Jewish Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for bringing this debate here and setting the scene so well, and giving us all a chance to participate. I add my voice to her call for the Minister for the Middle East to make representations to his US counterparts, ensuring that the long-awaited middle east peace process includes reference to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I believe this is his first debate in Westminster Hall.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

indicated assent.

[Jim Shannon]

Well, he is very welcome. I am sure it will not be his last. It probably will not be my last either, but that is by the way.

Since the partition of Ireland and the creation of Northern Ireland, the Protestants in the border regions that made up the new Northern Ireland have faced attempts on their lives, to ethnically cleanse them out of the regions. The United Nations has defined ethnic cleansing as

“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic, or religious, group from certain geographic areas.”

That is what has happened along the border of Northern Ireland, and that is what has happened to the Jews. We know that only 4,000 Jews remain in the Arab world, while some 200,000 Arabs were absorbed into Israeli society, making up the Arab minority of 1.7 million people, which forms 21% of Israel’s population.

What can we do? First, the media bias against Israel and her people is exactly that: bias. For example, when the BBC attempts to set a narrative that does not equate to what is actually taking place on the ground—such as reporting retaliatory missiles launched by Israel in such a way that it seems like an offensive attack—we must investigate and seek the truth, but not from those who seek to write the narrative that suits them.

Secondly, we must fulfil our obligations to do what the Balfour declaration began—allowing Israel back to her home and having equality and safety for all in the middle east. Thirdly, there is significant linkage between those two refugee populations, which underscores the need to deal with both simultaneously. We must impress upon the American Administration the importance of not negating any refugee’s rights to justice, nor the responsibility of Arab states to provide a humanitarian solution to their plight. Ensuring rights for both Arab and Jewish refugees is an essential key, on a very practical level, to resolving the issue of the refugees.

If Israelis—over 50% of whom are descendants of Jews displaced from Arab countries—are asked to approve a peace plan that provides rights and redress for Palestinian refugees only, it will be less likely to be adopted than an agreement that would provide rights and redress to Jewish refugees as well. That makes sense to me, and I believe it makes sense to everyone taking part in this debate.

A question was put to me over the weekend, and I shall ask the Minister the same question. What steps will the British Government take to recognise the injustice that was suffered by some 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries and to ensure that, in the Government’s stance on the middle east peace process, they recognise their tragedy alongside that of the Palestinian refugees? Both sets of lives matter and both narratives matter. We must strongly advocate for those whose plight often goes unnoticed—in this case, the plight of Jewish refugees from the middle east and north Africa.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, for my first time in this capacity. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on having convened this debate; it is indeed a timely debate to be having, and she has laid out the case extremely well.

In the very short period of time we have had to debate this matter this afternoon—I hope this will be the first of several such debates, as one hour is insufficient to give this issue the coverage that it so richly demands—we have had a tour de force of the historical background to the conundrum currently faced by Jewish refugees. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), the Opposition spokesman on these matters. He has referred to a meeting with Dr Saeb Erekat; I also met with Dr Erekat today, and we shared a number of reflections on the current situation. He is a very wise man with a great deal of experience in these matters, and the remarks that he made to the hon. Gentleman do not surprise me in the least.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned Jewish refugees in the round, and spoke about the historical background to this issue. She mentioned Morocco and Tunisia; I am pleased she did so, because although the general history in respect of the Jewish people across north Africa and the middle east has been appalling, there are examples of countries that have done relatively well in a dismal scene. I cite Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan, which I think has also been mentioned, as countries where there has been a more benign attitude towards Jewish refugees. My right hon. Friend knows that I have an interest in Morocco; I was told anecdotally that Jewish residents in Israel who are from Morocco—the Opposition spokesman is nodding; I think he knows what I am going to say—often have a picture of the King of Morocco on their wall, because Morocco has done good things in the past in respect of its Jewish population.

However, that does not obscure the general awfulness of the way these things have been. We have heard from a lot of right hon. and hon. Members about the failure of the international community to properly understand the extent of Jewish refugee status. We talk a great deal about Palestinians—they are always in the news, and they are extremely important—but we also need to consider refugees in the round. Of course, UN Security Council resolution 242 mentions “refugees”; it does not disaggregate refugees. There is a reason for that, which we are exploring today.

It is particularly timely for me to be talking about this today, because three weeks ago I paid my first visit to the middle east in my new capacity, and I visited Yad Vashem. My belief is that a person will not fully understand the state of Israel unless they visit Yad Vashem. It had a profound impact on me. Yad Vashem gives us the story; it tells us why it is that a people who have been bashed, bullied and messed around over generations and centuries have said, “Enough! This is our home. This is ours, and we are going to defend it.” I am very pleased that the Government are four-square behind their right to self-determination and safety in the state of Israel.

The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) spoke about the two-state solution. As we approach the Manama conference next week, I make it clear that we have to have a two-state solution based on the ’67 borders, with agreed land swaps and Jerusalem as a shared capital. There has been lots of talk in recent times about that being finessed, and he referred to the Leader of the Opposition. We are clear that we will not have peace in the middle east unless we have a shared future between the Jewish and Palestinian people, and that means a two-state solution. At this time, we just need to make that abundantly clear.

I spent a lot of time in the west bank, Gaza and Israel. I saw the desperate conditions in which the people of Gaza are living, and I visited Khan al-Ahmar, whose inhabitants are apparently safe for now, but who still expect to be made homeless by Israeli demolitions. The UN has said that could constitute a forcible transfer. The experience of all these people—the victims and survivors of the holocaust, the Israelis who live in fear of Palestinian rockets, and the Palestinians who live a precarious existence in Gaza or the west bank—illustrates the complexity of the issues still to be resolved by the middle east peace process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to cite UN Security Council resolution 242. It speaks of refugees; it does not break them down. The Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), touched on similar ground in his remarks.

The history of Jewish migration and displacement in the region is highly complex. We have touched on a great deal of that today. Some have estimated that the figures could be as high as 1 million displaced people over that period. For those whose homes and property were seized or who were forcibly expelled, the experience was hugely traumatic and hugely distressing. Some continue to live with all that distress today and rightly seek some sort of recognition of the trauma they have suffered. We deeply sympathise with that suffering, just as we sympathise with the many Palestinians who have been forced from their homes over the same period and, indeed, the more than 15 million people of many faiths and nationalities who are currently displaced in the region.

We understand that there were a range of motivations for Jews who decided to leave Arab countries. Many of them were certainly forced out, one way or another—either directly or by the general bullying behaviour that they experienced over years. Many left because they were driven by the desire to forge a new homeland for the Jewish people in the new state of Israel. We continue to support that legitimate aspiration for a secure and safe homeland in the form of the modern state of Israel, just as we support the objectives of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. The hon. Member for Bury South was absolutely right to underscore the importance of that. It is with those two states very much in mind that we approach the Manama conference next week, at which this country will of course be represented.

The Government continue to believe that the way forward is through substantive peace talks between the parties leading to a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital. We would also like to use every opportunity to call out any instances of antisemitism, wherever it occurs. Scapegoating and demonising minorities fuels division, hatred and violence, and it cannot go unchallenged, wherever we find it. Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right that dovetails with many other human rights. Where religious freedoms are under attack, other basic rights are also under threat.

In the time available to me, I will run briefly through the contributions that have been made this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned UNESCO world heritage sites. We work, as she will probably know, with regional Governments and UN agencies so that cultural sites, religious and secular, are protected in a troubled region. She is right to raise that.

I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on their contributions, particularly in relation to the history of this piece. They have a deep and long-standing interest in the matter.

My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) pointed out that peace in the middle east needs consideration of Palestinian and Jewish refugees. I hope in my remarks and my emphasis on UN Security Council resolution 242 that I have made clear that the Government very much see it in that light, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the injustice perpetrated on Jewish refugees and hoped that they, as well as Palestinian refugees, would feature in the middle east peace process. The fact we are having this debate in this place should reinforce the message that there can be no lasting peace without consideration of both of the peoples principally in the frame in this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) quoted a very insensitive remark by Abdullah from Bristol. I am grateful to Abdullah from Bristol for making his crass remark, because it gave us an opportunity to explode it today in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend also mentioned Yemen. Between 1948 and 1949, 50,000 Jews were airlifted from Yemen, and he is right to point out that there are probably only around 100 left.

I once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet on rightly raising this important matter. It is timely that she has done so, since next week in Manama these grave matters concerning the middle east peace process and the way forward will be considered. I very much hope that someone involved with those talks has been listening today.

Syria: Civilians in Idlib

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)(Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister for the Middle East what assessment he has made of attacks on health facilities and the fate of civilians in the Idlib area of Syria, and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government are extremely concerned by the current escalation of violence in north-west Syria, and are appalled by the disgraceful and wholly unwarranted attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. The UN has confirmed that since the end of April at least 25 health facilities—including at least two major hospitals—and 37 schools have been damaged by airstrikes and shelling in north-west Syria. These attacks are a clear breach of international law, and we call on the regime and Russia in the strongest possible terms to cease them and end the suffering of those in the Idlib governorate.

The deteriorating situation is causing immense suffering to a civilian population who, as the hon. Lady will know, are already highly vulnerable. Even before the current escalation of violence, nearly 2 million people in the region had already been forced to leave their homes at least once, and nearly 3 million are in need of humanitarian assistance.

Let me take this opportunity to highlight, briefly, the assistance that we are providing for those who are in such dire need across north-west Syria. Last year alone, the UK provided over £80 million in humanitarian assistance in the region, which included supporting the provision of food, shelter and other essential items for those caught up in the conflict. We are continuing to support that effort this year as well. In response to the recent situation, the partners of the Department for International Development are scaling up their humanitarian response to meet the growing needs on the ground by, for instance, supporting health facilities.

A further escalation of violence, triggering waves of displacement, would be likely to overwhelm an already stretched humanitarian response. Once again, I call on all parties to cease violence in Idlib, to respect previously agreed ceasefires, and to bring an end to the needless and deplorable attacks on civilians, hospitals and schools in the region.

[Alison McGovern]

The first thing that has to be said, Mr Speaker, is that, as you and I both know, it should not be me who is standing here. It should be Jo Cox, and, three years after her brutal killing, we miss her every single day.

The second thing that I must do is thank you, Mr Speaker, for welcoming the surgeon David Nott to Speaker’s House to discuss his book and his work, which has included helping the Syrian people. It was kind of you to host him.

As the Minister has said, the conflict in Syria has escalated once again and despite talks of so-called reconstruction it is far from over. Just in recent months reports say that nearly 500 civilians have been killed due to airstrikes.

This is a complex conflict but I want to focus on simple facts today and, as the Minister has described, we have seen yet again the bombing of hospitals. Reports from the region tell of scores of hospitals being attacked, and millions of people in the Idlib area are in desperate need of healthcare.

A bad situation is being made much worse by our failure to enforce the basic rules of conflict. What representations has the Minister made to UN agencies about fixing this system, because people there are saying the UN system is simply not working—the co-ordinates of those hospitals are not safe with the UN, and the protection that should be in place for medical systems in Syria, even at this late stage in the conflict, has now failed? What meetings has the Minister had to discuss this with UN agencies, what action is he proposing to take, and what work is he doing with our colleagues in the international community to fix this broken system?

Secondly, I would like to ask some questions about UK aid. The Minister mentioned food and basic supplies, but what about medical supplies, and what assessment have the Government made of the current risks given the political situation we are now facing in relation to Syria and the effectiveness of UK aid? It is a simple thing, surely, to get basic medical supplies that are needed over the border to the doctors who require them. Also, what action has the Minister taken to prioritise civilian access to medical supplies?

Finally, it is Refugee Week this week, and I do not always thank the Government but on this occasion I would like to thank them, and specifically the Minister for Immigration, who is not in her place at the moment, for her decision to extend the VPRS—Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme—that brings vulnerable refugees to our country. But we need to go so much further than that. We have failed to deliver against the values of this country when it comes to the victims of this conflict. What conversations is the Minister having with his colleagues in Government about getting more vulnerable Syrians to the UK for safety and shelter, and will he meet me and a delegation of Members of Parliament to discuss that point? We have failed Syria but we need not to continue to fail Syrians; will the Minister help us get more Syrians to safety?

This weekend many people will gather in towns and cities across our country for “Great Get Togethers”: they will remember our colleague Jo, and they will think about what we have in common, not what divides us. So I simply finish by asking the Minister to work with all of us across this House for the people of Syria.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, and of course I join with her in her heartfelt tributes to our colleague Jo Cox.

The hon. Lady will know that we committed £400 million in the Brussels conference in March to Syria. That puts us in the premier division of donors to this. [Interruption.] She shakes her head, but that is a huge amount of money.

The hon. Lady asked what we are doing about refugees and she will know full well that in general refugees are best helped close to their homes so they can return to their homes, but she will also be aware of the refugees we have taken from this region to the UK, and I hope she will salute the local authorities who are warmly accommodating those refugees, including my own local authority.

The hon. Lady asked what we are doing with our partners. She might be aware that on 10 May and 14 May the UN met in emergency session to discuss the deteriorating situation and she might also be aware that later on today it will be meeting in emergency session to discuss this deteriorating situation, and the UK will play a full part in that discussion. The important thing is to get back to UN Security Council resolution 2254; it is the cornerstone and basis of any long-term settlement in Syria.

The hon. Lady asked about other partners to this, and I am sure she will share my concern that the Sochi agreement of last year between two of the principal players in this has unfortunately not been carried out in the way we would wish and that the deteriorating situation is in significant part due to Russia’s attitude towards what appeared at the time to be a very promising new beginning. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to work with others to attempt to bring some sense to the warring parties in this, but I emphasise that the UK is simply one player in this, and it is of course a multi-dimensional jigsaw.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank too the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), my co-chair of the all-party group on Syria.

The much respected and senior British military officer Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon has just returned from Idlib where he is an adviser to the Idlib health directorate and he says this today:

“Nearly 700 civilians have been killed this year in Idlib and there are 500,000”

internally displaced people crammed into Idlib

“many without homes living in the open and off scraps”.

He adds that there is

“evidence of another chemical attack. There have been 29 attacks on hospitals by Russian and Syrian aircraft with many now out of commission. A handful of hospitals and doctors are now trying to care for 3 million civilians.”

The Minister will know that the Foreign Office is collecting evidence of those involved in atrocities and breaches of international humanitarian law. Can he confirm that the Foreign Office is seeking to identify, name and shame not only the aircraft attacking these hospitals, which are mainly marked with red crosses, but the pilots and people operating those planes? This is clearly a breach of international humanitarian law; it is arguably a war crime and we must ensure, wherever we can, that there is no impunity for such grotesque actions.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend: either the regime and its supporters’ statements are wildly inaccurate or its targeting is wildly inaccurate. He will know that the UN provides co-ordinates of sensitive sites including schools and hospitals. He will share my despair at the number of those institutions, including two major hospitals, that have been damaged in this, and I am sure he will also share my enthusiasm that those who responsible for this are, sooner or later, brought to book.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for asking this urgent question. I feel she spoke for the whole House when she spoke of Jo Cox at the beginning of her speech, and I thank the Minister for his response.

Once again we find ourselves here in this place shocked and appalled at the threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria. We had Aleppo, we had Raqqa, we had Ghouta, and now today it is Idlib: homes and livelihoods destroyed; civilians and children fleeing and dying; and, yet again, hospitals bombed and deliberately targeted.

Three years on from UN Security Council resolution 2286, medical facilities are still being hit in Syria—an unthinkable 29 hospitals in the past six weeks according to some reports. Amnesty International says these attacks targeting hospitals constitute “crimes against humanity”. The International Rescue Committee says that these attacks continue to happen with “absolute impunity”. This is shocking and reprehensible; even wars are supposed to have rules.

What steps is the Minister taking with our international partners to ensure that these appalling attacks on health facilities do not go by with impunity and, as he says, that these people are brought to book? Can the Minister tell us more about the UK’s promised protection of civilians strategy—exactly when it will be delivered and whether it will be accompanied by a clear framework for accountability and implementation?

It is absolutely necessary that we urgently get all sides around a table to find a peaceful, political resolution to this horrific conflict. That is the only thing that will bring the carnage in Idlib to an end. That is the only thing that will protect the lives of those health workers still operating in Idlib and the civilians they are working to save. So what is the Minister doing to realise this? That peace must be achieved, and let me end by echoing the words of the president of Médecins Sans Frontières who put it so simply when she called on all warring parties to:

“Stop bombing hospitals. Stop bombing health workers. Stop bombing patients.”

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and questions. It is important that we work with international partners to apply pressure to those who are responsible. He will be well aware of the difficulty of working with the regime in Damascus and its supporters, but the Sochi agreement at the end of last year held out such promise. Those were baby steps, perhaps, but it was the start of a process that might have brought some sense to this troubled region. I very much regret that Russia has decided to take the steps that it has and I prevail on it, even now, to think about its responsibilities that it signed up to with Turkey at Sochi.

It is important that the UN continues to meet in emergency session. I look forward to its deliberations this afternoon and we will take a full part in them. Ultimately, UN Security Council resolution 2254 has to be applied. That is the only way that we can restore peace and equanimity to this very troubled part of the world.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is definitely a war crime to attack either a school or a hospital—there is no doubt about that. Do we have good evidence that Russian aeroplanes have attacked such targets and if so, are we raising the matter in the Security Council, which is in emergency session, as the Minister stated?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Russia is clearly a party to the current situation. It is supporting the regime and is responsible for a lot of the trauma that is now afflicting the Idlib governorate, and it must be held to account. It must be answerable for the consequences of its actions. As my hon. Friend said, the deliberate targeting of schools and hospitals is a crime. It is caused by criminals and, as with criminals everywhere, they must ultimately be called to account.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

We also pay tribute to Jo Cox’s memory in the House today and to David Nott and his incredible work as a surgeon in Idlib; he recently won the Robert Burns humanitarian award for what he has done.

We in the Scottish National party are shocked and horrified by the reports that, since Syrian regime forces and their Russian allies began their offensive in Idlib in April, more than 24 medical facilities have been attacked. Tragically, the targeting of healthcare facilities is not new in Syria’s civil war. The US-based Physicians for Human Rights documented more than 500 attacks on medical facilities between 2011 and 2018.

The deliberate and strategic bombing of hospitals carrying out their medical functions is a war crime. These latest attacks have eliminated vital lifelines for civilians in desperate need of medical care and medical centres are no longer sharing their co-ordinates with the UN for fear of being a target of Syria and their allies. However, the prevention of and protection from mass atrocities remain almost wholly absent from the UK’s national framework of civilian protection. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to cover this glaring omission? Furthermore, will he ensure that the upcoming review of the Government’s protection of civilians in conflict strategy reflects the changing nature of modern conflict, which blurs the lines between combatants and non-combatants?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He must know that what we are able to do depends very much on access and safety and whether or not we can get to those who are most in need. At the moment, that is extremely problematic. We would prevail upon all parties to this to allow humanitarian access and to allow those of us who wish to protect civilians to be able to access those civilians wherever they are, so that the necessary protection can be afforded. However, he has to understand the difficulty of assuring the safety and security of those now delivering aid, and I pay tribute to those who provide aid under extremely difficult circumstances. He will be aware that a number of those individuals in our troubled world today have paid with their lives for that. It is absolutely a duty that we in Government and our agencies have to ensure that they are not put at risk more than is absolutely necessary in trying to do their vital work.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I very much support what the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said about taking on more refugees from the area, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for her decision. What does the Minister think can be done to help to make the good Russian people aware of what is being done in their name by their Government? Surely they would be as horrified as the rest of us by the deliberate targeting of hospitals, schools and other humanitarian facilities.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Russian people would indeed think that, if they knew the full extent of the actions being taken in their name by President Putin’s Administration. This is a terrible calumny. It is a devastating thing for which Russia must ultimately assume responsibility. We have to hope that members of the Russian Administration are ultimately called to account for these atrocities. Knowing the Russian people as I do—I suspect that my hon. Friend knows them rather better than I do—I know they are good people and often misunderstood, since they are often seen through the prism of Moscow and the terrible acts, I am afraid, that President Putin and his people are too often associated with in our world today.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) not only on securing this urgent question, but on the very moving way in which she introduced it, and I absolutely share and endorse her tribute to Jo Cox.

It is heartbreaking to read the testimony coming out of Idlib, and it is horrific that there have been 257 attacks on hospitals and medical workers in the last year alone. I say to the people who are carrying out these attacks that it is beyond grotesque. The fact that doctors feel that they can no longer share co-ordinates with the United Nations is also a damning indictment of the international community’s failure to protect some of the most vulnerable. I am reassured that the Minister wants to see people brought to book, but what further support could the UK provide to the United Nations or others to gather evidence, so that when the time comes and justice can be done, the information will be there?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady knows that this is an ongoing piece of work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) rightly referred to. It does not relate simply to this current offensive; it goes back a long, long way. In particular, we have been at the forefront of condemnation of the regime with respect to chemical weapons, which are an abomination. All those who have been involved in the use of these illegal weapons must be called to account. Clearly, our imperative at the moment is humanitarian assistance—of course it is—but a slower piece of work is gathering evidence that ultimately will be used to ensure that those criminals who have been involved in perpetrating these atrocities are brought to book.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

This shocking new bombing campaign will lead remorselessly to more innocent loss of life, and up to 2 million people could be displaced into Turkey. I recently met a constituent who works very closely with charities that operate there and in the area, one of which is Syria Relief. What engagement has the Department had with charities on the ground, such as Syria Relief, which can do this work and have the local knowledge? Is work ongoing in that respect?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The truth is that we engage on an ongoing basis with charitable organisations, but I will not comment specifically on those organisations, really for their security. Much of our effort is channelled through the UN and its agencies, but I salute those across the charitable sector who engage in this extremely difficult and traumatic work. I will continue to engage with them as much as I can, the better to understand the challenges they face and their experiences on the ground.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

The Minister and everyone who has spoken has rightly pointed out that this is a complex political situation, and that it is complex for us to do anything about it. However, there is one piece of the jigsaw that we are entirely responsible for, and that is the number of refugees that we allow into this country. I speak as someone who has refugees from Iran and Kosovo in my own family who grew up in a place that has always provided a safe home for every wave of desperate refugees, and I ask the Minister, in the light of what we know is going on in Idlib: can we not do more to bring more people here?

[Dr Murrison]

The first thing to say about the recent onslaught in the governorate of Idlib specifically is that virtually all those involved are internally displaced people within that governorate. They are therefore not accessible, and it would simply not be practical to remove them to a place of safety in this country. The hon. Lady knows very well that we have been generous in relocating people who have been triaged by the United Nations, with the most vulnerable and needy being relocated to this country. We have all taken people from right across the demographic, but the UK has been particularly impressive in relocating vulnerable people, including women, children, elderly people and disabled people. That is the mark of a truly humanitarian nation, and I am immensely proud of that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Can I just be clear about the Government’s position on civilians in Idlib? Is it the Government’s view that the Russians and the Syrians are being reckless and careless in the delivery of their ordnance, or is it their view that they are deliberately targeting medical facilities?

[Dr Murrison]

Our investigation into this is ongoing, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of our investigation into attribution or, indeed, intent. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that it seems to us that a very large number of schools and hospitals, including two major hospitals, have been hit, and that a regime and a country that were intent on protecting civilians, particularly the most vulnerable, would do their utmost in any conflict to avoid those targets. I see no evidence of that having been done, and the consequences are as we have seen. It is vital, if those institutions have indeed been deliberately targeted, that the criminals responsible should be held to account.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

What is the Government’s latest assessment of the assertions about a chlorine chemical weapons attack in the Idlib area on 19 May? We have heard the Minister’s responses—“Let’s bring people to justice. Let’s find who they are. We really implore the Russians not to do this”—but this is happening every day. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and we are supposed to eyeball those who are committing these atrocities and deliberately targeting hospitals, but what are we doing, other than saying, “Oh, well, let’s take them to court at some point in the future”? That is not remotely good enough. The UK and our allies need to show some backbone in this and show that there are consequences for these grotesque war crimes, because every day that Russia gets away with this makes the world a less safe place. It is not being governed by the rules that we are supposed to have set up so that we can all live under international law.

[Dr Murrison]

First, I have an apology for the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday in the urgent question, I think I associated him with the Opposition Front Bench. I am afraid that this was a facet of my general excitement on that occasion, and it was of course entirely wrong. My apologies to the hon. Gentleman. I share his frustration—I really do—and I hope that that has come across, at least in the tone of some of the things I have been saying, but I have to ask him what on earth he thinks we could be doing, other than the things that we are doing with our partners and through the United Nations. Ultimately, this has to be dealt with not by escalating the situation but by dialling it down and ensuring that we restore the focus on UN Security Council resolutions. Although I am all ears, I doubt very much that the hon. Gentleman has many suggestions beyond that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. In my constituency, we have six Syrian Christian families who have been relocated under the Government scheme. The community and church groups are helping those families with accommodation, education for their children, pastoral care, language instruction and furniture and clothes. Other members of those families are threatened in and around the Idlib area, and I spoke to the Immigration Minister about this the other week. Will the Minister work with her to reunite those families in the United Kingdom, and particularly in my constituency of Strangford?

[Dr Murrison]

As I indicated in my remarks, my local authority has also been active in this area. It is important that the process should be conducted properly, and that relocations to places of safety in the United Kingdom should be done on the basis of assessed need. We all know of heart-rending cases, particularly involving families and children, where the best option is indeed relocation to this country, and I am proud of what this country has been doing in that regard. Ultimately, however, I do not think that this situation will be resolved simply by removing people from their homes. The sense we get is that most of them ultimately wish to return home, and I am proud of the fact that this country is in the premier division of providing financial assistance to ensure that proper humanitarian aid and support is given to those in the region itself.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South for securing this urgent question and for reminding us of the legacy of our dear departed colleague. I would like to ask the Minister to think again and to talk to his colleague, the Minister for Immigration. Her announcement yesterday about the resettlement schemes was welcome, and he is right to say that this country gives an enormous amount in aid, but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is also right to say that we could do so much more. There are 12 million people who have been displaced by this conflict in Syria, of whom 6 million are internally displaced and at least 6 million are in the border countries or not far off. The Minister is right to say that we want people to stay close to their country of origin, but we could be resettling so many more people and giving them a home, safety and sanctuary. I think that that is what the people of the United Kingdom expect from us in living out our values, so will he think again and talk to his colleague, the Immigration Minister, about increasing those numbers?

[Dr Murrison]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes yesterday’s statement, which indicated that these matters are always kept under review. The Government will have heard the views being expressed across the House on this matter, but I come back to the central point that we have relocated people. They tend to be the most vulnerable, and that is important. One of the things that characterises this country—I hope she will endorse this—is that we have looked after, first and foremost, the most vulnerable: women, children, the disabled, the elderly and the sick. That is a tribute to the people of this country and their generosity, and I do not think it is right simply to dismiss some of the other aid and assistance that we have been giving in this terrible situation.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

My constituent Sarah Ainsley, who is a sixth-former at Woodbridge High School, came to see me recently to express her concern about the Syrian refugee situation closer to home in Calais, where conditions for refugees—particularly young people coming of age—are not what we would expect for any of our children, and we should not expect them for children and young people in those circumstances. What assurances can I give her that the Government are taking that issue seriously in their bilateral conversations with the Government of France? Further to the points made by my colleagues on these Benches, does the Minister accept that there is more that the UK Government could be doing in the region, notwithstanding what is already being done?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard yesterday’s statement and will hopefully have been reassured, at least in part. The situation in Calais clearly goes well beyond Syria and is part of a much bigger piece. I hope that he will agree that the way to resolve that situation is to ensure that we prevent people from making perilous journeys in the first place. That is the view taken by both the French and UK Governments. Although it is a big piece of work and will take a long time, the imperative has to be to deal with the things that drive people to make that journey and end up in the unsatisfactory situation in France that he describes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The signatories 70 years ago to the fourth Geneva convention, which is international humanitarian law, would not have been surprised that the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has had to request this urgent question.

As a constituency MP with more than 40 Syrian families seeking refuge in my home town of Clydebank in West Dunbartonshire, it is my duty to represent them here. I have two specific points to raise with the Minister. First, in engaging with the United Nations, and maybe reforming international humanitarian law, we need to recognise that NATO leads on what is now called the importance of civilians in operational planning to ensure the protection of civilians. Secondly, with any increase in refugee numbers, will he assure existing refugees across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the necessary investment to ensure their safety, wellbeing and health will not only continue but increase?

[Dr Murrison]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority area has been helpful in accommodating refugees. My experience in my constituency is that they have been warmly welcomed, and I have been pleased with how they have been accommodated in my small part of the south-west of England. Refugees clearly need to be provided with the necessary resources to sustain themselves and to look forward to a potential long-term future, meaning all the things that those of us who are fortunate to have been born and brought up in a pacific part of the world take for granted. I am sure that that applies in his constituency, as it does in mine.

The hon. Gentleman is of course right to underscore the importance of the protection of civilians. As I said earlier, the difficulty in Syria, as in many conflicted parts of our world today, is with providing access to civilians. Our first duty must be to ensure that those who are undertaking that work are safe, and we will continue to ensure, so far as we possibly can, that that is the case.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is right and proper to think about why refugees are refugees and to think about ultimately getting them to return to their homes. However, as other Members have pointed out, right now, today, tomorrow, and the next day, people are being killed. This place is a hell-hole on earth. We have two big bases in Cyprus, which is close by, with 3,500 service personnel and helicopters. Why can we not go in now and get these people out in good numbers and take them to Cyprus? It is not far away, but it is safe enough for them.

[Dr Murrison]

In relation to the current escalation, as I said before, these are internally displaced people. They are within the Idlib governorate, so it is not simply a question of airlifting them to Cyprus, even if Cyprus were to agree to such a thing. However, we hope that the displaced people who are outside Syria will feel able to return home when it is safe to do so. It is not the United Nations’ assessment at the moment that it is safe for them to do so, but that assessment must ultimately change. It will change, and at that point we will do our utmost to assist them to return to their homes, which I would maintain is the wish of the vast majority of refugees and those who currently find themselves displaced.

Gulf of Oman Oil Tanker Attacks

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office if he will make a statement on the attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government completely condemn the attacks on two tankers on 13 June. This is deeply worrying at a time of already significant tension.

Following our own assessment, the UK concludes that it is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible. These latest attacks build on a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger to peace and stability in the region. In targeting civilian shipping, international norms have been violated. It is essential that tankers and crews are able to pass through international waters safely. We call on Iran urgently to cease all forms of destabilising activity, and I reiterated that point during my meeting with the Iranian ambassador this afternoon.

The UK remains in close co-ordination with international partners to find diplomatic solutions to de-escalate tensions. I plan to visit Tehran shortly when I will seek to assist in that de-escalatory process aimed at establishing common ground and a peaceful way forward that will command the respect of all parties.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Minister for that reply.

Tensions are rising incredibly quickly in the wake of the recent tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman, and, of course, as the Minister mentions, the ongoing destabilising behaviour and threats from Iran to increase low-level uranium production. These attacks must be condemned forcefully by all Members from all parts of the House. The Government have yet to provide conclusive evidence beyond the grainy video footage. While the Leader of the Opposition has been quick to question British intelligence and lay all the blame for the escalation at the door of the United States, the German Foreign Minister has urged restraint in assigning responsibility for the attacks and is seeking additional evidence.

The Minister has repeated what the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend: that Iran is almost certainly behind the attacks in the guise of IRGC. Can he explain what the remaining area of uncertainty is and what additional information would be required to prove that Iran is in fact responsible beyond doubt? While fully appreciating that there are, of course, intelligence sensitivities, do the Government recognise that releasing additional evidence into the public domain where possible, or sharing that with allies on a confidential basis, would help to garner further support to build international agreement and, indeed, hopefully dampen tensions or to be able to take any action necessary? Does he agree that an independent inspection from a trusted third party to look at these vessels would be an important part of the answer?

The Minister talked about his talks and his wish to de-escalate the crisis and reach a peaceful diplomatic solution, which is hugely important, in partnership not just with the US but with our European allies. Of course, as he mentioned, the strait of Hormuz is a vital shipping lane, with nearly 30% of oil exports passing through it. What steps is he taking to protect civilian shipping in the region?

Finally, I want to ask about the impact on UK nationals. There are significant numbers of UK nationals living in the region who will look at these escalations and have concerns. What assessment has been made of what would be needed if an evacuation of UK nationals was necessary in the event that tensions were to escalate further, when were such plans last tested and what confidence does the Minister have that those contingencies, which we hope will never be needed, are in place? Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband have gone on hunger strike in protest at her treatment. What steps are being taken to ensure that whatever course of action is pursued does not have any adverse effect on securing the release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other British nationals in prison?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comprehensive list of questions. I will do my best to answer them—perhaps in reverse order, given that I raised the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe with the Iranian ambassador this afternoon. Our position is that we want consular access to Nazanin, and we have reiterated to the ambassador our concern for her welfare. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Iranians will claim that we have no business in this matter because Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a dual national, but we will persist.

On what we are doing to protect shipping and individuals, I emphasise that our aim is to de-escalate the situation and turn down the temperature. I believe that our European friends and partners feel the same way. We will continue to act with the E3 in particular to dial this down, and that is our best way forward in ensuring that all are protected—that the vital trade routes through the straits are protected, and particularly that our nationals in the Gulf region are safe.

The hon. Lady presses me on intelligence. She knows very well that I am not going to comment in detail, or indeed at all, on intelligence. What I can say to her is that we make our own assessment. I hope that she will recognise the form of words that I have used, which is well understood. We are as sure as we can be of the source of this latest attack. Indeed, although the hon. Lady has not mentioned this specifically, we also associate Iran with the attacks of 12 May.

In relation to the assessments made by others, I think it is true to say that our means of determining provenance are among the very best in the world. Others will of course make their own assessments, which are of great interest, but I stand by my assessment that I have iterated to the hon. Lady; I believe that it is of high quality and is highly reliable. She mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and he must speak for himself.

On the independent investigation, the vessels, which since the attack of 13 June were in international waters, remain the property of the ship owners. At the moment, they are being taken to Fujairah in the Emirates. It is for the ship owners to determine what investigation will now take place and who will carry out that investigation. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some confidence that we were approaching the matter in a balanced way, but let me reiterate the Government’s intention to do all in our power to de-escalate this difficult situation.

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

The House will welcome the Minister’s measured statement and, in particular, the fact that he intends to go to Tehran shortly. Will he underline the fact that the Government will use all their influence, particularly with regional organisations—above all, with the United Nations, which is the right place for this matter to be resolved—to de-escalate what is happening in the Gulf? In particular, will he redouble efforts on Britain’s behalf in respect of the Iran nuclear deal to bring all parties back to the table as soon as possible?

[Dr Murrison]

It is vital that we keep to the joint comprehensive plan of action, as I discussed with His Excellency the Iranian ambassador a short while ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency is currently of the view that Iran is compliant. That is important. Its last determination was made on 31 May, so we would routinely expect one in three months’ time—in August—but the agency does keep the matter under continuous review. Clearly, we want to hold Iran to the commitments that it made with the P5+1 and the European Union, and hope very much that that forms the basis of a productive way forward.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I also thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for raising it.

The attacks on oil tankers in the strait of Hormuz are utterly unacceptable, as I am sure every Member will agree. For those of us old enough to remember, they are frighteningly reminiscent of the tanker war of the 1980s, with all the global economic consequences that resulted from that conflict. Just like then, we are at an extremely dangerous juncture, where Iran risks sliding back into a permanent state of isolation from and confrontation with the west. That is, of course, what the theocrats in Iran have always craved and what the Iran nuclear deal was in place to prevent before it was so recklessly and deliberately scuppered by the neo-cons in the Trump Administration, who even now are rattling their sabres in their own craving for war. With that being the case, the question is: where do we go from here?

The Foreign Secretary has rightly warned of the dangers of ever greater escalation in the region and of Britain becoming “enmeshed” in a new conflict, but I would say to the Government that if we face a situation where the theocrat hardliners in Tehran and the neo-con hawks in the White House want to start a regime change conflict in Iran—a country nine times the size of Syria—we have a choice about whether or not to become enmeshed, and it should be this Parliament that makes that choice.

More importantly and more urgently, what we must now do as a country, through the United Nations—as both Secretary-General Guterres and the German Government have called for—is to work to de-escalate the situation as the Minister has suggested, so that it is not just Ali Khamenei on one side and John Bolton on the other deciding to plunge the middle east into this catastrophe, but sensible diplomats from all countries working to independently investigate and verify the facts around the tanker attacks, to prevent any repeat of them and, most of all, to stop the descent into a war that we all fear, and getting the nuclear deal back on track instead. What action will the Minister take this week towards each of those ends?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I hope the hon. Gentleman got the sense from my remarks that the UK Government’s position is that we need to dial this down. He spent some time talking about the Trump Administration. Our position of course is that we respect the US very much indeed; nevertheless, we take our own view on these matters. We have made our own independent assessment, and have listened very carefully to, for example, our E3 colleagues and the position that they have taken. On the other hand, it would be wrong not to record our deep disquiet regarding the destabilising actions of the Iranian Administration. They are quite clearly using proxies to destabilise the region. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his deep experience of these matters, that cannot be allowed to continue.

We need to make it absolutely clear to Tehran—I will lose no opportunity to do so—that its support for terrorist groups is just unacceptable. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join the Government in condemning absolutely the actions of the Iranian Government in that respect. I do appreciate that he is under some difficulty given the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition, but the hon. Gentleman is a good man and I know that he takes an independent view of these things. I hope that he will understand full well the danger of allowing the activities of the sort we have seen from Tehran to continue unchecked. Although I have suggested to him that our stance is very much de-escalatory—this situation is dangerous, we need to turn the temperature down and we must work with our partners to do so—we do have to make it very clear that this behaviour on the part of Iran is not acceptable and that if it wants a peaceful, productive future, it is going to have to work with us in containing some of the appalling behaviour that we have seen displayed across the region.

[Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that responsibility for escalating tension lies firmly with the Iranian regime that has been sponsoring or carrying out these acts of sabotage? When he visits Tehran, will he make it clear to that regime that attacking Norwegian, Japanese and other foreign shipping is far more likely to bring the United States and her European allies closer together than to drive them apart?

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these things, will know very well that when dealing with Iran we are dealing with a number of moving parts, and sometimes it can be a challenge to know who precisely to address. However, if I were offering candid advice, I would say to Tehran: “The worst thing you can possibly do is to attack ships in the ownership of countries like Norway and Japan—that seems to be highly counterproductive.”

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—the other Dunbartonshire —on gaining this UQ today. I also congratulate the Minister on the tone that he is taking in terms of trying to turn down the heat.

It is clear that the ongoing tension in the Gulf of Oman is of grave concern to the entire House. I doubt, though, that many of us are shocked that we have reached this present position, because the tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is founded in a complex history, predating the Islamic Republic at the times of the tyranny of the Shah and the overthrowing of democratic government. We need to be aware that that informs the present situation.

While SNP Members join the Minister in his condemnation, the idea that the Government’s assessment leads to

“responsibility for the attacks almost certainly”

—“almost certainly” being the operative words—lying with Iran gives cause for concern. I therefore hope that the call by the United Nations, as we have heard, for an independent entity to conduct an investigation would be the next step. I hope that the Minister agrees.

As we often hear the Government talk of “global Britain”, will the Minister advise the House on what plans they have to urge a re-engagement to de-escalate the tension between Iran and the United States, and other allies such as Norway, which is a close ally of the UK? May I congratulate him on going to Tehran to have these direct conversations?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. In terms of what we are doing, talking is important, because if we do not talk, there is a risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation, and nowhere is that more likely than in our dealings with Iran, with whom, I think it is true to say, we have not always enjoyed cordial relations. I would not want to downplay that at all. The fact that I hope to go to Tehran very soon is perhaps, I hope, evidence of our desire to make sure that we maintain a dialogue on these matters with Tehran.

The hon. Gentleman tried to press me on intelligence matters. I am not going to be drawn on that. I think he must understand from what I have said that we are quite clear where the blame for this lies. He calls for an independent investigation. I hope that I made it clear in response to an earlier question that this matter must primarily rest with the ship owners, since the vessels are currently in international waters—or they were. They are now on their way to the United Arab Emirates.

On the earlier attack on the 12th of last month, that is, of course, since it happened within UAE territorial waters, a matter for the UAE. We are assisting, in a small way, in that investigation. I have to say again that our assessment is that the authority that is highly likely to have been involved in causing that earlier incident is the same one that we firmly believe is responsible for the latest outrage.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for this urgent question and my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response—a measured response that is helpful to the House. He made clear his determination to calm this situation down. It is a complex and very long-standing situation that has very recently increased quite markedly in vehemence.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to emphasise to all parties the risks and dangers of actions such as those at the weekend, and of words that raise the temperature and increase the risk of an armed confrontation by accident or design? Will he say a little about where we are in terms of the improved financial facility as part of our obligations to the JCPOA, which remains unfinished business? Above all, will we make it very clear to all parties in the region that a further war would be a disaster that could not be confined to its boundaries, that the consequences would be long-lasting and incredibly onerous, and that all states owe an obligation to their peoples to desist from such actions and do everything they can to prevent such a risk of war in the region again?

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend and predecessor knows a great deal about this region. I pay tribute to him because I think this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I congratulate him on his extraordinary service.

In relation to the cost of what might perhaps happen, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. About a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the strait of Hormuz. While there are mitigating things that can be done in the event that the straits were closed off again, the impact would be significant. As he knows, a great deal of Europe’s liquefied natural gas comes from the Gulf. Inevitably, after a fairly short space of time, there would be severe economic penalties. Above all, of course, we are concerned about the human cost of another conflict, which has, sadly, been seen too much in this region over the past few years. That is why the most important thing to do is to turn down the heat. He refers very kindly to my measured and well-chosen words. It is important for all concerned to prevail on those who are principals in this matter to engage in talk rather than the alternative, which would be massively expensive for all concerned.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

While the independent investigations that the Minister has mentioned continue—we all want to see the results of those—the fact is that six vessels have been attacked in just over a month. It has been suggested that one practical step that could be taken is to provide some kind of security escort for vessels in the Gulf of Oman and passing through the strait of Hormuz. I very much support what he said about the need to de-escalate tension. In his reply to a previous question, was he trying to indicate to the House that he thought that such a step might actually make matters worse rather than better? I endorse what he said about this ultimately having to be solved by negotiation. Ultimately, the United States of America and Iran will need to get round a table to sort out the difficulties that currently involve both of them.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman is of course correct—ultimately, that is where the solution to this lies.

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to consider escorts of some sort through the strait of Hormuz. It is not our judgment at the moment that that would be appropriate. I think it would be seen as provocative and escalatory. My view—the Government’s view—is that our interests are best served at this time by trying to turn down the heat on this, and that is what we will continue to do. But clearly we keep all these things under review.

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

I am very grateful for the tone that my right hon. Friend is adopting on this. It is absolutely the right tone to take with a country that has been extremely challenging not just to us but to many countries in the region. Has he reached out to other countries, because it is not just the UK, or Europe, that relies on energy supplies from the Persian Gulf, but China and India? How has the interaction been with their embassies and in our relationships with those countries in making sure that this is de-escalated?

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Of course we have a dialogue on these matters and many others—particularly with the E3, as I said. He will know that the Japanese and the Germans very recently paid a high-level visit to Tehran. Clearly, they are among our interlocutors. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Secretary Pompeo yesterday to discuss all these measures. We are going to have to continue that dialogue; clearly, we cannot act alone. But my general sense among our European interlocutors at the moment is that we are on the right track and that they desire to see us de-escalate this matter so that a problem does not become a full-blown crisis.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister has said in response to several questions that he does not want to be drawn further on intelligence. Will he arrange a briefing for Privy Counsellors from across the House with the appropriate officials, to tell us what the Government know about this incident and what they do not yet know or cannot be sure about?

[Dr Murrison]

All I can do is reiterate the point I have made, which is that we do not comment on security matters. The right hon. Gentleman will have to take my assurances that we have made our own independent assessment of this. He will recognise, since he is wise in the ways of these things, that I have chosen my words very carefully. While it is rare for intelligence operators to be categoric in the advice they give to Ministers, they have been as clear as they can be, based on the evidence they have provided, that the provenance of the latest attack is very clear. I hope he will understand what I mean. I do not think there would be any great virtue in the course of action he described.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

We have heard an assessment that all the major players in this situation, including Iran, do not want to see it escalate into a war. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that assessment?

[Dr Murrison]

I do, as a matter of fact. I think there is very little for Iran in provoking a conflict. The consequences for Iran would be severe. The consequences for the regime would be severe and unpredictable. I feel strongly that, although Iran clearly wishes to ensure that it is given the respect and dignity it deserves, it has no interest in causing a war in the Gulf region.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

The Minister rightly referred to a pattern of behaviour by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Hezbollah and Houthi proxy allies. Could it be that the Iranian regime, or elements within it, wish to push up the world oil price at this time because their oil production is falling drastically and because of their internal economic crisis? Would it not be wiser to listen to our own intelligence services, rather than the Leader of the Opposition, who was in the pay of Iranian state propaganda channel Press TV for many years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I can certainly agree with the latter point; that is not a difficult question for me to answer in the affirmative. I listen closely to our own intelligence sources. I have never knowingly listened to the Leader of the Opposition, although I will say this about him: he is at least consistent—he has that virtue, and it is a big virtue for a politician. He has been doing and saying the same things for as long as I can remember, and he never misses an opportunity to support those who mean our country ill or attack our values. That is pretty well understood across the House.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The Government’s assessment has concluded that the attacks of 13 June were almost certainly the work of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates effectively as a state within a state and which in April was designated a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government’s approach is to seek to de-escalate the situation, but can he confirm that his office will keep under careful review the actions of the IRGC and keep Britain’s options open as to whether this country should also designate the IRGC a terrorist organisation?

[Dr Murrison]

Our intent is to de-escalate the situation, and I do not think it would be helpful to do anything that ran contrary to that. As I suspect my right hon. Friend knows, it is not the Government’s policy to lay before the House the organisations that they may or may not be considering for proscription.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I completely agree with him that the Iranian dictatorship is a source of much of the conflict in the region, sponsoring organisations such as the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and prolonging a brutal civil war in Syria through its support for Assad. Why does he think that so many people always seem to demand more evidence about allegations against Iran or Russia, but rush to condemn America or Israel without any questions at all—like, for example, the Leader of the Opposition, who the Minister rightly said had taken £20,000 from the official state broadcaster of the fascistic Iranian regime?

[Dr Murrison]

I gather from the harrumphing from those on the Opposition Front Bench that my de-escalatory attempts were not terribly helpful; clearly it ruffled some feathers, and I understand that. The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are on the record. I do not diverge from him at all, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench were listening.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. and wise doctor for his measured response. Does he agree that the raison d’être of Iran is exporting revolution throughout the region and further afield? The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned the militias aligned to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in places such as Lebanon, where they are trying to destroy the state institutions of that small country, which is utterly negative and appalling. What is obviously needed is fundamental change in the Iranian regime. How do the Minister and his colleagues believe that that will be brought about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to be clear about the nature of the regime in Tehran, but we have to deal with lots of regimes across the world, and our best interests are served by talking to them and having a relationship with them. We will agree with them, as it happens, on a number of things—that is for sure—but behaviour of the sort that he has outlined is completely unacceptable. It destabilises the region. It has pushed a number of countries into complete chaos, and it must stop. The future for a great country like Iran is very bright indeed. It is a rich country—potentially extremely rich—and for its people, I would say: for goodness’ sake, let us have a brighter future and start to turn this down and improve our relationships. We will never agree on everything, I suspect, but we need to look forward to a much brighter future. That will not happen for as long as the regime in Tehran continues to sponsor the proxies that he referred to.

[Mr Speaker]

For the Minister to be commended for his honour was doubtless welcome. To be congratulated also upon his wisdom is doubtless positively exhilarating, and I feel sure that today—at least for now—his cup runneth over in appreciation of his hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

These attacks are to be condemned, and I commend the Minister for his cool words. There is, of course, the prospect of other drums beginning to beat, which is ominous. Surely our influence should be used to urge the US and Iran to re-engage in talks, rather than risk a crescendo of warmongering. Will he consider whether an international inquiry into these attacks and the wider question of safety of shipping in the Gulf would be more productive, given that it has an international effect?

[Dr Murrison]

There is an investigation under way already in relation to the attacks of 12 May, and I have referred to that. It is principally the responsibility of the UAE, since that happened within UAE territorial waters. This happened in international waters, and the vessels concerned are heading for the UAE. It is for the ship owners to determine how they wish to investigate the damage done to their vessels. However, we stand ready, with others, to be of assistance wherever we can in these matters. As the right hon. Lady will probably appreciate, we have some expertise in matters of this sort, being a maritime nation, and if any of those skillsets can be of assistance, we will obviously be prepared to offer them.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

So what does the wise doctor think their motive was?

[Dr Murrison]

I am not sure I am prepared to second-guess the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. My right hon. Friend is a very wise man—very wise, indeed—and he has a lot of experience in these matters, and no doubt he has his own views on the motive behind this attack. I think the important thing is that, whatever the motive, we just need to prevail on Tehran to turn the temperature down on this. I hope very much that we can encourage, procure and broker dialogue that will enable us to deal with this is in a pacific way that does not involve further escalation, which is in nobody’s interests.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

Mr Speaker, you have heard from across the House that there is complete agreement with the Minister’s desire for de-escalation on this, so is it not extraordinarily irresponsible for anyone in a position of responsibility to suggest that there is in some way a moral equivalence between our greatest ally, the United States of America, and the Islamic Republic, which we know is the greatest exporter of terror and, as the Minister says, is almost certainly responsible for this? To go as far as to suggest that this has in some way been caused by the Americans setting out bait, and that the only fault of the Iranians has been to take the bait left by the Americans, shows that anyone who espouses these views is simply not fit for high office in this country.

[Dr Murrison]

I do not want to intrude on private grief, but I hope the hon. Gentleman’s remarks have been heard by the leader of his party and those on his party’s Front Bench.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My wise right hon. Friend on the Front Bench is a distinguished man of science, and he has concluded from the evidence that the IRGC is responsible for these attacks on shipping in international waters. At the same time, Iran has announced that it will breach its obligations under the nuclear deal in 10 days’ time. Given that evidence, what further proof does my right hon. Friend require before we take stringent sanctions against the IRGC and against Iran?

[Dr Murrison]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I hope he has sensed from my remarks that the intent is to de-escalate this. I make no apologies for the repeated use of that word “de-escalation”. The sanctions he has referred to—of course, sanctions are always on the table—would certainly escalate this and, in our judgment at this juncture, would make a bad situation worse. However, we of course keep all things under review.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

These are obviously very serious moments. What assessment has been made of the potential impact on the UK, and indeed all our constituents, in terms of fuel supplies in the event that this disruption in and around the strait of Hormuz is serious and sustained?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this. I have referred to a fifth of the world’s oil going through those straits, to Qatari LNG that powers up much of Europe and to the effect, potentially, on our constituents’ fuel bills. He may be aware that we have about 90 days of contingency through the International Energy Agency, but of course we do not really want to use that. We want those straits to remain open for the world’s trade, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they do.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I have been on the record in this Chamber many times saying that I am opposed to any territorial military action against Iran. I think that would be a complete and utter escalation beyond anything we would actually be able to control or make stay in place. I have listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend about Britain standing prepared to give assistance, especially in naval matters, and we are of course talking about international waters. I understand his not wanting to send Royal Navy vessels there at this time to provide support, but may I ask my him whether any conversations are taking place with international bodies such as the UN about being prepared, if need be, to offer protection to international shipping in international waters, which of course are nothing to do with the territorial areas of Iran? Indeed, if Iran were telling the truth in saying that it was not involved, it would not have any objection to international escorts for international vessels.

[Dr Murrison]

I am not sure that Iran would quite see it that way, and that is very important because we do need to try to turn down the temperature on this. The straight answer is that we do not propose, as things stand at the moment, to escort vessels through the strait of Hormuz. We do not feel that is necessary, based on what we know, and we feel that it would be escalatory, so there are no plans to do such a thing. However, we clearly have to keep a close eye on this situation, and in the event that there is a deterioration in the situation, we have to consider adopting a new posture. I hope very much that will not be necessary.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the ongoing impact on the Iranian economy of US sanctions?

[Dr Murrison]

The answer is that the sanctions are significant and, to a large extent, have influenced the behaviour of Tehran. I hope that we can work towards a future where those sanctions will not be necessary. In the long term, the lifting of sanctions is important to restore Iran to the international community of nations. However, there is no point in disguising the significance of the sanctions that have been imposed. I hope, through the E3 and others, such as the JCPOA and the special purpose vehicle INSTEX—the instrument in support of trade exchanges—that we will be capable, or able, at least to hold open some channel of communication with Iran to give it the sense that it is not completely isolated from the international community. If it is, I fear it is going to be far more difficult to restore Iran to the international community to which I have referred.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

The recent attacks on the Norwegian and Japanese-owned oil tankers will no doubt resonate around the world. I welcome the Minister’s dialled-down and calm approach to this very sensitive matter, and I am sure that is shared by all Members in the Chamber today. Is he able to advise on what can be done to ensure the protection of the global crude oil supply, and of the vessels and crews, irrespective of which flag they sail under?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I come back to my theme, I suppose, which is that the way to deal with this is to de-escalate the situation. If we do that, we protect those vessels in the Gulf and in international waters, and we protect individuals—both our own nationals and others—in the wider region.

Yemen Peace Process

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The unfolding crisis in Yemen reminds us, as we struggle with our own domestic issues, that they are as nothing compared with the disaster that is unfolding in that country. It gives us a sense of perspective. Set against that, of course we can never do enough. I have been in this job for two weeks, and I am already enfolded by a sense of frustration and inadequacy. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), who speaks for the Scottish National party, hopes that we might have an embassy again in Sana’a, and so do I. That would be a litmus test of real progress in Yemen, but we are a long way from there at the moment. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for bringing this matter forward. I am sorry that the turnout has not been greater, but what we lack in numbers, we have made up for in quality today. No one in this House knows more about Yemen than he does. He is a tremendous advocate for the people of that country, the place of his birth, and I salute him for a really high-quality speech.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said today, there has been some progress. It is always a good thing in debates of this sort to try to find something positive to say. The Stockholm peace process has progressed, in baby steps, over the past several weeks, and General Lollesgaard, the head of the UN mission to support the Hodeidah agreement, confirmed on 14 May that Houthi forces had redeployed away from those vital ports that have been cited in the debate. Progress is painfully and disappointingly slow. Nevertheless, the United Nations has rightly described Hodeidah and Salif as a lifeline. Last month, they were the entry points for well over half of all the food imported into Yemen. Given that more than one in three Yemenis rely on aid as their only source of food, those ports are truly vital.

As I have said, there is still a lot to be done. Our country is one among many, but we do punch above our weight. I have only been doing this job for two weeks, but I have been struck by how much effort this Government have put into trying to make a difference in Yemen. Hon. Members have generously mentioned the contribution made by the Foreign Secretary, who has been to Yemen very recently. He has assembled the Quad, and we are the penholder at the United Nations in this matter. I am proud of that fact. I am also proud of the amount of aid that the United Kingdom has given to Yemen, and I will come back to that if I may. A number of Members have asked questions about aid, and I should like to describe and enumerate that issue a little more.

Central to all this is the work of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, who I spoke to yesterday. I am grateful for the support for him that has been expressed today by a number of contributors to the debate, not least the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

Let us be clear that only a political solution can end this situation. It is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It might not seem that way to the general public, because it does not get the kind of coverage in our media that I think it deserves, but that remains the case nevertheless. Millions of Yemenis are experiencing the most appalling suffering. I am not keen on statistics, because they can sometimes betray and let down the sheer scale of some of these ghastly tragedies, but 24 million people—a staggering 80% of the population—are now in need of humanitarian assistance. UN Security Council resolutions 2451 and 2452, proposed by the UK, were unanimously adopted in December 2018 and 2019. It is important to understand that the UK has been right at the heart of trying to resolve this desperate situation—with the assistance of others, of course.

As the right hon. Member for Leicester East and others mentioned, we do not currently have a diplomatic presence in Yemen, but let me assure them that we monitor the situation on the ground closely, and this assessment is reviewed on an ongoing basis. As soon as it is safe to do so, we will ensure that we have proper diplomatic and, importantly, consular representation on the ground. I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about constituents who are wrapped up in this situation, and not being helped by the fact that the normal assistance that we would give to UK citizens is being hampered because we simply cannot have normal diplomatic or consular relations at this time.

With regard to the right hon. Member for Leicester East’s question about the upcoming state visit, I should like to remind Members of the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made only yesterday at the Yemen Day meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen, where he said that he would raise Yemen with President Trump and that he had already discussed it with Secretary Pompeo. It would be remarkable if that were not the case. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion of a UK-hosted conference for peace in London. As I have said, we are just one country among many, but we are influential and we have taken a lead on Yemen. In the spirit of the soft power that he cited, I will certainly consider his suggestion very carefully indeed.

I should like to make a few remarks about the UK’s response to the humanitarian crisis. We are providing a further £200 million this financial year, bringing our total humanitarian contribution since the start of the conflict to £770 million. I have checked with officials this morning, because I know that several Members are concerned about the roll-out of that money, and I am told that more than £600 million of that sum has already been paid. I will go further and say that in my early conversations with my interlocutors over the past two weeks, I have made it clear that those who have pledged aid must give that aid. I have underscored the fact that it is not good enough simply to pledge money, and that they must hand it over.

This is slightly complicated because most of those interlocutors, including the UK, disburse most of those funds through non-governmental organisations. That is quite right and proper, and it is the best way to achieve our aims, but the process means that there could be some delay in disbursing funds. According to the programmes and schedules of the NGOs, donors must hand over the cash as soon as they possibly can, and that has been the burden of my conversations with my interlocutors over the past few days. I hope that that gives right hon. and hon. Members the reassurance that they were rightly seeking from me.

Our latest disbursement of funds will help to meet some of the immediate food needs of the people in Yemen. It will enable us to feed people, to treat them and to ensure that they get better access to water and basic sanitation, which leads me to the subject of cholera and watery diarrhoea.

Almost 300,000 suspected cases have been recorded by the World Health Organisation. Our support is saving lives, and the British public need to know that, but it goes beyond simply giving people vaccines—simple though that is in the case of cholera. It has to mean a much wider public health approach to tackling what we in this country would call an “antique disease”— a disease that should not be affecting people in the 21st century—and that means instructing people in proper hygiene. We need teams who can do that, and we must ensure that people have proper access to clean water. GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, understands that full well, which is why we are supporting it and UNICEF and other partners to help vaccinate over 2 million people in high-priority districts.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about cholera. It is a truly terrible medieval disease, and the outbreak is the largest in the world. Does he understand that the cause of the outbreak is the smashing up of the infrastructure through the nightly bombings by the Saudi and Emirati air force? If infrastructure is smashed up like that, and if sewage is mixed with clean water, cholera emerges. Will he bear that in mind as he makes progress in the Foreign Office on this difficult issue?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to address some of his remarks in my contribution, but he is quite right that poor, broken infrastructure inevitably means cholera, particularly in a country like Yemen.

There is some good news in that the instances of cholera in Yemen have fallen for the fourth week running. That is positive and shows the difference that British and international support is making, and although it is early days, I very much hope that that positive trend continues.

Several right hon. and hon Members spoke about what we do next—what happens in the event that the conflict is resolved to the point that we can start rebuilding Yemen. I think we have actually started that. We have to look at Yemen’s economy and see what we can do to support it—even in its current desperate state and even at a time when the priority clearly has to be to stop people fighting and to resolve issues relating to the humanitarian crisis. We need to ensure that what passes for a Government in Yemen is able to disburse funds to public servants, and we have been working on that. By that, I mean disbursing funds to public servants right across the country, not just those in the parts that are controlled by the Government of Yemen. We have made it clear that the Government must pay public sector workers, some of whom have not been paid for two years.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a balanced speech. He forensically dissected the conflict in Yemen, rightly pointing out that it is not just one war, but several conflicts. The principal one that we are engaged with today is clearly the conflict between the Government of Yemen and the Houthi insurgency, but there is also the war in the south between the Government of Yemen and the so-called Southern Movement. Most worryingly for those who live some distance from the middle east, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula continues to be active. We may not hear a great deal about that in the context of Yemen right now, but it remains there, and we must be alive to the threat that it poses, both to Yemen and to the rest of the world.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the World Food Programme. The protection of NGOs in general is a matter of the utmost importance, and they must be allowed to do what they do safely. The World Food Programme is absolutely essential to resolving the situation in Yemen right now, and its work—for example, to ensure the safety of grain in the Red Sea Mills—is vital to unlock those stores and to ensure that people have food. I salute the World Food Programme and all the NGOs that put themselves at considerable risk. Looking around the world today, there is a real risk that those people’s lives are often in peril, but they continue never the less.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about southern voices in Yemen, I am absolutely clear that any process needs to include all the people of Yemen, including those vital southern voices. Indeed, the UN special envoy Martin Griffiths reaffirmed that in his most recent briefing to the Security Council on 15 May. It is right that the UK continues to engage, so far as it possibly can, with a wide range and diverse group of Yemeni individuals, and we will continue to do that wherever we can.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) made several vital points in his important contribution. The evidence stands in relation to child soldiers. We are appalled by the presence of child soldiers, some of whom we are told are as young as eight years old on the Houthi side of this conflict. The evidence is clearer for the Houthis, but the accusation stands that both sides are employing minors in this conflict. That must stop. It is a truly terrible thing, and it must stop.

I entirely agree with the need to involve women in that process, and Martin Griffiths made that clear in his remarks. It is always important to point out that conflict leads to an increase in gender-based violence, and that is certainly happening in this case. I am pleased that we continue to support the UN, particularly the Yemeni women’s pact for peace and security, which is extremely important. As far as we can, we will ensure that all groups within Yemen are involved in this process.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our commitment to Yemen must be long standing. As he will know as Chair of the International Development Committee, the important thing is that we do not consider the job done when one way or another this conflict inevitably grinds to a halt—although may that be sooner rather than later—because we need a plan for the future. We have also heard about the dusting off of old plans where they may be of assistance. He is also right to call for a ceasefire, which we of course want. Goodness me, wouldn’t that be good? We must plan for what might come in the future while doing everything we can with all our interlocutors to impress the importance of dialling down and stopping the conflict, and I will come on to why that is important not just for Yemen, but for the wider region.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) rightly concentrated on the impact that the conflict is having on the most vulnerable: the children. I am pleased that UK aid means that the screening and treating of 30,000 children for malnutrition is going ahead this year. That will always be inadequate, but these are big numbers, and it means so much at a human level for people who would otherwise be left to face their fate. Of course, that action comes from the £770 million previously cited, which puts the UK in the premier division—head and shoulders above all the other countries with which we can reasonably be compared.

People in this country are sometimes said to be parsimonious when it comes to international development. I do not believe that to be the case, but they want to know that their money is being spent properly. I do not think there will be many objections to spending money in Yemen today. Incidentally, I agree with my hon. Friend’s insistence that the UK must be a champion of the international rules-based system. It is something that goes without saying, but she is right to make that important point.

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has probably left, but I will nevertheless deal with his points because he is an acknowledged expert in this area. He is obviously concerned about Saudi Arabia’s purchasing of arms from the UK, and we have been around this buoy many times. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who speaks for the Opposition, knows pretty much what I am going to say. The Labour party, with all respect, is an expert in this matter, because it was famously involved in some of this when in office. However, this is not something that can by any means be attributed to any particular political party. We do comply with the EU consolidated criteria and with the tenets of the Export Control Act 2002, which is so important. I am absolutely clear that this country must ethically pursue whatever we do. I am prepared to argue, though this is probably neither the time nor the place—you may call me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—that if the United Kingdom did not sell arms in the way it does, for legitimate self-defence in accordance with international law, other countries would do so, and probably a lot less ethically.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is concerned about the investigation of things that have gone wrong in the prosecution of Saudi Arabia’s operations in Yemen, and there have been some horrible examples. The UK is heavily involved in ensuring that when that happens, as it regrettably does in conflict, it is properly investigated. It is not right to dismiss the Joint Incidents Assessment Team, which has produced over 100 reports on incidents during this conflict. We will clearly hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s feet to the fire in relation to the investigation of these matters, as we will with all our partners in the region. I hope that gives some reassurance.

I am being hurried along, and it is absolutely right that the Whip on duty should do that, but, needless to say, the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) were superb. I agree with much of what they have to say. The latter, of course, has an extensive geopolitical understanding of the region, for which he is famed, but both speeches were balanced and highly commendable.

The Government are fully committed to ending the devastating conflict in Yemen. We believe that supporting the work of Martin Griffiths and the UN-led process is the best way to do that, for which I heard general assent in the Chamber today. It is in the interests of all parties, but especially of the Yemeni people themselves, that we work together to find a lasting solution to this appalling situation. For our part, the UK will do everything we can, both through our determined diplomatic efforts and through our generous humanitarian support, to help find the solutions about which the right hon. Member for Leicester East spoke so passionately.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

4. What discussions he has had with his Omani counterpart on the treatment of the minority Shihuh tribe in the Musandam region.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government are aware of the concern surrounding the imprisonment of members of the Shihuh tribe in Oman. Her Majesty’s ambassador has raised this with the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Muscat. We continue to monitor the matter closely and are exploring the allegations further. Discussions on human rights form part of our bilateral exchanges with our close ally and partner Oman, including at the recent joint working group on 25 April. I look forward to meeting the Omani ambassador for the first time next week to discuss a wide range of issues.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I welcome the Minister to his place for his first Question Time. I am glad he is aware of the case of the Shihuh tribesmen from Musandam who have been given life sentences for something as trivial as communicating with human rights groups. Amnesty International has said that the convictions are “grossly unfair,” with credible claims that torture has been used to extract confessions. Will he undertake to speak to his Omani counterpart about this particular case and make it clear that the UK expects to see all citizens of Oman treated equally and fairly?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This Government take their obligations in respect of human rights extremely seriously. When speaking to our friends and allies, we make this point and share best practice all the time. As I said, I will be seeing the Omani ambassador shortly and have no doubt that we will discuss a range of issues. I suspect this case may form part of that discussion.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effect of the outcome of the recent parliamentary election in Spain on the (a) prosperity and (b) sovereignty of Gibraltar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

18. What recent assessment he has made of the security threat posed by Hezbollah to (a) Israel and (b) the middle east.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The UK remains deeply concerned about Hezbollah’s actions and behaviour in the region. As the Home Secretary outlined in February, Hezbollah’s destabilising role in the middle east led to our proscription of the group in its entirety. We continue to condemn Hezbollah and all armed militia groups for seeking to amass illegal weapons and arms, and for putting the security of Lebanon and Israel at risk, in direct contradiction of UN Security Council resolution 1701.

[Robert Halfon]

I offer my strong congratulations to the Minister on his new role; he is a good man.

I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to proscribe Hezbollah in full earlier this year. Israel recently revealed that it has exposed Hezbollah cells in border villages on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. Does the Minister share my grave concern and agree that were the Golan Heights to be under Syrian control, the security risk would be catastrophic, not only for Israel but for the entire region?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous words, and I share his concerns about this matter. We condemn Hezbollah—we could not be clearer than that—and have gone further than most countries in doing so. However, we consider the Golan Heights to be occupied territory, which is contrary to international law. We do not believe that the Golan Heights are part of the territory of the state of Israel.

[Victoria Prentis]

I too congratulate the Minister on his new appointment.

I welcome the Government’s recent decision to proscribe the whole of Hezbollah, but will the Minister tell me what more we are doing to confront people in this country who encourage the group’s terrorism?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments.

We have proscribed Hezbollah, so it will not be able to demonstrate and spread its message of hate, contrary to the interests and values of this country. I do not think we could have done much more, immediately, to make it clear that the organisation is beyond the law and that people who campaign for or show support for it are committing a criminal act.

[Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hezbollah, as a proxy for Iran, promotes terrorism and instability right throughout the middle east. Last year, Hezbollah built six terror tunnels between the border of Lebanon and Israel, for the purpose of promoting terrorism and ruining any chances of peace; why has all that not been taken more seriously?

[Dr Murrison]

I hope the hon. Lady will understand that it is most definitely being taken seriously. Hezbollah is a clear and present danger: it destabilises the region and also offers instability in this country, which is why we have proscribed it in its entirety. That proscription has now taken effect—it happened in March—and I very much hope not only that it will assist in ensuring that activity in this country is curtailed but, more particularly, that when we are dealing with the region we make it absolutely clear that Hezbollah has no place in the middle east’s future.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

I too welcome the Minister. Will he confirm that Hezbollah is in Syria working as a proxy for the Iranian regime and the Assad Government, and has played a malign role, killing many, many innocent people in the Syrian conflict?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Hezbollah is a force for evil in our world today, which is why we have taken the strong action we have against it.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Hezbollah is arguably the most successful export to come out of revolutionary Iran. Does the Minister share my serious concern that we are talking not just about Hezbollah but about the presence of the Revolutionary Guard of Iran in Syria today? Does he share my serious concerns about the new threat this poses on the northern borders of Israel?

[Dr Murrison]

We need to understand what is happening in Syria and the fact that so many proxies of one sort or another are active and engaged in it—it is a maelstrom of such activity, and we need to deal with that. I think we know which countries are behind support for this in Syria, and all we can do is do what we can to maintain good relationships, as far as we possibly can, with those countries in the hope that our good counsel will prevail and that we will be able to curtail some of these unpleasant groups.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

8. What his diplomatic priorities are for the upcoming state visit to the UK of President Trump.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

21. What assessment he has made of the (a) sources of funding and supply for, (b) size of the arsenal behind and (c) political implications for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process of continued rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza strip.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The UK remains committed to a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we maintain a regular dialogue with our international counterparts about the peace process. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific met Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev on 30 April, and raised our concerns about recent Israeli comments on west bank annexation. We wholly condemn rocket fire by Hamas and other militants. We urge the parties to make progress towards a long-term agreement, and we look forward to the details of Mr Jared Kushner’s proposals.

[Nigel Dodds]

The successful conclusion of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians is absolutely key to peace in the region; we accept that. Does the Minister not agree that the continued rejection of peace talks by Hamas and its continued commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel are real problems, and that until that is addressed it is very difficult for Israel to sit down and negotiate with Hamas?

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I strongly urge Hamas to desist from its activities. There is no way we can proceed towards a two-state solution until we have revocation of violence. Particularly from his position of strength as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament and somebody who is well used to these matters, he speaks extremely wisely.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I welcome the Minister’s condemnation of any proposals to annex Occupied Palestinian Territories, but we know that President Trump will announce the “deal of the century” shortly after he visits this country next month. It might include proposals that support the Netanyahu Administration’s idea of going ahead with annexation, so what will the Minister do to prevent that, and what will he do if they do?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question, but I am certainly not going to speculate on the matter he raises. Apropos the Foreign Secretary’s remarks a few moments ago, we are America’s closest friend and ally, but that does not prevent us from criticising it from time to time; that is what being friends is all about. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I gently point out that on 26 March officials in our embassy in Washington raised concerns directly with US counterparts regarding the United States’s decision to recognise the Golan Heights as part of the state of Israel, which is unacceptable.

[Andrew Selous]

rose—

[Andrew Selous]

A perception that the west applies the rule of law partially undermines our ability to broker peace, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the international rule of law is applied equally to the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and to terrorist elements within Palestine?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that we need to be fair and equitable, and nowhere more so than in the middle east. I point to the postponed demolition of Khan al-Ahmar in area C of the west bank as an example of a positive intervention. We urge Israel to convert that postponement into something permanent. Although we are clearly friends with Israel, and indeed equally, I hope, with the Palestinians, that enables us from time to time to give a word to the wise, and that is what we will continue to do on both sides.

[Mr Hollobone]

While unemployment in Gaza is at 50% and two thirds of Gazans live in poverty, over half of Hamas’s budget goes on military expenditure. Would not the lives of civilians in Gaza be improved, and the prospects for the peace process enhanced, were Hamas to spend its money, time and effort on the civilian population, rather than on building up its rocket arsenal?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Good governance means doing the things he describes. If Hamas aspires to run its territory as a good Government, it must address the concerns of its population. I will just point out that we have supported Gazans recently by addressing critical water and sanitation needs through a £2 million grant to UNICEF, and we have announced £2 million for the International Committee of the Red Cross for medicines and surgical supplies, so we are doing our bit.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I join colleagues in welcoming the new Minister for the Middle East to his post. Although I applaud the sterling work that other Foreign Office Ministers have been doing to cover the absence, it really is a disgrace that, at a time like this, we should have 50 days without a dedicated Minister for such a critical region. Does he agree that it is also a disgrace that Prime Minister Netanyahu is proposing to give the Israeli Government and Parliament the legal authority to ignore rulings from the Israeli Supreme Court and to put himself personally above the law?

[Dr Murrison]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that in general we would support the Israeli Government, who are the only democracy in the middle east and a firm friend of this country. Where we find that our friends are doing something that we consider to be edgy or with which we disagree, we will certainly be keen to discuss that with them. I will meet the Israeli ambassador shortly to discuss a range of issues, and that matter might form part of our discussions, given that the right hon. Lady has raised it on the Floor of the House.

[Emily Thornberry]

We of course support Israel, but we also support the rule of law. We can all see where this is going. Exactly one year on from the slaughter on the Gaza border, Netanyahu is taking a further giant step away from democracy and the rule of law by giving himself immunity against prosecution and complete impunity when it comes to attacking the freedoms of Israeli Arabs, ignoring the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and completing the annexation of the west bank. Does the Minister agree that now is finally the time for the British Government to take a different step by recognising the state of Palestine while there is still a state left to recognise?

[Dr Murrison]

The crux of the right hon. Lady’s question is whether the British Government would recognise the state of Palestine, and I think she can anticipate my response. We support the two-state solution, when the time is right. That inevitably implies that we will support—recognise—the state of Palestine, but in the meantime we are engaged in building institutions that are necessary to sustain such a state. As I said earlier, that means building institutions across the piece, and we will continue to do that.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T8. I welcome the new Minister and hope that he will visit Baghdad and Irbil. Will he finalise the long-delayed official visit by the Kurdistan Regional Government President and Prime Minister to boost our important bilateral relationship with a strong KRG in a federal Iraq?

[The Minister for the Middle East (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I thank the hon. Lady. She can be sure that I will visit Iraq again—it is a long time since I was there, in 2003. I support the points she made.

The thing with Iraq at the moment is that we appear to have rolled back Daesh, but there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly in and around Irbil, to ensure that those who perpetrated these dreadful crimes on the Iraqi people are brought to account. Work in that respect is ongoing. I look forward to seeing it on the ground.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

What co-ordination is taking place between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID to ensure that British aid is given in pursuance of defined foreign policy goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new Minister and thank him for agreeing to meet me and my constituent this afternoon, so early in his tenure. What assessment has he made of the chances of the ceasefire in Yemen bearing success and opportunities to help people such as my constituent, Luke Symons, who is being held captive there?

[Dr Murrison]

I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his constituent later. The news from Hodeidah is good in relation to prosecuting the Stockholm proposal, but it is early days yet and of course we await the UN certification that there has in fact been an improvement in the situation—we expect news later today perhaps. We should welcome the progress made, however, and I look forward to seeing him later.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

While recognising our own challenges here, the Foreign Secretary has rightly championed democratic values all over the world, so will Ministers join me, even as we await the formal results of the winners, in congratulating the 193 million Indonesians who participated, on an 80% turnout, in the presidential and general elections recently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer]

T9. I sincerely apologise, Mr Speaker. I will explain later, and I am sure you will accept my explanation. I apologise to the Chamber.Given the recent comments and actions of President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu during the Israeli elections, when he called for the annexation of part or all of the west bank, and given that present international law prohibits the acquisition of territory by force and that any such move would put under threat a solution for Israel and Palestine, will the Secretary of State or a Minister commit to calling for an international examination of and protection for the human rights of Palestinians?

[Dr Murrison]

The human rights of Palestinians are quite clearly very close to the top of our list of priorities. The hon. Lady touched on Israel, the annexation of territory and the involvement of the US. Let us be clear. We want to see a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. I hope that makes our position clear.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

At the start of Christian Aid Week, the focus of the organisation is on its maternal health work in Sierra Leone, where, since the Ebola crisis, 10 women die every day in childbirth and one in nine children die before their fifth birthday. Will the Foreign Secretary put Britain’s weight behind the campaign calling on the IMF to write off the loans it made to the African country to fight the Ebola outbreak?

Ukraine-Russia Relations

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In 2015, following a great deal of international pressure, France cancelled two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships that were destined for Russia because of the situation in Ukraine. What more will be done at the European Union Political and Security Committee, to which the Minister referred, to impress on our European partners in particular that it is wholly unacceptable at this time to be engaging with the Russian Federation on arms sales?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his description of what happened. He emphasises how important it is for united and collective action to be taken on this issue. It is important that nations work together on this, and his comments about dealing with the sort of supply that was involved with Mistral are well taken. The United Kingdom will be pressing this point to the various committees that we are attending as we speak.

UK Victims of IRA Attacks: Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and Weapons

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, HM Government support for UK victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons, Session 2016-17, HC 49 and the Government response, HC 331.

It is a pleasure to introduce the debate. If I may, I will start with the words of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. In 1972, he announced on Libyan radio:

“We support the revolutionaries of Ireland, who oppose Britain and who are motivated by nationalism and religion…There are arms and there is support for the revolutionaries of Ireland…We have decided to create a problem for Britain and to drive a thorn in her side so as to make life difficult…She will pay dearly.”

Well, we did pay dearly; specifically, the victims of Gaddafi and of the IRA paid dearly, and continue to do so to this day. From the early 1970s to the 1990s, the Gaddafi regime provided many tonnes of arms and ammunition, millions of dollars of finance, lots of military training and bucketloads of explosives. A series of shipments in the mid-1980s delivered up to 10 tonnes of Semtex, an explosive synonymous with the bombings in Enniskillen, the Baltic Exchange, Warrington, the Docklands and elsewhere that we are all familiar with—all of us who saw them night after night throughout the troubles, on our television screens or more directly.

I was not a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs when evidence was taken, but it is very clear from reading the report that the most powerful witnesses were the victims. If I may, I will read out some of the accounts given in the report, because it is important to put our debates in this place, which are often rather academic, into a personal framework:

“Mrs Hamida Bashir, whose son was killed in the Docklands bombing in 1996, told us: ‘My words are sadly not sufficient to express the tremendous pain I feel as Inam was a lovely and kind boy’. Mrs Gemma Berezzag, whose husband was left blind, paralysed and brain-damaged in the same attack, told us: ‘My Zaoui is now very ill and getting…worse…but I will do my best to care for him as I love him and can’t imagine my life without him’. Mrs Berezzag passed away in 2016, having provided daily care for her husband for 20 years…Colin Parry, whose 12-year old son, Tim, died following the Warrington bombing in 1993, told us: ‘Describing the final moments of your child’s life is beyond words…because, as a parent, there is no greater pain or loss than the death of your child’.”

I do not think that it is possible to have taken evidence from those victims, or from others whom I have met in my current role, without being overwhelmed by their dignity, stoicism and patience. They are the politically inconvenient, the ignored, the sidelined. They deserve better.

The Committee had hoped that its report, published on 2 May, would encourage the next Government to adopt a fresh approach. What we got was this Government’s flat rejection of all 12 of our recommendations. To put it mildly, the Committee was disappointed.

Let me go through some of the background. In April 1984, PC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy. Our diplomatic relations with Libya, which had always been strained, were—of course—severed. On 21 December 1988, PanAm flight 103 was blown up; it crashed into the town of Lockerbie and 270 people died. The Libyan convicted, one al-Megrahi, was jailed for life, released by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds and welcomed as a hero in Tripoli. He died three years later.

After sponsoring 25 years of mayhem in the UK and elsewhere, by 1995 Libya was said to have started coming in from the cold: it confessed to the scale of support that it had been giving to republican terrorism, and it appeared to have stopped giving assistance to the IRA. That led to Sinn Féin-IRA realising that the game was up, and thus to the negotiations that eventually led to the Good Friday agreement of 1998. Mr Blair restarted diplomatic relations with Libya in 1999, and compensation was paid to the relatives of Yvonne Fletcher and the victims of PanAm flight 103.

There followed something of a love-in between Gaddafi and Tony Blair. Mr Blair said of the man responsible for wholesale murder and butchery in the UK:

“He’s very easy to deal with. To be fair to him, there’s nothing that I’ve ever agreed with him should be done that hasn’t happened.”

No doubt he was as pleased as Punch that Shell signed an agreement at around that time for half a billion dollars-worth of gas exploration rights and that BP resumed its investment in the region. That was great for business, but it did nothing for Gaddafi’s victims. I am left wondering whether those are the British values that Tony Blair was so pleased to espouse. Well, they are not my values, and I hazard a guess that they are not the values of right hon. and hon. Members gathered in the Chamber, either. It is clear from the evidence given that the then Government missed a vital opportunity to act on behalf of IRA victims at a time when Libya was seeking a rapprochement with the west.

Of course, the UK was not the only country with Gaddafi victims among its citizens—and this is where the UK Government’s position starts to look especially shameful. The US was much more proactive, amending legislation to allow access to the frozen assets of terroristic countries and of the companies that were doing business with them. Libya then settled, but President Bush deleted the UK co-litigants from the deal. Evidence heard by the Committee suggests that the Government of Gordon Brown decided to get involved at a very late stage and that any pressure on Washington was purely tokenistic. That approach continues under the current Administration, I am sorry to say: in a letter of 20 November, the Foreign Secretary ruled out even the threat or intimation of accessing or continuing to freeze terrorist funds. That stands in stark contrast to the United States’ policy.

In 2004, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the French Government for the 170 people killed in the bombing of UTA flight 772 in 1989. The previous year, the French Government had done what the UK Government would not and still will not do: they threatened to use France’s position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to block the lifting of sanctions in order to extract rightful compensation. The Foreign Secretary’s letter of 20 November makes it plain that the UK still will not use its influence in the way that the French Government, with their more muscular approach, have done to good effect.

The German Government secured $35 million in compensation for the German victims and families of those killed in the 1986 bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin. It was clear to the Committee that the UK Government did not pursue compensation for UK victims with anything like the determination and vigour of the Governments of France, Germany and the US, and UK victims are entitled to ask why not.

In the early years of the coalition Government, post-Gaddafi, it seemed from the Committee’s analysis that a more robust approach was being taken. David Cameron was quite upbeat about it in his first days and weeks in office. He said:

“We need to be clear that this will be an important bilateral issue between Britain and the new Libyan authorities. Clearly we have to let this Government get their feet under the desk, but this is very high up my list of items.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 33.]

However, nothing transpired. No leverage was placed on de facto Governments. I visited Tripoli three times as a Defence Minister between 2012 and 2014. If victims featured at all, they were in the margins. I very much regret that and am sorry about it. Why have consecutive UK Governments taken such a laissez-faire approach to victims, in stark contrast with the US, France and Germany?

In the previous Parliament, Lord Empey’s private Member’s Bill placed a statutory duty on the UK Government to take every step they could to prevent asset release until a compensation package from Libya was agreed. That most reasonable and moderate Bill was passed by the House of Lords, but there was not enough time for it to be considered in the Commons before the end of the Session. Lord Empey’s Bill would not have challenged EU or UN strictures on seizing assets, but would have been a sign of Government intent to lever justice for victims. I commend it to the Minister and seek his advice on its further progress.

My Committee’s report put various points to the Minister. He is a good man and I know he did his very best to answer them fairly, frankly and openly. However, we are left wanting more. We need to know why the Government consider claims for compensation to victims to be a purely private matter when the US, France and Germany actively espouse the causes of their citizens. In the Minister’s view, will Libya ever offer financial compensation or are we simply kicking the can down the road? Although it is not an option I personally favour, why precisely is a UK reparations fund to give financial compensation to victims not a viable option in place of extracting reparations from Libya, a course of action the Government seem reluctant to take? What exactly will the Government do to be

“more visibly proactive on this file in the future”,

as stated in the Minister’s recent letter to the Select Committee?

The Committee that I chair is completely resolved that we will move on this matter and that justice will be done for victims. We will call the Foreign Secretary before the Committee on a regular basis to explain what progress has been made. Although our sessions are always cordial, he cannot necessarily be assured of an easy ride until this is resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Of course, in the particular case of the Lockerbie victims, the UK Government intervened directly to secure compensation. However, as we have discussed, individual compensation is being pursued through private claims, and we have sought to facilitate that work through our contacts and everything we have done in relation to that. We still believe that that is the most appropriate thing to do, and that is why we deal directly with the Libyan authorities. We have approached individual compensation differently. The allocation of the compensation fund illustrates the difficulty of individual compensation, but of course if such claims are successful, that deals with that issue. However, as successive Governments have done, we have supported the individual pursuit of claims rather than doing on it on a Government basis. That is different from those who have chosen to do it another way—that is quite right. That is the process we have chosen, and that is the process we are continuing to support.

[Dr Murrison]

I am following what the Minister has to say closely. He is making a convincing argument, but the central fact remains that our closest allies—the US, France and Germany—have secured substantial reparations from the country responsible for those acts. The legal entity, notwithstanding the Minister’s remarks about Gaddafi, is Libya. We have failed to do that, and it is about time that our victims got a better deal. I am sure the Minister agrees with that. The only debate is about how we are going to achieve it. How we dish the money out is a second-order issue. It is important that we get the money in the first place.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to pursue that process by working with the existing Libyan Government and the future Libyan Government to secure that support. That is why a meeting with the Libyan Minister for Justice has been suggested. That is why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister raised this issue, and why I shall raise it.

Hon. Members and victims have understandably asked us to demonstrate even more effort to secure compensation than we have already put in. The ultimate aim is to ensure the Libyan Government is able to respond to the understandable request for compensation for the victims of Gaddafi. That is the position we want to reach. The UK Government, like all of us, are determined to make sure that happens. That is the process we are pursuing.

There are a couple of other things to say. I want to deal with the issue of frozen assets and sanctions. There is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets. The UN Security Council resolution under which those assets were frozen, which the UK supported, is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people. To breach that resolution would be a violation of international law. We set that out in our response to the Committee, and that position has not changed.

A veto is an individual response that the United Kingdom could produce, but it would then be used to stop the return of assets. As the Government rightly said, we get no sense from other states that they would support that. Of course, they do not have to do anything—it is our veto—but they would not necessarily understand our vetoing a policy that is designed to return moneys to those who would then be in a position to compensate the United Kingdom and the victims the United Kingdom is pursuing that for. To apply a veto may not be the most appropriate thing. The point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and others made is that it is a form of pressure on Libya, which must be correct. We must find other ways of putting pressure on the Libyans so that when they are in a position to respond, they understand that they need to make that response. Our contact with the Libyan Government makes it clear to us that they understand that need, but the money is not there at the moment because it is just not there. We must continue to pursue that.

On the sanctions, when the European sanctions rules are changed, we will have to see whether that provides an extra opportunity. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, and that will form part of a further discussion in the future. I noted what she said about pensions. As far as I am aware, that is something new, but we may come back to it in due course.

That is what we are doing in the immediate future, and as far as the future is concerned we will pursue a twin-track approach. We will continue to help victims engage directly with the Libyan Government, as appropriate, to help them pursue their campaign. That is the policy we have followed. As I said, I have previously informed victims that we are exploring the possibility of a meeting for them with the Libyan Minister of Justice. Our embassy in Tripoli has raised this with the Minister several times, and he has agreed in principle to the proposal. I recently wrote to him to welcome that, and to stress our desire to press ahead with arrangements. Such a meeting would demonstrate the Libyan Government’s genuine desire to address the legacy of the Gaddafi regime. In addition, we will explore with the Libyan authorities the possibility of establishing a communal fund for victims, although I should be honest with hon. Members that the current political and economic crisis in Libya means that progress on that is likely to be slow, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said.

There are complex questions at stake with regard to compensation, such as which groups of victims would be eligible, and what type of compensation and support would be right. We discussed that during the course of the debate. Discussions about what a fund would look like are still at an early stage, but we anticipate that it would focus on community support, rehabilitation and reconciliation, and as I said earlier would be accessible to all victims throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome the recent engagement of Democratic Unionist party colleagues on this issue, and I look forward to further constructive discussions in the future. We recognise victims’ frustration at the slow rate of progress. I fully appreciate that although that is an easy sentence for a Minister to say, it cannot in any way cover the pain and suffering that people have been through, but the political, economic and security realities in Libya are making progress on the issue extremely difficult.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made clear the Government’s support for change in Libya and for the UN process being led by Ghassan Salamé. We are actively engaged in that because the sooner the process can be successful and the sooner Libya has stabilisation and a new Government, the easier it will be to press such matters still further.

I repeat the Government’s sincere commitment to help the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism make progress. I express my gratitude for the positive way in which colleagues from across the House have engaged with the Government on this issue and my sincere desire for that to continue. I recognise that the slow process is deeply frustrating to all those who represent the victims, as well as to those victims themselves, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly for many years to achieve justice. Today’s debate and the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire and other hon. Members in the Chamber make an impression. Clearly, this is an issue on which the Government are committed, but the determination and the desire of the House is plainly that we have to do more, to be seen to do more and to explore further ways in which we can redress the balance.

I am grateful as always for the kindness with which colleagues treat me, and hope that I can play my part in resolving the issue. I take that to heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I will be as brief as possible, Mr Gapes.

Libya is potentially an extremely wealthy country. It has governance issues, to put it mildly, with which the United Kingdom is assisting. Governance falls into this piece nicely, since compensation for victims is certainly a governance thing. I hope very much that, as we continue to put considerable resource into Libya, we will remind our interlocutors at every available opportunity that they have duties to us as well. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that he is renewing his commitment to getting for victims the justice that they deserve.

I am also pleased that the Minister acknowledged, I think, that the legal entity in this debate is Libya. I fully appreciate that the Libyan people, broadly defined, are not responsible for the actions that we associate with Gaddafi; nevertheless it is Libya to which we have to look for retribution in this particular case. It seems to me odd, if we are improving the governance of a country, as we are in Libya, that we do not make that very apparent to the Libyans. Clearly we need to do so.

I very much hope that the Minister takes note of the noble Lord Empey’s private Member’s Bill. It seems to me to have merit, and there may be a way of advancing the issue so as not to conflict with European Union law as long as that applies in the United Kingdom, or more particularly, with United Nations rules, which will continue to apply to the United Kingdom.

The Minister will have read paragraph 61 of the report that we are debating and will have noted that on a significant number of occasions, frozen assets have been accessed, notably President Marcos’s Swiss bank account in the interests of rectifying human rights abuses in the Philippines, the assets of Colombian paramilitaries and, most relevantly, frozen assets in the US in respect of Saddam Hussein’s victims and the victims of Iranian and Cuban terrorism. There is precedent; it is clearly not impossible to access those sums, and it is certainly not impossible to threaten to access those sums.

My concern and perhaps that of the members of my Committee is that the Government at the least give the impression that this subject is not a top priority for them. I will accept the reassurances of the Minister and I note that in his comments in response to the report he agreed that there needs to be a better perception of Government’s efforts—but there also need to be better efforts underpinning that perception.

I hope very much that in the months ahead we will redouble our efforts when dealing with our Libyan interlocutors to impress on them how important this matter is to the British people. It is just not acceptable to wait, as happens at the moment, for victims to age and pass on, as too many have, without getting the justice that is their due. British values have to do with justice. They are about getting what is right for victims. Clearly, the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism have not had justice, and I look to the Minister to ensure that they do. I look forward to him or the Foreign Secretary appearing, in the not-too-distant future, before my Select Committee to report on progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, HM Government support for UK victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons, Session 2016-17, HC 49, and the Government response, HC 331.

Zimbabwe

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am more than happy to give that undertaking. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with the details of that case, I will see what we can do to help.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The British military have long been a force for good in inculcating recognisable values, an ethos and the law of armed conflict in militaries throughout southern and east Africa, including Zimbabwe. What British military assets are currently engaged in security sector reform in Zimbabwe? What does the Foreign Secretary envisage for the future?

[Boris Johnson]

To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that we are engaged in that way in Zimbabwe for historical reasons that I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. If we can achieve the reform that we want and if Zimbabwe goes down the path that is now potentially open to it, that is not to say that the UK could not in the future be engaged in exactly that kind of assistance.

Balfour Declaration

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I have been pretty clear with the House already that we see the most fertile prospects now in the new push coming from America, and we intend to support that. As and when it becomes necessary to play the recognition card, we certainly will do it—we want to do it—but now is not yet the time.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the challenges of unfinished business to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred, does he agree that centenaries can be a powerful way to draw people together, thoughtfully and respectfully, even where, as here, the history is complex and nuanced?

[Boris Johnson]

I strongly agree. It has been salutary for people to look back over the last 100 years at the many missed opportunities and at the reasons Balfour thought it necessary to make his declaration. It was not, as is frequently said, simply that Britain wanted to solicit American support in the first world war; it was genuinely because of a need, an imperative, to deal with the pogroms and the anti-Semitism that had plagued Russia and so many parts of eastern Europe for so long. It was vital to find a homeland for the Jewish people, and history can be grateful that Balfour made the decision he did, though we have to understand at the same time the injustice and suffering occasioned by that decision.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope—I believe I will have that pleasure again in several weeks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on introducing the debate in such a balanced way.

We should clearly be talking about the celebration of the centenary of the Balfour declaration. I take the point that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made, but the meeting that was held in the House of Lords under the auspices of the Palestinian Return Centre was a Balfour apology campaign. The President of the Palestinian state has sought to get Britain to apologise for the Balfour declaration and potentially to sue the British Government for it. That is the context in which we must put the debate.

I have had the opportunity to visit Israel, both as a tourist and with Conservative Friends of Israel. I have also visited Jordan and the west bank with the Palestinian Return Centre, to see both sides of the argument. The reality of life in Israel or the west bank is such that no one should really speak about that part of the world unless they have been there. Israel is the only country in the world in which someone can go to one side of it, see the other and know that they are surrounded by neighbours that want to destroy the state in its entirety. That, of course, leads to the reasons why Israel acts as it does.

We should celebrate the Balfour declaration, but the one element that was not put in it was the borders of the state of Israel. Had those borders been determined at the time, when Britain was drawing lines on maps in many other parts of the world, possibly we would not still be trying to reach the two-state solution that we talk about today. It took three years for the Balfour declaration to be accepted worldwide, but accepted it was. Israel has since had to endure the second world war; the Holocaust; the 1948 war of independence, when it was attacked by Arab states that sought to wipe Israel off the face of the planet on its inception; a war in ’67, when it was invaded again; and a war in ’71, when it was invaded. Yet Israel continues to exist.

During various discussions, we have heard about the Israeli Government’s supposed intransigence. However, Israel has demonstrated that it will give land for peace. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza left behind buildings and agricultural opportunities that could have been used by the Palestinian people but were just demolished or ignored. The result of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has been more than 11,000 rockets descending from Gaza on to the state of Israel. If you were in that position, Mr Chope, you would react, and the Israeli Government have reacted.

We have also heard the reality of the situation in this country. Anti-Semitism is on the rise; it is often conflated with a belief that the state of Israel should not exist at all or with attacks on the Government of the state of Israel. We have to confront anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head. We must ensure it is understood that it is unacceptable to express such views and that it is unacceptable that anyone in this country should have to suffer anti-Semitism.

We have already heard from several Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), about Israel’s contributions to the world through trade, security, medicine, technology and science. We should remember that Israel is the world’s 10th biggest economy: it is a key trading partner of the UK’s, and beyond. Once we leave the European Union, we will have great opportunities for continuing our trade under a new international trade agreement, and we have the chance to set that out clearly over the next two years.

One issue that has not been mentioned, but should be, is the plight of the Jewish people throughout the middle east. Back in the 1950s, when Israel was in its infancy, there were 2.3 million Jewish people living in Arab states; today, there are fewer than 100,000. They all had to flee Arab states in fear of their lives. We should remember that we are getting greater polarisation of the peoples of the middle east, which is of particular concern.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are countries in the Muslim world that have been very positive about Jews? I am thinking particularly of relatively enlightened countries such as the Kingdom of Morocco, which has always welcomed Jews and treated them extremely well.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are clearly exceptions to the rule, but the unfortunate generality is that the Jews have had to flee.

We look forward to a two-state solution, but we should remember that the Palestinian state has never existed as an independent state; it has always been occupied, either by Jordan, the Ottoman empire or someone else. We are therefore creating a state, and when we do so, we must ensure that there is peace, security on all sides, and an opportunity for everyone to live in peace.

We are running out of time with the Obama Administration, from which I suspect we will not see any movement between now and January, when we will have a new President of the United States. Will the Minister ensure that the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are negotiating with the incoming regime in the States on initiating urgent talks between Israel and the Palestinians that can lead to that two-state solution? That would give us the opportunity, during the anniversary of the Balfour declaration, to have real, meaningful talks, without preconditions, with the Israeli Government and the Palestinians sitting down side by side so that everyone can benefit.