Israel and Gaza

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

As my hon. Friend sets out, it is clear that there is no place for Hamas in any future for Gaza. What happened on 7 October is uniquely appalling and I agree with him that until Hamas are removed from Gaza, the opportunity of peace is very limited.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The UN’s special rapporteur has been crystal clear that arms sales to Israel for use in Gaza are unlawful, given the clear risk that they will be used to violate international humanitarian law. Yet the Government have consistently refused to disclose whether licences, for example, for F-35 fighter planes, have been reviewed, let alone amended. Will the Minister take the opportunity finally to give Parliament a straight answer on this? I do not want to be told that reviews are possible, because we know that. I want to know whether those reviews have happened and whether he is going to publish the details. I do not want him to tell us simply that the arms regime in the UK is the toughest in the world. I know that, but it gives no reassurance at all to the more than 1 million people facing famine in Gaza right now.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady asks me whether these matters are kept under review, and I can assure her that they are always kept under review. Equally, they are not decided at the whims of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box; they are decided through a detailed, proper, legally governed, code-governed process, and that, as always, is what the Government are doing.

Israel and Gaza

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Let me make it clear, as the Prime Minister has, that in our country there is no tolerance whatever for antisemitism or Islamophobia. I reiterate that at the hon. Lady’s request across the Dispatch Box. She asked me about the importance of ensuring that all lives are treated equally and whether we care deeply about all those who are suffering in this conflict. Let me assure the House that we do.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In response to my many written questions, the Government continue to say that they are keeping arms export licences under review, including with regard to international humanitarian law, and they confirm that Ministers are able to amend, suspend or revoke licences as circumstances require. One of the licences currently in place allows L3Harris in my constituency to manufacture components for the kinds of F-35 fighter planes used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza. Will the Minister publish the details of any reviews that have taken place? Will he tell us what threshold the Government are waiting to be crossed before they will suspend or revoke licences while there is a risk that they are being used to commit or to facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will look into the burden of what the hon. Lady has said. If she tables a written question on precisely that point today, I will give her the Government’s answer.

Israel and Palestine

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Like everyone who has watched the footage and read the accounts of the Hamas atrocities on 7 October, and anyone who has followed the utter devastation and mass killing happening in Gaza and the growing violence in the west bank, my overwhelming response is, “How do we stop this?” That is why I urge the Government and the Labour Front Bench to support an immediate bilateral ceasefire.

The UK’s fence-sitting at the UN last week was unforgiveable both morally and politically, as anyone who heard Tom Fletcher, a former ambassador to Lebanon and advisor to Gordon Brown, explain on the radio this morning will know. He recalled that back in 2009, at the height of Operation Cast Lead, the UK took a principled stance in support of ending the killing of civilians and backed UN resolution 1860, which was critical of Israel. In doing so, it shifted the position of the US, which ended up abstaining on that vote instead of opposing it. Bold, creative diplomacy by the UK made a significant difference to the outcome in the UN and, critically, there was a ceasefire a week later. A similar kind of diplomacy is sadly lacking now, and we desperately need it.

Of course, the scale of the deaths and the horror is vastly different now, but the fundamentals of then and now are the same: the lives of civilians in both Israel and Gaza must be protected. This is what these petitions are about: making the suffering stop for the families in Israel who are desperate for their loved ones taken hostage by Hamas to be unconditionally released and safely reunited with them; making sure the perpetrators of the horrific rapes and sexual violence committed on 7 October are brought to justice; stopping one of the worst humanitarian crises in my lifetime—half of the people in Gaza are starving, and starvation is being used as a weapon of war; making the military assault on Gaza stop, and saving the lives of so many children; and stopping not just these immediate crises, but the decades of oppression and dispossession of and discrimination against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities, which are an unavoidable part of the context of this war.

A lot has already been said about how to bring this conflict to a close. Decades of expert diplomacy has failed thus far to resolve this seemingly intractable conflict. In the past 15 years alone, there have been five wars, each of which has consigned the people of Gaza to ever-deteriorating and unimaginably impoverished living conditions. None of these wars has stopped the rockets being fired at Israel, or made anyone feel safer. That is because there is no military solution to this conflict, only a political one.

Yet it has served the international community—the UK included—preoccupied elsewhere, to settle for a strategy of uneasy containment in which violence flares up from time to time and just enough supplies and aid are allowed into Gaza to appease Israel’s critical friends and prolong the status quo. However, since October 7, something seismic has shifted. It is now inconceivable that the world could continue to ignore the importance of ensuring that every single Israeli and Palestinian can live safely, securely and with dignity within their own borders or a shared border, if that is what they choose.

We have touched on the issue of speaking with terrorists. Talking to Hamas has already helped to bring some Israeli hostages home to their families. Those lines of communication must be kept open, along with every back and front channel accessible via the other players in the region. Clearly, the US has the greatest influence over Israel, but the UK can play a critical role too. Its links with Qatar and Egypt, for example, should be used to pull every lever possible in support of a consensus on Israel’s right to exist—a fundamental building block of peace.

Chatham House reported that the US and UK position on not talking to terrorists arose almost by accident in 1973, in response to hostage taking by a Palestinian militant organisation. Those hostages were killed. It takes courage to start a dialogue, especially when we have no real idea whether there is even a shared goal, let alone how to reach that outcome, but from Northern Ireland and Colombia to Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon and Syria, talking has secured positive outcomes for individual cases and more broadly. No dialogue means the death of peace, and at this time we absolutely have to keep the prospect of peace alive.

The eyes of the world may well be on this narrow strip of land right now, but they have been largely absent as Gazans have been forced to live in an open prison, systematically stripped of their dignity and freedom by both the Israeli authorities and Hamas. As Israel has endured the existential threat to its existence that Hamas represents, and as land is grabbed and settler violence erupts in the west bank—an area that now could well see the strengthening of extremists including Hamas—we must not turn our gaze away again. The path to peace feels even more difficult following 7 October. It is more difficult, but more urgent, too. It starts with a bilateral ceasefire now.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend accurately summarises the role and the importance that the Government attach to progressing the political process, and I thank her for her comments in that respect.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister tell us whether his discussions with charities and non-governmental organisations this morning included aid agencies such as Oxfam, Christian Aid or Save the Children? They say that only a full ceasefire can deliver the conditions to get lifesaving food, fuel, water and medicine into Gaza, not least because critical infrastructure, such as roads and hospitals, needs to be mended first and that cannot happen if there are only humanitarian pauses. I know that he has said a lot this afternoon about the difference between pauses and a ceasefire, but he has not addressed explicitly the advice that we are hearing from humanitarian experts on the ground who say that only a full ceasefire will allow them to get that kind of aid fast enough to the people who need it.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is correct about the importance of tackling the deficiencies of infrastructure, both in the area around Rafah and more extensively than that. She asks about my contact with NGOs and charities. As she said, I had a meeting this morning that was chaired by the British Overseas NGOs for Development—BOND— which is the collective of charities. We operate through trusted partners, such as UNICEF, UNRWA and UNHCHR, and we are in continual contact with them. The point she makes about infrastructure is one that we are very much aware of and will do everything we can to assist with.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I assure the hon. Lady and the House that those are exactly the issues I will be raising on my forthcoming travel to the region. The consular team in the FCDO is making regular contact with those people in Gaza for whom we have contact details, to give them as much notice as possible as and when an exit route becomes available. At the moment that has not become available, but we will keep working to open humanitarian routes and to inform people once they are opened.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

We do not yet know who is responsible for the unspeakable atrocity at the Gaza hospital, but we do know that hundreds were killed and hundreds more were injured; we do know that yesterday an IDF airstrike hit an UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency—school where thousands were sheltering, killing more; and we do know that over 3,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza so far. Israel does have the right to self-defence, but that cannot include mass bombing of densely populated areas if Israel is simultaneously to stay within international law. I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the issue of a ceasefire. Of course it would need to be worked for and of course it is going to be hard, but unless the UK Government give their backing to the UN on this issue, thousands more will be killed. We should be on the right side of history and I am very much afraid right now that we will not be.

[James Cleverly]

Israel is one of the parties engaged in this military operation, but there are others, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I suggest that anybody calling on Israel to cease military operations should at least—at least—call on the terrorists to do likewise.

Climate Finance: Tackling Loss and Damage

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered climate finance for tackling loss and damage.

July was the hottest month in global history. In three months the world will gather in one of the hottest regions of the world for COP28. All summer we have heard about and seen the impacts that climate change is having—impacts that will only get worse—and the need for urgent action could not be clearer. Simply put, this is the biggest, most existential threat to humanity and our planet, and I put it on the record that I am utterly disappointed that not one MP from the governing Conservative party is here other than the Minister.

The international community has come together in recent years to recognise the urgent need for financial support to combat climate change. Prominent milestones at various COPs over have established ambitious targets for climate finance. However, a fundamental problem persists. It is crucial to acknowledge that, despite the pledges and commitments, a substantial gap remains between promise and fulfilment, perhaps illustrated most starkly by the collective goal of mobilising $100 billion a year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, agreed in Copenhagen at COP15 in 2009. This has still not yet been achieved.

To date, climate finance to developing countries has been focused on mitigation—namely, efforts to reduce and prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and adaptation—and adjusting to and building resilience against current and future climate change impacts. However, harms and losses will still be experienced by communities and ecosystems due to climate change that cannot be effectively mitigated or adapted to.

Loss and damage funding refers to the financial assistance provided to countries and communities dealing with the irrevocable consequences of climate change. It encompasses the destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of communities, the erosion of cultural heritage and, heartbreakingly, extensive loss of life.

At COP27 in November 2022 we witnessed a historic turning point in our global commitment to address loss and damage. An agreement was reached to establish a dedicated fund aimed explicitly at supporting vulnerable nations and communities grappling with the irreversible effects of climate change. The agreement underscored the urgency of recognising that climate finance is not solely about reducing emissions and adapting to changing conditions. It is also about providing financial redress to those who bear the brunt of climate impacts, often with the least historical responsibility for causing the crisis.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. When it comes to finance for loss and damage, does he agree with me that that finance has to be new and additional, not redirected from existing budgets? If we are looking for places where we might find such new and additional finance, if we put the polluter pays principle at the heart of this debate, we could, for example, look at the grotesque profits of the oil and gas companies, which amounted to a staggering $134 billion globally last year, or the billions that go into fossil fuel subsidies. Does he agree with me that that would be a good place to start to get the money we need for such a vital fund?

[Chris Law]

Not only do I completely agree, but I suspect my papers have been leaked because I was about to come on to that point. I completely agree that new and additional finance is key and I look forward to what the Minister will say. I will touch on that topic in more depth shortly.

There is no doubt the UK has contributed significantly to the climate emergency through its historical greenhouse gas emissions. From 1750 to the present day it is the seventh highest CO₂ emitter with just over 3% of estimated historical emissions. In contrast, the entire continent of Africa has a 3% share of cumulative CO₂ emissions and Oceania only 1%—two of the regions already the most devastated by the climate catastrophe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

We will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government to uphold their constitutional and democratic processes. Those concerns were made clear in statements to the UN Human Rights Council, most recently on 20 June. Imposing sanctions is one response among other diplomatic tools to tackle serious human rights violations and abuses, but the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about future designations because that could reduce the impact.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

5. What recent steps his Department has taken to help meet the UK's international climate finance commitments.

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

As the Prime Minister set out at COP27, we are committed to spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance over the timeframe originally envisaged.

[Caroline Lucas]

I take some comfort from the Minister’s reply. He will know that there has been much speculation—and indeed, some leaks—in the national media that demonstrate real concern that the Government were reneging on their climate finance commitments. Could he explain to me and the 50 cross-party MPs and peers who have written to the Prime Minister about this when the £11.6 billion will be delivered in full, broken down by each year? Could the Minister explain how the commitment will be met and assure us that it will not be by raiding the aid budget? He will know that the money is meant to be new and additional. It would be wrong for it to come at the expense of recipients who are expecting that aid budget and should have it.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady will have noticed yesterday that there was a very considerable return of transparency in the figures published by the Foreign Office. She will have seen that the allocations for aid for next year are nearly double what they were this year. We have a commitment to greater transparency and I expect to be able to publish in full how we will reach the £11.6 billion, probably in September.

UK’s Exit from the European Union

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will.

It is not my place to comment on the Northern Ireland situation, particularly pertaining to the added complexities of what was the Northern Ireland protocol. However, I can say that the whole Brexit saga lays bare why Westminster is unfit to govern in Scotland’s interests. Indeed, not only has the Brexit debacle blown apart the case for Westminster control, but the ensuing debate has shown beyond doubt that the two major Westminster parties are committed to the damage that leaving the EU is having on trade and the economy across the UK, as well as on opportunities for our young people and the rights of individuals.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I apologise for jumping in on the hon. Gentleman quite so quickly, but he is making lots of really important points. Does he agree that one of the most valuable features of a democracy is that it has the potential for error correction? In other words, does he agree that, if people change their minds—as is increasingly the case with Brexit—the only logical thing to do is to change the decision that caused people to change their minds?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. In a democracy, people always have the right to change their minds and we should bear that in mind at all times.

Before moving on to some of the evidence of the negative impact of Brexit, I want to mention that the UK Government’s response also said that

“the UK-EU institutions are functioning as intended.”

If that is the case, considering that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland was not met, it prompts the question of why it took so long for the UK-EU institutions to reach agreement on the Windsor framework. That breakthrough was surely not “intended” to take nearly seven years.

It is disappointing that a similar deal to Northern Ireland’s has not been afforded to Scotland, but that is not for this debate. I am sure that we can have fun with that issue in months to come. However, given the length of time it took to negotiate such a critical agreement, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on negotiating re-entry to European projects that all four nations were removed from, such as Horizon Europe, Copernicus, Euratom, the European arrest warrant, Europol and the Schengen information system? It would be helpful if the Minister could also take the opportunity to explain why both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Lords European Affairs Committee are currently holding inquiries on the new UK-EU relationship. Perhaps he could suggest when those findings will be published to evidence the UK Government’s claim that UK-EU institutions are indeed functioning as intended.

Moving on to how Brexit is affecting trade and the economy, the Trade Secretary recently announced that the UK had reached agreement to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—sometimes referred to under the acronym CPTPP or otherwise known as the Pacific rim trade deal—which will allow zero tariffs for 99% of goods exported to the bloc. Although the agreement has not yet been signed, the Trade Secretary claimed, in her excitement, that it would “open up our economy”. Good news, we might think—but, in the course of the announcement, she also said that we should “not keep talking” about Brexit. Well, this debate might disappoint her, as it shows that Brexit remains a live political issue. I align with the opinion of the petitioners that it will continue to be so at least until the facts are known, and probably for some time to come afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate Peter Packham on starting the petition and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on introducing it with such customary eloquence.

My Brighton, Pavilion constituency has the second highest number of signatures to this petition, with 655 of my constituents signing it. I know very well that many more than that support it, so I am pleased to be able to represent them here today. One of that number wrote in an email about the debate:

“I firmly believe that the public were misled systematically by campaigners for Brexit before the referendum. Although it is unlikely that the decision will be reversed, I believe that the record should show the truth, not a fantasy.”

That short, simple message encapsulates many of the important reasons why I think we need an inquiry and why I back the call in the petition. I believe that if a sufficient number of people over time choose it, there is a way back into the European Union. That is the virtue and beauty of democracy.

The referendum campaign and the subsequent narrative about Brexit have been a litany of misinformation and disinformation. The infamous words on the side of the bus are just the tip of the iceberg, but let us start there, with whether £350 million a week has been diverted from the EU to the NHS. As we have heard several times this afternoon, the simple answer is no. The NHS budget in England alone has risen by more than £350 million a week since 2016, but that money has come from taxes, borrowing and squeezing other Departments. It most certainly has not come from savings arising from Brexit, for the simple reason that those savings did not materialise because the overall economic impact has been so severe. If the public hoped for a transformative sum for the NHS post Brexit, they most certainly have not received it.

Turning to the economy, during the Chancellor’s recent autumn statement, he spoke for almost an hour without once acknowledging the economic catastrophe of Brexit. There was no reference to the OBR’s warning that Brexit will slash productivity by 4% and lead to a 15% drop in trade intensity and an 11% drop in investment, or that it will increase food prices and deliver lower wages, workforce shortages and the highest inflation in the G7.

I, too, am a member of the UK Trade and Business Commission, which is expertly chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Since July 2021, we have been taking evidence about the impacts of Brexit, and, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has pointed out, we have not heard of the positive impacts that were promised. To the contrary, we have heard time and again all the evidence of pain, particularly for small businesses. We have also been examining why Brexit is seen as the primary reason why we are the only G7 country that is still not reaching post-pandemic levels of growth.

While the Government keep their head firmly in the sand and continue to deny the existence of anything other than positive outcomes, they cannot begin to adapt to and resolve some of the many problems that we are hearing are caused by Brexit. Misleading the public includes wishful thinking. Who can forget the endless conjuring of sunlit uplands, the ignoring of reality, the telling of only half the story, the cherry picking and, frankly, the plain lying? It all happened during the Brexit campaign, and it has been happening since. Independent scrutiny and inquiry would help set the record straight.

The vilification of free movement by the leaders of the Leave campaign was one of the most pernicious examples of disinformation. They wilfully perpetuated a hostile narrative about immigration, deliberately conflating asylum seekers, economic migrants and refugees, and whipping up hatred and racism in the process. This was disinformation at its most destructive. No wonder they are now so afraid of light being shone on those impacts.

That brings me to democracy. In the wake of the referendum, I set up an initiative called Dear Leavers. We went around the country visiting the places that had registered some of the highest numbers of leave votes and listened to people who voted leave. The overwhelming message was that people voted for Brexit because they felt powerless. They felt unheard by a political establishment that had not listened for decades. The tragedy is that the political establishment is still not listening, and people still feel powerless.

Democracy, scrutiny, accountability and responsiveness have all been victims of Brexit. Evidence and experts were derided, Parliament was illegally prorogued and international law was trashed. We had unsettled constitutional questions and opposition to a ratification referendum. There has been an impact on the incredibly precious Good Friday Agreement, and we now have the dangerous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Opposing a public inquiry into these matters only adds insult to injury.

To return to my constituent’s view that the Brexit decision will probably not be reversed, it is with great sadness that I see that the Labour leadership has capitulated to the tyranny where even to talk about rejoining is somehow judged to be anti-democratic. I want to talk about it. The Green party wants to talk about it. I think the public deserve for us to talk about it. If rejoining the EU is the right thing—for our economy, our environment, workers’ rights, young people, our public services, trade and more—we should take that step when the time and conditions are right. We should be preparing for that possibility by taking a step-by-step approach, with steps such as negotiating membership of the customs union now; full engagement with Horizon; regular adjustments to the trade and co-operation agreement to ensure that our interests are best supported; a general approach of maintaining alignment with EU regulation—that means seeing the back of the deeply dangerous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—and the ongoing rebuilding of diplomacy and, I hope, of our reputation as a trustworthy partner, which has frankly been trashed.

I want to talk also about the status quo in this country, because the leave vote was a howl of rage about legitimate concerns, which have still not been addressed. The social contract remains broken, and the power game remains rigged. We did not leave the EU because of anything that had happened in Brussels or Strasbourg; we left primarily because of what had happened in England, because outside the capital, every single region of England voted to leave the EU. It is meant as no disrespect to Wales—which voted by a majority of only about 80,000 to leave—to say that it was an English vote that drove Brexit.

[Hywel Williams]

It is significant that the highest vote in favour of leaving the European Union was recorded in Blaenau Gwent. Blaenau Gwent is the constituency that received the highest level of European funding, but it is also the poorest constituency in Wales. That reinforces the point that the hon. Member is making: it was a howl of rage against poverty, marginalisation and all the rest of it.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman very much. I believe that one reason why there was such a howl of rage in England was that, while devolution has given powers to Scotland and Wales—not enough, but some powers—there are no political institutions that represent England. There is nothing to give political expression to our complex, rich reality, and nothing to bring power to the regions of England. It is no wonder that people voted to take back control, but they want control from Westminster, so that they have the right to make decisions about their own lives here. Rethinking our constitutional settlement more fundamentally is also key to mending some of the divisions in the UK. Brexit was the result of a divided UK, and it threatens to divide us still further unless we build a democratic consensus about changing that, together, for good.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend is right that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade are mobilising UK industry. The DIT held an event in Manchester yesterday with UK supply chain companies to encourage them to find ways to supply Ukraine with energy equipment and services. High-voltage transformers and more generators—the UK has already provided 850—will continue to be needed through the winter.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

15. How many at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni in Afghanistan his Department has (a) assessed as eligible for and (b) resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 since 6 January 2022.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

20. What humanitarian support his Department is providing to Afghan people (a) in and (b) fleeing Afghanistan.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The UK has already resettled more than 6,300 people through various resettlement schemes. In the first phase of the Afghan resettlement scheme pathway 3, we will offer up to 1,500 places. We have received 11,400 expressions of interest and we are working through those quickly. We have disbursed £228 million since April 2022, on top of £286 million in aid for Afghanistan last financial year.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Foreign Secretary says that he is working quickly, yet we know that zero Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. No wonder yesterday the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), admitted that we must do better when confronted with the staggering delay. I am in touch with Chevening alumni, for example, who have been living in fear of their lives for more than 16 months now. By the Government’s own admission, pathway 3 in its first year will help only 400 applicants and their families—a tiny number—out of more than 11,000. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Home Office urgently supercharge the scheme, increase the number of people working on it in the Department and, crucially, allow the 20,000 people Ministers say they want to help over five years to come now? They cannot wait for another four or five years; they are in fear of their lives now.

[James Cleverly]

I have to correct the hon. Lady. She says that we have not made any resettlements under the ACRS. As I said in my answer, we have granted indefinite leave to remain to 6,300 eligible people. I think that she was making specific reference to pathway 3, which we are working on, but the House ought to recognise that we have already given indefinite leave to remain to more than 6,000 eligible people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, has raised with me privately the issue of SDRs. I agree that there is much more that the international community can do to use those SDRs for the benefit of the poorest people in the world, whom we wish to help. All I can say today is that those discussions with the Treasury are ongoing.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the Minister back to his place. Today will be the third day that Alaa Abdel Fattah—a pro-democracy activist and British citizen—has not consumed any water. The Minister will know that he has been in prison in Egypt for nine years and that he has been on hunger strike for more than 200 days. With the eyes of the world on COP27, will the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow Egypt to get away with using the summit to paper over human rights atrocities and that every UK channel is being used to secure Alaa’s release? And will he make really clear the consequences if Egypt were to allow Alaa to die in prison?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks, her question and her concern. That matter was raised specifically by the Prime Minister at Cabinet this morning. He spoke to the Egyptian authorities and I have no doubt that the arguments that she put were strenuously emphasised by the Prime Minister in those discussions.