Middle East

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and may I also thank the Foreign Office for its significant help with my visit to Ukraine at the end of last week?

Israel’s response to the attack launched by Iran earlier this month has rightly been described as proportionate. Israel has the right to defend itself, and it has done so in a precise and targeted way. The statement by the Israel Defence Forces that it was “mission accomplished” offers hope that the operation might mark the end of the latest trading of hostilities. Whether and how the Iranians respond remains to be seen, but the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that the

“bitter consequences will be unimaginable”

for Israel.

The situation remains dangerously uncertain. We join the Government in urging restraint. The onus must surely now be on Iran to desist from any retaliatory action that will pull the region further up the ladder of escalation. Above all, we must now use Britain’s undoubted international connections, experience, responsibility and clout to lift people’s eyes to the day after, in the hope that we can build on the Abraham accords and move towards the two-state solution that Palestinians and Israelis deserve. That must be the immutable end of these appalling circumstances and events.

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his other counterparts in the region to encourage cool heads to prevail? That also applies to Lebanon. Iran’s direct missile attacks on Israel are but one front in its campaign against the Jewish state, which we know it is intent on wiping off the face of the earth. Iran’s continuing funding for and support of its Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon and Hamas proxies in Gaza show what a scourge the IRGC is and how far its tentacles have spread. Hezbollah and Hamas are a cancer in the areas where they operate. Israel has every right to defend itself against evil terrorists, who are not interested in compromise or in political solutions and who use the legitimate plight of Palestinians to justify barbarism.

In the face of such murderous assaults as the incessant rocket bombardment of northern Israel by Hezbollah, no country in the world—not a single one—would be expected to sit quietly. It is for that reason that, in respect of Lebanon, in particular, calls for a ceasefire are most unlikely to be heeded. Not only is Hezbollah violating every international law by lobbing rockets and missiles at Israeli towns and displacing tens of thousands of Israeli civilians; it is doing so in flagrant breach of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which clearly called for the withdrawal of Hezbollah and other forces from Lebanon south of the Litani, and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the retreat and dismantling of Hezbollah, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1701, must be a necessary precondition to end the war? What discussions has he had with our partners in the UN to achieve that?

Turning to Gaza, some 100 hostages remain in captivity, with the prospect of their release diminishing with every day that passes. The civilians in Gaza continue to pay a heavy price as a result of Hamas’s using them as human shields and total disregard for the safety and security of the civilian population. Over the weekend, in Kamal Adwan hospital in Jabalia, northern Gaza, Israel found stashes of weapons and money. A Gazan ambulance driver has confirmed that Hamas operatives embed themselves among civilians and even use ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons. In other words, Hamas use the infrastructure that is supposed to help civilians to advance the group’s terrorist agenda, leaving innocent people neglected and dangerously exposed.

We support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and hope that shortly we will see a similar appeal launched for Sudan, where people are in desperate danger of starvation this winter.

Surely it is time to face facts. Hamas must lay down their arms. Hamas must release the hostages. Once this happens, the war will end, aid can flood into Gaza unfettered, the Palestinian people can begin the long and difficult path to recovery, and we can start to lift the eyes of Israelis and Palestinians to the possibilities of political horizons, of two states, of peace.

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of his remarks and for the cross-party support he gives to the Government in urging restraint and de-escalation in the region. I reassure him that I spoke with Secretary Blinken just two days ago about the context of the day after, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it; about the necessary security guarantees that Israel would rightly expect; and about how we work with Arab partners—Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others—to ensure that this ceasefire can hold and that the security guarantees and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza can properly begin.

The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly talks about the DEC appeal for Gaza, which is now up, and I support what he said about Sudan, which must not be overlooked at this time.

I spoke to Foreign Minister Katz about the situation in Lebanon yesterday. He sought to reassure me that the targeted operation by the Israelis that is under way would come to an end shortly, as he put it. I confirmed, as I know the right hon. Gentleman would have, that we understand that it is important that Israelis who cannot be in their homes in northern Israel are able to move back. That can be the case only when Hezbollah has moved back beyond the Litani river, and resolution 1701 is properly implemented. We want to see that happen, and it is for that reason that we continue to support the Lebanese armed forces and the work of UNIFIL. We were very concerned to see UNIFIL workers attacked in the way that they were a few days ago. I also raised that with Foreign Minister Katz.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

Following the removal of the international terrorist Yahya Sinwar and the possibility of an amnesty for those who now release the 97 remaining hostages, what pressure are the Government bringing to bear on Hamas to urge them to lay down their arms and release the hostages, both of which are necessary for full, unfettered access for humanitarian relief in Gaza?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this incredibly important issue. The suffering, especially of the family and friends of the hostages, is indescribable. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have met with them, particularly those who have UK links, and have repeatedly ensured that the release of hostages must be prioritised. They have articulated that message time and time again, and will continue to do so until the hostages are able to return home, as they must be able to do.

[Mr Mitchell]

Co-existence is inescapable, and a two-state solution is one day inevitable, as both Israelis and Palestinians are here to stay. Just as the first intifada ushered in the historic breakthrough at Oslo, so too Britain—with its deep regional connections, UN responsibilities and brilliant diplomatic service—has a key role in lifting people’s eyes to a very different future. What discussions are the Government having on this issue, building on the significant efforts started under the last Government?

[Anneliese Dodds]

We do not always agree across the Dispatch Box, but I strongly agree with the right hon. Member’s characterisation of the need for a two-state solution. Ultimately, that is the only way of delivering the peace and security that the people of Israel and Palestine deserve. Making sure that we play our part in exercising leadership towards that two-state solution is a long-term commitment of this Government, but of course—as he would expect—we need to show what that can deliver. A huge amount of work is ongoing around reconstruction, and I have discussed that issue in detail with the World Bank, for example. It has been conducting a survey of the needs that will have to be met, making sure that work is fully co-ordinated so that we can achieve that secure future for those who are in Gaza at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

Recent events in Moldova are yet another example of the importance of combating the modern scourge of weaponising disinformation. What new measures are the Government planning to implement to counter disinformation spread by our adversaries?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for raising such an important issue. We are launching a new global programme to support resilient, free, open and trustworthy independent media as a bulwark against disinformation. That builds on the success of previous media development programmes. We are also determined to work with international partners, including UNESCO, to make sure that we play a role in combating disinformation.

[Mr Mitchell]

Further to the comment from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), does the Minister share my dismay that, although the director general of the BBC professes that it represents a key source of democratic soft power in the face of the spread of state and non-state disinformation, it now intends to cancel its internationally admired interview programme “HARDtalk”, which has a global reputation for holding those in power to account?

[Anneliese Dodds]

Any editorial decisions on BBC content will be made by the BBC alone—that is right and proper. All I can say is that wherever I am in the world, it is clear quite how powerful the BBC is—a soft power perhaps, but a very important reflection of our values as a country and of deep connections between the people of Britain and other nations. We are determined to ensure that that remains the case.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for raising this important matter. The whole House will welcome the Government’s sudden conversion to offshoring, even though this plan was not announced in the House in accordance with your specific instructions, Mr Speaker. I may be one of the only Members to have had the privilege of visiting St Helena, along with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Shoreditch—

[Mr Speaker]

I have.

[Mr Mitchell]

And you, of course, Mr Speaker. We may have been the only Members to survey the island’s new airport, which will in time relieve the British taxpayer of cost and open up the island to a very bright future, with connectivity massively enhanced.

While I was in St Helena, I met the oldest mammal on the planet, born a few years after Napoleon’s death: Jonathan the tortoise. I also visited the island’s impressive hospital, which provides very good healthcare but is a small facility whose function has been specifically tailored to serve the commensurately small community of St Helena. The cohort of people who might arrive from Diego Garcia are likely to have medical needs—indeed, as experience shows, quite complex medical needs. That will place additional pressure on St Helena’s healthcare infrastructure. What will the Minister do to help St Helena with that?

There is some disquiet among residents of St Helena at the thought that an influx of migrants could have an adverse impact on social cohesion and social provision in this very tightly knit community. What is the estimated number of migrants who will be sent there? Bearing in mind that the entire population is less than 5,000, will the Minister impose a limit—admittedly low, but nevertheless a limit? Has he made an assessment of how much this transfer policy will cost the British taxpayer? Of course, Conservative Members do not oppose the principle of offshoring, but we are perplexed by the Government’s choice of destination, a small British overseas territory thousands of miles from Diego Garcia, not least because a number of asylum seekers who landed on the British Indian Ocean Territory have already been transferred to Rwanda. Labour has of course scrapped the Rwanda scheme, so can the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s approach has changed, and whether they welcome offshoring as a means of injecting deterrence into the complexities of illegal migration?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He has always taken a keen interest in the overseas territories, and St Helena in particular. I am surprised that he is perplexed, because he and his fellow Ministers were grappling with these very decisions and issues in the last Government. We are providing pragmatic and practical solutions to respond to the situation that we inherited. There is no comparison with the Rwanda scheme. He will have just heard the Home Secretary say that spending £700 million of taxpayers’ money resulted in four volunteers for that scheme. This is a mutually beneficial win-win agreement between the United Kingdom and one of our overseas territories. I have set out the cost very clearly: £6.65 million for the contingency arrangement, and then the costs for anyone who does arrive. Let me reiterate, however, that no migrants have arrived on BIOT since 2022. This is a contingency arrangement that is absolutely necessary, but of course we hope that no one will choose to take such a dangerous route.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the healthcare position. That is exactly why St Helena is a more suitable location for any theoretical migrants to be relocated to; facilities on that level do not exist on BIOT. He mentioned that there is allegedly disquiet in St Helena, but that is simply not the case. I read out very clearly what the St Helena Government and Chief Minister have said, and there are huge benefits to this plan. St Helena is a wonderful place. I have not had a chance to visit it, but I have had a chance to experience its culture, food and people, and I look forward to welcoming the Chief Minister to the Joint Ministerial Council in due course.

Point of Order

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Government have not always been consistent with the explanations that they have given of their policy in relation to arms exports to Israel. In particular, some of the explanations that Ministers have given in this House are inconsistent with accounts that have been given elsewhere, including in the other place. My noble friend Lord Howard is also pursuing this matter in the other place. This is a critical foreign policy matter involving a close ally. Mr Speaker, have you had any indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement on this matter and to clear up any misunderstanding that might have arisen as a result of discrepancies between what we have been told and what Ministers have said elsewhere?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. As he well knows, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial remarks, either in this House or elsewhere; but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his comments, and I am sure they have been taken on board. I do not think we have heard the end of this yet, so I am sure, as I know the right hon. Member well, that the Opposition will not give up at this stage.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for sharing his statement with me in advance. At a time when the world is more dangerous than at any point in our lifetimes, when the middle east is on the edge of serious conflict, when there is war in Europe, and when British military forces are engaged in protecting an ally from Iranian missiles, the Government propose giving away a key strategic military asset to a state that has never controlled it, and to which the Chagossian people feel little affinity, if any. It is frankly astonishing that this announcement was slipped out at the end of last week, a few days before Parliament returned, to advantage the election timetable of the governing party in Mauritius, rather than in a statement to the House. The Times put it well:

“In a dangerous world Britain’s security is being risked by ministers and departmental lawyers who believe appeasing faux anti-colonialist sentiment in the UN matters more than the national interest.”

UK sovereignty has applied to the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than 200 years. Its strategic location, right in the centre of the Indian ocean, is unmatchable, and it houses our one and only military base in the Indo-Pacific. I can tell the House that this is a deal that the former Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Cameron, would never have done. Nor for that matter would my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly). Had they been willing to do it, the deal would have been concluded long ago. The Conservative Government declined to enter into a deal with Mauritius for reasons that I think are now clear for the House to see. The Labour Government have not published the draft treaty—they have published only a non-legally binding joint statement—so we are somewhat in the dark about exactly what has been agreed. Crucially, can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that there will be a vote on this treaty?

The noble Lord West of Spithead, the most senior military figure ever to hold office in a Labour Government, said that there is

“an irrefutable case that ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests…in danger, while also recklessly undermining fundamental principles of international law.”

I would therefore be most grateful if the Foreign Secretary could answer the following five questions. First, never mind what the Chief Minister said; what steps have the Foreign Secretary and the Government taken to reassure the people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this ill-advised decision will have no effect on their sovereignty? Secondly, and yet more importantly, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to make it clear that this decision will have no read-across for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—Episkopi, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Thirdly, what assurances has he received that no Chinese military assets will be placed on any of the nearby islands in the archipelago? While his words are welcome, the House needs to see the wording clearly set out.

Fourthly, precisely how much money are we planning that British taxpayers should pay to Mauritius for each year under this deal, as well as in total? We want full transparency on all payments that the Government intend to make, and on what the money is for. What are the payments for the privilege of giving the territory away? Fifthly, what consultations has the Foreign Secretary undertaken with the Chagossian community in this country and elsewhere? We note that his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) has, with courage and integrity, opposed this deal. It remains to be seen whether others on the Government Benches will have the good sense, courage and integrity so to do. Jonathan Powell has only just been appointed special envoy for these negotiations; can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government have ensured that there is time for us to draw on his expertise?

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary propose giving away Britain’s key strategic assets in the Indian ocean. Little or no attention has been paid to the position of those with direct heritage and family links to Chagos. We have no clear details of any safeguards that will guard against China, a close ally of Mauritius, setting up military facilities and surveillance capacity not far away. Through this statement, the Government give succour to our enemies in a dangerous world, and undermine the strategic web of Britain’s defence interests. Our country is the poorer and the lesser for it.

[Mr Lammy]

It takes some brass neck to criticise this Government for delivering what the last Government tried and failed to do. It was the last Government that opened these negotiations in the first place, because they understood what was at risk. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations and resolved nothing. Instead, as with much that we found across Government, they left it for us to inherit and to fix.

The shadow Foreign Secretary prays in aid the previous Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who is now auditioning for the Tory leadership. The right hon. Member for Braintree seems to have suffered short-term memory loss in the past few years, because he told the Commons that, in negotiations with Mauritius,

“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

That is exactly what we delivered. Do not take my word for it: ask President Biden, Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin. If this can win the approval of the White House and the Pentagon on the protection of security interests, I think the shadow Foreign Secretary can rest easy and put down some of the bombast.

The reality is that those who do not support the agreement support either abandoning the base or breaking international law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which is it? Our agreement secures the base, stops a potentially dangerous illegal migration route, protects the marine areas, provides new support for the Chagossians and ensures that the UK is compliant with international law. There was a time when the Tories believed in international law; they now seem to have given up, and are telling other people basically to go ahead and break it.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was a serious negotiation, which the last Government began and left to us to conclude. It secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean. The Conservatives posture; we lead. Parliament will, of course, get the scrutiny that it deserves in the coming months. He knows, too, that this was a negotiation between two Governments, and of course we kept the Chagossians informed all along the way.

Police Station Closure: Sutton Coldfield

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is not often I see so many Members in the House when I talk about the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, but it is a great honour to see so many here tonight. It is not often, either, that I have needed to raise a constituency matter on the Adjournment of the House, but the subject I address today is of such grave importance to my constituents and to the future security of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that it demands urgent ministerial attention at the Dispatch Box.

The last time I held an Adjournment debate was in respect of the reassertion of the royal status of Sutton Coldfield. On that occasion, the Government made clear our right to use the word “royal” in the title of our town, and my constituents were grateful and deeply honoured by the reassertion of the royal status that we have now enjoyed for 496 years. Today, 10 years later, I am once again extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on the subject of the proposed closure of the Royal Sutton Coldfield police station. This proposal is being peddled by the Labour police and crime commissioner and has appalled virtually all my constituents and appears to be supported only by two Labour councillors in the royal town.

The royal town of Sutton Coldfield has more than 100,000 inhabitants. We also host the second biggest new housing development in the country—around 5,500 new homes in the Langley area. A town of this size requires a fully equipped, proactive and professional police station, housing all manner of relevant police assets. Our current police station has protected our town since 1960 and sits on the main road into the town centre, giving police officers immediate access.

Core policing means local policing, serving our community by dealing with all policing issues, reassuring the community and offering a safe refuge to victims of crime and harassment. Core policing is about a 24/7 response, where officers work locally to cover response calls and know their areas and the local hoods and villains. It is about a locally based criminal investigation department that can provide qualified investigators who focus on locally reported crimes, from minor offences to major crimes, such as robbery, serious assault and burglary.

Investigators become aware of local crimes and emerging problems through locally based intelligence. Neighbourhood officers know local issues and problems. They deal with minor offences and antisocial behaviour, providing proper reassurance to the local community. Our excellent business improvement district, led by Michelle Baker, which helps drive progress in the town centre, continually warns about the dangers of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour.

The police deal with local offenders, including sex offenders. They work with all agencies—probation services, social services, children’s services, the NHS and fire services—to address local issues. There are specially trained officers working with partner agencies, and they need privacy to work with victims of domestic violence and sex crimes, who need an appropriately sized safe space. A town of 100,000 souls and rising deserves all of that, and, in our case, we pay for it. The residents of Sutton Coldfield pay £8 million into the police precept every year. The estimated running cost of £303,000 a year for the current station represents less than 4% of the annual local police precept. I mention in passing that £20 million was found to renovate and embellish the police headquarters at Lloyd House.

Over recent years, I have made it crystal clear to my constituents, who so generously re-elected me at the last general election, that I would do my best to prevent any closure or any diminution in police activity in the royal town. I was very pleased to see that pledge mirrored in the election material produced by the newly elected Labour West Midlands Mayor, who pledged to halt the closure of all 27 police stations throughout the west midlands. He clearly has little influence with his Labour colleague.

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

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I give way with great pleasure to my neighbour.

[Wendy Morton]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think he would acknowledge that Sutton Coldfield police station covers more than Sutton Coldfield. It also covers communities in my constituency, particularly in the Streetly area. The Labour police and crime commissioner’s closure programme has been going on for far too long, and we need our police stations now more than ever.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come to the strategic point that she has made in just a moment.

I was pointing out the apparent lack of influence that the newly elected Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has with his colleagues, as, in his literature, he promised to keep open the 27 police stations. But not even a fortnight after the general election, I was astonished to see a “For Sale” sign in front of our police station. Neither I as the Member of Parliament, members of the Royal Sutton Coldfield town council nor any of our councillors were informed. Back in March 2023, there were promises by the PCC of consultation with our town council. Mr Speaker has made it clear that he wants to see greater respect for politics and politicians, but how can that noble aim be achieved when we see this sort of cynical, manipulative disregard of the wishes of the local people by those elected to serve our interests?

I have no doubt that some will argue that such a decision is an operational matter for the police. The whole point of police and crime commissioners is that they should represent the wishes of local people, and speak up for us in respect of policing decisions. I was a member of the Cabinet that introduced police and crime commissioners, and I have to say that in my view the jury is out on whether they have been a successful reform to our law and order architecture. If police and crime commissioners are captured by the local police establishment, that reform is by definition a failure. They are meant to represent us to the police, not the police to us. They are our servants, not our masters.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that in my constituency we do not have a single publicly accessible police station? They have been closed under a programme led by our previous police and crime commissioner. We have never had a Labour police and crime commissioner in Staffordshire; our police and crime commissioner has always been a Conservative. Would the right hon. Gentleman hold my commissioner accountable for those closures in the same way that he seeks to hold his commissioner accountable for his?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman must, as he is, champion the interests of his constituents as he sees fit, but I am very glad to hear that he had a Conservative police and crime commissioner. I do not know whether he still does, but if he does, I am sure that they will serve the community extremely well.

On the subject of consultation, the perfectly fair and legitimate request by myself and the leader of the Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council, Mr Simon Ward, for the police and crime commissioner to come before the town council and answer questions from the councillors and public has been turned down. Instead, he wants a behind-closed-doors meeting with me, the leader of the council and a couple of other councillors. No! We want genuine public consultation—transparency, not behind-closed-doors private meetings.

I fully understand the need for value for money, and that the Royal Sutton Coldfield police station is at present inadequately used. Indeed, for many years at Christmas I visited our local police station to dispense House of Commons fudge and humbugs to the hard-working officers and staff who work there. Over recent years, the consumption of fudge and humbugs has diminished as resources have been taken away from the station, but instead of denuding police services from a significant location in a key strategic part of the west midlands to the north-east of Birmingham, the police service should be looking at basing far more of the services that I described earlier in a strategic hub, building on the advantage of a significant space in Sutton Coldfield, rather than trying to flog it off.

Our police station was once an operational command unit for the West Midlands police, which now looks set to be reduced to a refit of three small dilapidated semi-detached houses. What a contrast to the brilliant West Midlands Fire Service, which has invested in its strategic location in the royal town, adjacent to the police station. Before anyone suggests that this is all down to the wicked Tories mercilessly culling budgets, consider these four facts: funding for the West Midlands police has been increased by nearly £40 million, taking the annual police budget to £629.2 million; we have recruited an extra 2,176 police officers; we have invested £24 million in violence reduction units in the west midlands, to tackle the most devastating crime and put the worst criminals behind bars; and we have invested £9 million in the west midlands through the safer streets fund.

During the course of the campaign to save the police station, I have had the benefit of advice from several former West Midlands police officers responsible for policing in the royal town. I thank them for their years of diligent service and for their insights and advice. They told me that they were totally opposed to the closure of the police station, and that this was their professional opinion and advice. They made it clear that they opposed the loss of a significant visible deterrent and the easy access to a fast redeveloping town centre, with the recent reopening of the Royal Cinema—probably the finest boutique cinema anywhere in the UK—and the purchase of the Gracechurch shopping centre, as well as the millions of pounds of investment secured under the previous Conservative Government.

All that adds to the case for more policing in Sutton Coldfield. The loss of our police station will mean a significant reduction in services and a diminution of policing. The loss of the custody cells, currently mothballed, comes at a time when we have seen, from the recent disgraceful rioting and demonstrations, that circumstances could arise where there would be a strategic need for such things. Those regionally strategic facilities should not easily be disregarded. It is not that long ago that the expensive facilities were provided; indeed, I think I performed the opening ceremony. That strategic point is at the heart of the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who rightly talks about the importance of a strategic location north-east of Birmingham, serving both my and her constituents.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend is so right to make that point. He demonstrates that police stations are integral to our communities, but with the potential loss of the Sutton Coldfield station and Aldridge under threat, what does that leave us with strategically on the eastern flank of the west midlands, at a time when we know resources have been increased? In the case of Aldridge police station, if we lose the base, we lose the base for our police officers as well. This should not be about “bricks or bobbies”; it should be about both and making sure we have a strong police presence in our communities.

[Mr Mitchell]

Once again my right hon. Friend puts her finger on the critical point and underlines the case that she and I are making for the good policing of our constituents. The sale of our police station will realise millions of pounds, much of which will clearly not be spent in Sutton Coldfield. In its place we are offered a low-grade option for policing with very limited facilities, selling short the people of Sutton Coldfield: at best, a small public contact centre, comprising three small police houses to the rear of the existing station. That is clearly a wholly inadequate marginal replacement for a proper police station. It is a measure designed to save money and not to enhance policing. It is well known that policing is local or it is nothing, and the proposed closure takes the local out of policing in the town.

The motto of the West Midlands police is “Forward in unity”. This decision takes us backwards in great disunity. The PCC’s proposal has been strongly condemned by residents, former police officers, all elected Conservative councillors, senior figures throughout the local community, and by me as their MP. I pay particular tribute to the vigorous campaigning and eloquent arguments put forward by Simon Ward, the leader of Royal Sutton Coldfield town council, and his hard-working councillors, by our energetic local Birmingham City Conservative councillors, including the highly effective David Pears, and by Jay Singh-Sohal, a former police and crime commissioner candidate with immense experience of policing issues.

However, those are but the tip of a huge local campaign, vigorously supported and engaged in across my constituency. On the day of the disastrous announcement of the sale of the police station, I received a letter in the post from the PCC—not addressing the pressing matter, but instead discussing his hopes on matters such as community policing. For community policing to be effective, it must take advice from the community it hopes to police and protect, and not press ahead without consulting that community.

With decisions such as this paying such little regard to local opinion and safety requirements, it cannot be a surprise that West Midlands police were placed under special measures under the Labour police and crime commissioner. Until he starts working alongside local communities, instead of dictating to them the fate of key services such as the police station, things may only get worse.

The decision to close the royal town’s police station is a mistake. I urge the Labour police and crime commissioner to reconsider his stance and to engage with humility, rigour and energy in a proper public consultation with the local people whom he serves, so that he can listen to their concerns directly and honour the West Midlands police mantra of “Forward in unity”.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous. On the subject of engagement, it is high time that the Labour police and crime commissioner engaged fully with us on Aldridge police station and came clean about his intentions. I want to make sure that he is left in no doubt that my right hon. Friend and I will continue to fight tooth and nail for these vital services that our communities deserve. It is wrong, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees, that resources are all too easily directed to other parts of the west midlands, particularly to Lloyd House, when we have needs in our communities as well.

[Mr Mitchell]

I must draw my remarks to a close so that we can hear from the Minister, on whose appointment I wish belatedly to congratulate her, but my right hon. Friend once again makes a critical point about consultation on these decisions. As I have said, the whole point of having police and crime commissioners is that they should listen to their local community and represent their heartfelt views. I hope that by listening to what my right hon. Friend and I and so many others are saying in our respective areas, the police and crime commissioner will have another look at this matter and see what he can do to satisfy us on a vexed subject that has caused enormous local anxiety, fear and pain about such a sharp diminution in the policing resources that we all wish to see.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see him back in his place after the general election. I know that he has a very long-standing interest in this issue, and I commend him on taking the necessary steps to secure this debate. I think he first raised this subject in 2018, if my records are correct. As came through in his very powerful remarks, the subject of the debate is very important to him and to his constituents.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who made interventions. I will state at the outset that as a constituency MP, I fully appreciate that the status of police stations can be the focus of significant attention and generate strong feelings in communities. Of course, I am not as familiar with developments in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield as he is. He will also understand that, in the main, we are talking about decisions and considerations that are not within the direct purview of central Government and myself as the Minister for Policing. Indeed, he admitted that he was part of the Government who introduced police and crime commissioners to give that accountability at a local level. I remind him that we had elections for police and crime commissioners earlier this year, in which the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands was elected on his own mandate.

I say this not to try to minimise the matter at hand, but simply to set out the context of my response. I stress the general importance of a strong local police presence. Before I come on to the particular situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will make a general point about this Government’s recognition of the importance of police forces having a strong local footprint. I think we would all acknowledge that technology has changed the way that the vast majority of us communicate and interact with the world, and it is therefore right to have a range of means by which people can contact and engage with the police, including online and by telephone, but these channels should not be seen as a substitute for a physical police presence, such as that provided by police stations. None of us would wish to see the possibility of going to a local police station to get assistance or to speak to an officer consigned to history, and it is important for many of our constituents.

I know that the focus of this debate is very specific, but I will make two broader points. First, the Government need no reminders about the importance of that strong local police presence in communities. After all, it is this Government who have committed to restoring neighbourhood policing in all our communities, so that people feel confident that they are being protected and our laws enforced.

Secondly, Members will be aware that police forces are operationally independent from Ministers and Government, and that is absolutely as it should be. It means that the democratically elected police and crime commissioners, and the operationally independent chief constables, are responsible for taking decisions on police stations and their whole estate. In doing so, they will use their judgment, local knowledge and expertise to ensure that the use of their estate gives the best service to the community and fulfils value-for-money obligations. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be concerned about getting value for money.

Let me turn to Royal Sutton Coldfield. I know that the police station has served the town for many years—since 1960, as I understand it. The police and crime commissioner’s office has confirmed to me directly, and to my officials, that although the police station is currently listed for sale, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it remains operationally open and with police access as normal.

A new police station, located on Anchorage Road, immediately adjacent to the existing building—I understand the distance between them is 300 yards—has been confirmed as the new police station site by the police and crime commissioner. It is smaller—I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said—but I understand that the current building is occupied at only 20%, meaning that 80% of it is not occupied at the moment, which does not seem to be value for money. The smaller police station will be more modern and more appropriately sized for the local presence, based on the current levels of occupancy, and it is expected to be ready to move into next year.

The police and crime commissioner has already publicly committed to the new station housing the response team, the neighbourhood policing teams and the criminal investigation teams, and it will be open to the public. Furthermore, ownership of the current police station will be retained until the new police station is open. It has also been confirmed to me that there will be no disruption or break in the public’s access to the police. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman looks like he wants to intervene, so I happily give way.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I completely agree with and accept a lot of what she said prior to her last point. The burden of the case that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) have been making is that more resources should be put into the existing police station, which is underused, as the Minister rightly said. The police should not be selling it; they should be reinforcing it with services that are needed not just in the royal town but regionally. The three dilapidated houses at the back will in no way whatsoever provide a full police perspective of the sort that the royal town and adjacent areas should get. There is no comparison between what is proposed—in spite of the language that the Minister has received from the police and crime commissioner—and what exists at the moment. We are arguing that a strategic increase in services should be put into the existing building, which, as she rightly says, has served the town and the area since 1960. Will she perhaps reflect back to the police and crime commissioner the importance of engaging with the local community, in a way that he has not, which would be good both for the position of police and crime commissioner and for the local community?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his case, and I am sure that the police and crime commissioner will have heard it. I further understand that there has been an offer—which I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to—to have that meeting with the police and crime commissioner, to discuss the options and what he is planning to do. Can I also gently say, as I did at the beginning of my remarks, that it is for the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable to decide how best to use the assets available to them? I understand that the chief constable is absolutely committed to this new way of providing the police station in this area. Operationally, that is what he believes is the best way of providing policing to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

Before I finish, I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks to all our serving police officers, police community support officers and specials. I am sure that all Members of the House will agree that they do an amazing job in very difficult circumstances, particularly over the past few weeks when we have seen disorder on our streets. As I have set out and tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, decisions about police stations are ultimately matters that sit outside my remit as a Minister. In any event, I hope that it has been helpful to have this discussion this evening and to talk through some of the issues. I have set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a strong, visible neighbourhood policing offer in all our communities, which is central to what this Government will deliver through our safer streets mission. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue on the Floor of the House this evening, along with other right hon. and hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Middle East Update

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Over the weekend, we were once again reminded of the tragic human toll of this conflict, with Israel recovering the bodies of six more innocent hostages murdered by Hamas. The only way this conflict will be brought to an end, and for the suffering to end, is through the release of those hostages. This cruel captivity has lasted almost a year. Their suffering and jeopardy is intolerable for Israel, and it should be intolerable for anyone who cares about human rights and human dignity. Many of us in this House have met with the families of the hostages. Even in the midst of unimaginable pain and anxiety, they keep the torch burning for their loved ones, publicly highlighting their plight and tremendous bravery.

Let us be clear that the onus is on Hamas. They are using the Palestinian people as human shields. Hamas have no humanity and no shame. As Hamas inflict terrible suffering on both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, it should not be forgotten that another Iranian-backed proxy—Hezbollah—is engaged in continuous attacks on Israel’s northern border, with the risk of further and yet more dangerous escalation across the blue line. Our support for Israel’s security is rock solid in the face of threats from those who wish it serious harm, as we showed in April this year when British personnel and weaponry were used to counter Iran’s massive missile attack. We will look carefully at the limited arms embargo memorandum that the Foreign Secretary has promised the House. While he rightly does not publish his legal advice, we are grateful that he is honouring the promise that I made to the Business and Trade Committee to publish as much as possible on this. He will, I know, and as he said, be careful not to indicate, in any way at all, any moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel.

In Government, we introduced sanctions to undermine Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We also sanctioned extremist Israeli settlers who committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the west bank, and we welcome the new sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced on four IRGC-Quds Force targets. Implementation of the UN Security Council resolution 1701 remains our best hope of de-escalation and peace along the blue line. Resolution 1701 provides a road map that everyone should seek to follow, and we welcome the Government’s reaffirmation of their support for it. In relation to British nationals in Lebanon, it is very much our hope that since the House last considered this matter, shortly before the recess, the number of Brits who have registered their presence in Lebanon and departed from the country has risen. I reiterate that the situation in the west bank has also deteriorated and become yet more tense. While Israel must protect its vital security interests, we urge the Netanyahu Government to do so in such a way that minimises the risk of yet further instability and escalation.

Turning finally to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, we convey our thanks to the World Health Organisation and UNICEF staff who have been racing to get polio vaccinations administered across Gaza. They are doing vital work during this agreed pause. Pauses offer not only the potential to get much-needed humanitarian aid in but a window to get the hostages out, and pauses can help to create the conditions necessary to bring about a sustainable peace. On the distribution of aid, we strongly support calls for watertight deconfliction processes and the utmost protection of aid workers. Humanitarian aid can make a difference only if it is properly and safely distributed. Guaranteed deconfliction for aid convoys and other humanitarian work is absolutely essential. It is by road and truck that aid must be able to reach Gaza by all routes. This should make humanitarian aid delivery by air and sea unnecessary. Can the Foreign Secretary provide the House with more detail about how we are playing our part in international efforts to get more aid over the border to desperate people?

We all want the terrible suffering of both the Israeli and Palestinian people to end. It feels as if we are at a point where this conflict could go in two radically different directions. Although the region faces a potential conflagration, it is also possible that cooler heads on all sides might prevail. Britain’s role must be to help facilitate a sustainable end to the current suffering. It is only then that we can achieve our aim of lifting people’s eyes to the prospect of a different horizon in the future.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of his response. He will know as well as anyone that these are complex and sober questions, and it is right that the House can debate them in the appropriate tone and spirit this afternoon. I recall that Lord Cameron said that he was concerned that Israel had violated international humanitarian law. The shadow Foreign Secretary himself has repeatedly called on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law and said that in certain actions it may not have complied with international humanitarian law. In April, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who was in her seat slightly earlier—said that the UK had no choice but to suspend arms, so the shadow Foreign Secretary can recognise that this is not a partisan issue. I am very grateful for the tone that he has taken in this debate.

I have provided the House today with a summary of the way in which I have made the assessment. In doing so, I have been more transparent than any Government have been in the past about such decisions, because I recognise the exceptional public interest that there is in this debate. The shadow Foreign Secretary is right, like me, to underline that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas, who began this atrocity on 7 October, and Israel’s prosecution of getting the hostages out and defending itself, even though I have said that there is a clear risk in relation to our export licensing regime. He is right to talk about the context in Lebanon and indeed to support the Government’s message that UK nationals should leave. Let me assure him that I have not just visited Lebanon, now and on many occasions, but spoken with the Lebanese Prime Minister on three occasions just in the last few weeks.

In the west bank, of course we recognise the important security concerns of Israel, but we are deeply concerned with the way that we have seen these actions being prosecuted over the last few days, and we call for de-escalation. On the situation in Gaza, successive Foreign Secretaries have now raised with the Israelis—I raised it directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu—that not enough trucks are getting in. It is still the case today, after 11 months of conflict, that not enough trucks are getting in. The Minister for Development was assessing the situation from Jordan, as I was, just before that, with the Red Crescent.

It has been important for us to demonstrate leadership in the UN and to press for pauses so that the children of Gaza can be vaccinated against polio. We have that pause in place, I think between 8 am and 2 pm, so that those children can get the vaccinations they need so that they do not suffer.

Lebanon

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

This is indeed a matter of profound concern and gravity for us all. The tragic and senseless attack in the Golan Heights over the weekend must be met with full, unequivocal condemnation. Children and young people innocently playing football, with bright futures and the rich tapestry of life ahead of them, had their lives cruelly snatched away. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with their parents, siblings and friends, and all those affected by this monstrous act.

The risk of further escalation across the blue line is real and the Government are right to take it seriously. We do not want to see a widening of this painful conflict, and the opening of a new front would be in nobody’s interest. If we are to avoid it, all involved need to show restraint. We should be crystal clear that that includes Hezbollah. Let nobody forget that this is a proscribed terrorist organisation that has no regard for human life, human dignity or human rights. Nobody should be in any doubt about Hezbollah’s intention towards the world’s only Jewish state. And Hezbollah supports Hamas, another proscribed terrorist organisation, which has also inflicted appalling suffering, with the worst atrocity committed against Jewish people since the Holocaust and the second world war.

Hezbollah must cease its attacks right now. That message must be aimed at Tehran, too. The Government must use the communication channels that we have with Iran to be extremely firm with the regime. Iran must use its influence to rein in its proxies and stop destabilising the middle east. Beyond stern words, we must use all the tools at our disposal, including tough sanctions, to disrupt malign behaviour by Iran and its proxies such as Hezbollah, and to crack down on finance sources and flows of weapons. Sanctions must also demonstrate that terror group leaders cannot escape the consequences of their actions. The Government must rally the international community to collectively reaffirm its commitment to the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which is critical for a long-term peace.

If I may press the Foreign Secretary on three specific points, what steps is he taking to amplify the advice that he has already and rightly given so clearly that British nationals in Lebanon should leave now? What is he doing in-country to get the message across and to make information on how to leave quickly easily accessible? What steps is he taking to look after the interests of the Foreign Office staff and other dependants in Lebanon? Secondly, does he have an estimate of how many Brits are actually in Lebanon? Thirdly, what discussions has he had with key partners in the region who, like us, wish to see a destabilising escalation averted?

I conclude with a broader point. We are clearly at a critical point in this conflict. We could see Hamas accept the deal on the table, which would see a pause in the fighting, the return of the hostages, a flood of aid and the space created to bring about the conditions for a sustainable peace, or we could see the suffering in Gaza grind on and a dangerous escalation along the blue line. This is the time to be putting maximum pressure on Hamas, as we have been discussing today, and on Hezbollah.

This is also the time to remain in close dialogue with Israel and maintain our position as a trusted partner. That is critical whether for getting more aid into Gaza, or for urging restraint by Israel. The Foreign Secretary will have heard concerns in recent days about what many of us perceive as a shift in the Government’s approach to our close ally Israel, including in relation to the International Criminal Court. He gave me an answer on that point at oral questions earlier today.

We should make it clear that, while recognition of Palestine is important and does not need to come at the end of the process, it equally cannot come at the start of the process, where it could be seen as a reward for violence and for terror. I hope that the Government will not only continue to work to avoid an escalation along the blue line, but maintain that close relationship with Israel. The trust and friendship that exist between the UK and Israel matter, because they allow us candidly to discuss all aspects of the current conflict with Israeli counterparts at the very highest levels, in addition to using our influence as a member of the United Nations Security Council.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and cross-party nature of his remarks. He knows better than many in this House how serious it is to be dealing with any crisis that might escalate at this time. He is absolutely right to draw out the relationship between Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis and Iran. Of course we keep our sanctions regime under review, but he is right to press the case about the axis and he is absolutely right that of course we keep open all the channels that we have with Iran. He will be pleased to know I spoke to Prime Minister Mikati and we talked about the blue line. He will also recall that I was in Lebanon a few months before the election was called and I indicated at oral questions earlier that it is my hope to get to the region once more, while taking all the advice that he would expect me to take.

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it has of course been important to communicate our advice to leave Lebanon, and for people who are in the UK at this time not to travel to Lebanon, and to convey that advice across all channels. That has been taking place since last night and it will be taking place over the coming days to communicate that very loudly in-country as well. He will also note we have begun the registration scheme that allows UK nationals to register their presence in Lebanon so that we know where they are. Of course we keep the safety of our consular staff under close review, particularly with the dangers that exist with missiles being fired in this way on both sides.

Our estimation is that about 16,000 UK nationals are in the region, but asking people to register enables us to know who is there. We urge people to leave on the many commercial flights that are currently available from Lebanon and to make their way to Europe and back home. Of course we are working with our international partners; the right hon. Gentleman will know that the US, Germany and Canada are all upping their travel advice along the lines that we first began yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

May I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new position, since this is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box since we swapped sides? I welcome all his team, especially the hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), who was previously a respected and effective official in both the Ministries in which I served as a Cabinet Minister.

I urge the Foreign Secretary to avoid any suggestion of some sort of international legal-moral equivalence between a terrorist murderer and the elected head of a democratic state. In any question of an arms embargo, I remind him that just a few weeks ago, British arms and military personnel were defending our ally Israel from missiles launched by Iran.

[Mr Lammy]

Let me begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his position. It is great to see him where he is, and not on the Government Benches. He will know that these are very serious issues, and that the test under criterion 2c is whether there is a “clear risk”. That is based on very careful assessments of the law. He would expect me to pursue that with all sobriety and integrity, and that is what I intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

The Foreign Secretary will get full support from the Opposition in imposing open registers of beneficial ownership on the overseas territories.

Can I ask the Foreign Secretary to pay special attention to Sudan, which is suffering the largest displacement crisis in the world? There is clear evidence of ethnic cleansing once again in Darfur, and the human misery that I saw on the border with Chad earlier this year was among the most harrowing that I have ever seen.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was able to raise the issue of Sudan with G7 Foreign Ministers in my first days in office, and I continue to hold discussions with the United States, which, as he will know, has summoned a gathering in Switzerland to try to achieve peace.

[Mr Mitchell]

Both main parties committed in their manifestos to restoring the 0.7% international development target. As the Foreign Secretary will have seen, last year we reached nearly 0.6%. Will he discuss with the Treasury returning to 0.7%, not in one bite, but over the next two years? That would secure the best value for money for British taxpayers and also help those most in need.

[Mr Lammy]

I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman earlier, but this is one area that was left in a mess. Frankly, £3.4 billion being spent on refugees in hotels is the lion’s share of that amount. That is a lot for me and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for development to deal with, but we will do all we can to get back to that 0.7% as soon as possible.

Ukraine

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

All across the House condemned Putin’s invasion in 2022. The whole House has supported Britain’s actions to back Ukraine and galvanise the international community. Today, I hope the whole House echoes the words of the Prime Minister as he pledged £3 billion in military aid for Ukraine every year until 2030, and beyond if necessary. He said that

“Ukraine is not alone, and Ukraine will never be alone.”

The war has entered its third year. In the last few months, Russia has been eking out small territorial gains in the Donbas. Now, the Kremlin is probing Ukrainian defences north of Kharkiv. It is unlikely to take Ukraine’s second largest city anytime soon, but in recent days it has taken a dozen villages, so we are at a difficult moment, which underlines the critical importance of accelerating the delivery of vital military support to Ukraine.

Across the country, Russian missiles are raining down on Ukrainian power plants and the electricity grid. Ukraine continues to strike back, including with clear success in degrading Russia’s Black sea fleet and taking out military targets inside Russia. Increases in American, UK and European military aid are now arriving at the frontline, and the costs for Russia remain extraordinarily high. Some 465,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded since February 2022, with thousands of conscripts having their lives tossed away for the sake of only modest tactical advances. Meanwhile, Russia’s military now sucks up over 40% of Government spending, over half of Russia’s national wealth fund is gone, and Gazprom has posted its first annual loss in 20 years, to the tune of $7 billion. Every rouble that the Kremlin spends on a dodgy North Korean missile or Iranian drone is money that it is not spending on improving the lives of Russian citizens, on teachers, on pensions or on medicine.

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

I have always been sceptical about the impact of sanctions when real warfighting breaks out, and that scepticism has recently been increased by the knowledge that so much Russian oil has been going to India to be refined there and then to be bought up by western countries that are sanctioning Russian oil. Can the Deputy Foreign Minister throw any light on this and on what we propose to do about it?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend speaks with knowledge and authority on this matter. He will know that the imposition of sanctions is a complex matter, that we have to continually ensure that those who break them are held to account, and that that is an iterative process—I believe that is the correct jargon. I can tell him that we have sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities, and that without sanctions Russia would have an extra £400 billion with which to prosecute the war.

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

I concur with the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), when he says that this is not just about oil but about sanctions being broken. What more can we do to stop UK and European companies that are quite clearly exporting their products via other countries, particularly Turkey and the Stans, to bypass those sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). This is a highly complex area and it must always be governed by law, including international law. We are working better all the time as we get better at it, and I hope he will accept my assurance that we are doing everything we can to ensure that we get better and more effective at it.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am going to make a similar point. I understood that, following Ed Conway’s reports on Sky about motor manufacturing and diversion through Azerbaijan, for example, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was going to take action on this. Is the Minister able to update the House on precisely what actions the FCDO is taking to deal with this blatant sanctions evasion?

[Mr Mitchell]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give those details across the Floor of the House, but at such point as it would be helpful and we are able to do so, I will assuredly inform the House.

President Putin surely knows that this is not sustainable. He will not be able to outlast the Ukrainians, who are fighting for their very survival, or Ukraine’s supporters who have economies 25 times the size of his.

The House will be aware that the situation on the frontline is difficult. Russia has numerical advantages in men and matériel, and we are acting now to help Ukraine hold the line and get back on the front foot.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My anxiety is that all the Minister’s figures about what the Russian economy is doing indicate that Russia has put the production of ammunition and matériel on a war footing, while everything I have heard from our western allies says that we have chosen not to do that. It feels as if we give bits and pieces here, there and everywhere—all well intentioned—but it does not add up to us putting the whole of the western military armaments process on a war footing. That is surely what we need to do.

[Mr Mitchell]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a very high regard, that when I have finished my speech I hope he will be reassured specifically on that point.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary has talked about the numerical advantage that Russia has over Ukraine. That is why it is so important that injured troops on the frontline in Ukraine are treated, cared for and recycled back into active service as quickly as possible. In Goole, we are proud to have provided over 150 ambulances, including armoured ambulances, which are being used at the front. The Deputy Foreign Secretary spoke about military aid. Can he assure the House that we are also doing everything we can to ensure that proper medical aid and support are being provided to those brave troops?

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend’s constituents for the work that he described. Again, if he bears with me, I will be able to come directly to the point that he has made.

It is important to restate what is at stake. No one here in Britain, or indeed in the wider world, should be in any doubt: this is vital not just for Ukraine, whose determination to fight for its freedom is undimmed, but for us in Britain and beyond. This is the defining struggle of our generation. At stake in Ukraine are vital principles. These are not just words found in the United Nations charter—a charter signed by Russia but which she now flagrantly breaks and dishonours; they are essential foundations for the security and prosperity of the entire world. Sovereignty. Territorial integrity. Right, not might.

The war has brought with it the greatest atrocities on our continent in a generation: the death, rape, torture and deportation of civilians on a massive scale. We see the war’s impact spread across Europe, even to our own shores, with espionage, cyber-attacks, disinformation, suspected sabotage activity, airspace violations and GPS jamming, which impacts civil aviation. If Russia were to win in Ukraine, we would be back in a world where the most fundamental international rule—that countries must not seize land from others or resolve disputes by force—was in shreds. Success would only embolden Putin and authoritarian leaders around the world with designs on their neighbours’ territory.

The costs of supporting Ukraine now are far less than the costs we will face if it does not repel the invaders. That is why the Government have identified Russia as the most acute threat to British security, and why there has been enduring cross-party and public support in Britain for Ukraine since those little green men first appeared in 2014. It is why we have seen NATO only grow stronger since the Russian invasion, with Sweden and Finland joining an alliance dedicated solely to defending territory, not taking territory. It is why we saw the American Congress decide last month to approve $60 billion in further US support for Ukraine, and why the EU announced €50 billion in multi-year support. It is why, despite the different pressures some partners face, none but the most isolated and fanatically anti-western states seek to defend Putin’s blatant violation of the UN charter. This isolation is Moscow’s greatest weakness. Diplomatically, economically and militarily, the balance of advantage lies not with Russia but with Ukraine and her supporters, and we have to make that advantage count.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his positive attitude; we are very much encouraged by what he has said. It is important that Ukraine gets the military aid that it needs, but it is also important that the troops are rotated. I understand that that is one of the issues, because the troops who are on the frontline and under pressure all the time need a bit of respite. What discussions has the Minister been able to have with the Ukrainian army to ensure that there is help for it militarily and in respect of respite and relaxation?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he may rest assured that British military advice in that respect, and on much else, is not lacking.

I was saying that, in regard to Moscow’s greatest weakness, we have to make the advantage count diplomatically, economically and militarily. We and our allies and partners need to out-compete, out-co-operate and out-innovate. Ukraine can and will win, provided that we support it enough, fast enough and for long enough. The key priorities are clear. Kyiv needs immediate military aid, particularly ammunition and air defence, to defend the frontline and protect its vital infrastructure. One month ago today, the Prime Minister announced our largest ever single package of equipment to help push the Russians back on land, sea and air. Much of this vital kit is already in Ukraine, including 1 million new rounds of ammunition. In April we sent vital spare parts to keep Ukrainian equipment in the fight, with more to follow in the coming weeks, including more than 20 mine clearance systems to defeat Russian minefields.

This year alone, Britain has given more than 1,600 strike and air defence missiles, as well as more Storm Shadow long-range precision guided missiles. We have given £245 million for artillery ammunition, a £325 million programme for drone production and procurement and £20 million of emergency funding to repair energy infra- structure. Since June 2022 we have trained 40,000 Ukrainians under Operation Interflex, and we are encouraging partners to join us in ensuring that Ukraine can counter the immediate threat.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I absolutely support all that the Deputy Foreign Secretary is saying about military equipment, and so on, to support Ukraine in its efforts.

Going back to the previous question, surely there needs to be a two-pronged approach, with sanctions to put economic pressure on Russia, in addition to the military pressure. It cannot be just one on its own. Should we review the effectiveness of sanctions, and potentially extend them?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to do both, and we are doing both. Sometimes it is frustrating that we are not able to talk directly to this point in the House, but she may rest assured that we are using the sanctions regime in every way we can, and that we are getting better at it as time goes by and events unfold.

As I was saying, we are encouraging partners to join us in ensuring that Ukraine can counter these threats. That means more ammunition and long-range missiles, more funding and munitions for air defence and more emergency support for energy infrastructure, but we also need to focus on the longer term, making our strength count in a prolonged war.

We will move to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of the decade, which is the biggest investment in defence in a generation. We will maintain current levels of military aid for Ukraine, £3 billion a year, until the end of the decade, or longer if needed, and we call on others to join us in this pledge. We have promised to double our investment in munitions production to £10 billion over the next 10 years, giving industry the long-term certainty it needs to build extra production capacity. We are also strengthening Ukraine’s own defence industrial base, with 29 defence businesses visiting Kyiv in April—our largest trade mission since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary is generous in giving way. The point he has just made goes some way towards reassuring me, but I think we will still need to go considerably further on producing arms for Ukraine.

Can I ask about the long-term future of Ukraine? Ukraine needs to rebuild itself, and it is making choices between spending money on armaments and spending money on rebuilding tower blocks that have been blown up. Why have we still not managed to give Ukraine the £3 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club? And why have we still not managed to get any of the Russian state assets that are sitting in European and British banks through to Ukraine to help it rebuild?

[Mr Mitchell]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I very much hope that progress will be made at the G7 meeting later this week. Things are moving in the right direction, and we must hope for success by the end of the week.

The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about the so-called Chelsea fund, and he reflects the immense frustration that many of us have felt over the last year in trying to get the fund up and running. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely determined that we will do so. It will be the second largest charity in Britain after the Wellcome Trust. Every sinew is being bent to get it to operate. It is mired in legal and technical difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman has my personal assurance that we are doing everything to try to ensure the money is used to good effect.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The news that my right hon. Friend has given the House this afternoon on the amount of military equipment and money going into Ukraine is greatly encouraging. Britain has courageously led the world on co-ordinating the effort against Russia’s operation in Ukraine, supported, of course, by the Americans and, to be fair, the Germans, but we three nations cannot do it all. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage other rich nations and allies around the world to contribute their share?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the importance of that. I think the position is a little better than he suggests, but he may rest assured that we are pressing everyone to give the support that Britain is giving, in whatever way they can.

We are continuing to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia and, with the US, we have taken decisive steps against the global trade in Russian metals. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, we are bearing down on the circumvention of sanctions and, as the House knows, this was a major focus during the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to central Asia. We are adopting new measures to target the shadow fleet that transports Russian oil.

We have also consistently said that Russia must pay the price for its illegal invasion. Ahead of the G7 summit in June, we have been leading international efforts to build consensus on a lawful route to use Russian assets to generate the maximum possible support for Ukraine. We are, again, working with our partners so that they join us in giving Ukraine the long-term support it needs to win this war by ramping up defence production, supporting Ukraine’s own industry and imposing more sanctions to undermine Russia’s military industrial complex and reduce its export revenues.

Finally, we need to invest in Ukraine’s future security and prosperity by backing it not only in the war but after it. Last year’s London recovery conference raised $60 billion for Ukraine. In January, Britain was the first to sign an agreement offering bilateral security commitments to Ukraine following the Vilnius declaration. And now we are the first to commit to multi-year military support for as long as it is needed.

We are seeing encouraging signs of many partners making similar investments. The Americans and the European Union have agreed generous funding packages. Germany will host the next Ukraine recovery conference in June, and our main NATO allies and G7 partners are now following us in signing long-term security agreements with Ukraine. In July, at the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace, we will urge our partners to underline once again our unity in standing with Ukraine, which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who made a very good point.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary lays out the plans for a war that will go on for many years. Can he explain how Ukraine, with a starting population of 41 million, which has now probably halved through emigration and people being killed in the war, will possibly succeed in a long-term war of attrition against Russia, which has a population of 144 million, without NATO boots on the ground? Is that the end game of this situation?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I said at the beginning of my speech. The gross national income of those who are united against what Russia has done in Ukraine very greatly exceeds all of Russia’s assets.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I am not giving way again.

Earlier this month, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh was the first member of the royal family to visit Ukraine since Putin’s invasion. She followed in the footsteps of Gytha of Wessex, an Anglo-Saxon princess who married the Grand Prince of Kiev. She was one of many figures in British history to have forged links with Ukraine over the centuries. Today we see a greater breadth and depth of co-operation than ever before on not only security, but areas ranging from English language training for civil servants to green technology.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear about the co-operation that my right hon. Friend is setting out and, indeed, his positive message, but he has not acknowledged the important role of the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, both in supporting those back home and in mobilising public opinion here in support of what this country and others are doing to try to ensure that Russia does not win this war.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. The contribution of the Ukrainian community in Britain—those who have come here—has been immense in raising awareness. I remember with the greatest possible affection the concert that took place in Wylde Green in my constituency, where a young Ukrainian opera singer sang the national anthem. At the end of the concert, everyone who had the privilege of being there was fully aware of the dreadful suffering that Ukraine was experiencing.

During his recent visit, the Foreign Secretary launched negotiations on an enhanced 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Our friendship with Ukraine is not only enduring; it is growing stronger. We will stand with Ukraine’s people until they prevail in the war, and we are confident that they will enjoy a future that is secure, prosperous and free. Ukraine’s cause is just; it matters to Britain. The consequences of Ukraine failing are unconscionable. Our friends and enemies alike are watching to see if we have the necessary resolve to see this through to the end.

Let no one believe that if Putin succeeded in his illegal invasion and conquered Ukraine, he would stop there. He would be emboldened by victory, and the failure of the west, Europe, America and our own country would define our generation’s inability to deliver the collective security we have championed continuously since 1945. The cost to us all of that failure would be many times the financial costs we bear today in delivering the necessary military support.

The support must continue if we are to maintain that collective security, the rule of law and the international rules-based system upon which the stability and success of future generations depend. The people of Ukraine have shown extraordinary bravery and determination in resisting Putin’s vile war machine. We cannot—we must not—let them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to press this issue, as he has for many months, and it is why I press the Deputy Foreign Secretary. We as an Opposition would have thought that we would be further forward at this stage. We recognise that the G7 meeting is critical, and the Government have our undertaking to support that endeavour, but as we hurtle towards the recess and anticipate a general election later this year, we all understand that we are running out of time. That makes my point and that of my hon. Friend absolutely fundamental. I hope the Deputy Foreign Secretary will say a bit more about that.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for making a speech that shows the unity of the House. Quite rightly, he is pressing the Government on a number of issues. When the Opposition support the Government in a matter as important as this, it gives much added force and emphasis. On his specific questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces will respond when he comes to wind up the debate—I think the House has heard enough from me today—but if there are any remaining issues, the right hon. Gentleman and I will be able to speak behind the Speaker’s Chair. On all these points, particularly on sanctions and moving together with other countries to try to ensure we are able to impose very serious financial penalties on Russia, I give him my assurance that we are moving as fast as we can. It involves many complex legal issues and getting agreement across the G7, and wider. We are doing everything we possibly can.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that undertaking, which the whole House will have heard.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation website reflects that the latest financial penalty levied on any UK sanction target in the regime was in August last year. It is the only penalty issued on the Russian regime since the war began. I say to the Deputy Foreign Secretary, how can that be? Having just come back from Ukraine, it is clear that we have to do better than delivering just rhetoric and statements from the Dispatch Box; there has to be action. Just one penalty has been issued since the war began, so will the Minister address that point, which the whole House needs to hear about?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is not a surprise that the right hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same questions that I, as the Minister, ask of OFSI. OFSI says that financial investigations take a frustrating length of time to deliver. It assesses every report of new complaints. However, I expect the first monetary penalties to come during this year. We must comply with the law, but as a result of my asking exactly the same questions that he asks, I am told that those financial penalties are in the mix and that we will hear shortly—in any case, during this year.

[Mr Lammy]

I know the Deputy Foreign Secretary is doing his best. On the issue of repurposing state assets, we are told, “Just wait, we will get there. We have a G7 meeting, we will get there.” I say to him very gently that we are the country of the rule of law; we do not wait for others to get there. With the City of London, we must be able to do better than this. I put him on notice that if we win the next general election, we will review these powers, because we are determined to see that enforcement happen. If our allies in the United States can do it at speed, this great country can do it at speed as well.