Northern Gaza

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have to be straightforward about the situation in Israel and Palestine at the moment. There are Occupied Palestinian Territories that have illegal settlements and an IDF presence. To get to a viable two-state solution, we are going to need agreement on both sides. The two states would need to live side by side with arrangements in place to ensure that both were safe, secure and sovereign, so I cannot see a route to a two-state solution that does not involve serious negotiations with the Israeli Government in order to reach a lasting settlement. That is a statement of the diplomatically essential. That is not to say that the Israelis can veto whether or not the Palestinians are entitled to a state, but it is a fact of reality that both states would need to work side by side to ensure each other’s safety and security.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Netanyahu regime continues to seek to justify its cold-blooded slaughter of Palestinian people behind the dishonest façade of self-defence. While the Minister asserts that the Government are taking an even-handed approach in this regard, he will remember that only two months ago the UK military intervened to protect innocent life in Israel by intercepting bombs. Taking on board the passions in the Chamber, the question is about equivalence. What actions have the Government taken to do the same for Palestinian people in Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to missiles sent by the Iranians to strike Israel, and we will act in Israel’s legitimate self-defence in accordance with international humanitarian law. We do not want to see Iranian missiles rain down on Israeli civilians. The military scenario here is totally different: Israeli troops are inside Gaza. This is not a question of missiles crossing international borders, or going overseas. On a number of occasions, there have been risks of direct exchange between Iran and Israel. As many in the House will know, the military questions about whether the UK could act to take down missiles would be dependent on the circumstances. At the heart of the question the hon. Member poses is whether we are even-handed on issues of international humanitarian law, and we are. It is a great regret that our close partner Israel is acting in a way that causes us concern about serious risks to international humanitarian law, and we have said so as clearly and explicitly as we can.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

For clarity, we have suspended arms licences where parts for the F-35 programme are sold directly to Israel. Where they are sold to the global spares pool, it is not possible to disentangle where they go in that pool and see their final destination. That is why we have made the exemption, and it is why we judge that doing so is vital for the security of the UK, for our allies and for NATO.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the cold-blooded slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza cannot be justified as self-defence? Does he also agree that—contrary to the Trumpian line adopted by those on the Conservative Benches—just because a country is a democracy, that does not provide it with blanket immunity from international law?

[Hamish Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to the terrible loss of life in Gaza, which is in the minds and hearts of the whole House. We are a democracy, as much as signatories to petitions may wish otherwise. We abide by international law and we expect our allies to do the same, and we make that point with force.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to other quotes from Hans Blix, who made it clear that to a great extent Saddam Hussein was co-operating and that with more time we could have avoided the war.

We as parliamentarians have the role and the job of scrutinising the available evidence that was in the public domain. I entirely take the point that hindsight is a wonderful thing. The point I want to make is that plenty of information was in the public domain.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing this debate, but on the manner in which she is presenting the case. Following on from what the former loyal Minister of the previous Government in the Ministry of Defence said, it is not a question of the benefit of hindsight. Many Members of the House, both on the Opposition Benches and, in some honourable cases, on the Government Benches, scrutinised the evidence at that time and came to the conclusion that it was unwise in those circumstances to proceed with engaging in military action in Iraq.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I will shortly pay tribute to those hon. Members who did stand up in this place, who did scrutinise and who did ask the right questions. The fact that they came to the conclusions that they did demonstrates that the evidence was there. Unfortunately, there was a will not to look at some of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I certainly think that the post-war reconstruction was a shambles that led to a serious civil war and many casualties.

I have highlighted the detail with regard to the role of spin doctors and the FCO in the drafting of the dossier because that detail is important. When Tony Blair recalled Parliament, we were encouraged to believe that the dossier accurately reflected the assessments of the intelligence community. We now know that this was inaccurate. The dossier upgraded or exaggerated assessments made by the JIC, while intellectual ownership of the dossier did not reside with the JIC alone. Indeed, the final dossier was not even approved by the whole JIC. Yet that September we were led to believe that the account was that of the intelligence community, and that was a false impression.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Parliament needs to be reassured that we can get back to evidence-based policy making rather than policy-based evidence making, which appears to be the direction in which the civil servants went. We need an independent civil service that is capable of independently providing politically neutral evidence on which Parliament can assess these matters.

[Mr Baron]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For many of us, the lesson from all this is that we must be wary of Government spin when we are addressing foreign policy issues, in particular; instead, we must focus on the evidence.

Bringing this up to speed, I suggest that in the case of Iran, for example, no intelligence service, whether American, British, Israeli or any other, has yet been able to publicly produce any hard evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that the Iranian leadership has decided to build a nuclear weapon or is taking that course. Nevertheless, that has not prevented our policy makers from painting a very different picture, and tensions are running unnecessarily high as a result.

The Iraq war is also a reminder that interventions often produce unintended consequences that can turn out to be counter-productive to our interests. A woefully inadequate post-war reconstruction ushered in a vicious civil war, as other Members have outlined. Studies estimate that many hundreds of thousands died in Iraq as a result of the invasion. In fact, Iraq became a honeypot for extremists worldwide. In a bitter irony, al-Qaeda only gained a foothold in Iraq after Saddam’s downfall and then proved difficult to eradicate. Minorities suffered as well. The Iraqi Christian communities, resident for centuries, have suffered immeasurably in the wake of the invasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

No, I am not prepared to comment on that. As I said, the current Government will not comment on the process that led to participation in the Iraq conflict until after the Chilcot report has been published.

[Andrew George]

Even if the Government are not prepared to concede that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue raises questions about the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise the evidence? Even if we accept the evidence from the time at face value—although a lot of us were very sceptical of it—the only thing it concluded was that Saddam had the ability of potentially reaching UK assets in Cyprus within 45 minutes, and that was all. Was that really sufficient evidence for Parliament to decide that we should go to war?

[Mark Simmonds]

Those are all matters that Sir John Chilcot will be looking at, and I am sure my hon. Friend would prefer there to be an independent inquiry looking at what happened, rather than a Government inquiry. We have made a conscious decision not to comment on the decision to go to war until the inquiry has reported, but as I have said, I recognise that it was a decision of huge significance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am very happy to follow up the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady and to take advice from Her Majesty’s ambassador in the way that she suggests.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T6. As we heard earlier, many millions of people depend on the BBC’s World Service, which achieves its very impressive and impartial global reach on a budget that is roughly equivalent to that for three and half fighter jets. Will Ministers at least acknowledge the importance of this vital service to the United Kingdom as the comprehensive spending review nears its completion?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend—it is an absolutely vital service for the United Kingdom and an absolutely vital service to many parts of the world. I have often spoken about its great value to this country. Of course, in the current situation all parts of the public sector have to be scrutinised for value for money, and the BBC World Service itself believes that it is possible to make economies without necessarily affecting the services it provides. We are looking at that in the comprehensive spending review. However, my hon. Friend will find that I am a very strong supporter of the work of the World Service, so he should not believe some of the wilder rumours that fly around.