordinary work that is being done to provide humanitarian assistance and save people from the death that they would have suffered had they not been treated. That she should feel humanitarian concern and ask whether, wherever that support had come from, the United Kingdom could contribute to it did not strike me as unreasonable, but we cannot do so, for the reasons that I have already given.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is becoming a regular occurrence in the Chamber for issues to become less rather than more clear when a Minister is at the Dispatch Box. It seems that the Secretary of State informed the Foreign Office about her visit the day before she left; perhaps that was because she got caught.

On the issue of transparency, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for a full timeline showing when she met the organisations that she met? It should start with the first correspondence between the Secretary of State and Lord Polak, or between whoever arranged the visits in her office and Lord Polak. It should also show whether she used official or unofficial e-mail addresses.

[Alistair Burt]

Let me say first that my right hon. Friend did not suddenly contrive a long-planned visit to Africa in the last 24 hours.

[Ian Murray]

I did not say that.

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman implied that my right hon. Friend had suddenly found a reason to go to Africa and disappear, and that is not fair.

If more information is needed, there is no reason why further questions may not be asked by means of written parliamentary questions or the like. Let me point out again, however, that a full statement and an apology were made by my right hon. Friend, who recognised that what she did was not in the right sequence, and gave the details of whom she saw. I am sure that, if colleagues seek more information, they will be responded to in the appropriate way.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I also have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but even he must concede that the more we hear about this affair, the murkier it sounds. May we have an assurance that DFID will publish a summary of all discussions that took place in the months prior to this holiday within the Department that had any connection to Israel or any organisations in Israel, and may we have a summary of all discussions that have taken place in the Department since the holiday?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman can ask these questions, but I have to say that DFID and the Foreign Office discuss issues relating to Israel and the occupied territories virtually all the time. It is a constant source of discussion as we look at both the long-standing issues between them and the aid we give to the west bank and Gaza in emergency appeals and for long-standing development programmes. That is all public and open and clear. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask any further questions, he can do, but the information on these matters and the support that is given to the area is well known, and that policy has not changed in any way since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came back.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I feel for the Minister, who is a very decent man. He has been brought here to answer questions about significant failings by the Secretary of State, but frankly she should be here today, and if that meant cancelling or postponing a flight, so be it. May I press him on when the Secretary of State first informed her own Department of these meetings, and whether she received any advance briefings or advice?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remarks; I appreciate them very much.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the FCO on 24 August. If I recall rightly, the FCO at that time made the matter known both to her own Department and the rest of the FCO. So it was known at that stage. It would seem clear that discussions were not held in advance—my right hon. Friend has apologised for that and recognises she got it wrong. That is what I have been trying to make clear in this statement as best I can, and that was also the purpose of her statement yesterday.

[Mike Gapes]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has given a number of answers to me and other colleagues whereby there is some lack of clarity and some uncertainty. How can we best ensure that the House gets the full facts about the timing and the role of the two Departments in the periods up to, during and at the end of this ministerial private visit to Israel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister of State may come in in a moment if he wishes, but when that was first put to him, he effectively acknowledged the likelihood that that was so, and I think it recurred as an issue in the course of the questioning—and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has now reiterated the same point. So, although there might not be specificity today about precise dates, on the concept involved, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State was clear. It is open to Members to return to these matters in the normal way through written and oral interrogation, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be only modestly patient.

[Alistair Burt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

But I think we should preserve the last words on this matter to the Minister of State, whose emollient tone we will now hear.

[Alistair Burt]

I am happy to do as best I can by being as clear as I can. The information I have is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told Foreign Office officials on 24 August that she was on the visit. It seems likely that the meetings took place beforehand. The reason for the statement and for her explanation yesterday is that she recognises that she should have told people beforehand. So there is no doubt about that: that is what the explanation is for; that is what the statement is for; and she has apologised for that—she got that wrong. I do not think there is any lack of clarity about the date, the sequence or anything else now.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

As an old friend from Bury, it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for securing the debate and the thoughtful way he navigated the balance required as the mover of the motion, while making his position perfectly plain.

I would like to put some things on the record about the Balfour Declaration and that aspect of a regular and important topic of debate in the House. I will not be answering all the questions that have been raised, but I will go through the debate, check the questions and put an answer in the Library, so that colleagues will be able to see not only the answer to their own questions, but everything else.

I have listened to debates on this topic for the best part of 30 years now. I have heard colleagues speak with real knowledge, real passion, understanding and a democratic commitment to respecting the opinions of others. If the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is to be settled in the way we would like and every part of the Balfour Declaration fulfilled, as we all want, the positions of tolerance, understanding and passion that colleagues have displayed in the debate today will be beneficial.

The contributions have been mostly thoughtful and balanced—I will not go through them all. There has been the odd ember on which it would be possible to pour fuel, but I will not do that. I cannot single out too many Members in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, but I want to mention another old friend of more than 30 years, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), who is a former Minister for the Middle East. One would have to go a long way to hear a more balanced, succinct and poignant explanation of the Balfour Declaration, and commitment to peace, than we heard in his speech.

I would also ask my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) not to bang on about his age. Some of us in this room were the future once, and some of us think we still are, so I ask him to go easy on that.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks about peace. I wonder whether he welcomes, as I do, the Prime Minister’s words at Prime Minister’s questions today. She concluded by saying that it is important that we recommit to ensuring that we provide security, stability and justice for Israelis and Palestinians through securing peace. May I ask the Minister if that demonstrates that the Government give that the highest priority?

[Alistair Burt]

It does. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will mention our commitment for the future, as colleagues were keen for me to do so.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I will, but only once more; otherwise I will not get everything on the record.

[Ian Austin]

Does the Minister agree that ascribing colonialist motives to Britain and to the Balfour Declaration, as we heard from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), is complete nonsense? Britain restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine until the war, and then put holocaust survivors in camps in Cyprus to prevent them from going to Israel as well. How could that be described as colonialism?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If I may, I would like to get back to what I want to put on record about the declaration.

The Government are proud of the role that the UK played in the creation of the state of Israel. We will welcome the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a guest of the Government on the centenary of the Balfour Declaration. We will mark the centenary with pride and respect, but also with a degree of sadness, as issues between Israel and the Palestinians remain unresolved.

Although history is not everything, it is important to recall the context in which the declaration was written. It was a world of competing imperial powers, in the midst of the first world war. Jews had suffered centuries of persecution, and in that context, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they have strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do. That is why we are proud of the role that the UK played—a vital role in helping to make that Jewish homeland a reality.

Today, we continue to support the principle of such a Jewish homeland, and the state of Israel. Israel is a symbol of openness and a thriving democracy. It is a beacon for upholding the rights of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The energy, innovation and creativity of Israel’s people stand out as an example to the world, and the existence of the state of Israel is not up for discussion.

The UK’s relationship with Israel is a partnership that continues to grow in areas such as trade and investment, innovation and technology, and defence and security, as a number of Members have mentioned. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Netanyahu in February and March, and reiterated the UK’s commitment to building on the strong ties that already exist between our two countries.

Although it is of course right to mark the Balfour centenary, we understand and respect the sensitivities many have towards the declaration and the events that have taken place in the region since 1917. That is why we are resolutely committed to establishing security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace. The UK remains clear that the best path to peace lies in a two-state solution, and we believe the declaration remains unfinished business until a lasting peace is achieved.

We are clear that a solution can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a just, fair and realistic settlement for refugees. Just as we fully support the modern state of Israel as the Jewish homeland, we fully support the objective of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, and we also recognise the continual impediment constituted by the occupation to securing those political rights.

The Foreign Secretary reiterated the UK’s support for a two-state solution when he visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in March, and also expressed concern about Israeli settlements and demolitions. It has long been our position that Israeli settlement activity is illegal under international law. The viability of the principle of two states for two peoples is being undermined by the increased pace of settlement advancement, plans for the first new settlement deep in the west bank in more than 25 years, the first new housing units in Hebron for 15 years, and the retroactive approval of unauthorised settlement outposts.

I am gravely concerned by reports this morning that the Jerusalem municipality planning committee conditionally approved building permits for 178 housing units in Nof Zion, a Jewish settlement within Jabel Mukaber, a Palestinian neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. As a strong friend of Israel, and one that continues to stand by it in the face of bias and unreasonable criticism, we are continuing to urge Israel not to take such steps, which move us away from our shared goals of peace and security.

We should also be clear that settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. As the Quartet set out in its July 2016 report, terrorism and incitement also undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. We deplore all forms of incitement, including any comments that could stir up hatred and prejudice. We have regular discussions with both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, in which we reiterate the need for both sides to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, including by promoting a more positive portrayal of each other. Hamas—an organisation supporting violence and denying the existence of the state of Israel—cannot be part of that future unless it moves towards the Quartet principles.

Our unwavering commitment to the two-state solution is why the UK has also been a leading donor to the Palestinian Authority and such a strong supporter of its state-building efforts. The Department for International Development is developing a programme of support for projects intended to bring people together.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I cannot—there are only two minutes left, and I have to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon back in.

We are proud of the role that we have played in the creation of the state of Israel, but it is perfectly clear that there is more to be done. The matter needs attention on both sides, and the Government certainly intend to do it. I enjoy such debates—we know a lot about the issue—but I look forward to the day when we are no longer debating the two sides. We are good on the arguments, but I want to have a debate where we are talking about the solution, not the arguments.

Raqqa and Daesh

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the liberation of Raqqa and the future of the counter-Daesh campaign.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued engagement on this important issue. Raqqa was officially liberated on 20 October. The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the global coalition against Daesh, began operations to liberate Raqqa in June 2017. Military operations are ongoing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has highlighted the continued leading role that the UK is playing as part of the global coalition’s counter-Daesh campaign, and we in this House pay tribute to the courage, commitment and effectiveness of the British forces overseas. The United Kingdom is the second largest military contributor to the global coalition and plays a leading role in the humanitarian response.

The liberation of Raqqa this month follows significant Daesh territorial losses in Iraq, including Mosul in July. Daesh has now lost more than 90% of the territory it once occupied in Iraq and Syria. The Foreign Secretary will in due course provide a full update to the House on the counter-Daesh campaign, including the operation to liberate Raqqa. I look forward to providing the hon. Gentleman and other Members with further information in due course.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for that response. He will recall that back in November 2015 the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, made the case for the liberation of Raqqa—which has now been achieved—a central part of asking the House to endorse the RAF airstrike campaign, which has been taking place in Syria since that time. I think I speak for the whole House when I echo the Minister’s tribute to the professionalism of the Royal Air Force and how it has carried out that campaign. There are significant questions about the conduct of some of the forces in some of the actions in the campaign, but the RAF has been exemplary.

There are many questions that flow from this, but I want to cover three broad areas in the short time that I have today. First, what is the future for the region? Will the Minister tell us how the UK will engage in attempts to bring to an end the civil war that has already claimed 500,000 lives, the vast majority at the hands of the Syrian regime under President Assad? Secondly, what will be the UK’s role in the reconstruction of the region? Thirdly, what will be the next steps in the global campaign to defeat not only Daesh, which is clearly disintegrating, but the evil ideology that has perverted so many people in the region and enticed too many Brits to join it? Will the Minister also tell us what the future will be for the Brits who have been over to the region and might now be seeking to return?

The Minister has always been assiduous on this matter, but the Government’s failure to offer a statement to the House following the liberation of Raqqa suggests a lack of respect for Parliament and for the British people, on whose behalf we were asked to make the decision to send the Royal Air Force into a theatre of combat. There is a worry that it also suggests the complacency and lack of grip that have too often been the hallmark of Governments of both colours when attempting to maintain stability in a region in the aftermath of conflict.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not going to make any evaluative comments about the motivation or conduct of the Government. Suffice it to say, principally for the benefit of those who are not Members of the House but who are attending to our proceedings, that one of the principal motivations for the Speaker in selecting an urgent question is the judgment that the matter needs to be treated of in the House and, implicitly perhaps, that a Government offer of a statement might reasonably have been expected.

[Alistair Burt]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To deal with the hon. Gentleman’s last point first, a range of statements have been made at regular periods on Iraq and Syria and counter-Daesh operations, and I indicated in my remarks that the Foreign Secretary intends to present a full statement that covers the range of recent activities. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the liberation of Raqqa, and a statement covering that and other things is expected and will come in due course, but he was right to ask this urgent question, and I appreciate that and am happy to respond.

The hon. Gentleman reminded us that David Cameron asked the House to support activity due to the impending civilian crisis in the area where Daesh was active and the horrendous stories of abuse that were emerging. It is to the House’s credit that it recognised and supported that action, and we have seen that carried through extraordinarily by the forces that the House asked to take part. As for the UK military contribution, the RAF has conducted 1,609 strikes to date—1,348 in Iraq and 261 in Syria—using six Typhoons, eight Tornados, and Reaper drones. We have around 1,350 military personnel committed in the region. UK troops have helped to train over 57,000 Iraqi security force personnel, which says much for the opportunity of future stabilisation. Again, we pay tribute to the forces and what they have done, and the quality and accuracy of the airstrikes in which they have been involved.

The hon. Gentleman asked three specific questions about what happens next in terms of activity, stabilisation issues and ideology. Our partner forces are closing in on Daesh’s presence in the Euphrates river valley up to the border with Iraq. There, the Syrian efforts will be met with those of the Iraqi security forces, closing in on Daesh and ensuring their ultimate military defeat. No one should underestimate the importance of Raqqa to the whole Daesh ideology, and media reports have made that clear. The fall of Raqqa and Mosul is a tremendous blow to those who would have inflicted harm upon us all. The taking of those cities is of immense importance.

As for stabilisation, we have immediately stepped up our humanitarian support. This weekend, the Secretary of State for International Development announced an additional £10 million to help restore crippled health facilities, to deliver much-needed medical support and relief and, crucially, to clear lethal land mines and explosives. In leaving the city, Daesh has left a reminder of its killing machine behind it, and we are making immediate efforts in relation to that. We will of course move towards further stabilisation in due course as the area becomes more stable.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that military action on the ground is only one part of the contest with Daesh and its ideology. We must be prepared for Daesh to change its form. It will return to its terrorist roots, luring more adherents to its evil ideology, so we will continue to tackle the extremists on simultaneous fronts, including by preventing foreign fighters from returning to their country of origin. We will continue degrading Daesh’s poisonous narrative, decreasing its ability to generate revenue and denying it a safe haven in the virtual world. Indeed, as I was able say at the United Nations recently, we will also ensure that Daesh is brought to justice. Fighters returning to the United Kingdom can expect to be questioned about their role, and it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider any evidence against them. Fighters who are captured in Iraq or Syria must be treated according to the laws of armed conflict, but they can well expect to stand trial there if offences are alleged against them.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

We should reject the language coming out of Russia comparing the bombing of Raqqa to the bombing of Dresden. None the less, the result is not dissimilar.

Will my right hon. Friend try to rectify a wrong that has so often affected us in the aftermath of such events by calling for a donor conference and showing British leadership, so that we can start to rebuild Raqqa and what little remains of the shattered lives of its inhabitants and those who used to live there?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend is correct to point to the immediate misery of the aftermath for those who have been caught up in the conflict. The world now recognises that it has a responsibility to work with those on the ground to rebuild areas of conflict, because that is the best way to prevent conflict from happening again. We expect a political reconciliation, so that there are no sectarian difficulties in either Iraq or Syria as they return to conventional governance.

On the physical reconstruction, the Syrian Democratic Forces have been at pains to minimise the damage to the city’s infrastructure as they advance, but, in an urban battle such as this, it is impossible to advance against an enemy such as Daesh without causing any damage at all. It must be remembered that Daesh’s tactics do not adhere to the conventions of warfare. It booby-traps buildings and has taken many other desperate measures to protect its vile interests, including using schools and hospitals as tactical headquarters, denying those facilities to the innocent civilian population.

A stabilisation programme will be put forward under the auspices of the UN reconstruction effort, which will come after political decisions are made to ensure the reconstruction follows political commitments made by those involved in the governance of Syria. I do not know about a donor conference yet, but I will take that idea back to the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments. For once, we are in union that the victory against Daesh in Raqqa is a vital blow against an evil death cult, and it makes a mockery of Daesh’s pretensions to establish a caliphate in Syria or elsewhere. It shows them to be the weaklings and cowards they are.

This is a timely reminder of the battle we and our allies fought on this very day 75 years ago, the second battle of El Alamein—the battle that destroyed the Nazis’ ambition to control Egypt. As we recall Churchill’s words after that hard-fought victory, perhaps we can turn them around: this is not the end of the beginning for Daesh, it is the beginning of their end. We should be grateful for that.

I hope the Minister can address my questions in his response. If he is unable to do so and we rely on the Foreign Secretary to make a fuller statement, will he ensure the Foreign Secretary is able to answer my questions? I will not repeat the question on the Government’s response to the humanitarian crisis, but this is my second question: now that Daesh is in disarray in Syria, what is Britain’s ongoing military mission in Syria? In short, what is our strategy for the future of Syria, and what is the military’s role in that strategy? In particular, what steps will the Government now take to help rebuild some form of sustainable governance in Raqqa? What role, if any, will the armed groups that helped to liberate the city from Daesh play in its future administration? And how will the Syrian, Kurdish and Arab opposition forces, which played such a pivotal role in the campaign to retake Raqqa, be represented as part of a genuinely viable peace process for Syria as a whole? If there is one thing on which we can all agree, surely it is that the very last thing the middle east needs right now is another vacuum.

Finally, as the Minister will know, his Department recently confirmed that it has channelled £200 million since 2015 to support the so-called moderate opposition in Syria. Can he give the House a guarantee today that none of that money has ended up in the hands of al-Nusra or other jihadi groups? It would be a tragedy if, while rightly celebrating the destruction of Daesh in Raqqa, British taxpayers’ money is funnelled into organisations that are just as bad.

[Alistair Burt]

I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady’s remarks, which are highly appropriate and much appreciated. The whole House has engaged collectively on this subject, and it is appreciated by all that she speaks as she does. The House is demonstrating that there is nothing between us on presenting a united front against Daesh and its ideology.

I am pleased that the right hon. Lady mentions El Alamein, partly because I was there on Saturday. As a much-travelled Minister, I had the opportunity to represent Her Majesty’s Government in laying the wreath on behalf of the United Kingdom to commemorate the 75th anniversary of that extraordinary battle, which over a period of days turned the tide in north Africa and in the war. I was proud to stand alongside representatives of the Commonwealth and people from the United Kingdom who fought with the Desert Rats, as well as representatives of the German and Italian Governments, to recognise that, 75 years later, Europe has achieved much by coming together. In doing so, we demonstrated tolerance and forgiveness, which are sometimes rather lacking in other parts of the middle east, where memories are long and dates are often remembered for the wrong reasons. I was proud to represent the United Kingdom, along with representatives of the military, our ambassador and Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, who represented the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, of which he is vice-chairman.

Returning to the right hon. Lady’s questions, we recognise the need for ongoing humanitarian relief, about which we have more information if she wishes. As far as the military are concerned, we do not know what will come next. The military will remain engaged as long as there is a need for them to be there. As I have indicated, the strategy further to close off the avenues for Daesh in the Euphrates valley will be supported by United Kingdom personnel until there is no possibility that military action could recommence and no possibility that coalition forces could be put under pressure.

As the right hon. Lady rightly says, the coalition is clearly essential. The coalition comprises a large number of people from the Kurdish region of Syria and Iraq and from other areas. Discussions are ongoing about how the coalition will stay together, but it is premature to say anything about a disbandment. The coalition has to be kept in place until there is no further military threat, and that will be advised either by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in due course.

On support going in the wrong direction, there has been a continual concern since 2011 that, in trying to provide support for legitimate opposition forces in such difficult circumstances, arms and money get traded. There has been an absolute determination to try to ensure that supplies going to support opposition forces do not go in the wrong direction. As far as possible, that is still the case. I cannot say with absolute certainty that not a single pound or element of aid has gone in the wrong direction—there are difficulties on the ground, where forces must co-operate to overcome Daesh—but the Government are absolutely determined to ensure that, as far as possible, the risk is minimised. I assure the right hon. Lady that that is the case.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister of State is an extraordinarily busy and conscientious bee, and I feel sure that I speak for the whole House in saying how delighted we are that he represents us on these important occasions in all sorts of different parts of the globe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I am not going to go over previous discussions about this, and I understand the point of my right hon. Friend’s question. The coalition forces in Syria that have been backed in relation to Raqqa contain a variety of forces, but not Syrian regime forces. We still hold, and are right to hold, the Syrian regime responsible for a large proportion of the atrocities in Syria, and that should not be forgotten or glossed over. President al-Assad is responsible for launching murderous attacks on his own people, and it has been right to separate, in so far as is possible, coalition forces fighting Daesh from those of the regime.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

We welcome the news that Daesh or the so-called “Islamic State” has been defeated in Raqqa by the Syrian Democratic Forces after its three-year rule over the city. We also welcome the pledge we hear today of £10 million from the Department for International Development in humanitarian aid.

Does the Minister agree that in order to sustain the military achievement in Raqqa, rebuilding efforts and the introduction of post-IS mechanisms need to start immediately in order to allow locals to develop and run their city meaningfully and in an inclusive manner that will ensure good governance and reliable public services? What funds have therefore been allocated, both to the immediate and the long-term reconstruction of Raqqa and the wider region? Does the Minister agree that British jihadists need also to be captured, where possible, and tried for their heinous war crimes, some of which, such as genocide, can only be faced in the International Criminal Court at The Hague? That would allow the whole world to witness them. Does he agree we should do that rather than, to use the words of the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), follow an approach where

“the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.”?

That of course will only fuel IS recruitment.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. There are two elements of reconstruction after conflict, the first of which is the stabilisation phase. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary addressed that the other day, and it is about providing the immediate assistance that is needed. As I indicated, that helps to clear lethal landmines and explosives, restock hospitals and mobile surgical units, provide some 145,000 medical consultations, provide immediate relief for innocent people who have been displaced, improve access to clean water and look after pregnant women who are in difficulties. The United Kingdom is contributing to that immediate work. In the longer term, resources have not yet been allocated, and that will be done in conjunction with UN and other donors who will be providing support. That will be a long-term process.

Again, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the necessity for inclusive governance in a difficult area. That will be a matter for the Syrian people and for the political negotiations we expect to start in Geneva in November, which will look at the overall governance. They will have to take into account the situation in Raqqa and the political situation in the area, which will be difficult, but he is right to talk about inclusion.

On those returning to the United Kingdom, let me make it clear, as the Defence Secretary said on 12 October, that those who go to Syria put themselves in danger. Those who go to Syria to take action against the United Kingdom and the UK’s interest put themselves in particular danger, and if they are involved in conflict or in planning actions that will take the lives of British citizens, they run the risk of being killed themselves. Of course those who surrender to forces in the area must expect to be treated under the laws of armed conflict, and to be treated properly and humanely in terms of being brought to justice. As I have said, those who return to the UK will also be questioned about their activity and brought to justice. It is important that justice is seen as the ultimate outcome for those who have committed wrong, but those who are a present danger to the UK run a greater risk and it is right that they do.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his detailed and full answers; he has been educating the House very effectively. May I, however, press him on a couple of areas he has not yet addressed? Does he not agree that the finality of the conflict in Raqqa gives the lie to Russia’s claim that it was in any way supporting the fight against Daesh? May I therefore call upon him and on his colleagues to make representations to the Russian Government that the actions they are taking in Syria are against the interests of humanitarianism and of the civilians? Will he make representations to the Russians to say that what they are actually doing is making a new problem for themselves in the future?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Russia’s engagement in this has clearly been to stabilise the Assad regime. The Russians’ primary objective has been to secure their interests in Syria, through Assad, rather than to recognise that he had turned against his own people and to join in a coalition of interests to secure peaceful transition and peaceful reform as part of the end of the conflict. Clearly there are operations against Daesh which have not been participated in by regime forces or those who have supported them, such as the Russians, and other action has been taken, but I am not sure it is true to say that in all cases Russia has not taken action against Daesh forces, because it will have done when those forces were threatening the regime. That is when Russia will have taken that action.

Moving on, the Geneva talks that will start under the guidance of Staffan de Mistura will inevitably involve Russia as a participant in trying to see what we can do now, towards the end of the conflict, to provide stabilisation. I can make it clear that the UK will echo the remarks made by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We recognise Russia’s responsibility in the conflict, but now it has a responsibility in the post-conflict situation to remedy some of the problems it has caused.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Some Members of this House received and continue to receive considerable abuse for the decision we took back in November 2015 to support the extension of the RAF mission to Syria. Does the liberation of Raqqa and this considerable setback to Daesh not show that we were absolutely right?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, in a word. We have been learning over time the consequences of not taking action. We have all learned that there are consequences of action and of inaction, and sometimes the choices are impossible. But it is perfectly clear that decisions not to do anything will almost inevitably result in a situation becoming worse and steadily more difficult for those involved. The right decisions have to be taken on intervention or not, but the decision of the House to support David Cameron’s determination to take action in Syria was the right one.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that a young medical student from my constituency, who was radicalised at Khartoum University, went to Raqqa, via Turkey, to work in an ISIS hospital? She and dozens of other such medical students are obviously authors of their own peril, but does the Minister agree that every effort should be made to get them out safely?

[Alistair Burt]

We have no facility to get British citizens out of Syria. Those who have gone to Syria have not been able to access any consular support, because we cannot put British officials at any risk in trying to deal with that. At present, that is the situation. Those who have gone to Syria have done so at their own risk. Inevitably, some people will return, and I hope that those who have a story to tell about turning against Daesh are able to convince others that this was a false ideology and that they should not be seduced by them into travelling abroad; these people may have a role to play in making that story clear.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

In welcoming the liberation of Raqqa from Daesh, we recognise that the city has experienced death and displacement on a huge scale. The 8,000 or so civilians left are in a devastated city without access to drinking water, sewerage, electricity, schools and hospitals, and Assad’s forces are just a few kilometres away. Where does the Minister think responsibility for the rebuilding of Raqqa lies? What will the UK Government do to minimise any delays in that arising from what he referred to as political decisions?

[Alistair Burt]

In a sense, it is not a question of responsibility—certainly the people of the area have not caused their own destruction—and it makes sense for the world to be supportive of efforts that will ensure a return to normality, with people having decent lives. Members can expect the UK to play a leading part in supporting those efforts to rebuild schools, hospitals and the economy. I think this is something in which the world will be engaged. On the responsibility of the state, clearly the UK holds the regime to be responsible for a significant part of what has been inflicted upon its people. There has to be a political decision about moving forward with a political process before reconstruction can begin. The decisions have to be taken and that is the view of the international community. It does not prevent the immediate humanitarian assistance in difficult situations from taking place—that is what is happening now—but longer-term reconstruction must follow a political settlement.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend know how many Daesh terrorists have escaped from Raqqa and where they might be headed?

[Alistair Burt]

I do not know the answer to that question because it is just impossible to gauge. Talk seems to centre around the low thousands of foreign fighters. Over time, it will become clearer, but I am not sure I can rightly say anything more accurate than that. It is clear that some will attempt to return to other parts of the region and beyond from where they came. Some countries have supplied more fighters than others. They will be a risk until they have all been interviewed, those who are responsible for crimes have been brought to justice, and others have been dealt with in other ways.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) referred to the vote two years ago. Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in that vote, but I welcome the liberation of Raqqa. As the Minister said, it proves that conflicts of this kind cannot be won simply from the air. Ground forces have to be used. Will he reiterate our praise for the Syrian Democratic Forces, particularly Syria’s Kurds, who have played a pivotal role, and tell the Turkish Government to stop attacking them?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman has always been clear in his determination to take what he considers to be the right action, regardless of the political pressure on him, and he has been courageous to do so. Some battles clearly cannot be fought without ground troops being involved, as recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria have shown. There would have been no liberation of Mosul from the air, nor of Tal Afar or Raqqa. The United Kingdom did not take part in those operations; others have done so elsewhere, with our support. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention Kurdish forces’ leadership of the coalition forces that have been operating in Raqqa and the extraordinary work they have done. Whatever difficult situations may be faced back in the Kurdish region of Iraq, it is clear that those fighters and the people they represent deserve to be treated with the greatest of respect. Any political situation needs to be handled with great care, and there needs to be a lot of dialogue between states, not undue pressure or force.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I welcome the news that Raqqa has been liberated from Daesh, especially with respect to Paradise Square, where the terrorists carried out public beheadings. I thank the Minister for all his work to secure the UN resolution on locating and prosecuting Daesh. Will he update us on that, and on the Geneva process?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I was pleased recently to have the honour of moving the resolution at the UN, which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council, to further the work commenced the year before by the Iraqi Foreign Minister to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes of Daesh and to institute an investigative process to help that work. The United Kingdom will support that work and see the resolution carried through. I met Staffan de Mistura in New York and he is hopeful that the Geneva process will restart in November. There is clearly a long way to go, but an absence of conflict will help that process. It is essential that a process of justice emerges from the political conversations in which the people of Syria have the chance to choose their leadership, and that they do not have one imposed on them.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister has said some helpful things today, not least about the cost of inaction possibly being as great as the cost of action—a point made forcefully in the paper written by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and Jo Cox, “The Cost of Doing Nothing”. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that those who have committed war crimes in Syria are brought to justice? Will he update the House on the British Government’s role in making sure that the Syrian Government, who have prosecuted a brutal campaign and bombed hospitals, are brought to justice in whatever way possible?

[Alistair Burt]

I hope it will please the hon. Lady if I tell her that while I was in New York I met the leader of the White Helmets, along with members of the opposition. We give enormous credit to them for what they have achieved, and to the work of the hon. Lady and others in supporting them.

On bringing people to justice, it is clear that those who are responsible for war crimes in any circumstances—whether they belong to Daesh or the regime—should feel that justice is available against them. The process against Daesh is clear; I suspect that the process against the regime will be more difficult, but if there is evidence, it should be prosecuted and pursued. The United Kingdom will be determined to see that process carried through, although I do not suspect for a moment that it will be particularly easy.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Like all colleagues, I welcome the military defeat of Daesh in Raqqa. What steps is the international community taking to ensure the vacuum in that area is not filled by the Iranian militia? That region is a key link to Lebanon, where Iran has some key interests.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend’s knowledge of the area is considerable, and we remember his long campaign to make sure that we refer to Daesh as Daesh. We pay tribute to him for that. The militias operating in the region are not always under the control of the coalition forces or, in Iraq, of the Iraqi Government. As far as I am aware, every attempt has been made to ensure that the forces occupying the ground are under the coalition’s control and thereby to minimise any danger of sectarian activity. However, we have to remember that some of the militia have been involved in close fighting and helping to relieve some areas. It is essential that those who are responsible for them now play a part in building a consensual process of governance and do not use them for sectarian purposes. It is an opportunity for some to perhaps show new colours, take a different direction from the one they have taken in the past, and build stability rather than disruption.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly referred to the accuracy of the 261 British strikes on Daesh in Syria, by which I presume he also means to say that, to his knowledge, no civilians were casualties of British strikes. By contrast, the Russians said that their whole aim in Syria was to attack and put an end to Daesh, yet 95% of their attacks seem to have been on other opponents of Assad. Does that mean that the Russians are liars or militarily incompetent?

[Alistair Burt]

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, only 0.31% of coalition air strikes result in a credible report of civilian casualties, highlighting the care taken by the coalition to avoid such casualties. We have not seen any evidence that we have caused civilian casualties, but that is not the same as saying that we have not or will not, especially in close urban fighting against a ruthless terrorist enemy that uses civilians as human shields. Hopefully, the relief of Raqqa will make that likelihood still less.

The question about the other air strikes that have taken place and the use of other forces is one for others to answer, but the hon. Gentleman is correct about the care taken by the coalition, and particularly by the RAF. The RAF’s rules of engagement, avoiding strikes where it is known there are civilians, are very clear. Others must be responsible for their actions, but actions and air strikes that have unnecessarily taken civilian lives make the process of reconciliation afterwards so much harder and therefore fuel the causes of further conflict, which the UK has tried desperately hard not to do.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Minister has mentioned Iran. Does he think that the role played by Iran in both Syria and Iraq presents a threat to our interests?

[Alistair Burt]

I wish that we had more time. My hon. Friend’s knowledge of the area is very considerable, and he brings that with him to the House. We have been clear in saying that there is evidence of Iran being a disruptor in the region. It has been involved in activities in both Iraq and Syria—in Syria, supporting the Assad regime and supporting its own interests by doing so, and being complicit with a leader who has waged war on his own people have made that region more unstable. In Iraq, it must now allow the Iraqis to run Iraq—the Iraqi Government to run a unified Iraq—and recognise that its influence should be confined to the border. It has an opportunity now to play a part in making peace in the region, but can only do so if it listens to the concerns of others and understand that its influence can be used for better in different ways than it has been up to now.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this very difficult issue. Has he any idea of how many UK nationals have left the UK to fight with Daesh, and of what work the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing with the Home Office to identify these individuals and, where possible, repatriate them?

[Alistair Burt]

The short answer is that I do not know. I do not have a figure. We have worked on the number of relatively low hundreds, but we do not know. I will not put a figure on it—why pluck one out of the air? The numbers are not huge, and are not as great as some from other places. On dealing with people when they return, let me make it clear that there is no facility to return people—certainly not from Syria. We have no personnel there and we have no responsibilities in that regard. If people make their way back to the United Kingdom and are identified as having taken part in conflict in Syria or Iraq, they will be detained and will have to answer questions while it is found out exactly what they have done, which is right and proper, and those who have committed offences can expect to face justice.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering are increasingly alarmed about the number of British jihadists who have been fighting our armed forces personnel in Iraq and Syria. My understanding is that about 850 of them have been identified, of whom about 400 are already back in the UK. Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that there has been a single prosecution for any offence. Will the Minister try to understand that if no effective action is taken against these people in this country, it will send a positive signal to potential jihadists to Syria to say, “We can go off and fight British services overseas because nothing will happen to us when we return.”

[Alistair Burt]

Many terrorist offences have extra-territorial jurisdiction, which means that people can be prosecuted in British courts for terrorist activity in Syria or anywhere else in the world. Any decision on whether to prosecute will be taken by the police and Crown Prosecution Service on a case-by-case basis. That requires evidence of what people have done. It does not require rounding up people who have been in a particular place and detaining them without any legal process for doing so. It is essential that we find out what people are doing. That will require the sort of investigative work that I announced earlier that we have promoted through the UN. The investigations unit is entirely designed to uncover the evidence that will bring people to justice. It is a question of holding this number of people in reasonable bounds so that everyone knows that they have gone there, but that the numbers are not as great as those from other countries. There is a determination in the United Kingdom to make absolutely certain that if those who put the country at risk return, they can expect to be questioned, to be brought to the notice of the security authorities and to be subject to controls thereafter according to existing law. Where prosecutions are possible, people will be prosecuted and rightly so.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I offer my thanks and congratulations to all those people, and their families, who have served in Operation Shader. Given what we learned in Fallujah about the industrial use of improvised explosive devices in domestic property, can the Minister give us some more information on what efforts are being made to ensure that, on the ground, we are supporting people to clear those IEDs?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to thank the families of those involved for their sacrifice, too. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for DFID, deliberately targeted some of the money that has been given to deal with the IEDs, the explosive devices and booby traps that are littering Raqqa and Mosul. The United Kingdom is contributing to the landmine clearance effort, and we will continue to do so.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Further to earlier questions about returning fighters to the UK, there are a number in my constituency who have actively supported Daesh in Syria and are now back home. I appreciate the fact that a cross-Government response has been made to those individuals and that there will be prosecutions where appropriate. In addition, can I also have an assurance that, to keep the wider community safe in my constituency and across the country, the security services will be monitoring the activities of those who have returned but cannot be prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to ensure that they are not radicalising their communities?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More than 60 countries are now providing data to coalition partner Interpol to build a global database of those foreign fighters who have worked with Daesh. The database has grown from 40 people in 2013 to 14,000 internationally and it continues to grow. This information, along with our other investigative efforts, helps to ensure that people in the United Kingdom are safer.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Minister was correct earlier to pay tribute to the Kurdish peshmerga forces for their contribution in defeating Daesh on the ground in both Iraq and Syria. How concerned are the British Government, therefore, about the events of last week when the Iraqi military and Shi’a militia captured Kurdish-held territory in Kirkuk province, about the reported clashes with Kurdish forces and about a splintering of the anti-Daesh forces in future?

[Alistair Burt]

The Foreign Office and I are in pretty close contact both with the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq. Our understanding is that the process of recovering so-called disputed territory has been done not through conflict, but by agreement between the Government of Iraq, peshmerga forces and the Kurdish authorities. We have been at pains to do all we can to say to both the Regional Government and the Iraqi authorities to do nothing to risk a conflict. There are Shi’a militias in the area, but my understanding at the moment is that the responsible parties are doing everything they can to avoid conflict so that they can return to the dialogue that must take place between the Kurdish representatives and the Iraqi Government following the referendum in September.

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

There is a significant presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Daesh in Yemen. What assessment have the Government made of the extremist threat in Yemen, and what support are we giving to the ground troops of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and the Government forces that are trying to defeat those extremists in that country?

[Alistair Burt]

That is a slightly wider question, but, in relation to Daesh and others, it is absolutely pertinent. We do not take part directly in the coalition operating in Yemen. Of course UK representatives are available to ensure that international humanitarian law is adhered to by those who are taking action using munitions supplied by the United Kingdom. That work is ongoing, but it is not a direct part of the coalition. We have supported the coalition’s aims in pushing back an insurgency against an elected Government, which has opened up the risk of more ungoverned space in Yemen in which AQAP and Daesh can operate. We continue to work towards a conclusion of that conflict. We are working extremely hard on trying to get negotiations to start again so that the conflict can come to an end, because that is the only thing that will secure the area and deal with that risk of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

One of the most horrifying elements of this war has been the weaponisation of food. I am sure that the Minister has seen the story in The Times today, reporting that the United Nations says that 90% of its aid trying to get through the Wafideen checkpoint to East Ghouta is turned back. What are the Government doing about that particular case and, more broadly, how are they trying to fight against President Assad waging starvation?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The area has returned to medieval conditions of war and siege in which humanitarian aid, which ought to get through under international rules, is not allowed to get through because of forces on the ground. We make strenuous efforts through the UN and humanitarian agencies, which do extraordinary work in these places. We should pay tribute to those who are working on the ground in dangerous conditions to provide relief and to try to get things through, but it is difficult and we will continue to make that case. In Raqqa, however, the UK has provided more than 660,000 relief packages—including blankets, clothing, hygiene items and kitchen utensils—and more than 88,000 monthly food rations, so where we can get things through, we do. But there is no doubt that aid and the refusal of aid is used as a weapon of war, and it should not be.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is in the interests of Assad and Putin to suggest that life is returning to normal in Syria. The Minister mentioned the meeting in Geneva in November. In light of that, what more will the UK Government be doing to ensure that Russians and other actors are aware that there can be no lasting peace in Syria while Assad continues to rule and while there is not a role for peace-loving Sunnis, as well as those of all other communities, in Syria?

[Alistair Burt]

The House can be absolutely clear that the points that the hon. Gentleman has made were made during conversations with the P5, including to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Staffan de Mistura. Russia is protecting its own interest in Syria and it is doing so in what we consider to be an unconscionable manner, by supporting President Assad and what he has done to his people. There can only be a political resolution that gives the people of Syria the free choice to choose their Government. This is not an easy process, and we are giving all backing to Staffan de Mistura as he restarts the Astana talks in Geneva with all parties present. It is essential that the people of Syria have the choice of their own President and Government. It cannot be the case that everything is returning to normal in Syria. That is true in some parts but, in areas of serious conflict, the situation is still miserable for civilians attacked by their own Government.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this urgent question. The decision in this House in December 2015 to take military action in Syria was obviously controversial, but it was the right one in my view. As somebody who supported that decision, I pay tribute to the RAF and to the professionalism of our military servicemen and women who are in the region today. My question is about UK foreign fighters who may have left Syria and ended up in refugee camps in Turkey. What are we doing to track those people down and return them to justice?

[Alistair Burt]

As I mentioned earlier, the acquisition of names on to the Interpol database is extending the reach of national authorities in the more than 60 countries from which foreign fighters have gone to fight in Iraq. That will provide a basis for what happens when they return. I am not aware of any efforts that are being taken to visit camps in order to identify people before they return. I do not know about that matter, so I will find the answer and ensure that it is made available in the Foreign Secretary’s next statement.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Happily, the campaign against Daesh in Syria is coming to an end, bringing hope to millions who suffered abuse from these evil madmen. But in light of the events in Kirkuk last week, is the Minister concerned that Iraq and Iran are now turning their attention militarily towards the Kurds? Does he see that as a potential source of conflict, and what role can he and the Government play in trying to diffuse the situation?

[Alistair Burt]

The first role I hope that I can play is to urge the House to be cautious of reports coming out from the region. It is not always entirely clear what is happening on the ground, and those with vested interests are trying to stir up more conflict than there need be. Our understanding is that there is sufficient of a relationship between Baghdad and representatives of the Kurdish Government to enable a dialogue to take place so that the conflict is avoided. I do not believe it is true that Iraq and Iran have turned their attention to conflict in the Kurdish region. There is a risk of conflict—that is true—but everything we know about Prime Minister Abadi, and his actions and rhetoric, indicates that he does not want conflict. That has been mirrored by those in the Kurdish region. We are using all our efforts to ensure that that will remain the case, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are spoilers who might start to urge a conflict. We should be doing all we can, in this House and at a Government level, to urge the necessary dialogue, which we think is taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

5. What estimate he has made of the number of instances of demolitions, settlement expansion and land appropriation in the west bank.

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

We are gravely concerned by demolitions, by the eviction of Palestinians and by the increased pace of settlement advancement, including the discussions this week of plans for 3,000 new settlement units to be constructed on the west bank. Such actions undermine both the physical viability of the two-state solution and Israel’s commitment to it.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently visited the communities of Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya in Area C of the west bank, both of which are under threat of demolition. I was surprised that both have received significant investment from the EU and therefore from the British taxpayer. Will the Minister tell me what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about that?

[Alistair Burt]

I visited Susiya in August to talk to members of the community about the pressures that they were under. We maintain a continued interest in legal arguments in relation to both Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya, and we regularly make it clear to the Israeli authorities that activities there and other settlement actions are deeply concerning, and undermine the intentions that we all have for a viable two-state solution and a movement towards peace.

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I join the Minister in agreeing that such settlements are not in any way conducive to peace, but does he agree that what is required in the end is a negotiated settlement involving the other countries in the region? That will inevitably involve an element of land swap, which the Palestinians have accepted in the past.

[Alistair Burt]

It does and, as many of us are aware, the outline of the parameters of a peace agreement, including some degree of land swaps, is known. However, the encroachment in recent years of Israeli settlements on areas well beyond those anticipated to be part of a future land swap undermines the credibility of the so-called commitment to that answer.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

17. It is 100 years since the Balfour declaration promised not just a Jewish homeland but to protect the rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine. What I saw on the west bank during my recent visit amounts to conquest by concrete and totally undermines any possibility of a two-state solution. With Palestinian reconciliation providing new impetus, will the UK Government recognise their responsibility to re-establish a meaningful peace process?

[Alistair Burt]

We work extremely hard to play our part in fulfilling that second half of the Balfour declaration. I met one of the negotiators appointed by President Trump at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and I was recently in Israel to talk to people there. We believe it is absolutely essential to make progress on the middle east peace process, which is not something to be managed but something to be solved, and the United Kingdom is bending all its efforts to seek to do so, particularly in this sensitive year.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

23. [R] Does the Minister agree that Hezbollah poses a serious threat to Israel’s security and presents a significant barrier to peace in the middle east? Does he share my concern about recent reports that Iran has been constructing rocket factories for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that the terrorists now have weapons capable of hitting any part of Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

The short answer is yes. Hezbollah appears to have been rearmed in recent years, and the conflict in Syria has provided the opportunity for Iran to supply more weapons—and more dangerous weapons—to Hezbollah. The possibility of a confrontation remains high. Those who have been committed to violence should renounce that commitment and make progress on reconciliation among the Palestinians on that basis, and all the parties involved should seek the peace we all want in the region.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What steps he is taking to improve Britain’s relationship with Russia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

15. What diplomatic steps his Department is taking to assist the international campaign to bring Daesh to justice.

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

I was proud, on 21 September this year, to speak at the United Nations Security Council when it unanimously adopted a UK-drafted resolution, which involved the deployment of an investigative team to Iraq to help bring Daesh perpetrators to justice. The United Kingdom is giving material and moral support to this work.

[Ross Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm what discussions he has had with key partners in the region with regard to the reconstruction and stabilisation of the area for the long term in a post-Daesh world?

[Alistair Burt]

Absolutely. I have been to the region twice in recent months to speak to Iraqi authorities about what is happening to make sure that areas formerly occupied by Daesh are given support. We strongly support the work being carried out on behalf of the UK Government through the Department for International Development to make sure there is stabilisation. We recognise not only that these areas need physical reconstruction but that the political reconciliation that brings different sides together to work in effective local governance is a key part of the solution for the future.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK is leading the global coalition’s efforts to disrupt and counter Daesh’s communications. Can the Minister broadly say what we are now doing differently, as a result of our learning against this fast-moving and fluid organisation, from what we were doing a couple of years ago?

[Alistair Burt]

It is a good question. There is a certain amount that can be said and cannot be said. We are all aware that Daesh operates in an increasingly sophisticated way. It should never be underestimated. Those who are fighting in the region fight not just physically but through the internet and through the spread of false ideological information and the like. The UK takes certain steps to deal with this, in company with partners, through cyber-protection and the like. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as Daesh’s attempts to infiltrate the minds of people have stepped up, so have our attempts to counter that.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to engage with parliamentarians before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the UK in April 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Members of the Coptic Church come from all over south Wales to Risca, to worship at St Mary’s and St Abu Saifain. The congregation have looked on in horror at the terrorist attacks on fellow Coptics in Egypt. Just this weekend, an archbishop was assassinated outside Cairo by an Islamic extremist group. What assurance can the Minister give the congregation at St Mary’s and St Abu Saifain that the Government are doing everything they can to protect brethren who are simply following their religion?

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter of real seriousness in Egypt. I met leaders of the Coptic Church just last week with the support of His Grace Bishop Angaelos, and I am going to the Coptic service later today to express further solidarity. We raise these matters directly with the Egyptian Government, who view these terrorist attacks with the same degree of horror as we do, and who are doing all in their power to stop them. We will continue to urge just that.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in thanking Ambassador Frank Baker for all his tireless work in Iraq? He has worked with the Foreign Secretary, Secretary Tillerson and the Iraqi Prime Minister to put together a deal that would have avoided the catastrophic situation that now plagues the country between the Kurds and Baghdad. Will the Foreign Secretary urge all sides to come back together around the negotiating table on that framework and negotiate a deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T4. We should all be very worried about the malevolent involvement of the Iranian hard-line al-Quds force using American heavy weapons against our brave allies the Kurds. Will the Minister make it clear that Iraqi forces must not enter the four provinces of the Kurdistan region, and that the only way forward is co-operation in Kirkuk and wider dialogue based on the Iraqi federal constitution, which is supposed to guarantee Kurdish rights?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I spoke this morning to the Foreign Minister of Iraq, and I am speaking later to representatives of the Kurdish Regional Government to do exactly what is being expressed in the House—to urge caution on all sides, and to continue a careful dialogue to make sure that there is no possibility of a miscalculation leading to conflict. It is essential that matters are pursued on a constitutional basis, but there is a difficulty at the moment in getting accurate information about precisely what is happening in the region. We are doing all we can to verify all stories, but we are also doing all we can to cool down the situation.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

This Government have promised protection to an area of ocean equal in size to India, covering Pitcairn, St Helena and much more. I think it is a source of huge pride for our country, but we are not all the way there yet, so I hope the Minister can provide an update on progress, specifically in relation to Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, both of which have been promised protection —in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s earlier remarks about Hamas, but does he share my deep concern about the groups linked to Islamic State that now have a presence in Gaza and Sinai and that, even in recent days, have been firing rockets into southern Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Absolutely—rooting out those terrorist organisations in Gaza and Sinai is hugely important, not only for those who live in the immediate target area but for wider regional peace. There can be no peace without a rejection of violence, particularly rocket attacks in relation to Israel, but there are indications that something is going on that may help the process of peace in the area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

T7. On my recent trip, I visited Gaza, where the humanitarian situation is appalling. In Northern Ireland, all parties were involved in achieving peace, so will the UK Government change their approach to Hamas and include it, to isolate those extremist groups?

[Alistair Burt]

The short answer is no, as the Foreign Secretary indicated earlier, until there is movement on the Quartet principles. However, resolution to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza is urgently needed, and we are doing all that we can to support that.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Do Ministers share concern about the apparent continuing erosion of the one country, two systems principle in Hong Kong following the disappearances of booksellers, the recent imprisonment of a democratically elected representative and, last week, the refusal of entry into Hong Kong on a purely private visit by UK citizen and human rights campaigner Ben Rogers, who is watching our proceedings today? If so, what action is the Foreign Office taking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

T9. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What is the UK Government’s position on the recognition of Palestine? Did the Minister see the recent YouGov poll, commissioned by the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Arab News, that showed a majority of respondents in favour, with only 14% in opposition?

[Alistair Burt]

The UK Government position is that Palestine will be recognised when it is in the best interests of the peace process to do so, which leaves the matter quite open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Given the grave situation in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the impact on our currently deployed British Army teams who are training the peshmerga as we speak?

[Alistair Burt]

At present, I do not think there is any reason to change the arrangements of the armed forces who have worked with the peshmerga and have done such an outstanding job to push back Daesh. What we are all hoping for is that there will be no conflict in the area and that the determination already expressed by both sides to prevent any conflict will lead to a peaceful resolution of the current difficulties.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

As Amnesty International among others has pointed out, the disproportionate use of force by police against civilians is contrary to international law. What representations has the Minister made to his Spanish counterparts about the treatment by Spanish police of civilians voting in the Catalonian independence referendum?

Iran

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the joint comprehensive plan of action with Iran.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. The Government take note of President Trump’s decision not to recertify the joint comprehensive plan of action and are concerned by the implications. The Government are strongly committed to the deal. The JCPOA contributes to the United Kingdom’s wider non-proliferation objectives. The International Atomic Energy Agency continues to report Iran’s compliance with its nuclear commitments. We share serious concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising activity in the region.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. While I am, as always, grateful for the Minister’s presence and his opening remarks, I must say that it is a matter of deep regret that the Foreign Secretary did not consider this worthy of his attention today. For a man who so desperately wants to run the country, he shows surprisingly little interest in running his own Department.

The nuclear deal with Iran stands out as one of the most successful diplomatic achievements of the last decade, and let us be clear: the deal is working. What could today have been another North Korea-type crisis in the heart of the middle east has instead been one problem that the region does not have to worry about. For Donald Trump to jeopardise that deal—for him to move the goalposts by linking it to important but utterly extraneous issues around Iran’s wider activities in the region; for him to play these games—is reckless, mindless and downright dangerous. It makes a reality of Hillary Clinton’s prophecy that putting Donald Trump in the White House will create a real and present danger to world peace.

Let us make it clear that when Donald Trump talks about the deal needing to be fixed, that is utterly disingenuous, when the only evidence that it is in any way broken is a figment of his fevered brain. Yet sadly this behaviour is what we have come to expect of this President. Some of us in the House have been sounding these warnings from day one of his presidency, whether over climate change, human rights or the Iran nuclear deal. When we raised those fears in the House, what did the Foreign Secretary say? He said that I was being “too pessimistic”. He told us that his strategy of hugging the President close—inviting him to meet the Queen, holding his hand when needs be—was the way to wield influence. Specifically on the Iran deal, the Foreign Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box seven months ago and said that I had simply got it wrong on the Iran deal. He said:

“We were told that the…plan of action on Iran, was going to be junked”,

but

“it is now pretty clear that America supports it.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 116.]

Well, one of us got it wrong. One of us was being naive and complacent, and one of us is seven months too late in waking up to this issue.

It really is high time that we had a Government capable of standing up to Donald Trump, not just meekly following his lead. Perhaps in his response the Minister can make a start by making clear two specific differences between this country’s policies and Donald Trump’s. Will he make it clear today that the Government will reject any attempt to make the deal subject to new conditions that have nothing to do with Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons? Will he also make it clear that we reject an approach whereby international agreements can be made by one President and torn up by the next for purely political reasons? It puts us in the invidious position that we will never ever feel secure doing a deal with America again. Will he share that concern today and reassure our allies that this is one Trump lead that the British Government will never follow?

[Alistair Burt]

I am answering a question about the future of the joint comprehensive plan of action with Iran, and I think I will focus more on Iran and the British Government’s position than anything else, because that is what I am required to do.

I thank the right hon. Lady in the first place for making it clear that she agrees with the Government’s assessment of the importance of the joint comprehensive plan of action and our belief that the deal is working. I can tell the House that this was a hard-won deal. It went through many years of negotiation. It was not designed as an all-embracing deal to cover everything that concerned the west and Iran, and both Iran and those who have signed the deal have made that clear. There are a number of issues on all sides, certainly involving ballistic missiles and also Iran’s activities in the region. As Foreign Minister Zarif made clear, however, at a meeting of the UN at which the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was present—as was I, representing the Government, and other signatories—if the deal is to be renegotiated, there is an awful lot on both sides to be renegotiated that was never contemplated by any party when we signed the deal. The deal was designed to do a specific job, which was to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme and its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and so far it has done just that. That is why the UK strongly supports it.

Clearly we disagree with President Trump’s assessment. We do not fail to understand the United States’ concerns about Iran’s activities in the region, and we have made that clear, but we also believe that those matters need to be dealt with outside the agreement, which is why the agreement is so important. To have gone through all that and got something that works, in a world where it is quite difficult to get agreements that work, and then to put it to one side would not help the wider situation. We will continue to work our counsel with the United States and other parties to the agreement, and we will continue to work with the Iranian Government on matters of mutual interest, including those things about which we have concerns, to see if we can use the agreement as a possible springboard to future confidence, knowing that these things do not come quickly, but knowing also that signatures on deals matter. That is what the UK will adhere to.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Given the President’s astonishingly bovine decision—even by his standards—to decertify the joint comprehensive plan of action, against the best military and intelligence advice available to him, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that although we acknowledge, as he did, the very considerable difficulties in dealing with Iran outside this agreement, it is through diplomacy that we have the greatest possible chance to achieve change and progress? Will he therefore assure the House further that there is no question of Her Majesty’s Government supporting the President’s view?

[Alistair Burt]

I can assure my right hon. Friend, whose expertise and long experience in these matters speak volumes, that what I said earlier about our disagreement with the President’s assessment of the current state of the deal holds true. The implementation of the Iran nuclear deal marked a major step forward in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon’s capability. It immediately extended Iran’s break-out time, meaning it would take it 12 months to get enough fissile material for a weapon, and has offered an opportunity for Iranians to make positive decisions about their country’s future and its role in the region. We also recognise that the deal must be policed properly for it to remain a good deal. I say again that elements of Iran’s conduct in the region cause concern in many states—we know that—but, as he said, these matters must be pursued through the bilateral relationship we are working on, together with other states that continue to engage with Iran seriously about its responsibilities in the region.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

The deal shows what can be achieved through diplomacy and dialogue, and I pay tribute to those in Europe and elsewhere, including those in the Minister’s Department, who worked so hard to make it a reality. Has the Minister been clear about his disagreement with the Trump Administration, and can he reveal to the House what his discussions have been? Also, to what extent will he continue to work with our European partners—our natural partners, not the enemy—on this issue?

[Alistair Burt]

I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that discussions with allies go on all the time, and obviously, in the run-up to consideration of the United States’ position on Iran, there was consultation not only with the UK but with all the parties to the agreement, and those discussions will continue. The agreement remains in place, of course; the President has put elements of it to Congress for certification, but the US did not take the opportunity to scrap it completely. That gives us the opportunity to continue moving forward. Conversations about the agreement, which was signed by many parties, not just the US and Iran, will continue between allies.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

May I associate myself absolutely with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who made an excellent point? Has the Minister spoken to some of the other signatories—I am thinking particularly of France and Germany—to hear their view of the matter, and has he spoken to the Iranian Government to assure them, should they feel that a response should be made that would breach the agreement, that it would have consequences, and it would be very much in their interests to respect the agreement despite the actions of the White House?

[Alistair Burt]

At the recent United Nations General Assembly, the High Representative of the European Union called a meeting of all the signatories who were available. As I said a moment ago, I represented the Foreign Secretary, who was attending a Cabinet meeting in the UK. There was a discussion about our respective positions. This was a known meeting, not a private meeting, so I can disclose the situation. It was an opportunity for all the parties—knowing that the United States was considering its position very carefully—to say what they thought about the deal, and all of them except the United States professed that they believed it was working and that they intended to continue it.

This was the first meeting between Secretary of State Tillerson and Foreign Minister Zarif, and it gave the two of them an opportunity to have an exchange about their respective positions. I have to say that it was one of the most enlightening conversations that I listened to. I thought that both of them were perfectly honest in relation to their concerns about their positions. The Secretary of State explained, as did the President in his statement, some of the background to the United States’ concerns, which Foreign Minister Zarif met.

The conclusion is that this was an agreement based not on trust but on distrust. That is why it was so painstaking, that is why it is so important, and that is why it needs to be adhered to. Making an agreement in these circumstances means that we must be very sure about commitments for the future, or about pulling away from them, if we are to build on that with the rest of the mistrust in the region.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As the right hon. Gentleman can already tell, the Government’s strong support for the deal is widely shared on both sides of the House. Does he agree, however, that among the consequences of President Trump’s announcement are, first, that it will undermine confidence in international agreements of this sort—and, as we have already heard, this agreement was painfully and painstakingly negotiated by many people including Baroness Ashton—and, secondly, that it will enable the less than moderate forces in Iran to say to the more moderate forces, “We told you that you could not trust the United States of America”, which is not in anyone’s interests?

[Alistair Burt]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience. Of course there is a risk that an agreement signed by one Administration and not followed through by another in its full terms will lead to exactly the consequences that he has described. In defence of its position, the United States has made it clear that the President was elected having said what he had said about the agreement, which had not been ratified by Congress, and he stands by that.

I think that we should focus less on what was said last week by one party to the agreement than on what is being said by all the other parties to it: that is, we recognise its importance, and we recognise the need to adhere to an agreement if it is working and is certified on all sides. It is the United Kingdom’s view, and that of all the other signatories bar the United States, that the International Atomic Energy Agency has certified that Iran is living up to its obligations under the deal, and that that is the basis on which we should work. Certainly, if we want to encourage others to sign deals that may not benefit all elements of a regime, adhering to a deal is extremely important.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that there are different voices to be listened to and different voices that speak in Tehran, and it is essential for us to be cognisant of that before we take any particular action.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

When Sir Peter Westmacott was British ambassador in Washington, he held 47 one-to-one meetings with United States senators to persuade the United States Congress not to damage the agreement. Will the Minister assure the House that British diplomats are redoubling their efforts in Washington to ensure that Congress continues not to damage the agreement, and will he consider recalling to the colours some of our talented and expert people who may have thought that they were enjoying a well-deserved retirement?

[Alistair Burt]

On the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, one of the most enjoyable parts of my role is to have access not only to current ambassadors but to those I have known and who have served the country in exemplary fashion, as has Peter Westmacott, and to be able to draw on their experience. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that that experience is not lost.

Congress now has the opportunity to expedite legislation on Iran, and we understand it will discuss the issue in the coming weeks. We will continue to work with all our partners in the nuclear deal, including the US, to ensure that all parties implement it in full, and I can assure the House that our diplomatic service in Washington will indeed be working with all elements of the House, as we have done throughout all the terms of the deal.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The Minister has described how difficult and complex it was to negotiate this deal, which was such a significant step forward, and is, of course, now at risk. May I urge him to be a little bolder and state clearly on the record whether he thinks this intervention from the US President will make it easier or more difficult to reach successful multilateral diplomatic agreements in future?

[Alistair Burt]

That is a good question. Honesty in these matters is very important, and if we know anything about President Trump and his Administration it is that he did make certain things clear before he was elected, which he has followed through on, and I think that the President and the United States would defend their actions in that way. There is of course a significant risk: agreements do go on, Government to Government, and ensuring that an agreement is adhered to is fundamental to international negotiations. The fact is that the agreement stays in place, and the other signatories are clear about what it means, and have been very clear with the Iranian Government that they believe they are upholding their obligations and that they must continue to do so. Again, let there be no doubt that Iran has occasionally pushed at the boundaries of this agreement, but those matters have been resolved. Provided that all the signatories remain in compliance, it is the view of the United Kingdom and others beyond the United States that the agreement should stay in place. I would hope that that would continue, on further reflection, to be the view of all signatories to the agreement, but that will depend on all parties adhering to the letter of the agreement.

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

Will the Government dust off the files marked “Cold war containment” and try to get the message across to our American friends and allies that a policy of containment while repressive societies evolve is the best way to deal with countries like Iran?

[Alistair Burt]

Again, I thank my right hon. Friend, who has long experience of these matters. If there is a colleague in the House associated with the cold war, it might, indeed, be my right hon. Friend, for his considerable knowledge, and, if I may say so, the occasional activity associated with it, which are a subject of his memoirs. His point is right. The world went through an awful time in the cold war, as some of us will remember and others will not. The world teetered on the brink of nuclear disaster, and was only pulled back by sensible decisions and the bravery of people in very difficult circumstances. We feel we have moved forward by trying to get the agreements we need. We know where the threats are in other parts of the world where an agreement has not been possible: there is no JCPOA in the far east, and we worry about the consequences of that.

I repeat what I said earlier about the United Kingdom’s position: the fact that this hard-won deal dealt with an aspect of the relationship between Iran and the rest of the world in a manner that could be verified and enabled us to move on, notwithstanding the fact that there were other issues, was really important. If we are not to see a return to cold war, we should look for the opportunity to make that engagement, and be honest in our relationships with each other on things we cannot agree on, but always try to find a way through without isolation and cutting contacts, as that only requires a climb-down at some stage in the future to find a way to re-engage.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does this episode not illustrate the folly of breaking from our natural friends and allies in Europe and throwing in our lot with an unpredictable and irrational American President? That would be the outcome of the extreme hard Brexit that the Minister’s boss and the other hard Brexiteers on his Benches are pursuing.

[Alistair Burt]

I might be the wrong Minister to answer all the details of that question. I simply want to make it clear that I get no indication from my friends in the EU who have been connected with this agreement that any distinction is made between our relationship before the referendum and our relationship now or in the future in relation to these matters. We are firm colleagues and we will remain firm colleagues. This matter overrides those considerations, and I am absolutely sure that those strong friendships and the way in which we see the world will remain the same.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s position. Does the Minister realise that what is important is the regime’s direction of travel, and that the moderates have the upper hand in Iran, in large part because of this deal? Will the Government therefore do what they can to encourage Congress not to make the wrong decision during the 60-day window? Otherwise, the implications for the rules-based international system will be obvious, not least to the North Koreans.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is an experienced member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and he well understands some of the dynamics relating to Iran. Iran is a complex political society with different representatives and different voices, as I said earlier. It is clear that there are elements in Iran who saw the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—JCPOA—as an opportunity to open possibilities for the country on the wider stage, and who recognised that for those possibilities to be maximised, other behaviour had to be recognised and curtailed. There may be others in Iran who saw the agreement in a different light. The United Kingdom’s position is to believe that the signing of the agreement brought an opportunity to continue to work with those who wanted to see Iran return to the world stage. It will not be able to do that if it continues with disruptive activity in the regions, but adhering to this agreement has been very important. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Foreign Minister Zarif twice in the past week—once before the President’s announcement and once after it—and I am sure that he made that clear to those elements who wish to see the JCPOA leading to something good for the future of the region.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that President Trump is a proliferator, that he is encouraging the undermining of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that by his action he will make it almost impossible to get any agreement on North Korea?

[Alistair Burt]

In all fairness, it is not for me to deal with the intentions of the President in the manner that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I simply reiterate that the United Kingdom disagrees with the rationale behind the President’s decision. We understand the importance of the non-proliferation treaty, which has been one of the great successes among international agreements in the past 30 or 40 years, and also therefore the importance of signatures on agreements, where those agreements can be verified. We will continue to work with all our partners, including the United States, to try to ensure that our point of view is one that they recognise and support.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I should like to join the universal welcome for the Government’s continuing support for the nuclear deal, which is working. Does the Minister agree that creating economic interdependence with Iran should be a general policy objective to deliver more leverage over future behaviour on non-nuclear-related matters?

[Alistair Burt]

The relationship between states is often complex, and it is doubly so in relation to Iran. We want to see a bilateral relationship with Iran that is based on our values. Trade is clearly important but it cannot be carried on at the expense of those values. Also, the term “leverage” should be considered carefully. It should always be to the mutual advantage of any states that their relationships with one another are based on peace, security, compatibility of values and the opportunity to go over differences and resolve them without conflict. That is what we will continue to do. There are issues between ourselves and Iran, such as the consular matters that people well understand, and we will continue to press them. We hope that the relationship that we are trying to forge will be based on our values and the needs of the rest of the region, which will require Iran to recognise that some of its activities could and should take a different course.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement is welcome and moves us forward, but he will recall that part of the logic behind the decision to engage with Iran on the basis of distrust, as he says, was the potential for a nuclear-armed Iran to lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. What steps will our Government take to say to our friends in the middle east that it is not in their interest to see the agreement destabilised?

[Alistair Burt]

Most of our friends and partners in the middle east recognise that the non-proliferation treaty has prevented the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which would have been easy. Many states possess the wealth to equip themselves with nuclear weapons, but they have not done so because they accepted the terms of the treaty and other international agreements. The importance of continuing with the JCPOA is about ensuring that the signatories remain convinced that parties and powers that sign such agreements will abide by them. I have heard no suggestion that the President’s decision marks a change in that attitude among neighbouring powers, who realise how destabilising a change in Iran’s position on the non-proliferation treaty would be. I have also received no suggestion that Iran’s seeking nuclear weapons is likely to be an outcome of what we heard last week.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

If the agreement will not in itself control Iran’s financing of terrorist groups, will the Minister say a word about how it is acting as a springboard? That would give people more confidence in the deal.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend goes into other aspects of Iran’s activity in the region over which a veil cannot and should not be drawn. I will again make the point that the JCPOA was not meant in any way to draw a line under or cover up Iran’s activities. It is not the case that if Iran stuck to this element of the deal, everything else would no longer need to be considered. Other measures are in place to deal with such things. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is covered by EU sanctions, for example, and sanctions are available against those who finance terrorist activity, which would include some in Iran. EU sanctions are already in place in relation to Iranian individuals who have been suspected of human rights abuses, for example. Other leverage is available to deal with our concerns about Iran, and sanctions remain available to us, but we want to use the agreement as an opportunity to deal with the things on which Iran could and should do more. We will continue to do that by developing a bilateral relationship with Iran.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Britain had just restarted diplomatic relations with Iran and a new British ambassador was on his way to Tehran when George W. Bush foolishly included Iran in the “axis of evil” speech, making it much more difficult for us to progress our relations with Iran. Is it not now all the more important to make it absolutely clear that we are a country in our own right and will not necessarily follow the American line, and that we will want to make strong alliances with our allies in Europe in the future, even if we are not a member of the EU?

[Alistair Burt]

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, and the Foreign Secretary met Vice-President Salehi last week. I reiterate that the importance of the agreement is that it dealt with one aspect of the relationship, but there are other aspects. I do not gloss over our other issues with Iran, which will not be in our bilateral discussions, but at least they can be spoken about and at least there is a pathway forward. There is a chance of new relationships if each party to the agreement accepts their obligations, particularly in relation to any potential activities in other states.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

While not ignoring human rights abuses and the abuse of minorities, including Christians—the Minister either has acknowledged or would acknowledge such abuses—does he agree it is important for the international community to continue with dialogue to reach a diplomatic solution, and that this nuclear deal makes the region a safer place?

[Alistair Burt]

I agree with that assessment. As I mentioned earlier, we have only to look at the situation in another part of the world where no such deal exists and where there is deep concern about the movement of a power towards nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing. The deal with Iran covers off that issue in an important state in a region that badly needs stability and needs all states to recognise their responsibilities to each other. Closing doors does not help. It is important that states are firm, clear and honest with each other. Not covering things up but always looking for an opportunity to seek change and development: that should be the product of conversations between states that want to achieve something.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is it not true that one of the dominant voices in Iran is the Revolutionary Guard, the people who blocked the release of Nazanin Ratcliffe? However much we might worry about President Trump’s actions, would we not be mad to rely on the word and behaviour of the Revolutionary Guard for nuclear security, or anything else?

[Alistair Burt]

It is precisely because we do not need to rely on anyone’s word—we can rely on a deal verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its work to verify the deal’s commitments—that we have been able to make progress on reducing the number of centrifuges, reducing the amount of stored uranium, reducing heavy water capacity and reducing Iran’s ability to create more. All those things are verifiable. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I have mentioned the important distinction that this agreement is not based on each side trusting the word of the other; it is because of the very fact that words cannot always be trusted that there has to be something concrete and visible, and verified by independent parties, on which to proceed. That is what the deal is about. There are words that cannot be relied on in any international context, which is why agreements, and sticking to agreements, are so important.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Although no one disputes the unsettling nature of the Iranian regime, this deal, which was the culmination of 13 years of negotiation, has stopped Iran building a nuclear weapon. Does the Minister agree that Trump’s aggressive stance undermines our collective influence and responsibility in managing global security?

[Alistair Burt]

Since the deal was signed Iran has given up two thirds of its centrifuges and 95% of its uranium stockpile. Our priority is to work with the deal and make it deliver for our shared security interests. It is helpful if all the parties to the agreement move at the same speed and in the same way. The United States has declared why it does not currently agree with the deal, and we disagree, and have disagreed publicly, with its rationale. We will continue to engage with Iran for the very reasons that my hon. Friend states—for global security and certainty on agreements between states.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Can the agreement carry on without the United States? What is the practical implication of the US position?

[Alistair Burt]

I knew at some stage a question would be asked that is beyond my pay grade. I have always taken the view that there are many signatories to this agreement. The United States is considering the possibility of new legislation, but it remains a party to the deal, so the deal stays in place. We do not want to contemplate a situation in which one party unilaterally withdraws, because of the implications for other parties. We will do all in our power to ensure that all parties to the agreement continue to adhere to its provisions, that the deal stays in place and that it forms the basis of further discussions about the matters of disagreement between us so that we can build a new consensus on what is needed in the region.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The deal has made the world a safer place, but it does not cover all aspects, as my right hon. Friend has said. Some constituents of mine are worried that we are giving too much to Iran and ignoring the sponsorship of terrorism that goes on elsewhere. The deal is vital and only it can be the way a peaceful solution can be moved forward, but will he confirm that Britain still stands with other countries that may be affected by the terrorism sponsored by Iran, such as that of Hezbollah and Hamas?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his observations and remarks, as he gives me another opportunity to make things clear. If this deal had tried to cover all the aspects of concern between the signatories and Iran, it would never have been signed—it just would not have happened. The whole point of the deal was to find an area between two groups of people who were concerned about each other on which they could agree and on which there could be external verification to mean that that particular issue was dealt with. That was the purpose of the deal. At no stage was it envisaged that everything else of concern would suddenly disappear. As I indicated earlier, we remain concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile testing and its activity throughout the region, but conversations go on between ourselves and Iran—and other states—on that and on the financing of terror. We can deal with those other issues in other ways, and sanctions will be applied where this is appropriate—where behaviour has been uncovered which breaks international rules.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that the approach should be “firm, clear and honest”. Will he give his reassurance to the House that that is how he and Ministers will treat the ongoing discussions about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, I repeat what I said in Westminster Hall last week: we remain concerned for all our dual nationals currently detained in Iran. Conversations about them are going on and we believe that on humanitarian grounds these cases need to be looked at seriously by the authorities in Iran. We have made our views very clear, very regularly and at the highest levels.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the Minister’s stance on the Iran deal. He has already made reference to it, but can he reiterate his confidence in the ongoing monitoring programme?

[Alistair Burt]

I can, yes. It is our belief that the IAEA has the access it needs to give the parties to the deal—beyond perhaps the United States—the confidence that the deal is being adhered to. That is our view.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has just asked the question I was going to ask, but it seems a shame to waste all this standing up and sitting back down again, so may I ask the Minister to expand on whether the UK Government and others are actively preparing for a scenario in which the US formally secedes from this arrangement and yet the basic framework is kept in place?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman illustrates that no question is ever wasted here, and that was a good question. As always, the Government have to prepare for all eventualities. It is our belief that the JCPOA should be adhered to and all parties should stick with it, but of course should there be any change in that, we are always prepared. At the moment, we believe the agreement should stay in place and we have the agreement of many parties on all sides for that view.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Given wider concerns about the Iranian regime’s appalling human rights record, particularly on LGBT— lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—issues and with the persecution of Christians, we can understand why people have some scepticism about accepting its word. Will the Minister reassure me as to just how thorough the monitoring of this deal is, so that everyone can have confidence that we are getting exactly what it intended to deliver?

[Alistair Burt]

As I said, we know enough about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s activity to be confident that the deal is being verified. There are elements of the deal that are confidential between the IAEA and Iran—we do not need to go into that—but we are confident about the verification and the matters that have already delivered certain very visible changes with respect to Iran’s nuclear stockpile.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

We welcome the tripartite statement on this issue over the weekend from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France, as well as the Minister’s comments today. Does not that statement indicate that the British Government’s foreign policy voice is magnified when they work with other EU countries and that it is a mistake to use defence and security co-operation as a bargaining chip in the EU divorce negotiations?

[Alistair Burt]

I am absolutely certain that the UK’s relationship with its partners on the continent, within or without our membership of the EU, will always have foreign defence and security matters firmly at its heart.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Minister is right to say that even those who support the deal have grave misgivings about Iran’s malign regional attitude. The Iranians themselves boast of dominating four Arab capitals, and they are actively and often violently seeking to undermine important regional allies of this country. What practical steps are being taken, with our allies, to address and counter that threat?

[Alistair Burt]

We remain concerned by the destabilising activities of revolutionary guards in the region—particularly in Syria, Iraq and Yemen—and the IRGC in its entirety remains subject to EU sanctions. Sanctions are only one tool available to the international community. The UK believes that there are other means of challenging Iran’s disruptive regional activity that may be more effective, but we are open to considering other matters where appropriate, working in concert with EU partners.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend’s understanding the same as that of the EU High Representative: that no one country has the authority to veto the deal?

[Alistair Burt]

I think it is, in that we were all signatories to the deal. No one wants to see one party come out of it unilaterally, but if one did and others thought the same, that would undermine the deal. We very much want to keep the provisions of the JCPOA going. It provides a degree of certainty about Iran’s nuclear programme, and it does not close off other opportunities to deal with issues.

I must say one further thing: at the meeting in New York, Foreign Minister Zarif made it clear that his state had issues, too. It is not for me to comment on the quality of those issues or anything else, but he indicated that if the agreement was thrown up in the air and there was a renegotiation, Iran wanted to bring many other issues into the conversation. My view was that we should keep the JCPOA and make sure we are open to talking about those different issues; I did not get the impression from Secretary of State Tillerson that he was averse to continuing his conversations with Foreign Minister Zarif. That would give us the opportunity to make progress with the many different voices in Tehran and to move forward with those who foresee a different future for Iran if there are changes in its relationships to its neighbours in the region, to the benefit of all and the security of the rest of the world.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

RAF Coningsby in my constituency is the home of the Typhoon jets that keep the nation’s skies safe. I am pleased that some constituents of mine have visited the House today. Will my right hon. Friend please assure the people who play such a vital role in the nation’s security that every diplomatic effort is being made so that, please God, they never have to face the consequences of diplomacy failing?

[Alistair Burt]

I can absolutely confirm what my hon. Friend said, and I am pleased to endorse that. If the House will allow me one indulgence, my father was medical officer at Coningsby many years ago, and he recently paid it a visit: 70 years on, he was able to climb into a Lancaster bomber. The way he and his friends were treated that day made it a wonderful experience for him, as someone who had played his part in the RAF many years ago. We pay tribute to those who are working day and night for our security.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The special and historic relationship we have with the United States puts us in a very good position, if not the best, among all the signatories to the agreement, to make clear to the Administration things that I know my right hon. Friend will find the right diplomatic language for. The old dictum is that we campaign in poetry but govern in prose. Being the leader of the free world requires more skills than being a gameshow host or a contestant on “The X Factor”.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is slightly tempting me to use a type of language and to go down a route that might be more appropriate from the Back Benches than at the Dispatch Box. He makes his point well, but we all understand that the President recognises the responsibility that he bears on behalf of many, and that he will continue to listen to partners in relation to defence and security. We will continue to look at all opportunities to do that, particularly in relation to this agreement.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Is it the availability of intelligence that has prompted the Government of Israel to support the President’s assessment?

[Alistair Burt]

If it was, we do not comment on intelligence matters anyway. None the less, I will say that there are many different voices in Israel as well on this particular agreement. There is no alternative agreement being put forward. I am not aware of an alternative JCPOA being put forward by any powers, and I remain of the view, as do the UK Government, that this agreement does the job that it is designed to do. It does not close our eyes to other things that need to be dealt with, and Israel has genuine concerns about Iranian activity in the region. Those concerns stand whether or not the agreement goes forward, but they are easier to deal with if we keep this agreement in place.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

In contrast to some Opposition Members, I believe in the special relationship with the US. It is a mutually beneficial and enduring relationship that goes way beyond that between one US President and one UK Prime Minister. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are pulling all the available levers in that relationship at every level to persuade our American friends to retain this deal?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right in recognising that the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States is very deep and that, at many levels, contacts are going on all the time right through Government. He can be absolutely assured that those relationships, led by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe and the Americas, ensure that our voice is heard in the United States at the highest levels.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

May I caution my right hon. Friend about seeing this issue purely through the lens of Donald Trump? There are many good friends of the United Kingdom on Capitol Hill, such as Senator John McCain and Congressman Ryan, who have serious and legitimate concerns about this deal, as indeed do friends in Israel and the Gulf states. May I also ask him to consider the comments of Senator McCain over the weekend, which, I think, suggested that there would be more support on Capitol Hill for continuing the deal were the international community to take forward separate and significant activity against Iran’s state sponsorship of terror?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I can assure him that the United Kingdom is not considering this matter purely through the eyes of the President, although his statement is of course definitive as a Government position. As I said when I began my remarks, I was able to comment on a discussion that I was part of between Secretary of State Tillerson and Foreign Minister Zarif, in which they gave their view of why they were at odds with each other.

The Secretary of State enunciated very well the sort of concerns that are held by a number of Members of the House of Congress and other people in America and in other states. There is no doubt that the concerns expressed by the President are held by others. However, the point is how to use those doubts and whether those doubts were sufficient to put at risk the JCPOA. It is the United Kingdom’s view that they were not and that those other issues, important as they are, should be handled in a different way, but that the JCPOA should stay in place. We will endeavour to work with our allies in relation to that point of view.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Much as many might wish it to, what the JCPOA proscribes is very tight and does not cover things such as ballistic missiles or human rights. Will the Minister outline why such tight proscription is in fact in our interest and Iran’s? The wider we range on issues such as this, the harder it will be to strike any deal.

[Alistair Burt]

I said earlier that Foreign Minister Zarif has made it clear to the other parties of the agreement that, had the agreement sought to go wider after the years of fairly torturous negotiations on the nucleophile, it simply would not have been signed. If it had not been signed, Iran would have been continuing to proceed on a path that we all felt might lead to the possibility of a nuclear weapon in the region, with all those implications. It was better to have that agreement signed on those terms and to continue work on the other things than it would have been simply to try to find such an all-embracing deal that it would never have been signed by Iran.

Let me spell out to the House the product of the deal. Iran has shipped more than 12 tonnes of enriched uranium to Russia to eliminate its stock of 20% enriched uranium; removed more than 13,000 centrifuges and associated infrastructure; removed the core of the Arak heavy water reactor; removed all excess heavy water to the Arak reactor to prevent the production of weapons-grade plutonium; allowed greater IAEA access and the use of online monitoring; provisionally implemented the IAEA additional protocol; and agreed a procurement channel for authorised exports of nuclear-rated goods and services to Iran. All that was achieved by the deal. We would hold that—notwithstanding the extraneous matters, which are important and need to be dealt with —the product of the deal, as I have enunciated, has been good for the region, the world and the United Kingdom.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I recognise, understand and respect the cross-party consensus reflected in the vast majority of questions in favour of this agreement, but may I just put the alternative point of view to the Minister? This is not a permanent fix to Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Limits on that programme begin to wind down in just eight years’ time. In the meantime, Iran is looking to construct an airfield and a naval base in Syria, and is developing plans to send a division of troops to Syria. In 10 years’ time, we could face the prospect, with a 12-month breakout period, of Iran’s having a bigger military footprint in the region, and still being able to develop a nuclear weapon in no time at all. How does the Minister respond to that?

[Alistair Burt]

If the deal comes to the end with no further agreement about provisions for the future, Iran would still be subject to the nuclear proliferation treaty as it was before. Those provisions will stay in place. Having agreed this treaty, there is no reason to believe that it will not be possible to continue its terms and, clearly, the parties will want to achieve that.

My hon. Friend quite rightly mentions the other activities of Iran that cause concern in the region, and those concerns are very real. We all know enough about this place and politics to know that if everybody agrees on something, there is often a problem. It is right that we hear alternative voices and it is important to listen to things that might be contrary to what we wish if we are to ensure that what we wish for is what happens in reality. That is what the United Kingdom is very clear-sighted on—its relations with its partners, with the United States and with Iran.

Iran: Human Rights

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Buck. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to an excellent debate introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), to whom I pay tribute, as colleagues have done, not only for her excellent work in Northern Ireland, but for her steadfast support of human rights, particularly those involving freedom of religion. I am grateful to her for securing the debate.

I am grateful for the contributions of the right hon Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who speaks for the Opposition and with some knowledge, having been to Tehran. He has a good background in relation to the debate. I appreciate the way in which he and other colleagues couched their remarks.

First, I want to put on the record some remarks on human rights so it is clear what we think about this in general and what we have done in relation to Iran. Then I want to mention what colleagues have said about attitudes to Iran, the nuclear deal and dual nationals before I go on to specifics. I do not want to run out of time, so I will mention those things first.

The United Kingdom deplores human rights violations and abuses wherever they occur and we call them out whenever we learn of them. It is because of our concern over the violation of human rights that we designated Iran as one of our human rights priority countries, and we have integrated human rights into the work of our diplomats right across the network. The human rights situation in Iran remains dire and we are determined to continue to hold the Government to account. We frequently release statements condemning the human rights situation in Iran and lead action by the international community. We have also designated more than 80 Iranians responsible for human rights violations under EU sanctions, helped to establish a UN special rapporteur for Iran’s human rights, and lobbied at the UN for the adoption of human rights resolutions on Iran. We regularly raise human rights in our dialogue with Iran, which I will speak about in a moment.

I therefore recognise the deep concern and frustration expressed here today at the lack of progress made by Iran to improve its human rights record. The latest report of the UN special rapporteur for human rights clearly sets out the appalling situation in Iran and highlights a wide range of areas that need to be addressed. The UK agrees with her assessment. I want to get that clearly on the record before I go on to say one or two other things.

First, I will tackle the issue of attitudes to Iran. One of the most difficult things that the Government have to contend with is how to deal with issues in countries that are friendly and less friendly when we are trying to create a relationship, and we have to acknowledge that countries do things that do not fit well with what the United Kingdom believes in. That applies to allies as well as to those we do not consider to be allies. Many countries around the world have practices with which the United Kingdom has to take issue. It is difficult to get the right balance in how to move forward. I contend at the moment that evidence of success through isolation is pretty limited, which suggests some degree of engagement is needed. In his nuanced remarks, the hon. Member for Norwich South hinted at this. It is easy for us to be clear about what we do not like and for Parliament to condemn clearly, as it should. Dealing with a state and helping to move it on to a position with which the United Kingdom is comfortable—the universal acceptance of human rights in this particular example—is a difficult process. It takes time and engagement. As a Minister, I am perfectly content to be challenged on that, but I do think engagement is right.

Two things follow. First, as colleagues have said, there were and there remain hopes in relation to what President Rouhani can do, but he does not have an unfettered hand. In his description of Iranian society, the hon. Member for Leeds North East couched it well. When a new leader comes to office in a complex situation in almost any country, we cannot expect things to change automatically in the way in which we would like. In relation to his citizens rights charter, at his inauguration—at which I was present as part of that engagement—Rouhani said:

“I hope that there will be more justice throughout the country and our people are more hopeful of the future.”

Well, so do we. He said,

“I am the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, responsible to safeguard all people’s rights. From now on, we must be responsive to the people’s votes.”

He said that in front of the Supreme Leader and made his views clear. We call on him to uphold the values that he set out. We recognise it will not be done immediately and automatically, which I think is a common-sense approach. We are looking for evidence of movement, but we recognise that Rouhani, the Government and society have to go about it in a particular way. The charter of citizens rights is the first of its kind in Iran. It has the potential to have a positive impact.

Another part of the engagement is the JCPOA—the joint comprehensive plan of action—or nuclear deal. It was never intended that the nuclear deal would be an all-embracing agreement with Iran, whereby in return for a stop on progress towards a nuclear weapon everything else would be taken into account. There are different views and expectations of the deal, but I, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are clear on what the nuclear deal was about. In a world where it has proved difficult in some places to restrain states, Iran stopped its progress towards a nuclear weapon. Just that; not all the other things that we have concerns about in Iran. Iran knows there are other issues in the region that have been highlighted by colleagues, and we know we must continue the progress on those.

The nuclear deal did the job it was designed to do. It is the United Kingdom’s view that Iran has held to the terms of the deal. That is why we still support it. The House should not think that because we agree on that, we have given a green light to Iran in relation to other things and that other concerns have come to a halt. They have not; those talks go on. One thing was agreed in a situation of great difficulty after many years and with huge distrust on both sides. The deal was not born of trust, but distrust, and putting in place the mechanisms to make sure verification was possible. Although lots of other things are on the table, the fact that this is in the bracket it is in and is being stuck to is not a bad thing. Now we must move on to other things.

I will now deal with specific issues mentioned in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The issues are difficult but I want to express clearly what we are doing. We are doing everything we possibly can. Our ambassador raises the issue of dual national detainees with the Iranian authorities at every possible opportunity; he seeks to secure consular access and to ensure their welfare. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all raised the cases with our counterparts and we have stressed the importance of resolving them as quickly as possible. This is clearly a very distressing situation for all the families of the British detainees, let alone for the detainees themselves, and our hearts go out to them. We are in regular contact with the families through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have met the families of some of the dual nationals in the UK and in Tehran. I have tried to reassure them that the British Government are making every possible effort. We will continue to raise their loved ones’ cases with the Iranian Government at every possible opportunity in an attempt to seek a change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington first. The hon. Member for Glasgow North is quite new to the debate.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He might be about to come on to this. I welcome the fact that the Minister—as I said earlier, I greatly respect him—has met the families. I posed the question about whether the Foreign Secretary would meet them. Given the circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate for him to meet them. Will the Minister raise that with the Foreign Secretary?

[Alistair Burt]

I understand that point, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the dual nationals we are talking about are not the only detainees held in confinement around the world. It seems appropriate that the Minister responsible for the area meets the families. The Foreign Secretary has indeed raised the cases, and continues to do so, at the highest level. I do not want to speak for the Foreign Secretary in relation to this. I hope my own engagement as the Minister most responsible meets the needs of the families. They are well aware of the concerns that we express at the highest level. I am puzzled, disappointed and deeply concerned by the latest news reports concerning Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Yesterday, I spoke to the Iranian ambassador in the UK to express that concern and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak to his counterpart, Foreign Minister Zarif, later today about this and other matters. I also spoke to our ambassador in Tehran to seek further information on what further circumstances Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is facing. We do not yet have that clarification, and it is possible that matters are not quite as they appear in the media, but we are urgently trying to find out exactly what those circumstances are and I will continue to press on that.

I remain of the strong view that the humanitarian situation of a mother separated from her child should prompt her release, not least on the grounds that under Iranian law she is eligible for parole in relation to the first charges that she faced within the next few weeks. That view has been expressed clearly and regularly to the Iranian authorities with which we are engaged. That is what we are seeking to do in relation to the dual nationals. I assure colleagues that those people are uppermost in our minds, and we are trying to handle their best interests. We will continue to press the cases of all the dual nationals whenever we can.

Colleagues raised the matter of the death penalty. We remain extremely concerned about the high number of executions in Iran, including those of juvenile offenders. According to Amnesty International, at least 247 people have been executed since January—at least three of whom were under 18 when the crime was committed. That practice is not only appalling, but in direct violation of international conventions that prohibit juveniles from being sentenced to death, to which Iran is a signatory. In looking for opportunities for the future, there is a small sign of progress, as perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds North East knows, in the form of a proposed change to Iranian drugs law. That would mean that the death penalty would be applied only in the most serious circumstances. I urge the Iranian Parliament and the Guardian Council to enact that Bill as quickly as possible. Every day that it is delayed brings another needless execution.

Colleagues raised the issue of freedom of expression, Iran’s record on which is also poor. The special rapporteur notes that at least 12 journalists and 14 bloggers and social media activists are currently in detention for their peaceful activities. In April, three separate channel administrators on the popular messaging app Telegram, mentioned by colleagues this morning, were each sentenced to 12 years in prison for

“collusion and gathering against the regime and insulting the leader and founder of the Islamic Revolution”.

Voice calls over Telegram were also banned. That is not what an open and free society looks like. The British Government therefore call on Iran to adhere to its international obligations and to release all those who have been detained for exercising their right to freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly, which I think is what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was asking me to do. We also call on Iran to quash the prison sentences given to others for similar reasons.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet also raised the issue of freedom of expression for faith, as did one or two other colleagues. I met members of the Baha’i community in my office a few weeks ago, as I had met them a few years ago. I remain concerned, as does the House, about persecution of those of the Baha’i faith. We are concerned by state efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’is, and we will continue to raise that issue. As far as Iranian Christians are concerned, we also share the concerns about the continuing crackdown in Iran against religious minorities, including the house church movement mentioned by my right hon. Friend among Iranian Christians, and harassment of Muslims who convert to Christianity. The recent apparent crackdown on Christians for what appeared to be normal church activities, such as celebrating Christmas or holding a picnic—an important social activity at weekends in Iran, which we note has particular significance—is particularly concerning. We are not blind to those acts and we call on Iran to cease harassment of all religious minorities and to fulfil its international and domestic obligations to allow freedom of religion to all Iranians.

Colleagues mentioned women’s rights. Women do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as men in Iran and continue to face discrimination. Married women, as my right hon. Friend said, need the consent of their husbands to leave the country and can be banned from travelling abroad if their spouses do not sign the paperwork needed to obtain or renew a passport. Given that the President has expressed his desire to see greater justice in the country and to see human rights move forward, we hope that women’s rights will also be high on the agenda. The discrimination they face is unacceptable in the 21st century, so we urge the Government of Iran to repeal discriminatory laws and enable women and girls to participate equally and contribute fully to society—something that is clearly in Iran’s interest. All of us who know about Iranian society know that women are extremely voluble about what they believe they can contribute to society. They should be given full opportunity of expression.

We share the concern about continued persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Iran. Homosexual acts are criminalised in the Iranian penal code, and the punishment can range from 100 lashes to the death penalty for both men and women. It is also against Iranian law for people of the same sex to touch and kiss, and for people to cross-dress. There is no legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in Iran, and there is widespread social intolerance of homosexuality.

Transsexuality in Iran has been legal since a fatwa was issued in 1987 by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. There is, however, still a great deal of social stigma attached to transsexuals, and they can obtain legal identification documents in their preferred gender only if they have undergone gender reassignment surgery. That makes it difficult for those who do not want to undergo surgery to find employment and access medical services and education. Again, we have repeatedly called on Iran to fulfil its international and domestic obligations to protect the human rights of all Iranians, and we continue to do so.

In conclusion, the Government share colleagues’ concerns about the human rights situation in Iran.

[Tom Brake]

I raised the issue, which I hope the Minister will respond to in the last three minutes, of how the Government will ensure that human rights concerns are embedded in the cornucopia of trade deals that they will be negotiating.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me. The Government have repeatedly said, and I can say again here, that human rights considerations are not being, and will not be, sacrificed for trade deals. That is not the Government’s intention, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East indicated from the Opposition Front Bench, and we have repeatedly said so. I can give that assurance to colleagues in the House today.

[Bob Blackman]

Before the Minister concludes, both my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and I raised the issue of the 1988 massacre, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has not replied. Will he lead the campaign in the United Nations to get a proper report into that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I stand by the letters that I have already signed off on that subject, which say that in our dealing with the issue of progress in Iran we do not at this stage plan to raise the 1988 executions at the UN or to support the inquiry. We are, however, working closely with the UN special rapporteur and we remain concerned about related issues that have come up. I have to say, however, that at present we do not have any intention to raise it specifically.

My hon. Friend also raised the matter of the NCRI, which I should refer to before I sit down. We do not have an official contact with it, and we do not endorse particular opposition groups in Iran. Choosing Iran’s Government should be a matter for the Iranian people, and we remain of the view that we will not favour particular opposition groups in Iran.

[Dr Offord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

I want to conclude, because I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet needs a moment to speak as well. I thank colleagues for continuing to raise this matter. I hope that at the beginning of my remarks I gave a sense of how we are trying to deal with this difficult issue: we will continue to raise matters and we will not neglect them. Progress in Iran may well be slow, but we want it to be certain to fulfil what we believe are the hopes and desires of the Iranian people.

British Prisoners in Iran

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate? I thank all Members who have spoken—principally my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), for an appreciation of some of the politics behind this.

I certainly recognise the intense interest in this issue, not only across the parties in this House but among the public in the United Kingdom and beyond. Of course I recognise the deep concern felt about all the cases mentioned today and the huge frustration at the lack of progress. I will try to offer as much clarity as I can and set out what the Government are doing to assist the detainees and their families. I will also explain the limitations on what we can do.

Like everyone else, I wish to see all those mentioned today returned to their families and to the UK. My responsibility and our responsibility is to work in the most effective way we can, in all the circumstances, to achieve that, and to explain what we do and why. I know everyone here would welcome me doing more. I am not sure how much people would welcome me doing something that made life more difficult. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

Let me say what I am trying to do. This issue has been a priority for me since my appointment last month. I spoke to the deputy Foreign Minister of Iran about our prisoners on 21 June and raised the subject again when I met the Iranian ambassador on 6 July. Two days before that, I met relatives of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and earlier this afternoon I met the family of Mr Foroughi. At both those meetings I assured the families that I would do everything I could for their loved ones. The families also have round-the-clock access to support and assistance from our dedicated Foreign Office officials. I know how much the officials put into this, and I think the families involved know that as well. There is no intention to keep anyone in the dark about anything. There is a limit to how much information we have, but everything that we can communicate is communicated directly to the families. They have 24-hour access to consular officials, and they and all colleagues here have constant access to me.

[Annaliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No, because I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn to speak at the end. I cannot possibly answer all the questions raised. All colleagues who have a question on the table will get an answer by letter, but I want to address as much as possible of what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said.

I want to assure all colleagues that we are doing everything we can for our detainees. Our strategy is based on decades of experience—both our own experience and that of international partners—of dealing with Iran. We judge that approach to be in the best interests of those detained, but we keep it under constant review. If our assessment of the right way to handle this is to change, we would consider any alternative courses of action, but for now we judge the approach we are taking to be the most constructive one.

Our ambassador raises the issue of our detainees with the Iranian authorities at every opportunity; he seeks to secure consular access and to ensure their welfare. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have raised all our consular cases with their counterparts and have stressed the importance of resolving them as quickly as possible. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), discussed the issue with the Iranians on numerous occasions, both in London and Tehran. However, we must recognise that there are limitations on what we can do.

I turn now to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, starting with dual nationality. Nationality is a key factor. All the British nationals currently detained in Iran also hold Iranian nationality. Questions of nationality are for individual states to decide. Unlike the UK, Iran does not legally recognise dual nationality. It considers our detainees to be Iranian, which has implications for consular assistance, which are set out in the passports of those with dual nationality. Under international law, states are not obliged to grant consular access to dual nationals, which is why our passports state that the British Government are unable to assist dual nationals in the country of their other nationality.

Our travel advice for Iran reiterates that statement and highlights the additional potential risks for British-Iranian dual nationals travelling there. None the less, we try to help dual nationals in exceptional circumstances. In practice, that is often difficult, as we are finding in Iran. We have repeatedly asked the Iranian authorities to grant us consular access to our dual-national detainees. However, as Iran considers them to be Iranian, it does not recognise our right of access. We know that other countries face similar difficulties, but we will continue to press for consular access.

Let me turn to some other issues. On publicly calling for the release of the detainees, we are doing everything we can for them, including trying to secure access to them and to ensure their welfare. However, we do that in the way that we judge is in their best interests, and we assess that the approach we are currently taking is the most likely to be in the best interests of all our prisoners in Iran.

As has been stated, there are new opportunities with Iran’s opening up. Following the destruction of our own embassy there some years ago, a new embassy has opened and new relationships are opening up. It is a complex country with a complex power structure, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East made clear, but I am hoping to take the opportunity—and I am sure the Government are hoping to take it—to explore what this new chance of a relationship with Iran means, both for us and for them. That will take some time, but it provides the opportunity for contacts to be made in a different way from before. That will supplement the efforts already being made on a regular basis to raise the issue by our consular team and by Ministers at the highest level.

Raising the issue can mean a variety of different things, from just mentioning it at a particular time to, following the development of a relationship, an opportunity to go into the issue further. Some of the issues that we consider here are blindingly obvious, such as how a country is seen by others around the world. We understand that very well. Different aspects of the Iranian Government understand some of that, but not others. We want to make sure that they see an issue like this as we see it, so that they can take the steps that we need to see our nationals returned.

Human rights in Iran generally are another key part of the debate, but what do we do about them? The Government take human rights and the rule of law seriously, and the human rights situation in Iran remains dire. I am putting that on the record, so that we in this Chamber, and the Iranian Government and the Iranian ambassador, who will read the account of the debate, will see it and know exactly what we mean. The human rights situation in Iran remains dire, and we are determined to continue to hold the Iranian Government to account. We frequently release statements condemning the human rights situation in Iran and regularly take action with the international community.

For example, we designated more than 80 Iranians responsible for human rights violations under EU sanctions, helped to establish the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran and strongly support the human rights resolutions regarding Iran at the UN. We believe that continued engagement with Iran on economic development and openness are the best ways to develop our relationship and will give us better leverage to discuss other issues. We do not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights and the rule of law; they can be, and are, complementary.

We considered very carefully the invitation to visit Evin prison earlier this month. The decision to participate in the tour was taken because we felt it would provide an opportunity to engage directly with prison authorities regarding the dual-national detainees. We felt that taking this opportunity should be taken, in the best interests of all our detainees and their families. Our consul repeatedly asked to see the British-Iranian detainees but was denied access. The risk of not accepting the invitation was the Iranian authorities saying, “We gave you an opportunity to see the conditions. You didn’t take it. What do you expect?” There are occasions when we are trapped if we do and trapped if we don’t.

Everyone in the FCO who deals with this—the consular team, which has been in constant contact with the families—knows how hard people are being pressed, but the truth is that this is not a matter in the hands of the UK Government to resolve. If it is to be resolved, it has to be resolved by the Iranian regime, and we have to play a part in making sure that we have done everything we can to facilitate that and make it work. There are different approaches to that. There is a public approach, which people can see; it is right that this issue is brought up here and in the most direct way by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and all hon. Members who represent those who have been detained, and it is right that this is carried worldwide. However, different groups have different responsibilities, and my responsibility is to do what the Foreign Secretary and I consider to be most effective to secure the return of the detainees to their families. As we can see, that means our having a different approach from that which people might like to see.

All I can say is that, so long as I have the conviction that everything we are doing is as appropriate as it can be and is best designed to get the result we all seek, I will continue to do it. If the Government need to change course, we will, but I will not put an artificial barrier in the way of our progress by doing something that I might subsequently regret. I assure colleagues that we are doing everything we can to seek the result that we all want, but we are doing it in the way that we consider—with our experience of Iran and the experience of those who have worked with Iran for a long time—to be the best way possible. That does not in any way deny the efforts of others to do things in their way and to make sure that the Iranian authorities know how we feel, how the public feel and how the world feels.

We must do the work that we can to ensure the best interests of those who have been detained. That is why we are doing what we are doing, and I pledge to colleagues that I will continue to do what I consider to be in the best interests of those detainees, but I will constantly listen to those with other ideas and to the families, so that we do as much for them as we possibly can.