Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Lisa Nandy(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I return the Minister to the serious allegations made today, following a BBC investigation, that medics in Gaza were detained, stripped and beaten while trying to perform their life-saving humanitarian duties? All of us in the House have repeatedly called on all parties to abide by international law, but the Government have so far declined to say that the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice should be implemented in full. Will he now tell us that they should be, and that the UK will support the International Criminal Court investigation, led by Andrew Cayley, to ensure not only that all allegations against all parties are investigated, but that there is accountability for those who break the law?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is quite right: there needs to be a full and thorough investigation and accountability in respect of what was reported today by the BBC, and I can assure her that the Foreign Office is pressing for full transparency and accountability on that matter.
Lisa Nandy
But surely the Minister can see the problem. Unless the ICJ’s provisional ruling is implemented and the ICC is allowed to go about its work, those words are simply meaningless; and unless the international community makes it crystal clear that rules will be upheld by all parties and those who do not uphold them will be held accountable, more people will die. Peace is built on the bedrock of international law. May I ask the Minister again to make it clear to the House that the Government will support the ICC’s investigation of Hamas as well as its investigation of Israel and will press for the full implementation of the ICJ’s provisional ruling, and that international law will be upheld not when it is convenient but always, as the precondition for peace?
Mr Mitchell
Let me be very clear about this: we did not believe, and do not believe, that the ICJ referral is helpful to attempts to secure dialogue. We respect the role and independence of the ICJ and will consider any advisory opinion, but we did not think it helpful, without the consent of both parties, for the Court to deliver an advisory opinion on what is essentially a bilateral dispute. However, we keep all these matters under review and, as I have said, our current position is that we believe Israel has both the capacity and the intent to abide by international humanitarian law.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Lisa Nandy(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there is rising anger in the region about the desperate situation in Gaza, which makes a ceasefire much harder to achieve. More people are now dying of hunger and thirst than from bombs and bullets. He said yesterday that the UK is pausing funding to UNRWA, not cutting it, but given its critical role, will he reassure us that nothing will disrupt the supply of aid—not just into Gaza, but through Gaza—now and in the months ahead? He is right that these are serious allegations and we should be robust about how UK aid money is spent, but it would be unconscionable if we allowed anything to stand in the way of UK aid reaching those children right now. Will he promise that the UK will move heaven and earth to get that aid to them?
Mr Mitchell
The shadow Minister for development is absolutely right about the balance that has to be struck. Of course, we need to investigate rapidly the very serious allegations that have been made against UNRWA, but the assets we use for getting aid and support into Gaza depend on the assets that UNRWA owns—warehouses, vehicles and the other distribution mechanisms. As such, we need that inquiry to be completed as rapidly as possible. In the meanwhile, Britain was not intending to give any further support to UNRWA in this financial year; in the next financial year we will consider the position in precisely the way the shadow Minister sets out.
International Development White Paper
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Lisa Nandy(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of the White Paper, and for our frequent conversations about it since I was appointed to my post.
The catastrophe in Gaza is a strong reminder not just of the need for humanitarian assistance and expertise, but of the heavy responsibility that we all face to play our part in the world through the painstaking hard yards of diplomacy, and of the crucial role of development in providing the hope that breathes life into any peace process. I thank the Minister for his personal efforts to bring some energy and direction to this agenda again. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I do not believe that the House would be in a position to consider a new White Paper were he not in post—a view that I think is shared by many on the Opposition Benches.
However, to have an honest conversation about where we are heading, we need a frank assessment of where we have been. There was the mindless vandalism of the decision to take one of our most respected, influential contributions to the world—the partnerships, thought leadership and innovation—and trash the lot to deflect from a domestic crisis. There was the former Prime Minister who, shamed by a young footballer into abandoning his decision to allow children to go hungry in a pandemic, pulled the rug out from under the poorest people in the poorest countries. Make no mistake: that cost lives, but it also cost Britain its reputation as a gold-standard leader in the field. As the Minister said then, it was
“a strategic mistake with deadly consequences.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 118.]
He knows that I admire his determination to speak out against those decisions, and I know that he does not shy away from acknowledging the damage that they have done.
Although the former Prime Minister may be gone, his second in command, whose signature is scrawled across those documents, now sits in No. 10. His short words at the start of the White Paper leave me in no doubt that, although his posture has changed, his position has not. Frankly, asking the man who signed off the devastation of this vital agenda, only to breathe new life into it again, is like calling out the arsonist to put out the fire. For much of the agenda that the Minister set out today, he will have our support. The question is whether he will have that of his Prime Minister.
The Minister is right to recognise that the major obstacle to eliminating extreme poverty is the growing challenge of climate change and debt, but the key is how to resolve it. The multilateral system is strained—much of the world’s debt is owed to private creditors, and over recent decades China’s influence has grown—so we strongly welcome the recognition in the White Paper that Britain’s approach to development must sit in a multipolar world. However, multilateral aid will fall to just 25% of aid spending by 2025. Although the commitments in this White Paper are welcome, the Minister is prioritising multilateralism while his Department prioritises bilateralism. Which is it? We have a strategy at odds with the ambition.
The second problem is that to make the strategy work, the Minister will need to convince the world that Britain is a long-term reliable partner with serious commitment at the highest levels of Government, yet his own White Paper is silent on protecting the overseas development assistance budget from raids from other Departments, after 30% has been raided in the past year by the Home Office alone to pay for spiralling hotel bills and the cost of this Government’s chaos. What chance does he have of convincing the world that this area is a priority for the Government if he cannot convince his colleagues around the Cabinet table? I suspect that on the central issue—the need to deal with debt and finance constraints that block action on climate—he and I have more in common than he does with most of them.
There is much to welcome in the White Paper, but access to finance for many of the most heavily indebted countries is ultimately unachievable. He is embracing some of the new ideas on finance, but when it comes to the central issue of debt, where is the fresh thinking? The outsized role of the City of London compels us to do more. Now is the time not to cling to existing strategies, but to leave no stone unturned.
The problem of climate finance and debt for middle-income countries enables us to focus on low-income countries and the core task of eliminating extreme poverty, but there is far too little in the White Paper about how that can be achieved. We welcome the focus on conflict, but the route out of poverty lies not just in access to finance and in functioning economies, but in self-sustaining health, education and welfare systems designed and run by the people in those countries. What can he do to reassure the House that that is not a second-order issue?
Finally, the Minister and I have discussed the central importance of women and girls many times. They have been among the biggest losers of the decisions of recent decades. Empowering them is the biggest untapped driver of growth in the global economy, and there is no way of meeting the sustainable development goals without closing that shameful gap. That is why they must run like a thread through the whole agenda—not just in addition to it, and not a few pages in a document. Every single decision that comes across his desk must consider whether it does more to empower and enable women and girls to succeed, or less.
I welcome and support the Minister’s commitment to this agenda, but without the political backing, without the budget and without the priority in Government, he will not succeed. He is far more alive to the scale and nature of the problems that Britain and the world face than most of his colleagues, but the challenges of this era demand an end to old ways of thinking and an embracing of the new. I know he is open to it, but are his Government?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her co-operation and her kind personal remarks. She will know that, in order to get buy-in from our friends and experts around the world and from the civil service, the White Paper needed to run to 2030. In the unlikely event that my party is not in government after the next election, any other Government would, I hope, build on it to make it a huge success.
I note the hon. Lady’s remarks about the merger of DFID into the Foreign Office. My task, which the Prime Minister gave me, was to try to make the merger work. That means there needs to be an ability within Government to focus on global public goods and delivering them into the 2030s. That is what I am trying to do. She rightly asks how we get the balance right between multilateralism and bilateral funding. The answer is that we use either, depending on what delivers for our taxpayers and what delivers results on the ground. That is the yardstick; there is no ideology. We go with what works and what is best.
The hon. Lady pointed out the increase in spending in other Departments of ODA money and the development budget. It is true that that has gone up, but every penny is spent within the rules laid down by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. We brought in the innovation of the ODA star chamber in Whitehall, co-chaired by the Development Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There is already clear evidence of that ratcheting up the quality of ODA, as the hon. Lady would wish.
The hon. Lady talked about access to finance for poor countries, which is incredibly important. Mitigation projects in middle-income countries are easy by contrast; when it comes to poor countries and adaptation, it is much more difficult. She will see the emphasis in the White Paper on accepting the advice from the Select Committee on increasing the amount that British International Investment does in poor countries. She will notice, too, the emphasis on social protection, and the fact that 62% of the budget will now be spent in fragile and conflict states.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about debt, where she is right that we need to do far more. It is absurd that a country such as Ghana can borrow only for seven or eight years, yet our children can get mortgages for 30 years. Ghana borrows at 7%, and our children borrow at 2%. That is clearly completely wrong, but there is a lot of new thinking. She will have seen the climate resilient debt clauses launched by Britain and the work we are doing on the G20 common framework to increase access for countries. It is also important to ensure that the private sector is bound into debt settlements when they affect sovereign states.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Lisa Nandy(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the copy of his statement and for his call last night.
Four weeks on from the horror of 7 October, it is hard to comprehend the scale of the devastation in Gaza: almost 1.5 million people displaced and more than 10,000 people killed, with more trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Every single one of those lives matters. Every single death is a devastating tragedy. With two thirds of the dead being women and children, these civilian deaths are not just shocking—they cannot be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of people are crowded into shelters in desperate need of food, water, medicine and fuel. And while we welcome the 93 trucks that entered through Rafah on 6 November, that is completely insufficient to meet the scale of humanitarian need.
I was surprised the Minister did not make more mention of fuel, because this is the urgent priority. Without it the water cannot flow, the hospitals cannot power their incubators and the food cannot be cooked. The sewage system breakdown is now threatening a major public health crisis. For weeks, the international community has demanded that the siege conditions on Gaza be lifted, but that has still not happened. That is totally unacceptable and it cannot continue.
Both the UN humanitarian co-ordinator Martin Griffiths and the United States have made serious efforts to break the deadlock, and to provide the assurances that Israel needs about fuel diversion. Can the Minister tell the House what efforts the Government are making to insist that fuel for humanitarian purposes can get into Gaza? I welcome his update on discussions about Kerem Shalom, but what is his assessment on the speed at which that could be achieved? May I urge him again to follow the US example and appoint a humanitarian co-ordinator to scale up the passage of aid?
We all recognise that while rockets and bombs continue to fall, it is impossible to deliver the scale of aid needed across the whole of Gaza and to repair the damage, extensive as it is, to water and electricity systems. We all want an end to the violence and the urgent release of hostages, but with Hamas leaders doubling down on their determination to attack Israel, and with Israel ruling out a ceasefire until hostages are released, the reality is that humanitarian pauses are, as Martin Griffiths wrote movingly last week, “the only viable prospect”. In Cairo last week, Ministers and aid agencies impressed on me the urgency of that. Pauses provide not only much needed aid, but space: space for the basic humanity to bury the dead; space to look past the pain; and space for dialogue to make progress towards peace more likely. This is needed now. No more delay.
We are devastated by the deaths of so many aid workers and United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff—the highest number killed in any conflict in the UN’s history. I hope I join the whole House in mourning their loss and paying tribute to their bravery and their humanity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Safe shelters, safe distribution centres, and safe medical facilities, hospitals and emergency service convoys are essential.
I echo the Minister’s words about the unacceptable nature of settler violence in the west bank, but will he join me in reiterating our calls that Israel’s clear right to self-defence is not a blank cheque? He acknowledged the importance of international law. Has he raised the protection of hospitals, schools and refugee camps with his Israeli counterparts, and the need for action to be in accordance with international law in order to protect civilians and ensure safe and unimpeded access for aid?
The average age in Gaza is just 18. Make no mistake: this is a children’s war. More children have died in Gaza in four weeks than in all the world’s conflicts in each of the last three years. There are 1 million children caught up in the devastation who are orphaned and displaced, sleeping outside as the weather grows colder, short of food and forced to drink dirty water. In most conflicts we would expect children to be evacuated to a safer place to receive care and shelter. What makes this so devastating is that, almost uniquely, in this conflict that is not going to happen.
In the face of such an extraordinary threat to children, the international community is obligated to do more. With the Foreign Secretary at the G7 this week, will the Government join us in calling for an emergency plan to support the children of Gaza, to prioritise aid to children, safe and protected shelters for food, clean water and medical care as winter sets in? The crisis did not start in Gaza on 7 October. Even before then, two thirds of children were suffering from trauma. One aid agency that operates in North Sinai and Gaza told me last week that this now stands at 100%. Without a long-term co-ordinated plan for the children of Gaza, the political solution we need will not be realised and the cycle of violence will not be broken. We can and must do more.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments and for the priorities she set out in her response. I echo her comment about the brave humanitarian workers who lost their lives. She will remember that we consistently condemned that in the case of Sudan, where approximately 20 lost their lives. As she has, we honour, across the House, the more than 100 humanitarian workers—unarmed people putting themselves in harm’s way deliberately to help their fellow citizens—who have lost their lives.
I also pay tribute to those working in the crisis centre in Whitehall. One hundred or so officials, nearly all volunteers and very young, were working triple shifts the night that Rafah opened, working through the night to help British citizens. I pay tribute to them, their spirit and their hard work.
The hon. Lady made a particular point about the importance of fuel and, of course, she is absolutely right. We are negotiating for it. She will know that Hamas have a lot of fuel in their tunnels—we recognise entirely what that fuel is being used for—so fuel could be made available to help in humanitarian purposes. We are doing our best to negotiate for it. She will also have seen today’s G7 statement, which is very clear on these points.
The hon. Lady asks about routes for access, and the American envoy, Mr Satterfield, has been working non-stop to try to work out whether we can speed up other routes, using Kerem Shalom and Rafah, and we will continue to do all that.
The hon. Lady prioritises the importance of pauses, and we completely agree. We are arguing for humanitarian pauses, but she will also accept that, in the method within the pause by which humanitarian support is distributed, it is extremely important that we do not repeat the mistakes we made in Srebrenica, Rwanda and northern Iraq, when vulnerable people were brought together whom we were unable to protect. There are very clear guidelines on any pauses and safe spaces, and there must be absolute protection for those who go to them.
The hon. Lady mentioned that support for Israel is not a blank cheque. Of course, she is right. Good friends deliver hard messages, and they are able to do so precisely because they are good friends. She talks of children, and I saw UNICEF this morning. I entirely recognise the passion with which she raised that point. We will do everything we can to ensure that the priority of children is recognised in all the humanitarian work we do.
Finally, I remind the House of the wise words of our former colleague, and former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Hague. At the end of his brilliant article in The Times on 9 October, he said:
“It is no consolation to those caught up in it but…this is no strategic masterstroke by Hamas, more a desperate move to fend off a future that is rapidly leaving them behind.”
We should not forget that, the day after this, there will be an urgent need for a political context.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Lisa Nandy(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for Development and Africa for the constructive cross-party way that we have been able to work together since I was appointed to this post in such grim times? He will know that every minute counts right now in Gaza. Incubators have been switched off and children are drinking dirty water. Fresh water and power are the most pressing issues, but despite our shared hopes of progress this week, fuel was not permitted in the convoys that entered Gaza, while several hospitals have been hit and many given multiple warnings to evacuate. Can he share with the House what the Government are doing to help broker an agreement that will protect hospitals and get fuel into Gaza so that international law is upheld, hospitals can power up and water and power can flow?
Mr Mitchell
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. It is one that I held for five years from 2005 and I very much hope that she will hold it for five years—[Laughter.] It is one of the best jobs in opposition and in government. She will know that we are having humanitarian discussions with everyone, intent as we are on getting humanitarian supplies to those who need them. She asked specifically about attacking a hospital. Attacking a hospital is a war crime. We should be in no doubt about that.