Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Crispin Blunt

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Foreign Office officials, the Foreign Secretary and others are talking to all the relevant authorities in Egypt and Israel. My hon. Friend will understand that the key thing is to increase the number of lorries that are getting through Rafah. The current number is wholly inadequate. I talk to Martin Griffiths virtually every day about the operations that the UN is conducting to try to beef up that number.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we would finally challenge actions that undercut legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood, and there are none more fundamental than 57 years of breaches of the fourth Geneva convention by the illegal occupation of the territories, and then with 750,000 Jewish settlers being placed in those territories making a two-state solution very, very difficult. Are we actually now going to do something about that, or does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the meaningful resolution to which the Foreign Secretary referred may include the transfer of the people of Gaza and Gaza itself out of the state of Israel into the hands of another state or state system, and, more concerningly, that that would be followed by the expulsion of the Palestinians from the west bank?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing and principled view on these matters. I do not share his view and nor do the Government. Nor do I think that the latter part of his question and the specific points that he made are likely to come about.

Yemen

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Crispin Blunt

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Crispin Blunt]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

[Crispin Blunt]

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

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

[Crispin Blunt]

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

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

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

“He dropped his bomb in good faith”.

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

rose—

[Crispin Blunt]

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

Debate on the Address

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Crispin Blunt

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who always speaks a good deal of sense on these occasions. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I should like to thank my constituents for so generously returning me to represent them in this place for a fifth time.

This is clearly going to be an unusual Parliament, as the Gracious Speech demonstrates. In a hung Parliament, political power tends to pass from the Cabinet Room to the Floor of this House, and I hope that there are issues on which we can work together across the House. I hope that we can lift our eyes from the obvious party political domestic preoccupations. We did so over Syria in the last Parliament, when I had the great good fortune to work closely with Jo Cox. We were co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Syria. Syria remains the defining catastrophe of our age, with 11 million Syrians—half the population—displaced from their homes. I am glad that the Gracious Speech supports an intensification of Britain’s efforts in the middle east. There is international consensus on the need to defeat and destroy ISIL, and this should be prosecuted with much greater vigour. However, defeating ISIL militarily is just a small part of our task. The much greater part is to defeat a nihilist death cult that has attracted young people to its cause.

We need to address Britain’s role in the world after Brexit. Britain stands for certain values—not so much British values as international values. We are the fourth largest military power, and one of the very few countries that can undertake expeditionary military activity. We have one of only three diplomatic services that span the world, and it is deeply respected, not least at the United Nations. Our international development work is saving millions of lives and transforms the way in which millions of the world’s poorest live. This British leadership is respected throughout the world, if not in certain quarters of the British press. I urge Ministers to stand up for the brilliant work being done by Britain, and not to cower under the table in the face of the onslaught of the Daily Mail. Of course Britain does not give bilateral money to North Korea, but as part of the United Nations we do try to stop North Korean children starving to death.

There is some concern in the development community about the apparent double-hatting of Foreign Office Ministers to cover the Department for International Development. If I may use a swashbuckling analogy that might appeal to the Foreign Secretary, there is some fear that his eye has alighted on a plump galleon loaded with bullion and that he wishes to board that galleon and plunder her cargo. The rules governing the spending of British aid are clearly laid down by the OECD development assistance committee. I think that those rules can be improved, but I do not believe that this House would agree to their being unilaterally abandoned by the United Kingdom.

Similarly, the Government have a duty to address the terrorist acts that horrified us all during the election. The whole House will also condemn the dreadful anti-Muslim hate crime that surged after the appalling atrocities in Manchester and London. Getting the balance right between collective security and individual liberty will not be easy, but many of us in the House are wary of tampering with ancient liberties and of giving additional power to the state unless it is absolutely necessary. If the terrorists alter our way of life, they win.

I am glad that the ill-advised idea of leaving the ECHR has been dropped. It would never have got through the House anyway. It might be possible to improve the Human Rights Act 1998, but we should not seek to repeal it just because it was drafted by Tony Blair. That brings me to the central issue in British politics today: our departure from the EU. I sometimes think that, when it comes to Europe, my party is the victim of a biblical curse. I hear the arguments eloquently put, by friends and colleagues I greatly respect, in favour of both a soft and a hard Brexit, but what virtually all my constituents want is the best possible deal. They care deeply not only about their living standards and quality of life but about those of their children and grandchildren. They want the best possible deal for Britain.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend like to reflect on the utility of the terms “soft Brexit” and “hard Brexit”? I do not consider them to be of very much use in this discussion. They serve to confuse rather than to enlighten.

Aleppo/Syria: International Action

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Crispin Blunt

Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am sorry I cannot stay for the whole debate—there is a concurrent meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the efforts to relieve the situation in Aleppo, but a year ago 20 nations—the International Syria Support Group—sat around a table and produced an agreement on the future of Syria. Does he agree that our efforts must also return to the politics of getting the whole international community into the same place on the future of Syria?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right that the support group has proved to be a cumbersome and not entirely effective mechanism, but his central point is absolutely correct.

I come to my third and final point, which is on the House looking to the future. What can we do as part of the international community to bring the catastrophe that has engulfed the Syrian people to an end? By an incredibly unfortunate sequence of events, the international community has so far been completely unable to help. The United Nations has been hobbled by Russian actions, using the veto, which it has the privilege to use on the Security Council, to shield itself from criticism and to stop international action on Syria.

The Kofi Annan plan originally put forward by the UN was, in my view, tragically and wrongly rejected by the American Government. The Russians in their turn have shredded a rules-based system, which will have cataclysmic effects on international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights. The Americans have been absent. Crucially, President Obama made it clear that, were chemical weapons to be used, it would cross a red line and America would take action. Chemical weapons were used and no action was taken by the Americans.

This House, in my view, was ill-advised to reject the former Prime Minister’s motion in August 2013 for British action. I hope the Government keep an open mind about putting another resolution before the House, as is necessary.