Future of DFID

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate and on his very good speech.

No Department should feel that it is there in perpetuity—Departments have to justify their existence, and changes come from time to time. I therefore make no criticism of those who argue that such matters should be reviewed, but I am in the Chamber today to make it clear that the existence and role of DFID have been settled, and should remain settled. Mercifully, I think DFID’s role was settled in the time of Michael Howard, when he was leader of the Conservative party, and by David Cameron, both in Opposition and in Government. We made it clear that we strongly supported the decision of the then Labour Government to set up the Department for International Development. Since then, everything that DFID has done has justified those decisions.

Development is very long-tail; it is different from the disciplines of foreign policy. Tony Blair, I think, used to say that just as the Foreign Office was extremely good at prose and not at numbers, DFID was very good at numbers, but not necessarily at prose. Development is long-tail and different from Foreign Office disciplines, and I used to tease diplomats when I had some responsibility for such matters by saying that they thought that development was the favourite charity of the ambassador’s spouse. That, however, is not development; development is not building schools, but ensuring that when a teacher retires there is someone to replace that teacher in his or her role.

DFID had teething problems as a new Department. From time to time, it stuck out in the Whitehall archipelago as a bit of a sore thumb; sometimes, it looked like a well-upholstered charity moored off the coast of Whitehall. Those difficulties, however, were dealt with and addressed by the time the Department came of age under the coalition Government. The National Security Council, which wired together development, defence and development, clearly brought DFID into the Whitehall constellation—it has never looked back.

Sometimes, we can become inward-facing, focusing our own problems, so we should be clear that DFID is respected around the world as the most effective organ of development policy. It is a world leader and, as I used to say, just as America is a military superpower, so Britain is a development superpower. British academia, ideas and development policy, and Britain’s brilliant international charities and non-governmental organisations, show real world leadership. Today, many people talk about global Britain and Britain post-Brexit. I would argue that Britain’s exercise of soft power—the Government’s work in development led by DFID—is a compelling part of what global Britain means: some might say it was the only aspect of global Britain.

To focus directly on DFID, it is no surprise to find that the Department has attracted to leadership roles some of the most effective civil servants and public servants Britain can boast. There have, I think, been four permanent secretaries: Suma Chakrabarti, who is now head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and highly respected; Minouche Shafik, who became deputy head of the International Monetary Fund and deputy governor of the Bank of England, and is today director of the London School of Economics; Sir Mark Lowcock, with unrivalled experience and now Britain’s lead official at the United Nations, in charge of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs; and, today, Matthew Rycroft, formerly the UK’s permanent representative at the UN.

When I left university, people who wanted to go into public service went first and foremost to the Treasury and the Foreign Office; my equivalents today want to go to DFID or the Treasury. The Department exercises a powerful appeal. I am always keen to say that this is not an area of policy that is Labour or Conservative; it is an area that is British. We should all, whatever party we are from, be very proud of the work that Britain does in development. In that spirit, it would be wrong not to mention Clare Short who, in my opinion, although she and I are polar opposites politically, did an absolutely outstanding job in setting up DFID. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos, were both outstanding Secretaries of State who drove forward that British agenda with such effectiveness.

I will make a final point. I am incredibly proud to have served in a Government that, notwithstanding the austerity then in place in Britain, declined to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world or in Britain, and stood by the commitment to the 0.7%. Although Labour Governments had talked about the 0.7% for many years, it was a Conservative-led coalition Government who introduced it. The hon. Member for Slough, who led the debate, was good enough to make that point clear.

Our commitment is not only to the 0.7%, however, but to the rules. That is the point that came out in the “Today” interview that has been mentioned, in which I had a walk-on part. If we lose the rules, we can forget about the 0.7% because it will be plundered by stronger Departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. We must not forget that a large part of the Foreign Office budget is paid for from the official development assistance DFID budget, because much of what it does is eligible under the rules—but the rules have to be kept. My comment on that “Today” programme, which I repeat, is about my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). We all know his views, but on DFID he is in the role of a medieval pirate whose eye has alighted on a plump Spanish galleon, laden with the gold and silver of the development budget. He wants to board it and plunder it. I understand that but, nevertheless, it is wrong.

The rules are therefore probably more important than the 0.7% figure, although both go together. They are hugely to the credit of Britain and of our generations. We should be immensely proud, and we should use this debate to celebrate the effectiveness and brilliant world leadership of this great Department.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the contributions from the Members who spoke before me—generally, I agreed with what they said.

In my role on the International Development Committee I get to see some of the fantastic projects we are doing around the world, whether supporting M-KOPA, which is a solar power scheme in Uganda, Kenya and the wider region, investments via DFID alone and working with CDC Group, or garment workers providing safety and education in Bangladesh after that awful tragedy only a few years ago. DFID and British aid lead the world not only in transforming lives but in ensuring that the goods we receive in Britain are safe and help people around the world. It is right to say this is the best of British.

I begin by discussing why we have a moral responsibility to show leadership in development. Three months after becoming Britain’s first Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short said:

“Out of our complex history—all the bad and good of it, and the role it leaves us with on the international stage—I want us to do all we can to mobilise the political will for poverty elimination.”—[Official Report, 1 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 126.]

Of course, “ our complex history” is a reference to hundreds of years in which UK foreign policy was literally designed to extract the wealth of poor countries, although not so poor at the time, around the world under our Empire or under other spheres of British influence. It is therefore a reference to our duty to pay some of that back and to the post-colonial days of tied aid; we have already heard about the Pergau dam scandal where €200 million of UK aid went to Malaysia to buy billions of pounds of weapons. That complex history is why Labour untied aid by scrapping the aid and trade provision, why we passed the International Development Act 2002 and why Labour established the stand-alone Department.

The Cameron Government must be applauded for continuing the Department and breaking the previous tit for tat. But I am afraid that this Government are wilfully unlearning past lessons, to ally not the majority of the Conservative party but a lunatic fringe of their own party—including a “pirate”, according to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That fringe is against the 0.7% and the rules-based system. It is undoing the good that the coalition and Cameron Governments did following the good that the Labour Government did.

Over the course of this Parliament, aid spent outside DFID has tripled—something the cross-party International Development Committee has criticised. Most of that money is channelled through organisations such as the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is constituted of many dubious programmes by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, often based on training and equipping militaries rather than alleviating poverty or creating long-term peace.

[Mr Mitchell]

Surely, it does not matter who spends the money, but that it is spent in accordance with the rules as well as it can be. If it appears that it is not spent as well as it could be, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is the right vehicle to find that out. It does not matter who spends it; what matters is that it is spent well and within the rules of ODA.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree that ICAI has a key responsibility. Last year, ICAI—the Government watchdog—said that aid spent through the CSSF could not be proved not to be making the problem worse. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need scrutiny, but if the money is spent by many Departments, there is not one head to be held politically accountable. The Government can spend it where they want, but the political responsibility must be with the Department, otherwise the expertise and the political responsibility are gutted from the Department. That was the case with CSSF, which cannot prove that it is not making the situation worse.

Things were already bad enough, but they have been made considerably worse by the Secretary of State feathering her leadership ambitions and sending signals to Tory Members rather than focusing on poverty alleviation. We need look no further than her recent speeches; even senior civil servants in her own Department cannot identify any of the changes in policy from those speeches. In recent months, her office has said that our commitment to 0.7% is “unsustainable”, and it would like aid spent on building UK battle ships to

“take pressure off a stretched fleet”.

That is not part of a rules-based system.

We have heard that CDC profits should be counted as aid, which in anyone’s book is double counting and is against the rules-based system. We have even heard threats of leaving the Development Assistance Committee if it does not agreed to all our demands. Finally, there was nothing but silence when another leadership contender, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), backed a plan to decimate DFID and the Department for International Trade—a barmy proposal to reduce the aid budget and to spend the remainder on propping up the BBC. In no terms is that aid spending.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) asked the Secretary of State why we should trust her to spend the UK aid budget when she makes those sounds off, even though she is not acting on them, she said:

“They should trust me as the Secretary of State and as someone who has been an aid worker.”

It is astonishing that the Secretary of State’s defence is not one of policy or action but a personal anecdote that she happened to be a gap year worker for one year, 30 years ago, in Romania. That demonstrates clearly how much we need DFID to be governed by people who understand what aid is about. The joint Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID do, but those at the top do not. We need someone at the top who does not wave red rags at the Conservative party.

Last year, the International Development Committee published the report “Definition and administration of ODA”, for which I acted as rapporteur. Almost all its recommendations were dismissed out of hand by the Government, although I understand many civil servants in the Department were friendly to the ideas. The report offers a very good basis for rebuilding the Department. Why can the Minister here not commit to our request that

“The Secretary of State for International Development should have ultimate responsibility for oversight of the UK’s ODA and the Department should have the final sign off of all ODA”?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but it was rejected. Perhaps the Minister could reconsider.

We put heavy emphasis on our concerns that the prosperity fund promoted UK trade above poverty reduction. Could the Minister allay our concerns? Finally, will the Minister reconsider the rejection of our request that

“The Government should make systematic improvements to coherence, transparency and—most crucially—the poverty focus of cross-government fund projects before increasing their share of UK ODA any further, and ensure that DFID”—

and ICAI—

“has oversight of all ODA spending”?

In some cases with the CSSF, ICAI has had restricted access to investigate spending, on national security grounds. That is no basis for finding out whether funds have been spent effectively—I grant that it could have been done in camera.

In total, the Committee made 34 recommendations, which were generally dismissed by the Government. I believe that implementing those recommendations would have strengthened the hand of the world’s best deliverer of aid projects, which we can be genuinely proud of and, as we have already heard, has fantastic staff. However, those recommendations were not accepted. Instead, we hear hyperbole about getting out of the DAC, double counting and other dodgy deals with aid. I am afraid that is the wrong tone to strike about our great Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Britain is an instinctively compassionate, outward-looking and humane nation, and we rightly expect our country to lend a hand in the struggle against poverty, misery and injustice; long may that continue. However, our country also has a keen sense of fairness. The British people want and expect taxpayers’ money to be used with integrity, and allocated sensibly and in accordance with their international priorities. Before I look at the central tenet of the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), it is worth considering the sums of money we are talking about; that has not yet been discussed.

The 0.7% translates to approximately £14 billion. To put that into context, I was at a meeting this morning looking at legal aid in the criminal justice system—indeed, in the overall justice system—and we spend about £1.6 billion a year on legal aid. Or what about the schools high needs block, which funds such things as special educational needs, a big issue in my constituency? Its budget is about £6 billion. Our entire prisons budget is about £4 billion. Although the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, is right and is entitled to criticise, let us not forget the very significant sums of money allocated by this country. We can hold our heads high because we meet the commitment. The United States, France, Germany, Italy and Spain do not. This House must not fall into the trap of thinking that we are somehow skimping on our international obligations. Far from it. We stand comparison with any nation on earth. The former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who spoke with his customary passion and eloquence, made that point crystal clear.

If we are to ensure that the British people retain their enthusiasm for meeting international commitments, it is critical that the rules be modernised and the money allocated in a way that meets priorities. Lest we forget, priorities change all the time; we must not be tone deaf to those changes. Although it is appropriate to keep a separate Department, there is a case to broaden its scope. I am delighted that the Government have acted with a great sense of purpose. I note, for example, that where the Development Assistance Committee’s rules are outdated, the Government have led the way in pushing for reform, so in October 2017 the UK secured an increase in the proportion of aid spending that can be contributed to peacekeeping missions. That is perfectly understandable and reasonable, but there is one central point that we also ought to consider in this House: the Department for International Development. Is it the exclusive purview of the £14 billion budget, or are there other broad areas that we ought to consider?

When I go to schools in Cheltenham—we ought to consider the next generation—one of the key concerns about Britain’s role in the world and how we want to express ourselves internationally is not so much to do with development but with conservation. The people in Charlton Kings Junior School that I spoke to are deeply concerned about plastic pollution, flora and fauna, biodiversity, habitat protection and climate change. The point that I want to make gently is that of course we must be internationalist and globalist, and we must continue to have a role in the world that shows that Britain is on the right side on the great moral issues facing our planet, but should that exclusively be about development? I think we need to have a debate in this House about whether there are other global priorities that we ought to consider.

When I see the tide of plastic in the Pacific ocean, I want us to do more. When I see species losing their habitats in sub-Saharan Africa and the hideous effects of climate change, I want to do more.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about conservation, but that comes under the 0.7%, and the three things he has just mentioned are within the official development assistance rules and also come under the 0.7%, so I think I can lift his spirits a little.

[Alex Chalk]

To some extent it does, but cosmetic changes could be made. Why can the Department for International Development not be the Department for International Development and Conservation? That would send an important message. Also, we ought to be far clearer about the amounts that we can allocate to such causes. There is a huge amount of pushback, inevitably, from the likes of Oxfam. I understand why they would want to protect their realm, so to speak, but we could lean into these areas far more effectively; that would be more consistent with the instincts of the British people, and would gain further support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Distinction to be equalled only by brevity: I call Mr Andrew Mitchell.

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

Since 14 January there has been wholesale persecution by the military of the civilian population: documented cases of rape of civilians by the military, use of live rounds, and 17 civilians shot dead. Will the Minister make clear through our excellent new British high commissioner in Harare the terrible price Zimbabweans are paying for the economic mismanagement of their country and the subversion of the rule of law?

[Mr Speaker]

I think distinction is still a long way ahead.

Yemen

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is a real relief in the terrible catastrophe that is the Yemen today to strongly support the actions taken by the Foreign Secretary in going to Stockholm, Tehran and Riyadh and in trying to win the confidence of both sides. May I also thank him for his absolutely accurate remarks about Sir Mark Lowcock, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, who was my permanent secretary, and about the superb work that has been done by Martin Griffiths? There are, of course, 10 million Yemenis on the brink of starvation this Christmas. I urge him to ensure that the new UN resolution is genuinely even-handed and condemns violence from all sides, whether Houthi missiles fired at Riyadh or Saudi bombing of built-up areas. If it is not even-handed, there is a grave danger that it will prejudice the next round of negotiations in January.

[Mr Hunt]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing interest in what has been happening in Yemen? He is one of the few Members of this House who has actually met the Houthi leadership and he has enormous experience. I thank him for continuing to raise this issue even when it was not high up everyone else’s agenda. He is absolutely right about the importance of this UN resolution being balanced. It does indeed refer to the issue of Iranian missiles being fired into Saudi Arabia from Yemen. However, the way that we will be able to unite all sides behind this resolution is to focus on what was agreed at Stockholm and also on the humanitarian needs of the people of Yemen. We should not—if I can put it this way—go into too much detail about the causes of the conflict, which inevitably become more controversial. What we are trying to do at this stage is to build up the trust on both sides so that the fighting stops.

Yemen

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question, but may I gently say to him that if we did as he is proposing, he needs to ask how that would help people who are starving in Yemen today? Their situation is absolutely desperate, but far from helping them, there would have been no visit by the UK Foreign Secretary to Saudi Arabia last week, no opportunity to have a frank and sometimes difficult conversation with the Crown Prince, no trip to Tehran—because Iran’s reason for talking to us is that we have a relationship with the Saudis—and no support across the table for a Security Council resolution. British influence, far from being able to bring both sides together, would reduce to zero. That is why the right thing for us to do on arms sales is to follow the incredibly strict arms control regime introduced by a Labour Government in 2000—one of the strictest in the world—which has objective measures to make sure that we do not export arms to places where there is a high risk of violations of international humanitarian law.

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

The urgently needed change of policy, which people across this House have been calling for for more than two years now, on Yemen is greatly to be welcomed, and it coincides with the arrival of the new Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Office. Does he understand that the condemnation of violence and of the horrendous suffering in Yemen must be even-handed if Martin Griffiths and his colleagues are to succeed in negotiating a cessation of warfare and meaningful talks? I say to the Foreign Secretary, with the deepest possible sadness, that it comes to something when Britain lags behind the moral curve set by the Trump White House.

[Mr Hunt]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments and his expertise, but I do not agree with his last comment at all. The UK has actually been in the forefront of trying to broker a solution. He is absolutely right that there will be a solution to this only if there is an even-handed approach to the problems. That is exactly the approach that Martin Griffiths is taking, and that is why we are supporting his work. At every stage of what we do, we are listening very carefully to what he says because he has dialogue not only with the Saudis and the Emiratis, but also with the Houthis.

The difficulty, in terms of the historical situation, is that we all have to remember that this really started on 21 September 2014, when the Houthis, who represent less than 25% of the population of Yemen, ejected the legitimate Government of Yemen. That was the start of this conflict. We now need to get all sides together and of course listen to all legitimate concerns, but we do have to remember the historical context.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I shall say two things. First, on arms sales, which have been discussed comprehensively in this Chamber and elsewhere, every licence is considered on an individual basis. A very comprehensive set of controls are gone through and the United Kingdom sticks to that process. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to an invasion by the coalition. Let me be clear: an insurgent movement usurped a legitimate Government, who were then backed by the UN in order to relieve that Government, and the coalition responded to that call to take action to protect the Government and to protect the civilians in Yemen, who are being comprehensively abused by the Houthi insurgency. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to it as an invasion, as that is just not what it was.

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

Has our new Foreign Secretary had a chance to review the position of the British Government at the United Nations in respect of Yemen? Will he move from a position of supporting the Saudi coalition where Britain is complicit in creating a famine, to one of constructive neutrality to secure a ceasefire and meaningful constitutional negotiations, as the UN special representative, Martin Griffiths, is consistently urging and trying to secure?

[Alistair Burt]

On 15 March, the UK proposed and co-ordinated a United Nations Security Council presidential statement, which called on the parties to agree steps towards a ceasefire. That remains our position. Calling for a nationwide ceasefire will have an effect on the ground only if it is underpinned by a political deal between the conflict parties. Given the lack of agreement between those parties, passing a ceasefire resolution risks undercutting the UN envoy’s efforts to reach a political deal and undermining the credibility of the Council. As soon as the right opportunity arises, we will bring forward a resolution.

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I do hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do think that the situation is such that we have constantly to keep under review what is happening in Yemen. Although I have been Foreign Secretary for only three months, I can reassure him that I have been very involved in what is happening in Yemen. I have had four meetings with individuals directly involved on the ground. The truth is that this is a very, very difficult situation because, as he rightly said, there is fault on both sides. The Security Council still believes that the Martin Griffiths’ approach is the right one to unlock the problems there, but the situation is very intractable. Both sides still seem to have the view that a military solution is possible. That is not our view. Our view is that the only solution here is a political one and we need to see much faster movement towards a proper political dialogue.

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

The whole House should welcome the clear and measured statement of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. In particular, his reference to the Magnitsky provisions and to working with our allies, which the House insisted on being passed earlier this year in the face of what was a breathtaking and extraordinary act of state terrorism. Will he use this opportunity, as the new British Foreign Secretary, to review Britain’s position as a good and candid friend of Saudi Arabia and move from supporting the Saudi coalition on Yemen, which is indubitably engaged in perpetrating a famine, destroying vital infrastructure from the air and killing innocent civilians, to a position of mediation and neutrality designed to end the fighting, broker a ceasefire and secure meaningful negotiations?

[Mr Hunt]

I always listen very carefully to what my right hon. Friend says. I know that he has immense personal experience and connections with people in Yemen. I want to reassure him that our position on Yemen is not dictated by the strategic partnership that we have with Saudi Arabia. What we say to Saudi Arabia and the UAE is that we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a political process. I believe—I have been in the job only a short time—that the partnership that we have with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates means that our voice is much more listened to than it otherwise would be. None the less, the situation on the ground is appalling and it persists and we need to continue to do everything we can to seek a resolution.

Yemen

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman, who is an active member of the International Development Committee, has anticipated the next part of my speech. In the light of that, I shall plough on.

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

Just before he does so, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

Of course.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

We have heard that we are supporting the “legitimate” regime in Yemen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that President Hadi’s regime was elected on a ballot paper with only one name on it, that his term of office has long since expired and that he spends most of his time either in Riyadh or offshore, on an Emirati warship? He is one of the few Presidents who have to make a state visit to their own countries.

[Stephen Twigg]

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed that very well indeed, and I pay tribute to his sterling efforts on this issue. Unlike me, he has visited Yemen during the conflict. I think that what is really important—and I shall return to it in a moment—is for us to enable all the different parties to come together to undertake a peace process. That is surely something on which all of us can agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This conflict is multifaceted; it is not simply two-sided. AQAP is a security challenge that predates the Yemen conflict and there is a further element to which I will refer in a moment: the north-south element of this conflict. However, all of us will of course agree that the defeat of al-Qaeda is of absolutely crucial importance.

[Mr Mitchell]

Is this not at the heart of the complications of this conflict: on some occasions we have found, to our horror, the coalition engaging in battle with the Houthis and supported by ISIL and al-Qaeda, the very people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) says, we profoundly oppose?

[Stephen Twigg]

The right hon. Gentleman expresses his point very powerfully.

The mandate for the UN panel of experts to continue its work is one of the topics being considered at the UN Human Rights Council meeting which started this week. It is vitally important that the work of this group is able to continue so that it can ensure that all potential violations of international humanitarian or human rights law by any side in this conflict are investigated thoroughly by a neutral panel. There is serious concern that, at the HRC, Saudi Arabia and the UAE might try to block the extension of the panel of experts’ mandate. Will the Minister say when he responds to the debate whether the UK Government believe that the coalition may well try to do that, and if so how will the UK work to ensure that this vital body can continue? In particular, will he confirm to the House today that the UK will give its support to the work of the panel when this issue is debated in Geneva?

Also in Geneva, the UN special envoy was due to hold the first round of consultation talks on peace in Yemen last week. The Houthi delegation failed to turn up, citing claims that they were not guaranteed safe return to Yemen once the talks were finished. Geneva has the potential to be a major step forward for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Martin Griffiths, the UN special envoy, has said that this latest impasse does not mean that the talks are dead, and he is visiting Sana’a to meet Houthi leaders to agree a new timetable for talks.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests, which are clearly registered in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this debate. The House has shown on no less than three occasions, when you, Mr Speaker, have granted an emergency debate, the deep concern that is felt in all parts of the House about the humanitarian consequences of this dreadful conflict.

The arrival of a new Foreign Secretary is perhaps a good time to take stock of Britain’s position on this matter. Our position very much affects the role we play at the United Nations. As we have heard, this issue is increasingly of salience in a Britain dominated by the Brexit debate, and it is increasingly a matter of concern to our constituents. I do not expect to carry everyone in the House with my remarks today, but the one thing that ought to be able to unite everyone here is the importance of moving from conflict to a ceasefire and negotiations. These conflicts always end either by outright military victory—it is fairly clear that that is not going to happen—or through a ceasefire and negotiation.

I want to look briefly at the position of the three protagonists, starting with the Saudi position. When the Crown Prince came to Britain, I think we were all delighted to see him here. We all thought that he was a breath of fresh air as a result of the changes he was seeking to bring about domestically in his country. It was equally clear, however, that he had a complete blind spot when it came to Yemen. I noticed that there were advertisements for the extraordinary amount of aid that Saudi was giving to Yemen—it is true that it is giving that country an extraordinary amount, as indeed are we—but it was not pointed out that this was basically the equivalent of punching someone in the face and offering them an Elastoplast afterwards. Night after night, the bombing of innocent Yemeni citizens continues, and there is a complete blind spot in that regard. It would be worth while for those leading this war to study closely what happened to America during the Vietnam war.

Let us consider what is happening in Hodeida. In the past few days, and overnight, the fighting there has intensified, and large numbers of United Nations stores and warehouses are now caught up adjacent to where the fighting is taking place. The UN is bravely trying to take those stores into Hodeida. But just imagine what would happen if the coalition were able to invest Hodeida. Imagine the result of that entirely crackers, bonkers strategy. There is a small number of soldiers on the ground and some naval assets offshore attacking Hodeida, and an almost equivalent number of Houthi fighters dug in in the city resisting them, as well as a population of between 300,000 and 400,000 people. If that crazy strategy were to work, and the coalition were able to take Hodeida, it would then hold the port through which more than 80% of all the food required in Yemen comes in. It would also be responsible for looking after the 300,000-plus citizens there, who would have had their infrastructure smashed and who would be without food and the basic sustenance of life.

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

My right hon. Friend has served in uniform, as have I, and he knows the complexities of trying to run states that have collapsed. Does he remember, as I do, those moments in Basra after the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Many of us were on the streets, looking around and trying to establish which way was up, and the locals would come up to us and ask us things. Someone responded by saying, “You must ask the Government about that,” to which the response was, “You are the Government. You have removed the Government and now you are the Government.” That is the problem that our Emirati and Saudi friends could face if they continue with this absurd strategy.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He brings to this debate his thoughts and experiences as the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he has served extremely bravely in combat zones in the past.

I am using Hodeida as just one example—

[John Spellar]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbour, in just a moment. I just want to finish this point. I am only using Hodeidah as one example of this crackers, crazy strategy whereby the Saudis are, to use my words and the words of the Minister, on a hiding to nothing. They are going to be humiliated. As for the Shia-Sunni divide, as referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who started this debate so well, the Iranians are scoring a cheap victory and will be laughing up their sleeves, and the Saudis are playing into the Iranians’ hands. That is what I wanted to say about the Saudi position, so I will now give way to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is my constituency neighbour.

[John Spellar]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he address whether the Houthis are using their position to steal the food that is being brought in? They are using food as a weapon by depriving anyone who does not support them and making huge sums of money to finance their vicious rebellion.

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. There are no good guys in this appalling conflict. I am certainly not standing up for the Houthis, but he needs to address the military position that I have described, which is why the Saudis are on such a hiding to nothing. All that I will say on the Houthis is that I met President al-Sammad on my visit to Yemen, and it was probably a mistake for the Saudis to kill him in an air attack when he was one of the doves among the Houthis who might have assisted in the negotiations that I was describing.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot get away from the fact that there is a perfectly sensible alternative analysis here. Hodeidah is the vital ground in this conflict, and it is the control of Hodeidah that finances the Houthi rebellion through all that it rakes off from the international aid coming through the port. If Hodeidah is secured by the coalition, the conflict will be on the way to being sorted. It is our responsibility to help the coalition to deliver that objective. There have been endless opportunities for a political process, and the Houthis simply did not turn up to the latest one, which was the last of a long list of efforts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is a distinguished former soldier, but he is not addressing the military aspects of how that point would be reached. Even if he is right that whoever controls Hodeidah is in a strong position, the coalition will nevertheless have to take and look after Hodeidah, and my submission is that there is no chance of it being able to do so.

Turning to the Yemeni position, the country is in complete and total chaos. A famine looms, and I described to the House in a previous emergency debate what it is like watching a child first starve and then die as a result of famine. This is a man-made famine, and we are part of the people who are creating it. The infrastructure that has been destroyed by the coalition and the advancement of medieval diseases that have been eradicated throughout most of the world underline that point. Bombing by the Saudi air force happens night after night, killing innocent civilians. The people of Yemen know that the UK and the US are involved. It is written all over the walls in Sa’dah, which I had the chance to visit. They know who is to blame. Equally, British-led groups are also trying to clear mines, which shows the confusion. All that means that a younger generation of Yemenis see what is happening and hundreds and thousands of them are prey to the immoral advances of terrorists. They are prey to those who tell them who is causing the situation and then radicalise them.

Wanton damage is so prevalent in Yemen. I went to the location of the funeral where so many innocent mourners were killed by the Saudi air force. We heard about the murder of innocent children dressed in the blue colour of UNICEF while out on a picnic—40 of them killed in what has quite rightly been described as a war crime.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech, and I completely agree with him. I am sure that, like me and others, he has had contact with senior military officials in the Saudi Government, so does he share my frustration that, despite repeatedly discussing avoiding targeting humanitarians, hospitals, schools and civilians out in the open as he described, they keep on making these terrible mistakes? We are so fearful of an all-out assault on Hodeidah because they have shown repeatedly that they cannot avoid killing civilians.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but my point is that it would be hard to find a more eloquent and effective recruiting sergeant for those who wish to do us ill than the policy that is being pursued by our Government.

Finally, I come to the position of the British Government. We hold the pen on Yemen at the United Nations, and we know that a presidential statement, drafted by Britain, had to be suppressed by the Norwegians, the Russians and the Swedes. We are increasingly nervous—let us not beat about the bush—about a diminution of Britain’s influence at the United Nations. My submission to the Government is that the UK needs to move from outright support through the coalition for our friends in Saudi Arabia to a much more neutral position, using our moral authority not to protect the Saudis, but to save them from the ignominious fate that so clearly awaits them in Yemen.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time and is making some powerful points. Will he join me in urging our Government to support the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who said last week:

“It is crucial that there be…international and independent investigations into all allegations of violations of international humanitarian law”?

We know that such violations are happening, and we need an international investigation. Will the British Government please do that?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is right on that point, not because a Saudi-led investigation will necessarily be false, but it simply will not be trusted. If I may use a wholly inappropriate analogy, people will think that the Saudis are marking their own homework. It would therefore be much better to have an international investigation.

The Minister agrees that the Saudis are on a hiding to nothing, so surely it is the duty of the Saudis’ friends and allies to move them to a better place. Some time ago, the British Government took a judgment through the National Security Council that our economic and security relationship with Saudi Arabia took precedence over everything else. I believe that that judgment is now fundamentally flawed, because both our economic and security relationships are being greatly damaged by what is happening in Yemen.

In trying to persuade the Government that we need to move to a position of much greater neutrality, using our power and influence at the United Nations, I hope that the Minister, who understands such things, will reiterate today the importance of supporting without qualification the work of Martin Griffiths, a distinguished British international civil servant, as he tries to move this whole awful experience from fighting to a ceasefire and then to talks. My understanding is that the reason why the Houthis were not in Geneva was that there were no adequate guarantees of safe passage, and Martin Griffiths has specifically said that he wishes to address that point and ensure that the next round of talks, to which he is absolutely committed, are more inclusive and therefore more comprehensive.

The important thing is that we move to a ceasefire and to talks. The talks will be difficult, halting and slow, but as the extremely impressive work of the UN group of eminent experts on Yemen has so clearly stated, the present position is the worst of all worlds for all involved. We must now get a ceasefire and move to talks, which are the route through to the end of this dreadful catastrophe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I am afraid that we cannot escape the central dilemma: there has been an illegal usurpation of power in Yemen. Having read Michael Knights’ scholarly analysis of the development of the Houthi movement, which covers its radicalisation, the elements within it and how it has built alliances within Yemeni society, we should be under no illusion: the international community has no choice but to try to ensure that the illegal usurpation of power by this movement does not stand. That leads us to the conduct of the coalition’s operations.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend says that we have no choice but to do what we are doing, but it is absolutely clear that what we are doing will not be successful. We are going to fail. Indeed, the coalition is going to be humiliated because of the situation on the ground, which he has described. In those circumstances, apart from proceeding to get a ceasefire and a negotiation, with all the regional and great powers crowding in to make the negotiation a success, what does he propose that we do?

[Crispin Blunt]

My right hon. Friend’s military analysis, which is based on his experience, particularly in the National Security Council—I am sure he learned a great deal with the Royal Tank Regiment, but obviously he has had access to Government briefings on this matter—will bring enormous comfort to the Houthi forces who are defending Hodeidah. I happen to disagree. Hodeidah is the vital ground in this conflict. If we had believed him, the Emirati-led forces would never have taken Aden. It took them seven days once they had taken it to get shipping going back into Aden to bring supplies back into Yemen to help relieve the famine.

The failure of the international community to support the coalition to take Hodeidah back is continuing the conflict and continuing the opportunity for forces such as al-Qaeda and ISIS to take advantage of the situation. The failure to take Hodeidah means that the international community puts support into the country through Hodeidah and the Houthis who control it charge the forces of the international community an excessive tax for the privilege of getting aid into Yemen. That sustains the Houthi rebellion. That is how they are earning their money, quite apart from the support they receive from external parties such as Iran.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am minded to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made a number of useful interventions in the debate. Given the success of the Emirati side of the coalition, which has rolled up the southern part of the country with remarkable success, bringing its land forces to the gates of Hodeidah, where the Saudi part of the coalition has maritime investment and total air supremacy, I do not believe that it is a military impossibility to displace the Houthi forces that occupy Hodeidah. What is needed is absolute resolution and an understanding that this is the vital ground. Already, the main supply line of the Houthis to Hodeidah port is in the process of being cut by the coalition forces, on behalf of the international community.

Of course, we need to look at the conduct of the whole operation, but we must remember that this is the first time that Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of this kind. We have talked about the awful event on 9 August, with the destruction of a bus containing wholly innocent people, but the British and American contribution to Saudi accountability and Saudi targeting has at least meant that within 22 days, the coalition accepted responsibility, apologised and said that it would pay compensation to the victims. That is a significant improvement on the situation at the beginning of the conflict. We have seen the quality of the targeting and the conduct of the operation improve as the Saudis gain experience, with the assistance of their international allies.

Let us not think that we are immune from this. I was in this House on 15 April 1999, when a NATO spokesman had to defend the killing of 70 wholly innocent people when an American plane flying at 15,000 feet bombed a convoy of refugees in Kosovo. Jamie Shea said on that day:

“He dropped his bomb in good faith”.

That sounded pretty dreadful then and, quite rightly, people made a great deal of it. We are entirely right to make a great deal of what happened on 9 August and in all the other incidents. It is right to hold the coalition to account to the highest possible standards, but we must remember that this coalition is, in effect, our coalition. It has been unanimously endorsed by the international community through the UN Security Council.

If we accept the rather pessimistic analysis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that nothing can be done and that there is no way Hodeidah can be taken off the Houthi rebels, it is a counsel of despair and a policy that will continue the illegal usurpation of power in Yemen.

[Mr Mitchell]

rose—

[Crispin Blunt]

I want to continue my train of thought, because the failure to deliver the vital ground in this conflict has two critical consequences. It means that the international community cannot get the scale of aid that is required into Yemen because it does not control the port. Even if the port facilities are destroyed, the international community would be able to put back together sufficient port facilities to get—

Idlib

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, of course, to others who take a very close interest in this situation. I can assure him that there is no shortage of efforts by the United Kingdom Government on this matter, whether here, in capitals abroad or at the UN.

The hon. Gentleman accurately describes the situation, which has become desperately familiar, regarding the conduct of events in Syria, where civilian populations have been put at risk. We estimate that the Idlib region now has some 3 million inhabitants, many of whom have been displaced from other parts of Syria. The number of extremist fighters is reckoned to be quite small—perhaps 15,000, with maybe a further 25,000 to 35,000 opposition fighters—and that number is dwarfed by the number of people in Idlib itself. As our excellent permanent representative said at the UN last week, there are more babies in Idlib than there are terrorists. That is why we need to concentrate our efforts on humanitarian relief and assistance, and to try to find a negotiated way out of the situation.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I am not sure it is technically possible to track every air strike. Certainly we know when they have happened, but I am not sure how we would be able to find out from where they are being directed or anything like that. The obvious nature of the air strikes is very clear: they are from the Russian and the Syrian regimes. No one else is up in the air, so we all know where they are coming from.

The UN is actively considering any measure that might assist civilians. If there are corridors, there are questions to be asked about such things as how they would be made secure and policed, and we will give every consideration to that. No suggestion has been made for any military intervention in relation to that. If it were to be done with United Kingdom involvement, that would be a military intervention on Syrian soil, which would have obvious consequences. That has not yet been contemplated.

In terms of consequences and accountability, sanctions are already in place against Russian entities and that will continue to be the case. Last week at the Security Council, the permanent representative read through details of the units of the Syrian army that were involved in the Idlib operation, together with the names of their commanders, and made it very clear that accountability would follow. I think that that was a bold and necessary step. [Official Report, 12 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 4MC.]

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the potential of chemical warfare, the truth is, of course, that we have seen it elsewhere. The permanent representative spoke about the failure to deal with chemical weapons usage, saying last week:

“As of March 2018, the OPCW”—

the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—

“fact finding mission had confirmed 13 cases of likely chemical weapons use in Syria since it was established in 2014. And in terms of allegations, the fact finding mission have recorded at least 390 allegations. After more than four years of work by the declaration assessment team, the OPCW still is unable to verify that the Syrian declaration is accurate.”

She continued:

“And we’ve heard many times that there are ‘gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies’ in Syria’s account of its declaration under the CWC.”

We can be fairly clear that those weapons still exist and are available in Syria. Of course, we have seen instances when conventional military action has been followed towards the end by chemical weapons usage. We have made it very clear through the UN and partners that appropriate action would be taken if that were the case. We are all also aware of disinformation campaigns being launched to say that such a chemical weapons attack is being prepared by other sources. There is no credibility to those accounts, they will not be used as a smokescreen should chemical weapons be used, and people will be properly held accountable.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in all the international councils the immense moral authority that Britain has in this matter is exercised to the full? After all, we are, through our taxpayers, looking after more of the 11 million displaced people from this conflict than the whole of the rest of Europe added together. Will he also be sure to make it clear that the bombing of hospitals in Idlib, each of which is clearly marked with a red cross on its roof, is a war crime, and that the individuals engaging in those attacks will be held to account, however long it takes?

[Alistair Burt]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has spent some £2.71 billion on supporting those in Syria who have been displaced. We have provided food, healthcare, water and other life-saving relief to the internally displaced. Since 2012, we have delivered more than 22 million food rations, 9 million relief packages, 9 million medical consultations and 5 million vaccines to those in need across the country. The work of the Department for International Development is commended all round.

The determination was increased last week. On 17 August, I announced a further £10 million in additional emergency and medical support for Idlib. My right hon. Friend’s point about health centres is well made—we have more documented evidence of recent attacks on health centres. This is unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of health centres is against international humanitarian law, as he said, and that should be spelt out every single time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that number, but I will happily write to him with the information. What I can tell him is that our aid to the Rohingya, which is £129 million so far, has helped counsel 2,000 victims of sexual violence. We consider that an extremely important part of our support for this people.

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

May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role? He has great relevant experience, and we all know he will carry out his role superbly. Will he ensure he uses all his considerable influence, and that of the British, at the United Nations to make it clear that there can be no impunity for crimes of genocide committed by the Burmese army, which have been so eloquently set out by the United Nations independent international fact-finding mission? Britain has an acute and important leadership role to discharge here, not least because of the tremendous amount of aid and support we have given to the poor Rohingya community over the many years of their suffering.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and commend him for the leadership he showed on many humanitarian issues as International Development Secretary. He is absolutely right: the report said that in Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states there was gang rape, assaults on children, villages razed, and, in northern Rakhine, mass extermination and mass deportations. This is the kind of issue where countries that believe in civilised values have to take a stand and make sure that justice is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, I will do so very genuinely. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has recently visited Colombia. I would therefore like to invite him and any other colleagues to see me in order to brief me on what they learned during their visit.

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

Further to the Minister’s earlier remarks, will he make it clear to our Saudi allies that they are on a hiding to nothing in this war in Yemen and that every effort must be made to support the peace process being brokered by Martin Griffiths, the UN Special Representative for Yemen? Will the UK support renewal of the mandate of the UN’s group of eminent experts on Yemen at the Human Rights Council this month?

[Alistair Burt]

I think that the answer to all that is yes.

Syria

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I absolutely commend the hon. Lady, both for her question today and for the fact that she recently personally visited the region, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). She has thus seen at first hand what is going on, and speaks with authority in asking this urgent question.

There is no difference, I think, across the House; we all share a deep, basic human concern for the horror of this conflict, which has gone on for seven years. I recall its start when I was a DFID Minister, and was in the forefront of many of the fundraising conferences we had to try to turn as much as £1 billion on a sixpence at the beginning of the 2010 to 2015 Government, in order to focus on this sudden, ghastly—and now long-standing —conflict. We completely share the hon. Lady’s attitude and indeed much of her analysis.

First, on the White Helmets, this is a very important opportunity for us to issue our thanks and appreciation. They have been extremely brave. They are community-based civil society people, who put themselves at risk to do basic things, such as be first responders, clear the rubble and rescue the injured. They do so having been demonised in particular by the Russians, who have even accused them of carrying out chemical weapons attacks themselves.

It has been an absolutely remarkable feat of extraction to take the White Helmets out of southern Syria. We give enormous thanks to the Israelis for the efforts they made once requested by us, our international partners and the Americans. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who had only been in the job for two days, was absolutely significant in discussing this with President Trump, when he was with the Prime Minister at Chequers, to try to persuade him to put a request to the Israelis to do it. Clearly, that has worked, and as a result many of hundreds of White Helmets and their families have been extracted from southern Syria.

The broader issue the hon. Lady describes is of course much more challenging. I totally understand what she says about the need, as she would put it, “to do something”. We are all frustrated at the difficulty of getting access for humanitarian purposes in territory that is increasingly controlled by the Syrians, the Russians and the Iranians. The delivery of the humanitarian aid we have on offer is perhaps more difficult now than it was when the conflict was at its height, because there are fewer pockets through which we can actually and easily deliver the aid we want to deliver. We are, for instance, talking to the hon. Lady’s former colleague David Miliband and the International Rescue Committee, which has its own people there, separate from the White Helmets. Wherever there are people delivering humanitarian aid, we want to give them maximum access and maximum protection.

On spending, we remain the second biggest donor in the conflict, and this is the largest budget we have ever given to a single cause of this sort. Our efforts will continue, and I am sure that the Minister for the Middle East will be making further statements in the House once we resume after the summer.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) so eloquently set out.

It is clear that there is a further catastrophe looming for the millions of people who live in Idlib. As the Minister said, the UK Government have the outstanding record on supporting those caught up in this catastrophe through humanitarian relief. Will the Minister assure the House that, with others, he will continue to liaise and seek assistance not only for the hundreds of thousands of brave people caught up in this looming crisis, but in particular for the many very brave humanitarian workers and actors who have often put their lives on the line to support those caught up in this situation? As with the work done with the Israeli Government, they urgently need to be able to rely on the international community to help them specifically in the coming days and weeks.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He of course was at the forefront of the initial aid effort in Syria, when he was Secretary of State for International Development and I was his hard-worked minion in that Department, at the beginning of the conflict. He is absolutely right that we have to maintain access for humanitarian efforts. We have so far committed £2.71 billion in response to this crisis. We have provided over 27 million food rations, 12 million medical consultations, 10 million relief packages and over 10 million vaccines. We are going to continue with our efforts. At the Brussels conference in April, we pledged to provide at least £450 million this year and a further £300 million next year to help to alleviate the extreme suffering in Syria and to provide vital support to neighbouring countries, which have taken up so much of the consequential effects of this horrid conflict.