Chagos Islands

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We will not scrimp on national security, as I have said. There has been no change to the substance of the deal or the overall quantum agreed. We will present the process in the usual way, as I have said multiple occasions.

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

I want to try to be helpful to the Minister. I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary throughout much of the negotiations and I am in a position to tell the House that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) nor the noble Lord Cameron in the other place would ever, as Foreign Secretary, have done the deal that the Government are now intent upon. I think the Minister must be praying every night for a “get out of jail free” card—that, when the American Administration come to look at the deal, they will veto it and get the Government off the hook.

[Stephen Doughty]

I set out very clearly the reasons for the doing the deal. It is the right deal for our national security and that of our allies. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because his Government started the process. We are engaged in constructive discussions with our US counterparts. It was absolutely right that they had the chance to consider the deal. We will allay any concerns raised, and that have been raised in the House previously, in terms of the security provisions. They have been provided with the full detail of the agreement.

Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the three Members who have made speeches so far, particularly the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell); he represents a royal borough and I represent a royal town, but this is an issue on which there is huge cross-party agreement. It has already been set out why that agreement exists. We know that this dirty money comes from the drug trade, from the sex trade and from modern slavery. Alas, credible sources indicate that something like 40% of it comes through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.

Parliament has already decided what should happen. On 1 May 2018, the House added new clause 6 to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, under which all overseas territories must implement open registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2020. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, it was meant to be 2019, but because of the hurricanes, Lady Hodge and I agreed when tabling the amendment that it would not be necessary to do it until the end of 2020.

Subsequently, the Foreign Office arbitrarily extended that figure by three years to 2023. On 4 March 2019, in a succession of points of order to the then Speaker, two former Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee—my now noble Friend Lady Hodge and my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) —and two former Secretaries of State for International Development, namely the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) and myself, made it clear that that had been done by sleight of hand and that the open registers had to be implemented as soon as possible.

Outrageously, we now find that the will of Parliament has been flouted. The letter from the BVI, which I think was received last week, amounts in my view to a contempt of Parliament. The remedy lies with an Order in Council. The Order in Council, which was published on 14 December 2020, insists that the overseas territories must comply with the requirements of section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

The position is very clear. Unless at this summit the overseas territories—we are talking particularly about Cayman and the BVI—say that they will follow the will of Parliament, which is clearly set out in that section of the 2018 Act, the Government must impose an Order in Council in the way that has been agreed. Let us be clear: the Government set out in 2012 the constitutional position on using an Order in Council. None of us wants to do it, but that is what Parliament is now pushed to do. The Government said:

“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”

The overseas territories themselves recognise that they gain hugely from their relationship with the United Kingdom. If they want to travel under our flag—if they want to have the privilege under our monarch—they must accept our values as well. This has gone on far too long. I read that they were suggesting the Foreign Secretary was working to impose these orders in a colonialist way. I cannot think of any other Member of Parliament of whom that is less likely to be true than the current Foreign Secretary.

The brilliant officials in the Foreign Office, who are second to no one in my admiration, have been too willing to keep the peace between the overseas territories and London. They must now ensure that the open registers of beneficial ownership are implemented forthwith, in accordance with the will of Parliament. I very much hope that that will be the result of the summit to which the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner, as it is to respond to the debate called for by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). This will be one of those debates where there is ferocious agreement in all parts of the House. Before I get into the substance of my speech, it is worth mentioning that there is a legitimate role for tax havens. The City of London will certainly have investment funds located in tax havens in order to have tax neutrality for investors into those funds. Those investors have to pay their domestic tax, but they do not want to pay tax on the funds as they go forward.

It is also worth mentioning that, in some cases, small islands will look to see if they can grow their economies by providing financial services. Again, if they are doing that in a legitimate way, and one that fits with the wishes of the world, there is nothing wrong with that. But that is the important point: it is incredibly important that what they are doing is seen to be legitimate, right and fair for everybody else.

Turning to the substance of the debate, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there is still much work to be done on tax transparency. As part of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, overseas territories were required to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership. In 2020, the previous Government set out in a written ministerial statement the expectation that the territories would implement registers by the end of 2023.

Intense discussions took place with overseas territories over the implications of the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that publicly accessible registers were contrary to the EU charter of fundamental rights. Despite some overseas territories’ raising concerns over the ruling, which does not apply to the UK, the previous Government were satisfied with the lawfulness of the public register. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. However, the impact of the EU ruling has led to delays in the overseas territories implementing the public register. The previous Government made it clear that they expected progress in 2024, yet, as we would all agree, progress remains far too slow.

Too many jurisdictions under our responsibility continue to allow opaque corporate structures that enable illicit finance to flow unchecked. That is particularly concerning in the light of recent geopolitical developments, including the increase in money from sanctioned countries—Russia —being laundered through offshore entities. I am looking forward to the Exchequer Secretary updating us on what progress has followed the November joint ministerial council for overseas territories. The Opposition welcome the communiqué, which reaffirmed the Government’s expectation that overseas territories should provide public access to beneficial ownership registers. It is right to commend Gibraltar and Montserrat, which have implemented public registers, and the Falkland Islands and St Helena, which have pledged to do so by April 2025. It is worth adding that, while not directly legislated for by the UK, the Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—have made commitments to greater transparency, too.

[Mr Mitchell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I hope my right hon. Friend will not mind if I do not, because I am conscious that we have very little time.

It remains a concern that major financial centres such as the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands remain resistant to these measures. Will the Exchequer Secretary provide an update on what pressure the UK Government are placing on those overseas territories that are not fully complying with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?

The UK Parliament has sovereign powers over the overseas territories. Therefore, we cannot allow any jurisdiction to water down these proposals. The previous Government allowed for an interim step of a legitimate interest model, which would allow access to beneficial ownership information by members of the public with a legitimate interest in accessing it, including media and civil society organisations involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering. Even if that might be a stepping-stone for some overseas territories, I hope the Minister will confirm that it should not dilute efforts to create a public register.

Overseas territories must align with the UK’s own standards and comply with UK law. What is the Government’s plan if further delays occur? Will there be consequences for non-compliance? This Government and the previous Government have repeatedly stated that tackling illicit finance is a priority—we agree on that point. The current Foreign Secretary has declared:

“The golden age of money laundering is over”.

I am sure the Minister would agree that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies must not become the weak link in the fight against money laundering and corruption.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

Thank you for that reminder about the timing, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this debate, and Members on all sides of the House on their contributions, including the hon. Member for frozen asset—as she styled herself in her contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake).

I know Members have questions that they have raised about the implementation of specific tax transparency measures in the overseas territories, and our continuing collaboration with them. I will turn to those in a moment, but I will briefly set out the broader constitutional context of the overseas territories and their role in international tax.

We continue to support the overseas territories to build vibrant and sustainable economies, including through encouraging greater links to the UK economy. The overseas territories are an integral part of the British family. The inhabited overseas territories are self-governing jurisdictions with democratically elected Governments and responsibility for fiscal matters. They have responsibility for setting their own policies, including determining their own tax rates in line with international standards. They are also committed to upholding international tax standards, and the UK Government are actively working with them to ensure they meet their commitments.

Domestically, the UK has implemented a range of policies to prevent shifting of profits to low-tax jurisdictions, including controlled foreign corporation rules, anti-hybrid rules, and corporate interest restriction rules. All overseas territories with an international financial centre have joined the UK in becoming members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. That signals their ongoing commitment to implementing the BEPS minimum standards.

All overseas territories with financial centres have also committed to the global forum’s exchange of information and request standard, and to implementing the OECD’s common reporting standard and cryptoasset reporting framework for the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes. Treasury officials regularly engage with counterparts in Crown dependencies and overseas territories to exchange best practice and technical expertise in adhering to international tax standards.

Where overseas territories need more in-depth support, HMRC works with them to build capacity and to comply with international standards. Support from HMRC has in recent years helped Montserrat and Turks and Caicos to be found fully compliant with the EU’s code of conduct group.

Of course, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the Government are also determined to close the tax gap in the UK public finances, and tackling offshore tax non-compliance is a key part of that. HMRC can access relevant information from overseas territories through the automatic exchange of information, and exchange on request, for tax investigations.

At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a record package to close the tax gap. That included our commitment to growing HMRC’s compliance workforce by 5,000 people over the next five years. As part of that, we are expanding HMRC’s international compliance work, supported by a campaign of targeted external recruitment of senior tax experts. Before the end of this financial year, HMRC expects to have recruited more than 50 experienced international tax professionals through that exercise, which will more than double the number achieved in the previous year. Tackling illicit finance in the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies is a priority for the Government.

[Mr Mitchell]

Can the Minister provide an undertaking that if the overseas territories, and indeed the Crown dependencies, do not co-operate with what Parliament has set out—the Order in Council published in draft already—the Government will exercise their rights on behalf of Parliament and issue this Order in Council?

[James Murray]

I had a feeling the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask a question along those lines. I will answer it in a moment.

I welcome the commitment made by the leaders of the overseas territories in November 2024, which has been referred to by hon. Members, to support the Foreign Secretary’s campaign against illicit finance. As part of that commitment, boosting corporate transparency through registers of beneficial ownership is a core aim in helping to tackle money laundering and tax and sanctions evasion and in helping to foster an open and trusted business environment. Fully public registers of beneficial ownership are already in place in the UK, Gibraltar and Montserrat.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater asked about the register of overseas entities and whether trust-owned property would be included on those registers. If an entity from an overseas territory owns property in the UK, they would fall under the requirements and would need to declare their beneficial owners. That includes beneficial owners associated with a trust. The register of overseas entities is also being updated this year to grant, on application, access to trust information that is currently restricted from the public.

At the joint ministerial council in November 2024, the Government confirmed their expectation that fully public registers of beneficial ownership would be implemented by overseas territories. The Falkland Islands and St Helena committed to implement those by April 2025. Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands committed to implement registers of beneficial ownership accessible to those with a legitimate interest by June 2025 at the latest. This approach offers the maximum possible degree of access and transparency while retaining the necessary safeguards to protect the right to privacy in line with respective constitutions.

Progress towards delivering on these commitments is under way. The UK Government have been clear to the elected leaders of the overseas territories that we expect registers to be delivered by the deadline and in line with the standard agreed at the joint ministerial council. UK Government officials continue to work in partnership with officials in the overseas territories to support the implementation of these registers, and last month they wrote with further clarifications on the minimum requirements for registers of beneficial ownership. The Government are continually reviewing this issue and will consider carefully what steps to take if registers are not delivered on time and to an acceptable standard. We are aware of the consultation document released by the British Virgin Islands and continue to engage with BVI to improve its proposal, in line with the agreement made at the joint ministerial council.

The UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories stand united in condemning the Russian Government’s aggression. We have been working in lockstep to enforce UK sanctions, which hon. Members have mentioned, including by freezing assets across the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That has helped to implement the UK Government’s sanctions regime, which, to date, has amounted to $9 billion-worth of assets. To support this, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has provided significant technical assistance to build capacity in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

As we have heard in this debate, the push for tax transparency in the overseas territories generates strong views. I recognise that there have been instances in which high net worth individuals and multinational entities have sought to hide their assets and profits in the overseas territories. The overseas territories are working to implement international tax transparency standards and work closely with us to identify tax abuse, to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to enforce UK financial sanctions. We must continue to work towards greater tax transparency in the UK, the overseas territories and globally. That includes greater transparency regarding company ownership, as well as the ownership of assets such as cryptoassets and real estate, to ensure the public can see who the beneficial owners are. I thank you again, Mr Turner, I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in particular for securing this debate.

[Joe Powell]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for his response, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. This has been a productive and constructive debate. There has been a lot of agreement on the problem. We heard the tax case very strongly, particularly from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). We heard the housing and communities case, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). We heard the economic growth case from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the poverty and inequality case from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and the constitutional case from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), which took us through the history over the past decade of missed deadlines and opportunities for the action we are talking about to be taken.

I hesitate to say that this will be the last debate in this place on this topic—I suspect it will not be—but I welcome the Exchequer Secretary’s commitment. I think he was being quite polite when he said that the Government wished to see an improvement to the BVI’s proposal. The BVI needs to go back to the drawing board and bring back a proposal fully in line with the principles that Parliament concluded were the best action for this problem, which is full public registries of beneficial ownership.

In final closing, I thank the spokespersons for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the hon. Members for Lewes (James MacCleary) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), respectively, for their constructive contributions. I agree that there may be some legitimate uses of offshore tax centres, in particular for companies in multiple jurisdictions, but the heart of the problem is that the BVI, the Caymans, Bermuda and others are still far too susceptible to very serious illicit crime.

If there is one message that I would like all hon. Members to take home it is that this is not an abstract problem. It is not something just to do with billions and trillions in the financial system. It is about constituents who are being chased by HMRC who feel the double standards; it is about our housing crisis and empty properties; it is about our sanctions, their enforcement, and support for autocrats such as Putin, and it is about our public finances.

We have a strong case for why we need to act, and I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for his outlining of the next steps. The June deadline to see progress from the overseas territories is imminent, but as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, this area is littered with missed deadlines. We need a proper deterrent from the British Government to say what will happen if the territories pass those deadlines and no action has been taken.

[Mr Mitchell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Joe Powell]

If I am allowed to.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Sure.

[Mr Mitchell]

We have another three minutes, so I am keen to help out.

To be clear, we are talking here about dirty money and the source of this money—money stolen from Africa and from Africans. The baddies have all the best tunes, and they have the money to get their way, so the forces of law and order are always fighting to catch up. It is important to emphasise the open registers. The mist fell from all our eyes when, thanks to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper, the Paradise and Panama papers were published. They showed that, without this open register approach, we cannot join up the dots to see what those clever villains are doing, catch them, trap the money and hopefully return it. The hon. Gentleman and I agree completely, but I hope that we can carry the Government with us.

[Joe Powell]

I thank my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, where we talk about this a lot.

Exhibit A is the UK public register of company ownership—when introduced, we were told that there would be all sorts of capital flight and that people would not come here to buy properties and invest, but that has simply not been the case. The register has now been in existence for several years. In fact, many of the countries that were the source of corruption and dirty money are now implementing public registries: Nigeria, Indonesia and Kenya, to name but a few.

We know action is possible—Gibraltar and others among the overseas territories have already done it—and it is now incumbent on the others to follow suit. I implore the Government to keep the pressure on so that we do not have to come back too many more times to debates such as this to re-analyse the same problem that we all agree is there, when we know the policy solution is within our grasp.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tax transparency in the Overseas Territories.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for that question, because there is a lively civil society still at work in Sudan and NGOs are on the ground in Sudan doing what they can in the absence of UN agencies able to do that work. I was grateful that the World Food Programme facilitated my trip to the Chad border with Sudan, and to see trucks going in with the World Food Programme name emblazoned on them that may bring some alleviation to the suffering. However, I must say that in my conversations with the drivers, they talked about trucks being hijacked, the changes, the barriers and not being able to get as far as they would like. There are still serious issues on the ground.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks.

On Sudan, I commend the Foreign Secretary for going to Chad. I visited the same location last year, and he will have seen the clear and horrific evidence that this is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. While he was there, did he make it clear to the President of Chad that the use of his private airport by foreign powers to arm and assist the RSF is completely unacceptable?

On the DRC, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says everyone should draw back and engage with the Luanda process. Does he agree that it would help if the Congolese army did not so clearly make common cause with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, who perpetrated the genocide to which he referred, and who pose a serious threat to Rwanda’s security and were responsible for the murder of nearly 1 million Tutsis in 1992?

[Mr Lammy]

My bilateral conversation with the President of Chad was extensive—I was accompanied by the Foreign Minister for most of the 48 hours that I was there—and my concern for the women and children was heartfelt, recognising the huge burden of displaced people that Chad bears as best it can. I underlined the UK’s clear position on the conflict, the action of the parties and the need for regional partners to support a political process to end the bloodshed. On the situation in the DRC, I have spoken to President Kagame. I also spoke to South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation following the murder of its peacekeepers, and Lord Collins has spoken to a range of African partners, all of whom have a stake. The Kenyans and the Angolans have been doing a lot to move forward the Luanda process, which I urge Kigali to continue to work on.

Middle East

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We hold out that a two-state solution must be the way forward. We believe that normalising relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia is key, and that there must be Palestinian component. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside President-elect Trump and his team in the coming days to hopefully bring that about.

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks and applaud his expression of cautious optimism? It is cautious because the agony of the hostages continues and the urgent need for a quantum increase in humanitarian aid remains unrequited. The deal must be implemented in good faith, and I very much welcome his comment that Hamas can never again govern that space. I pay tribute to his diplomats and officials for their extraordinary hard work and effectiveness, and I underline that Britain has a very important role to play in what comes next. Will he bear in mind that abject devastation can lead to unforeseen breakthroughs? Following the Yom Kippur war, we saw Israel make peace with Egypt, and significant progress was made on the Oslo accords following the intifada.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman brings to bear his tremendous experience of these issues, which has been built up over many years and many different roles in Government and beyond. He is right to focus on the fact that Hamas cannot play a role, but he probably agrees with me. I never believed, as some in the Israeli Government did, that they could eradiate Hamas solely by military force. What eradicates extremism is diplomacy, a political solution and a political horizon that pulls the rug from under the terrorists. That is why it is hugely important that the UK now plays its full role in reaching a political solution and a political horizon that brings about peace, not another generation of militant young men with terrorism and pain in their hearts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

Ministers have engaged frankly with counterparts in India on Mr Johal’s case, pushing for faster progress towards a resolution, including the call for an investigation into allegations of torture by the authorities.

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

The Government are right to continue the all-party approach to the next International Development Association replenishment of the World Bank, which is extremely good value for taxpayer money. Will the Foreign Secretary press the Treasury to match what the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), did in adding £2.5 billion to the 0.5% official development assistance budget, to help defray some of the costs of first-year asylum seekers, which that budget bears? Otherwise, we will be spending more development money in UK postal districts than in Africa.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He understands deeply that under Conservative Governments, we saw those so-called in-donor refugee costs spiralling out of control. The system was not being brought under any kind of coherent plan by previous Governments. Now there is a plan, which is being delivered by the Home Secretary. We are determined to ensure that those costs are brought down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s take a new member of the Back Benches: Andrew Mitchell, on his return.

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

May I wish the new shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), every success in her role? May I also wish the Minister and the entire Government foreign affairs team courage and wisdom as they deal with a world more dangerous than at any time in our lives? When it comes to soft power and development, I remind them of the importance of the words best articulated by former US Defence Secretary Mattis: “If you cut development spend, you have to order more ammunition.”

[Hamish Falconer]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s long commitment to these issues. I returned last week from Pakistan where I was first deployed when he was the Secretary of State for International Development, so I know well his commitment to the issues over a long period.

I agree with the sentiments of the right hon. Member’s question. The aid budget is incredibly important and makes a significant contribution to our national security right across the world. We continue to work hard to ensure that our aid budget is fit for purpose and does the job it needs to do on behalf of the UK right across the world.

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.