British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Station Closure: Sutton Coldfield

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I give way with great pleasure to my neighbour.

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Middle East Update

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

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

Lebanon

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

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

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

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Ukraine

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

[Sir Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I am not giving way again.

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Mr Lammy]

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

Israel and Gaza

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Gaza.

Over seven months since the horrors of 7 October, there is no end to the current conflict in sight. This Government want to bring the conflict to a sustainable end as soon as possible, but as so often with conflicts of this nature, the question is not about our desire for peace, but rather about the best means of achieving it. We continue to believe that the fastest way to end the conflict is to secure a deal that gets the hostages out and allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. We would then have to work with our international partners to turn that pause into a sustainable permanent ceasefire.

Building momentum towards a lasting peace will require a number of elements, including removing Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel. It was a deal of that kind that secured a pause in the fighting before Christmas—the only such pause since Hamas’s horrific attack. It was that approach that the United Nations Security Council endorsed just last month, following some effective British diplomacy.

A deal with Hamas for a pause in the fighting would involve exchanging hundreds of Palestinian prisoners charged with serious acts of terrorism in return for the hostages’ release. I do not underestimate how difficult that must be for the Israeli Government, but it is the best way forward that we see right now.

We continue to work closely with the United States and partners in the region to support such a deal. We do not believe that the International Criminal Court prosecutor seeking warrants will help in that regard. As we have said from the outset, we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.

A deal as I have described offers the best prospects of reuniting more hostages with their families; the anguish for them is unbearable. I am sure that the whole House joins me in holding the family of Nadav Popplewell in our thoughts at this deeply distressing time. We are still working intensively to establish the facts after the awful video that his Hamas kidnappers released last week. The Foreign Secretary met the family last week to hear more about their ordeal at first hand. Likewise, we send our condolences to those families whose loved ones the Israeli authorities stated last week had died.

At the same time, the toll on civilians in Gaza continues to rise. Images from the strip give us some sense of what they endure: civilians piling belongings on to a cart led by a donkey, or seeking to scrape together a meal in a makeshift shelter. We have seen appalling attacks on aid convoys and UN offices by Israeli extremists, and the tragic deaths of UN and other humanitarian personnel in Gaza.

We keep in close contact with Sigrid Kaag, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator, and we condemn all attacks on aid workers and support the United Nations’ call for an independent investigation. The Government of Israel have previously set out publicly their commitment to increase the flow of aid into Gaza significantly, but we need to see far more. The Prime Minister impressed the urgency of that on 30 April. In the past 10 days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Israeli Ministers Ron Dermer and Israel Katz. He has called on them to implement in full Israel’s aid commitments. We want to see: humanitarian aid allowed to enter through all relevant crossing points, including in Rafah; critically needed goods flowing in, particularly fuel and medical supplies; effective deconfliction processes to ensure that aid can be distributed safely and effectively; critical infrastructure restored and protected; evacuations for all those eligible; concrete action to protect civilians and minimise casualties; and, as Israeli Minister Benny Gantz said over the weekend, more planning for reconstruction and a return to Palestinian civilian governance of Gaza once the fighting has ceased.

We remain absolutely committed to getting aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering, and we are working with a wide variety of other Governments and aid agencies to deliver aid by land, sea and air. I am delighted to confirm to the House that we have now successfully delivered British aid on to Gaza’s shore using the Cyprus maritime corridor, which we and our partners—notably, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus—made operational just last week. We have committed almost £10 million in funding. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay is acting as a logistics hub for the operation.

We have now delivered more than 8,000 shelter coverage kits alongside aid from the US and UAE, with more aid to follow in the coming weeks including hygiene kits and forklift trucks. Work to develop other effective partnerships for the delivery of aid continues. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is in Qatar today, discussing a health partnership for Palestinians so that a British medical training agency can support doctors and health practitioners treating Palestinian patients.

We know that much, much more aid is required, but that delivery by land remains the quickest and most effective option, so we continue to work closely with Oman to maximise the aid delivered via the Jordan land corridor. I pay tribute to all those aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and medical professionals who are involved in Britain’s efforts to save lives and alleviate the suffering of civilians in Gaza. I confirm to the House that, last week, intense efforts by the Foreign Office led to the departure from Gaza of three British aid workers who were at risk from an outbreak of fighting.

As the fighting continues, we estimate that around 800,000 Palestinian civilians have fled from where they were seeking shelter in Rafah to other parts of the southern strip. The extent of this displacement is why we have been clear that we would not support a major Israeli military operation in Rafah, unless there was a very clear plan for how to protect people and save lives. We have not seen that plan. We and 13 of our partners, including France, Germany, Italy and Australia, set out our concerns in a detailed letter to the Israeli Government.

After more than seven months of fighting, it is becoming difficult to imagine the realisation of a lasting peace, but Britain continues to try to build momentum towards that goal. That will require not only the release of all the hostages and an end to the current fighting, but the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge in Gaza; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza; and a political horizon for the Palestinians, providing a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. That is what we continue to strive towards: peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The conflict has now gone on for 226 days. That is 226 days of destruction; 226 days of Israeli hostages still in chains; 226 days that have led to 35,000 Palestinian deaths; and 226 days where the risk of further regional escalation worsens every day. We will keep repeating our call until it happens: there must be an immediate ceasefire, as this House supported through Labour’s motion and as demanded by the United Nations Security Council resolution. Diplomatic pressure must now go into overdrive to bring the fighting to an end.

Labour has been opposed to an Israeli offensive in Rafah for months. The UK Government should now work with the United States to try to prevent a full-scale Rafah offensive, by being clear that they will assess UK exports and, if it goes ahead, join our American allies in suspending weapons or components that could be used in that offensive.

When we last met on this subject, I asked the Deputy Foreign Secretary to confirm whether he or the Foreign Secretary had received from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials any assessment or policy advice—not legal advice—that the threshold had already been met. He dodged the question, and did not answer. I repeat that question to him today. The whole House will be interested in his response.

Last November in this House, the Deputy Foreign Secretary appeared to row back on Boris Johnson’s shameful abandonment of the International Criminal Court when he said:

“It is not for Ministers to seek to state where the ICC has jurisdiction”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 513.]

The Prime Minister followed up in December when he said:

“we are a strong and long-standing supporter of the International Criminal Court.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 336.]

But in today’s statement, the Government have backtracked, U-turning on one of the Britain’s most fundamental principles: respect for the rule of law. Labour has been clear throughout this conflict that international law must be upheld, the independence of international courts must be respected, and all sides must be accountable for their actions. I ask the Minister very simply: does he agree?

Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt, but they do reflect the evidence, and the judgment of the prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal responsibility. Labour’s position is that the ICC chief prosecutor’s decision to apply for arrest warrants is an independent matter for the Court and the prosecutor. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes that the ICC’s independence must be upheld and respected, and that it is right that the conduct of all parties is addressed by the Court. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes that the focus of politicians should be on achieving an immediate ceasefire, in order to end the war in Gaza, free the hostages, alleviate the humanitarian crisis and create a pathway towards a lasting political solution. Does the Minister agree? Labour believes the UK and all parties to the Rome statute have a legal obligation to comply with orders and warrants issued by the ICC. Democracies that believe in the rule of law must submit themselves to it. Does the Minister agree?

Labour supports the ICC as a cornerstone of the international legal system. That support applies regardless of the Court’s focus, whether it is in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria or Gaza. Does the Minister agree? This gets to the heart of a simple question. Does the Conservative party —the party of Churchill, who was one of the founders of our international legal framework—believe in the international rule of law or not?

[Mr Mitchell]

I start by assuring the shadow Foreign Secretary that the Government’s answer to his final question is, as he would expect, yes. It is worth stating that if one looks carefully at his high-flown oratory this afternoon, we do not see very much distinction between the positions of His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government, as I will set out.

The right hon. Gentleman starts off by saying that this is day 226 of the incarceration of the hostages, of the destruction that has taken place, and of the risks of escalation. I completely agree with what he says. He says that the diplomatic pressure must rise. I can tell him that the diplomatic pressure is intense on all counts and in all places. He says that we must work closely with the United States of America. Let me assure him that we are working intensively and closely with the United States.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the advice we receive, and suggests that I dodged the question on the earlier occasion. I certainly had no intention of doing so. I can tell him that we receive all sorts of advice from all sorts of places, but we do not—as is the custom and practice, as he knows well—disclose our legal advice. We are always careful to follow it meticulously; that is my answer to his question.

The right hon. Gentleman asks: is this a matter on which the International Criminal Court should act independently? My answer is that of course it is, but we do not necessarily have to stay silent on what the court is doing, and we certainly are not doing so. On his question about the letter from a former Prime Minister, as we have said from the outset, we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case. The UK has not recognised Palestine as a state, and Israel is not a state party to the Rome statute.

As I say, if we split away some of what the right hon. Gentleman said today from the oratory that he customarily displays in this place, we see that the positions of the Opposition Front Bench and the Government remain very closely aligned.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

My condolences go to all the families who, over the last few days, have received the most devastating news—news that their loved ones have been murdered—and also to the Popplewell family, who have received heinous treatment from Hamas, including the publication of that outrageous video. Last week the Select Committee pushed the Minister for the middle east to do more to secure proof of life of those who are being held hostage, and that remains our call.

I welcome the effort on the maritime port—it is good that that is now in place—but it will be unable to function come September owing to the changes in the tide, so this is a short-term solution. Since 6 May, when the Rafah offensive started, only 40 trucks have gone through the Kerem Shalom crossing. In Rafah no fuel has gone in, no medical evacuations have taken place and aid agencies have started to suspend the sending in of their own people, which is extremely concerning. When will the Rafah crossing reopen, and will the Erez West crossing finally accept aid, not just through Jordan but also through Ramallah, because otherwise the amount of aid that is needed will simply not get in?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. She has made the point about proof of life before, and as she knows, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad has been pursuing that issue—in direct response, I think, to her Committee. She made the very good point that the maritime option will continue only as long as the sea conditions are satisfactory, and that emphasises the importance of getting aid in by road; the ability to do that is one of Britain’s specific demands of the Israeli Government. She also pointed out that Rafah has effectively been closed for the last few weeks, and drew attention to the great difficulties that that causes. We hope very much that there will soon be a deal between Egypt and Israel to put that right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

We are on a very dangerous road if we believe that the rule of law is something from which a Government can pick and choose. Unlike the Government, we very much welcome the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for the arrest of the Hamas leaders Sinwar, al-Masri and Haniyeh for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on, and subsequent to, 7 October. We have always unreservedly condemned the appalling Hamas attacks, the murders and the hostage-taking, and we repeat our call for the immediate release of the hostages.

Given the ferociously disproportionate Israeli response, which has seen 35,000 dead, 100,000 injured, tens of thousands of children orphaned, civilian infrastructure in ruins and the cutting off of food, water, electricity and medical supplies, we also welcome the ICC’s filing of applications for warrants for the arrest of both the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC says that it has evidence, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, that shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population of Gaza of what they need to survive. It has referred specifically to Israel using starvation as a weapon of war, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population. All these are acts that constitute a crime against humanity. The ICC has also confirmed everything that we have said about the crimes of 7 October, and Israel’s use of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing in response to those crimes.

For eight months, this Government have told us that they cannot make an assessment of breaches of international humanitarian law, but they have today—because it suits them—made an immediate assessment of the decision of the International Criminal Court, whose panel of experts consists predominantly of UK lawyers, simply because they do not agree with it. It is shameful and unforgivable that for eight months this Government have chosen to deny the evidence of their own eyes, and have given political cover and munitions to Israel. We have to assume, sadly, that if today does not put an end to the UK licensing of arms exports to Israel, absolutely nothing will.

[Mr Mitchell]

The position in respect of the ICC is simply not as the hon. Gentleman set out. The ICC has not done what he suggested; it has done nothing of the sort. He suggested that it had already found the answer to these allegations, but the truth is that the pre-trial chamber needs to consider the evidence, and to then reach a judgment. Let us not jump through all these hoops at once when they are simply not there to be jumped through.

Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are playing fast and loose with the rule of law. We are certainly not, and I hope that he will attend the main debate today, when he will see exactly what the Government think about the rule of law in all cases. Just because someone supports the role of the ICC, it does not mean that they have to be devoid of a view on what it is saying, and the Government are giving their view. As I said, we do not believe that seeking warrants will get the hostages out, get aid in or deliver a sustainable ceasefire, which remains the UK’s priority.

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

I ask this question in my personal capacity, not as Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In general, I am a strong supporter of the work of the ICC. The terrorist attack was undoubtedly designed to provoke an overreaction by the Israelis and to polarise societies, and it has succeeded in both those aims. May I ask the Minister to encourage the House to read the ICC’s statement in full? Helpfully, it is available online. May I urge people with a partisan view on either side of this atrocious issue to seriously take on board what the ICC is saying about the activities of the side they support, as well as those of the side they oppose?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that the debate is informed by facts, not rhetoric.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I am a little bit confused. The Government have previously said that they will not endorse any military operation in Rafah because it would be against international law. The Minister has said today that that would be the case unless there was a very clear plan on how to protect people and save lives. What has changed?

[Mr Mitchell]

Nothing has changed at all. We have repeatedly made it clear that we cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed plan. Clearly, that means a constructive plan that abides by IHL on all counts.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a grotesque overreach by the ICC? Courts, too, must act within the rule of law, and the jurisdiction of a court is not for itself to judge. The statute of Rome, which set up the International Criminal Court, clearly delineated the powers of the Court. The US and the UK have both previously said that the ICC does not have jurisdiction. Under its founding charter, it can only act against a sovereign state that is a signatory. The US, Israel and dozens of other countries are not signatories, and Gaza is not a sovereign state. Putting aside any purported evidence for a moment, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and like any other court, such as a traffic court or a magistrates court, it has to act within its powers—the powers set up for it by the international community. Is it not true that the ICC is acting outwith its powers and, sadly, setting itself up as a political court?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have made clear our position on the ICC. On what my right hon. and learned Friend says, many people will agree with what Benny Gantz said this morning:

“Placing the leaders of a country that went into battle to protect its civilians in the same line with bloodthirsty terrorists is moral blindness”.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Many of us, from all parts of this House, have supported the right of Israel to exist and, consequently, its right to defend itself over many years, and we have also condemned as appalling the atrocities that were carried out by Hamas on 7 October, but as the Minister said in his statement, after seven months of fighting, it is becoming difficult to imagine the realisation of a lasting peace; I agree with him on that. Does he not agree that until Israel realises that it has to listen to its friends, in this House and around the world, and take responsibility for its own actions, our support for it will decline rapidly?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman accepts that Israel has the right to self-defence, but says that it must exercise it within international humanitarian law. He makes the important point that we have to lift people’s eyes to what a future settlement based on a two-state solution will look like when this appalling catastrophe is over. A great deal of work is going on behind the scenes with regional partners, with great powers and through the United Nations to ensure that we can lift people’s eyes and that there is a deal to be done that will, at long last, draw the poison from this terrible situation.

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

Facts are important, and the facts have not changed since 7 October. It is Hamas who embed themselves in civilian areas, use civilian institutions and put their own people at risk in this conflict. It is Hamas who have committed rapes as a weapon of war. It is Hamas who are still holding innocent civilians hostage. And it is Hamas who went into Israeli communities on 7 October and butchered 1,200 people, including slicing the breasts off women and the limbs off children. On the other side, we have the democratic, liberal state of Israel with an independent judicial process and a Supreme Court that is respected internationally and that the ICC is supposed to respect. Yet there are people in here who, from day one, have done very little to call out some of the other behaviour and everything to hold Israel to a standard they do not hold others to. That is why the Czech Prime Minister and the—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and feeling on this subject, and I think he might be one of those who agree with what Benny Gantz said this morning. I have read into the record exactly what he said, and I think there will be large numbers of people, both in this place and outside, who will think that what Benny Gantz said made a lot of sense.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Cyprus maritime corridor is welcome, but it risks acting as a fig leaf for the fact that there is not enough aid getting into Gaza. The Colonna report found that the Israeli authorities had yet to provide proof of their claims that UN staff in Gaza were involved in terrorist organisations. The UN Relief and Works Agency is the only serious organisation capable of supplying aid to those Palestinians in Gaza who are innocent. Why will the British Government not follow the lead of our Australian, Canadian and European allies and reinstate funding to UNRWA?

[Mr Mitchell]

As far as maritime access is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the best solution has always, from the beginning of this, been access by road. That is by far the easiest, quickest and least expensive way of getting aid to desperate people. He is entirely correct about that.

In respect of the Colonna report, we are still waiting for the Office of Internal Oversight Services report from the United Nations, and I am advised that there has been good co-operation between the United Nations and the Israeli authorities on that. On UNRWA, as I have said, we are waiting for that report. The House should expect that we will be restoring funding to ensure that humanitarian support is available through that mechanism, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the appalling events that were revealed in connection with UNRWA staff, and we must complete the process that I set out.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Israeli war Cabinet looks divided. The chief of staff is pressing for a “day after” strategy, the Defence Minister has outlined his concerns, and the former Defence Minister and chief of staff, Benny Gantz, has asked to see the Government’s post-war plan for the Gaza strip and wants it to include six strategic goals, all of which look very similar to our own goals, as my right hon. Friend has outlined. Perhaps he would care to comment. The former Defence Minister has threatened to resign if the plan is not announced by 8 June. Will he have to resign, or is there a chance that there will be a plan on which both he and we can agree?

[Mr Mitchell]

I very much hope that my hon. Friend is correct in saying—and, indeed, hoping—that there will be a plan. His perceptive question shows that there are many voices in Israel, and the fact that he quotes two such senior figures—one seeking to know the “day after” strategy, and the other wanting to see a post-war plan—underlines the response I gave a moment ago to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). We have to lift people’s eyes to the fact that this dreadful conflict will come to an end, and we will then need to have a plan to ensure that the future is very different from the past. I remind the House that the tremendous progress made in the Oslo accords took place on the back of the intifada. Out of great darkness, we must ensure that a proper plan comes forth.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain how his Government can possibly justify continuing to support a military campaign that has involved the denial of electricity and basic services to civilians; the starving of civilians and the blocking of aid; the bombing of civilian infrastructure; the forced displacement of millions; the killing of journalists and aid workers; and the killing of civilians, including large numbers of children, on an unprecedented scale?

[Mr Mitchell]

We do not support that. What we support is Israel’s right of self-defence, but it must be carried out within international humanitarian law.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

There is a danger that the scope and timing of the ICC’s arrest warrants might somehow imply moral equivalence, but it is quite clear that the fighting should stop. What does the Minister think will be the impact of those warrants?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point. This smacks of an unworthy, indeed ludicrous, sense of moral equivalence between a murderous, proscribed terrorist organisation and the democratically elected Government of Israel, who are seeking to protect their citizens and recover their 124 remaining hostages.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

When we talk about the role of the ICC, it is not about whether it is moral but about making sure that a democratic state falls within the rule of international law. An estimated 35,000 people have been killed and 132 hostages are still being held. The Arab League has now called for an immediate ceasefire and the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in the west bank until a two-state solution is negotiated. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which he failed to answer, on the offensive in Rafah? Will we join our American allies in responding to that by stopping the sale of all war components?

[Mr Mitchell]

That is not what the American Government have done. They suspended one shipment, but they have not stopped any other supply. To answer the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, the Government continue to seek a pause in the fighting, which could lead to a sustained ceasefire, as well as to getting the hostages out and aid in.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary speaks about a ceasefire, getting the hostages out, getting the aid in and resuming the talks, but will he address the bigger picture? Behind Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas sits Iran, which is arming and training these extremist non-state actors. As much as we debate the possible long-term governance and security solutions for Gaza, they are unlikely to stand the test of time until the challenge of Iran’s disruptive proxy influence across the middle east is challenged.

Iran’s destabilising foreign policy is determined by the President, the Supreme Leader and the Foreign Minister, two of whom were killed in a helicopter crash at the weekend. It is clearly for Iran to determine who replaces them, but will we advance our own robust policy in standing up to Iran’s proxy influence? Otherwise, we will never secure lasting peace in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend the former Chairman of the Defence Committee is right about the malign influence of Iran through its proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—on the situation in the middle east. We hope that Iran will cease to disrupt in the way that it does through its proxies. It may well be that the events of the weekend offer an opportunity for a reset.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As I understand the Government’s position on the International Criminal Court, it is because Israel was not a signatory to the original treaty and because Palestine is not a sovereign state that the Government do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction. That leads us to a place where anyone can opt out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at any time. That is a terrible place for the Government and for us as a country to be. If the Minister does not agree with that, will he at least agree that the letter from the 12 United States Senators to the ICC, where they said,

“Target Israel and we will target you”

and that they would ensure that

“all American support for the ICC”

is withdrawn, is not a place that this Government will ever be in?

[Mr Mitchell]

Of course, the Americans are not a member of the Court, whereas the United Kingdom is. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is an important one because, in this debate about these terrible events and the appalling consequences resulting from them, it is important that everyone chooses their language with care.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary rightly draws attention to the false moral equivalence inherent in the ICC’s statement between the actions of sovereign, democratic Israel and the most brutal activities of a terrorist organisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such false moral equivalence is always drawn by the enemies of Israel as a way to delegitimise the Jewish state? Does he share my concern with this move by the ICC not just because of the succour it gives terrorist groups elsewhere around the world, but because of the risks within it for ourselves and our troops as they go about defending our interests around the world?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend expresses himself, as always, with great lucidity. It is important that that message is not sent. That is why I repeated what Benny Gantz said and why I said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is no longer in his place, that I think the sense of moral equivalence is repugnant.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

On 5 April, the Foreign Secretary called for an independent inquiry into Israel’s killing of seven aid workers, including three Britons. I have repeatedly raised Israel’s, and particularly the Israel Defence Forces’, lack of accountability and examples of misconduct with the Minister. It is clear that here, as in other areas, the Government are backtracking on the limited assurances given, despite investigations by the BBC, among others, showing that IDF misconduct continues, despite pledges and commitments to the contrary from Israel. Does the Minister believe that Israel should investigate itself, regardless of the horrors committed—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

As the hon. Lady will know, Israel has the rule of law and the ability to investigate those matters, but she is entirely correct to say that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we expect a detailed independent investigation. Israel has taken a number of steps. She will have seen the acts that were taken against those who were responsible for the decisions made in those attacks, and she will be pleased to know that we are considering, with our allies, the best way to inject further independence into that investigation.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

My constituents in Bolton are livid today, because they have seen through the International Criminal Court that there is evidence that

“acts were committed…to use starvation as a method of war”,

along with violence; evidence of the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza; and evidence that

“Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.”

Never mind being on the right side of history; will we ensure that we are on the right side of the present?

[Mr Mitchell]

The fact that the prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants to be issued does not directly impact UK licensing decisions, for example, but we will continue to monitor developments as part of our assessment process. Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acting as such a brilliant conduit between his constituents and the Government, and for his work on the issue.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In the face of disgraceful attacks on aid trucks at the Gaza border, the Israeli Security Minister is reported to have said that he believes it is not protesters who should be stopping the trucks, because

“it’s the cabinet that should be stopping the trucks.”

That view cannot be allowed to stand. Will the British Government sanction the violent protesters who are destroying aid, and their supporters within the Israeli Government?

[Mr Mitchell]

As the hon. Lady will know, we have not been shy about sanctioning some of the settlers who have been involved. We do not talk about future sanctions across the Floor of the House, but she may rest assured that we are very alert to the opportunity for doing more on that. She repeated what had been said by one senior Israeli official about the position in Rafah; she will know that is not the position of most of the senior Israeli members of the Cabinet and it is certainly not the position of the British Government.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

No organisation, international or otherwise, is beyond reproach and always gets things right, so of course we can question what the ICC has come out with. What I find disturbing is the ICC report talking about an almost exact equivalence between the leaders of Hamas, who carried out the most disgusting, brutal and deliberately targeted attacks on 7 October, and the leaders of—not a few rogue elements within—Israel. Does the Minister agree that it is important to have solid, accurate data? We keep hearing data from the Hamas-led health authority, but over the weekend we have had very different data. Does the Minister agree that it would help the debate if we had accurate data as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will have seen, as I have, comments over the weekend about the accuracy of figures, particularly the very great likelihood that figures about women and children who have died during the conflict are not accurate at all. His point about moral equivalence, which has been made during the statement, is one that will be widely shared, both inside and outside the House.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The International Criminal Court—the highest criminal court in the world—has applied for arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for the war crimes of murder and the deliberate targeting of civilians, crimes against humanity, and deliberate starvation as a weapon of war against the people of Gaza. It is unequivocal. Do the UK Government accept that they must now do three key things: first, they must reconsider their unequivocal support of Israel by immediately suspending arms sales; secondly, they must call for an immediate ceasefire; and finally, they must restore funding to UNRWA so that it can deliver emergency humanitarian aid?

[Mr Mitchell]

On his first point, I simply do not think now is the time to make those decisions about what we have heard from the ICC. It would be premature. A pre-trial chamber now needs to consider the evidence and then reach a judgment, so I cannot go with the hon. Gentleman on that point. On UNRWA, I have made very clear where we stand. I hope the aid that was delivered by UNRWA with British support will be delivered in the future. I hope that UNRWA will be able to accept all the reforms that we are requesting that would enable us to do that. As I have said, we are not in the position that we are withholding funding at the moment because we have fully funded our commitment to UNRWA up to the start of this month. The hon. Gentleman says that we should cease our support for Israel. We have been very clear that Israel must abide within international humanitarian law, but equally that we understand that Israel has the right of self-defence.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In March, the Foreign Affairs Committee visited a number of aid distribution centres in the Egypt-Gaza border area, and we heard accounts of how some of the aid going into Gaza would be stopped because of the potential dual use of equipment for not just humanitarian reasons but potentially, by Hamas, military and terror reasons. Will the Minister update the House on the percentage of those trucks that are now getting through to deliver that aid?

[Mr Mitchell]

The number of trucks getting through is wholly inadequate. That is one reason why we have made 12 air drops—11 by the Royal Air Force—and it is why we now have the maritime corridor. Restrictions on what can be transported by truck into Gaza were a significant problem to begin with. That particular aspect has eased as both sides have understood each other’s position on what is being taken into Gaza, but I am afraid that the amount of humanitarian support getting in by truck is still woefully inadequate.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

New polling by YouGov shows that 73% of the British public support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and 55% support the UK suspending arms sales to Israel for the duration of the conflict. Does the Minister recognise that his Government are elected to represent the people of Britain, and will they finally represent the majority of the people in Britain by calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and suspending all arms sales to Israel?

[Mr Mitchell]

On arms sales, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the whim of a politician at the Dispatch Box to decide for or against; there is a proper process to be followed based on legal advice, and he would not expect Ministers to deviate from that entirely proper way of judging these things. We all want a ceasefire, but we want a sustainable ceasefire. That is why the Government have consistently pressed, as endorsed by a United Nations resolution, for a pause in the fighting to get the hostages out and allow aid in. That would be the way to lead to a sustainable ceasefire, as a precursor to a longer-term deal. The British Government will continue, I hope with his support and that of others on the Labour Benches, to prosecute that endeavour.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

How can the Minister argue that his Government respect international law when he denies the jurisdiction of the ICC in this conflict?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have not denied the position of the ICC; what I said is that we are at an early stage in the process, and cannot reach those judgments at this point.

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

We must not forget that civilians and their children are the innocent victims of this war. The UN says that 800,000 people have been forced to flee Rafah since 6 May. In Gaza, there is clearly nowhere left that is safe, so will the Minister explain what he thinks the consequences should be for any all-out attack on Rafah and any forced displacement of civilians?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is correct that about 800,000 people have now left Rafah. Through the pier, we managed over the weekend to get in 8,000 shelter kits, enough for around 40,000 people, but we are part of a growing consensus that is trying to provide support. The Israeli defence force warned 400,000 people to leave. Almost double that have left, and we are doing everything that we can to support them in their new locations. As I have repeatedly made clear, we will not and cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed plan, and we have not seen a detailed plan.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could the Deputy Foreign Secretary tell us in specific terms what military flights are taking off from Akrotiri to Israel? Are the Israel Defence Forces using Akrotiri? Are the US forces using Akrotiri? What is the nature of the overflying of Gaza by the RAF? Is surveillance information being sent to the IDF in response to that? In short, what is the military relationship between Britain and Israel at the present time?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely senior Member of this House, a former leader of the Labour party, and he well knows that we do not comment on security information across the Floor of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Other countries have now suspended arms sales. Other countries have restored the funding going forward to UNRWA. Why are we now leading from behind rather than leading from the front on this? Should we not now do the right thing, suspend arms sales and refund UNRWA?

[Mr Mitchell]

I think I am right in saying that no country has suspended existing arms sales arrangements and agreements, but the fact remains that we have our own regime in that respect. We act in accordance with legal advice and we will continue to do so. In respect of UNRWA, I have set out for the House the processes that we are going through and the hon. Gentleman, like me, will hope that those processes are successful.

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

The Deputy Foreign Secretary enjoyed referencing Mr Gantz a number of times. Mr Gantz has set out his conditions for the end of the war and a “day after”. In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s spokesperson said:

“The conditions set by Benny Gantz are empty words whose meaning is clear: an end to the war and…establishing a Palestinian state.”

It is very clear now that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a forever war and is opposed to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. What are the UK Government saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that he understands where we and the international community stand on this issue—as do many Israelis, including members of his own Government? What action is being taken against Ben Gvir, Smotrich and the Prime Minister of Israel, who are clearly trying to prolong the war in Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

What the hon. Gentleman says underlines the fact that Israel is a pluralist democratic society where there are different views. He asked me what the British Government are saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I can assure him that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have frank, open and detailed exchanges on those matters.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is the position of the Liberal Democrats that the UK Government should give their backing to the ICC. If the Conservative Government do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction, which international institution or legal mechanism do they intend to look to in order to ensure that any breaches of the law of war on the frontline can be prosecuted?

[Mr Mitchell]

As the hon. Lady knows, we make our own judgments on international humanitarian law. We are quick to come to the House if anything changes, but nothing has changed since the Foreign Secretary made his comments in Washington, I think, in early April. On the subject of the ICC’s announcement today, I hope the House will accept that it is premature to respond further before the pre-trial chamber has considered the application for warrants.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which has today applied for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Hamas leader and others, must be respected. Contrary to what the Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier, I must correct the record for him: he said that

“we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.”

The Israeli Government have ignored, for the past three months, the motion passed by the UK Parliament, as proposed by the Labour Party, for an immediate ceasefire and are instead planning a full-scale offensive on Rafah, which would be a humanitarian catastrophe. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm whether, if that planned assault does go ahead, the UK Government will suspend arms or component sales to Israel?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to seek to correct the record, but his repetition of what I said was absolutely correct, and we have said it since the outset, so he should not be particularly surprised by it. I cannot foretell what the consequences will be in respect of Israeli actions, but I can tell him the position of the British Government on an operation in Rafah: that does not respect international humanitarian law, which is why we have said that we cannot support it unless we see a detailed plan.

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

Labour believes that international law must be observed. As such, we want the sale of arms and components to be suspended, and we want the perpetrators of violence against innocent civilians, whether Israeli or Palestinian, to be held to account. I am still unclear on what the Deputy Foreign Secretary and his Government believe. Do they believe in upholding international law?

[Mr Mitchell]

It should come as no surprise to the House that of course the Government not only believe in international humanitarian law but seek to uphold it. I have set out clearly in the House on a number of occasions exactly how we carry out our duties in that respect, and I hope that that will give the hon. Lady confidence. In respect of the International Criminal Court, she is jumping too far ahead. We have set out the limited decision that has been made and announced today, and we should not jump ahead of it.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

The Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier that

“The House should expect that we will be restoring funding”

to UNRWA. It sounds like the Government have made up their mind. If that decision has been made, and given the absolutely horrendous humanitarian situation in Gaza, why do we not just get on with it? If there is any chance that funding will not be restored, what are the Government doing as an alternative plan to get humanitarian aid in?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Government operate through other agencies as well as UNRWA. We have been very close indeed to the World Food Programme, through which an enormous amount of humanitarian aid is distributed. On UNRWA, we will go through the stages that I have set out clearly to the House. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, from my discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York just over a week ago, UNRWA is funded for the moment, and we hope that our own funding, subject to the results of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services inquiry and the implementation of the Colonna report, will be restored.

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

On the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Government’s statement is out of step not just with the prosecutor but with the impartial independent panel of experts on international law from whom he sought advice. That panel consisted largely of lawyers from this jurisdiction—by which I mean England and Wales, and not my own in Scotland. Here is what they said, and I want the Deputy Foreign Secretary to tell me what part of it is wrong:

“The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor’s assessment that the ICC has jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed on the territory of Palestine, including Gaza…under article 12(2)(a) of the ICC Statute. It also agrees that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Palestinian nationals inside or outside Palestinian territory under article 12(2)(b) of the Statute. The ICC therefore has jurisdiction over Israeli, Palestinian or other nationals who committed crimes in Gaza or the West Bank. It also has jurisdiction over Palestinian nationals who committed crimes on the territory of Israel, even though Israel is not an ICC State Party.

The basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is that Palestine, including Gaza, is a State for the purpose of the ICC Statute. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber has already ruled that the Court’s jurisdiction extends to Palestine, as a State Party to the ICC Statute, on this basis.”

That is the opinion of an illustrious list of mainly English lawyers, with the exception of my dear colleague Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is of course a Scot, although she is at the English Bar. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who I see has one of the Law Officers sitting beside him, tell me which part of that opinion is wrong?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. and learned Lady is an immensely distinguished advocate and lawyer. She will have read the letter signed by no fewer than 600 lawyers that broadly agrees with what she has said, but she may also have read the letter from—I think—1,000 lawyers that disagrees with it. That shows that there are many different interpretations of this matter; hers is one, and as I have set out, the view of the Government is another.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not recognise the damage that is being done to the UK’s standing around the world, and to the rules-based international order and international humanitarian law, by his Government’s refusal to accept first the ICJ ruling and now that of the ICC? He has said that he does not believe that the ICC prosecutor seeking warrants will help, but at what point will he accept that the situation could not get any worse?

[Mr Mitchell]

The point we have always made is that we do not think it is helpful for the Court to intervene in that way at this point, because the main purpose is to get the hostages out and food and humanitarian resources in. That is the position that the British Government take; of course we respect the Court, but that does not mean that we cannot give our view on what the Court does.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rather agreed with the comments made about the ICC by the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but I would gently point out that I do not think there is a single Member of this House who supports the actions of Hamas on 7 October—in fact, every single one of us has rightly condemned them. For that matter, even very long-standing friends of Israel have offered criticisms of the actions of the Israeli Government over these past few months, as have many Israelis.

Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary clarify something for me? He has suggested that 800,000 Palestinians have had to move out of Rafah in the past week or so. He has also suggested that not enough humanitarian aid is getting through, which is because the Israeli Government are refusing to let it through. He has also said that the Israeli Government have a right to defend themselves—we all agree with that—but within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Who is to judge that international humanitarian law if it is not an international court? Surely it cannot just be a set of politicians sitting in the Foreign Office making it up in their own minds.

[Mr Mitchell]

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, that is absolutely not the case: Ministers take legal advice, including on international humanitarian law, and act within it. We have been very clear about where we stand; the Foreign Secretary made the point in April, I think, in Washington. If anything changes, of course we will tell the House, but we cannot act on the whim of politicians or Ministers in the House: we act in accordance with the law, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Minister said earlier that the Government condemn all attacks on aid workers, and that they support the UN’s call for an independent investigation into the killing of aid workers in Gaza. Is the Minister of the same view when it comes to the more than 100 journalists who have been killed during the conflict?

[Mr Mitchell]

Of course. We are appalled by the scale of the death and destruction that has taken place, and what we say about protecting journalists—which this House has always championed, never more so than when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) was Foreign Secretary—applies equally well.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I have listened very carefully to the Deputy Foreign Secretary, and I have to say that I find his arguments wanting. It matters that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the actions of senior Hamas officials amount to war crimes; it matters that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the operations authorised by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister also amount to war crimes. Given that the ICC prosecutor believes he has acted within the Rome statute and that the UK is a state party to the ICC, will the United Kingdom uphold any application in this territory if requested by the office of the prosecutor?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is premature in seeking to ask the Government to exercise any such judgment. As I said earlier in this statement, now is not the time to make these decisions. We need to wait for the pre-trial chamber to consider the evidence and then reach a judgment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Any loss of innocent life is truly horrific and is to be avoided if at all possible. The latest UN reports indicate that Hamas—who are murdering terrorists, as we all know—have inflated the statistics for deaths in their areas; they have been proven to be massively overstated. What steps can be taken to ensure that we are all working with independently verified information, not propaganda, given the fact that Israel has taken greater steps than any other democracy in history to give warnings and circumvent the loss of life as far as possible in this war?

[Mr Mitchell]

We do think that Israel must do more on deconfliction, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the use of Israeli lawyers in targeting and in the planning of military activity—not dissimilar from what we do in the United Kingdom—is very important. I am grateful to him for the balance that he has expressed, as he always does.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This country used not only to respect but to champion international law. The Minister’s dismissal of ICC procedures today confirms how far the Government have fallen from their adherence to the rule of law. Why are the Government undermining the Court and its British chief prosecutor as he attempts to call those to account for war crimes, including extermination, murder, hostage taking, starvation, targeting civilians and persecution as a crime against humanity?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman putting it that way. He is an extremely distinguished lawyer, and I hope he will recognise that the point I am making is that the House is rushing to conclusions that are not merited at this stage in the process.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Whatever opinion the Minister has on the subject of jurisdiction, the arbiters on that as a point of law will be the judges of the ICC. In the event that any or all of the warrants being sought by the chief prosecutor, as announced today, are granted, can the Minister confirm that the UK Government will render any assistance necessary for their execution? Is that not what a Government who respect the rule of law would do?

[Mr Mitchell]

Of course. What I can confirm is that the British Government will always act in accordance with the law.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

There is now a perception that the level of evidence the United Kingdom Government require to make a determination on whether war crimes have taken place and to act on them seems to vary with their attitude towards the country alleged to have committed those war crimes. Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not understand the irreparable damage being done to the reputation of the United Kingdom internationally as a defender of international humanitarian law by this inconsistency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of what the British Government are doing. The British Government are absolutely consistent: we always act in accordance with the rule of law and will always continue to do so.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

For the avoidance of any doubt among Government Members, I have opposed Hamas since 2007. I opposed their atrocities on 7 October and continue to do that, so there are no sides as far as I am concerned; I think the actions taken by the IDF need to be criticised as well, and it needs to be held to account.

The Deputy Foreign Secretary said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that the ICC does not have jurisdiction. He said to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), that the pre-trial chamber has not reached a decision. He said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) from the SNP that we have to wait and that this is not the right moment. Does he believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this issue? Will he give a straight answer—yes or no?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s condemnation, over many years, of Hamas. He has repeated what I have said to other Members of the House this afternoon and, if I have understood correctly, he is noting that I have been entirely consistent in all those responses.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

What steps are the Government taking with our international allies to help create the conditions needed for an immediate ceasefire that can be observed by both sides?

[Mr Mitchell]

Britain was able, through some skilful and deft diplomacy, to get everyone onside on the United Nations resolution that was recently passed, which talked about a sustainable ceasefire. The position that Britain has always held is that we need to get that pause to enable us to get the hostages out and humanitarian supplies in, in the hope that that pause would lead to a sustainable ceasefire.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Neither the USA nor China nor Russia are party to the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister therefore recognise that, as permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and France have a special responsibility to support the ICC and uphold international law?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I have been careful to be very clear about our support for the ICC, but equally to urge the House not to rush to judgment in a process that has a number of stages.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

China

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your skilled chairship this afternoon, Ms Rees. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his advocacy for the people of Hong Kong through the all-party group. He is an expert in the area that we are addressing this afternoon, and I particularly wanted to listen to him and respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. He speaks with both knowledge and understanding, and the House always listens to what he says with very great attention and respect. This afternoon, we have seen why, from his thoughtful and interesting contribution.

My hon. Friend asked a number of questions but started by making it clear that the relationship with China is far more complex than the relationship with Russia. In anything one does with international development, one sees how very true that is. He also spoke about dumping, as indeed did the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I want to make a couple of comments about that. Having left the European Union, the UK has numerous trade remedy measures in place to protect against practices that have an adverse effect on the UK’s prosperity and security. We will always respond vigorously to unfair trading practices wherever they occur by working with the Trade Remedies Authority to protect the UK’s interests. We would encourage UK industry to apply to the independent Trade Remedies Authority if it has concerns, and we always stand ready to look at any recommendations that the TRA provides. More broadly, Britain has three active trade remedy investigations into Chinese products at the moment, and an additional 12 reviews of existing measures on Chinese exports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked me about genomic research, and if he will allow me, I would like to think about that and write to him in response to his question. He also raised the issue of fentanyl. We recognise the importance of the fentanyl issue to the United States, and we welcome the US-China dialogue on that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston warned of the need for vigilance, and he made a number of extremely important comments in that respect. He also, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), underlined the difference between the CCP and the Chinese people. He also made some very important points about supply chains.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) spoke with profound and detailed knowledge. I was not sure whether he is a gamekeeper turned poacher, or a poacher turned gamekeeper, but his comments were both informed and extremely interesting. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke about exports, education and energy, and he expressed a number of interesting thoughts on devolution and dependency on which I will reflect, if I may. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke up, as he always does, for the importance of human rights, and he urged that we should not allow economic interests to override our moral obligations. He spoke about freedom of religious belief. I will come on to that, but we are very grateful for what he said. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) discussed a number of different aspects of the wide issues we are discussing. As I hope to show, his suggestion that we are merely paying lip service to these vital issues is simply not correct.

I turn finally to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), whose expertise in this area, as another China expert, I discovered to my humility. I thank her for her remarks on Ben Rogers, with which I think the House will widely agree. The hon. Lady chides us for the changes in our stance over the last 14 years in government, but I put it to her that as the circumstances and facts on the grounds have changed, so too have our policies and our approach.

China is a major global actor with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It has an impact on almost every global issue of importance to the UK, and therefore no significant global problem can be solved without China. We must engage with Beijing on issues affecting us all. The Government recognise the epoch-defining challenge presented by China under the CCP, and our response and approach are based on three key pillars. This House will be familiar with these pillars, but I hope Members will allow me very briefly to set them out to frame my response on the issues that have been raised.

The first is about protecting our national security through key measures. I refer specifically to the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and enhanced export controls. Secondly, we have deepened co-operation with our allies and partners, including where China undermines regional peace and stability in the South China sea, and sanctioning Chinese companies providing dual-use goods to Russia. We join our allies and partners to call out China’s human rights violations. Thirdly, we engage with China where it is in our interest to do so: on global challenges such as climate and artificial intelligence, through, for instance, the AI safety summit.

If Members will allow me, I will reflect on some of the specific issues that have been raised in a little more detail, beginning with national security, which is our top priority in engagement with China. I am sure they will understand that I cannot comment on cases that are before the courts. However, we make our concerns clear. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Foreign Office, and we were unequivocal in setting out that the recent pattern of behaviour directed by China against Britain, including cyber-attacks, reports of espionage links and the issue of bounties, is simply unacceptable.

Turning to cyber-security, the House will be aware that we have attributed cyber-attacks to Chinese actors and imposed sanctions against those who are responsible. The Foreign Secretary has raised this directly with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and the Government have ordered the removal of Huawei from the 5G networks. Our wider work to bolster our national security includes establishing the defending democracy taskforce in 2022 and passing the National Security Act in 2023.

On human rights, it is, of course, a matter of great concern that the Chinese people are facing growing restrictions on fundamental freedoms and that the Chinese authorities continue to commit widespread human rights violations. Those include severe constraints on media freedom and freedom of religion or belief, repression of culture and language in Tibet and systematic violations in Xinjiang. The UK continues to lead international efforts to address China’s human rights record.

[Catherine West]

I know the Minister is trying to fit a lot in. Just before discussing human rights, he talked about the difficult decisions regarding industry that affect our national security. Could he respond to something mentioned in the debate, which was the financial involvement in Thames Water and nuclear power plants? If not, would he write to the Members present to go into more detail, if that is more appropriate?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the option; I will either come on to those issues, or I will write.

By imposing the national security law in 2020, China has stifled opposition in Hong Kong and criminalised dissent. Mr Jimmy Lai and others are being deliberately targeted to silence criticism under the guise of national security. The new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance will further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed in the city. We took swift and decisive action, including suspending our extradition treaty indefinitely and extending the arms embargo applied to mainland China since 1989 to include Hong Kong. We also introduced a British National (Overseas) immigration path, granting over 191,000 visas to date.

During her recent visit to mainland China and Hong Kong, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), met Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Deng Li in Beijing and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Christopher Hui in Hong Kong. She made clear the Government’s deep concerns about the situation in Hong Kong.

I would say more about Xinjiang if I had more time, but the point was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We consistently raise human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities at the highest level.

I will turn briefly to the engagement aspect of our approach, since no global issue can be solved without China. As I have mentioned, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific visited China and Hong Kong last month. She encouraged China to use its influence to avert further escalation in the middle east and urged Russia to end its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ministers discussed areas of mutual co-operation, including AI safety and trade. My right hon. Friend underscored our concerns about China’s human rights record and interference in our democratic institutions. She also urged China to lift sanctions on UK parliamentarians and British nationals—something about which the House has been rightly outraged.

In February, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Chinese counterpart at the Munich security conference. He urged China to use its influence on Iran to pressure the Houthis over their actions in the Red sea. He further stressed that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine threatens the rules-based international system, which is designed to keep us all safe.

The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s position on human rights and particularly mentioned Xinjiang and Hong Kong. He also raised the case of British parliamentarians sanctioned by China and reiterated his call for the release of the British national, Jimmy Lai.

I am glad of the opportunity to outline our position today. I thank my hon. Friends for their thoughtful contributions and all those who have contributed to the debate in what has been an engaging, wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion. It is clear that the challenges posed by China are complex and evolving. We will continue to respond with an approach that protects our national security, aligns with our allies and partners and engages with China where it is in the UK’s interests to do so.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who speaks for the Opposition, asked me specifically about Thames Water and other Chinese investment. As time is short, I will, if I may, write to her in detail on that as soon as I can.

Conflict in Sudan: El Fasher

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

A year ago, the Sudanese people were plunged into a brutal and needless conflict. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continue to inflict terrible violence and harrowing suffering on their people.

The conflict in Sudan has resulted in a country-wide humanitarian catastrophe. The 24.8 million people, 51% of the population, are in desperate need of assistance. Nearly five million people are at risk of famine with estimates that we could see half a million to one million excess deaths. The crushing food insecurity that millions of Sudanese people are facing continues to be exacerbated by access constraints imposed by the warring parties.

Nearly nine million people have been displaced. In a visit to Chad at the end of March, I saw first-hand the harrowing consequences of the conflict, not only for those who have fled to escape violence and hunger, but also on neighbouring states who have so admirably stepped up to help those in desperation, fleeing across the border seeking a safe haven.

El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, is currently the centre of escalating tensions between the RSF, SAF and armed groups. While the RSF have not yet launched their widely-expected offensive against the city, there have already been devastating violence and dire humanitarian impacts. As highlighted in a recent report by Human Rights Watch, we have already seen from events in El Geneina last year the terrible violence that the RSF and their allies inflict.

Villages surrounding the city have been razed to the ground and continued airstrikes have resulted in civilian areas being caught in the cross-fire. Last weekend, two children and a number of caregivers were killed after a bomb fell near the Médecins Sans Frontiéres-supported Babiker Nahar paediatric hospital, in El Fasher. Reports have suggested that ethnically-motivated attacks by the RSF and allied militia against non-Arab communities are taking place in villages west of El Fasher. The UK-funded Centre for Information Resilience has also verified fire damage to 32 settlements around El Fasher in April. Humanitarian partners have raised serious concerns about the imminent threat to the civilian population in El Fasher, which includes more than one million internally displaced persons (IDPs); consisting of civilians displaced by the conflict in Darfur 20 years ago, and those who have fled their homes in the last nine months from other parts of Darfur. The city is now entirely cut off from water, food and fuel supplies.

In April, the UK led negotiations at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to deliver a press statement, urging the warring parties to de-escalate in El Fasher and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. We also called for a closed UNSC consultation on the situation. On 2 May, I publicly called upon the RSF and SAF to protect civilians and spare Sudan from their wilful destruction and carnage. The UK will continue to do all we can to bring a sustainable end to the conflict. This is the only way that the abhorrent violence currently taking place in El Fasher, as well as across Sudan, will stop.

Indeed, we continue to pursue all diplomatic avenues to achieve a permanent ceasefire, and we welcome plans to restart talks in Jeddah, jointly led by the US and Saudi Arabia. We urge the region to refrain from actions that prolong the conflict, and to engage positively with peace talks.

As part of our diplomatic efforts to achieve peace in Sudan, we speak to all parties. We have used our exchanges with the warring parties strongly to condemn atrocities they have perpetrated and to demand that their leadership makes every effort to prevent further atrocities in territories they have captured or threatened to capture; as well as to press the need for improved humanitarian access.

On 15 April, I announced a package of sanctions designations, freezing the assets of three commercial entities linked to the warring parties. We will continue to explore other levers to disrupt and constrain the sources of funding that both warring parties are using to sustain themselves.

At the Security Council in March, where the UK is penholder on Sudan, we used the opportunity of the OCHA White Note on the risk of conflict-induced famine to highlight its warning that the obstruction of humanitarian access is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. Using starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited by international humanitarian law.

Our ongoing partnership with the Centre for Information Resilience is also vital in documenting reported atrocities, and preserving and sharing evidence, so that those who are alleged to have committed these horrific acts can be brought to justice. We are committed to ensuring there is no impunity for human rights abusers, no matter what it may take to hold them to account.

On 15 April, my noble Friend Lord Benyon attended the international humanitarian conference for Sudan in Paris where donors pledged 2.03 billion euros to Sudan. To meet the growing need in Sudan, UK aid to the country, including Darfur, will nearly double to £89 million this financial year.

Finally, we will keep working to ensure that the voices of Sudanese civilians are heard: whether that is the survivors and witnesses of human rights abuses; the brave Sudanese NGOs, women’s rights organisations and activists helping their communities; or those trying to develop a political vision for Sudan’s future. UK technical and diplomatic support has been instrumental in the establishment of the anti-war, pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and we will continue to support Taqaddum’s development.

One year on from the beginning of the conflict, we must maintain international pressure on the warring parties to stop this senseless war, for troops to return to their barracks and for civil society to have the space to pursue a political track to return peace and build security through all parts of Sudan.

[HCWS465]

Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

Absolutely. Let me say just a few things. First, sexual violence when it happens in conflict is not an accident. It is deliberate. Whether it is organised or happens progressively, it is not an accident. Secondly, it is not inevitable. Analysis of sexual violence in conflict over the last 45 years shows that it has been different in different conflicts. For example, rape was widespread in the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste, but far less likely in El Salvador. That is why we have to break the cycle, and we break the cycle only by saying that it matters.

My appeal to the Minister is for the UK to demand an explicit accountability mechanism for the allegations of sexual violence in Israel and Palestine as part of the peace process. Let us not brush this under the carpet. Let us not say that once the conflict has been resolved—we all desperately want that urgent ceasefire—that is enough. Let us have accountability for all these mechanisms.

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I was going to sit down, but I will happily give way.

[Mr Mitchell]

I just wanted to say that the UK has made an offer to Israel and Palestine to support evidence gathering and technical support on the issue of conflict-related sexual violence, as per the report of the special representative of the Secretary-General, Ms Patten.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Stella Creasy—one more minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear before you once again, Sir Charles.

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who represents an area where I first stood for Parliament 41 years ago, for securing this debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. She made an excellent speech. I will not only try to respond to much of what she said but look at all the ideas she put forward and write to her afterwards about any that I do not cover. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions of all Members and will try to respond to the points raised. This has been an outstanding debate and I feel privileged to try to respond to it for the Government.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings so much to these debates, said that he has never known so much violence and misery in the world as he sees today. The fact that there is so much violence and misery is one of the reasons why Britain has put aside £1 billion this year to meet humanitarian need, and I am grateful to him for recognising that the UK is a global leader in that respect.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made an outstanding speech. She spoke up about the horrendous events of 7 October and about the lack of response by parts of the international community. She called for the immediate release of the hostages and spoke with great feeling when she said that the phrase “Me too, unless you’re a Jew” has resonated with parts of the community. She also spoke with great eloquence about Ukraine and Sudan. The House will be grateful for what she said and I hope that many people who are not able to be here will read her powerful contribution.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the importance of the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, which is 19 June. She also talked about the importance of focusing directly on the victims of this dreadful violence and made the point, which the whole House will echo, that there can be no impunity.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former leader of the Labour party, spoke about the DRC, Goma and the terrible humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded for years in the Kivus, an area I have visited on a number of occasions in the last 20 years, as has he. The Government urge all the military forces there to lay down their arms and support the various different political processes, particularly in Nairobi and Rwanda, to try to ensure that there is a political track to end the terrible violence. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what more can be done on minerals. He will know of the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Government want more effort to be made in that respect to follow and track minerals.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that this is a difficult subject to talk about, but then did so very well. Again, she spoke about there being no tolerance of impunity, and about the terrible legacy of the teenagers and young women who were taken by Boko Haram. She also talked about the role of women, including the voice of women in conflict resolution, the work to end GBV and—again—the importance of ensuring that there is accountability.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke for the Opposition about the whole of this subject, but in particular about Sudan and the terrible events there, including the particular role Britain has through the troika and through holding the pen on Sudan at the UN. She also talked about Darfur and the dreadful situation in al-Fashir, about which the Government have spoken up, and the clear evidence of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The demands of the international community are that the troops should return to barracks and enable the humanitarians to operate in those dreadful circumstances, and to open up a political track as soon as possible. Britain is supporting the collection of evidence through open-source means, and we will make sure that that evidence is retained for future use.

The hon. Lady also talked about the situation in Ethiopia. Britain supports the Pretoria agreement and we have done a lot of work to help to head off famine conditions, including in Geneva just a few weeks ago, where we supported a replenishment at a conference that I co-chaired with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, and which raised $610 million. The hon. Lady also talked about the harrowing evidence and work of NGOs such as Save the Children.

I am sure the entire House agrees that conflict-related sexual violence, or CRSV, is not an inevitable consequence of war. It is morally abhorrent and illegal and does not discriminate. It affects women and girls, and men and boys too, as we have heard, and has devastating consequences, yet it continues to take place in conflicts around the world and is often used as a deliberate tactic to terrorise entire communities. We are witnessing its horrific impacts in Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to name just a few.

The whole House was particularly horrified by the reports, which have been mentioned today, of sexual violence on and since 7 October. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West spoke eloquently about that in her opening remarks, as did the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and about the appalling violence perpetrated by Hamas on that day.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am afraid not because of the time, but if I have a second at the end, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will give way.

We have clearly and unequivocally condemned all allegations of reports of CRSV in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and led calls for a UN Security Council debate on that specific issue. We continue to call for thorough investigations, for hostages to be released immediately and for detainees to be treated with dignity and in line with international law. We have also, on a number of occasions, including at the UN Security Council, offered PSVI expertise and tools to help to ensure that victims and survivors of CRSV receive the support they need.

It is 12 years since the launch of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. For their tireless efforts I pay tribute to Lord Ahmad, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict; Lord Hague, who started the UK’s exceptional focus on the issue; and Baroness Helic. The UK is at the forefront of the fight to end this heinous crime, and I will briefly highlight five steps to demonstrate the impact of our work.

First, since 2012 we have used our influence and convening power to draw global attention to the issue. For example, at the PSVI conference that we hosted in London two years ago we brought together over 1,000 delegates, including survivors, experts, states and multilateral organisations. I personally led several sessions at that meeting and collectively we succeeded in getting 54 countries to sign an ambitious political declaration to deliver change.

At the conference we also announced the international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Lord Ahmad launched the alliance last year, and it brings together a range of global actors to prevent and respond to CRSV. Its membership continues to grow and it now has 26 members, including Governments, multilateral organisations, civil society and survivors. We are working closely with the current chair, Colombia, to drive action through the alliance. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, backed by £12.5 million, with four clear objectives: to strengthen global response, prevent sexual violence in conflict, promote justice and support survivors.

Secondly, we are coming up with creative solutions to prevent these crimes. For example, Britain’s flagship What Works: Impact at Scale programme is encouraging and supporting innovative ideas. We have invested £67.5 million into the second phase of the programme. That is the biggest global commitment by any Government to prevent gender-based violence.

Thirdly, we are setting a global benchmark by giving survivors a say in the decisions that affect them. Britain has appointed two PSVI survivor champions, Kolbassia Haoussou and Nadine Tunasi, and established a survivor advisory group to put survivors’ voices at the heart of policy proposals. Since 2018 we have committed almost £8 million to the global survivors fund to provide psychosocial and educational support for survivors. We know how important it is to ensure that we gather information from survivors safely, which is why two years ago we launched the Murad code with the Yazidi human rights activist and Nobel prize winner Nadia Murad, to collect information responsibly and ethically.

Fourthly, we are working to make these crimes punishable by law. Impunity may be the global norm, but that is unacceptable. The UK is taking steps to change that, and we have made some progress. We sanctioned 14 perpetrators over the last two years and we are boosting the capacity of countries to investigate and prosecute these crimes. In Ukraine, for example, we are supporting the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the crimes effectively.

We are also backing the draft UN crimes against humanity convention to make the global legal framework stronger and more effective, and we are working with the International Criminal Court to help survivors to engage with courts using technology. I am grateful to Baroness Helic, who is helping us to find new, innovative solutions to tackle impunity, but I agree that we still have a long way to go.

I want to share two examples of the tangible impact we have had on the ground. Since 2012, we have deployed our PSVI team of experts times across the world over 90. These highly trained independent individuals provide direct support to national and international bodies. They have helped to plan missions, convened workshops and supported Governments to execute their projects. UK programmes have also contributed to vital recent legislative changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The changes will advance the rights of survivors and children born of CRSV—for example, by enabling them to access finance for higher education.

To conclude, the five steps that I have highlighted show that we have come a long way and that our work matters, but there can be no doubt, particularly given what we have heard today, that we need to go further still and ensure that our efforts are bearing fruit. We are making progress, and the UK will continue to drive sustained, united and innovative action globally. That is the only way we can consign conflict-related sexual violence to the history books.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that the mass rapes on 7 October were not a biproduct of the attack but an integral part of the plan to provoke Israel? If that is proven, does it not mean the people who planned the attacks, as well as the perpetrators themselves, must be held to account in the international courts?

[Mr Mitchell]

I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend says about accountability. On 7 October there was the greatest murder of Jewish people at any time in one day since the holocaust and the end of the second world war. The impact of that, which we have heard about so graphically today, underlines why it is so important that we continue this work. We are making progress, above all because we have unity, drive and support in all parts of the House. That gives Britain a particular locus and focus internationally to make sure that this work is effectively pursued.