Nutrition for Growth Summit

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Because of our delayed start, the debate may now continue until 4.47 pm. I call David Mundell to move the motion.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Nutrition for Growth Paris Summit 2025.

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairman- ship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to propose this motion and to make the case for a strong, ambitious and well-targeted UK commitment at the Nutrition for Growth summit, which takes place in Paris this Thursday and Friday, and which I am pleased to be able to attend alongside my friends the hon. Members for Exeter (Steve Race) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper).

It is more than three years since we last gathered in Westminster Hall to debate the previous Nutrition for Growth summit, held in Tokyo in December 2021. This debate comes at an important moment for global nutrition, especially in the light of recent decisions in the US and here in the UK about spending on aid and international development. It also comes the week after the publication of the report of the International Development Committee, on which I serve as a member, “The Government’s efforts to achieve SDG2: Zero Hunger”.

We all know that access to good nutrition is foundational to development. It plays a critical role in health, education, gender equality and economic advancement. It is essential to achieving so many of the other sustainable development goals.

For pregnant women, good nutrition in pregnancy leads to healthier mothers, fewer complications in childbirth, less chance of stunting in children and a greater chance of children reaching their educational potential. Proven, cost-effective interventions, such as providing expectant mothers with multiple micronutrient supplements can make the world of difference to a child’s start in life.

For children, good nutrition makes vaccines more effective, reducing the risks of infectious diseases, which can spread rapidly and which do not respect borders. A well-nourished child is 11 times less likely to die from common infectious diseases such as pneumonia than a severely undernourished one.

Good nutrition also reduces the risk of obesity, cancer and other non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are on the rise in many low and middle-income countries. Without good nutrition, individuals and communities cannot develop to their full potential, economic productivity and development are constrained, and stability and security are undermined.

Studies have shown that combating malnutrition can raise per capita GDP by up to 11%, helping to break the cycle of poverty, inequality and food insecurity. In addition, investments in nutrition are proven to be low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest-value development initiatives. According to the World Bank, for every $1 invested in nutrition, $23 is returned to the local economy. Conversely, malnutrition costs African economies between 3% and 16% of GDP annually. Yet, despite all we know about the importance of good nutrition, malnutrition is still the leading cause of death in children under five, claiming the lives of 2 million children under five every year.

In 2022, an estimated 45 million children under the age of five suffered from wasting, 148 million had stunted growth and 37 million were overweight. In 2023, an estimated 733 million people globally faced hunger. Around 200 million more people face acute food insecurity this year compared with pre-pandemic levels. Conflicts and humanitarian crises, including in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria and Gaza, are causing global hunger to soar. Up to 1.9 million people are estimated to be on the brink of famine.

The UK has a long and proud history of global leadership and action on nutrition. The UK was the founder of the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, when more than 100 stakeholders pledged more than $4 billion in new nutrition-specific projects, and a further $19 billion in nutrition-sensitive projects. Our excellent civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are world-class thought leaders and conveners on innovation regarding malnutrition, and the UK is home to world-leading scientists and researchers who are making strides to advance technologies and nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops, supporting communities all over the world to have more secure and nutritious diets.

The recent cuts to official development assistance could have devastating impacts on the global hunger and malnutrition crisis. The nutrition budget was disproportionately impacted by the cuts to ODA in 2021; research conducted by Development Initiatives for the FCDO indicated that nutrition spending was cut by more than 60%. The Government must not allow this further reduction in spending to exacerbate the existing global crisis or to damage our reputation globally.

This week’s Nutrition for Growth summit is a real opportunity for the Government to show continued UK leadership and commitment to global nutrition. This Thursday and Friday, the Government of France, led by President Macron, will convene Governments, philanthropists, non-governmental organisations and business leaders at the summit to commit finances and make policy changes that will help to end malnutrition.

It will be the fifth Nutrition for Growth summit since it was launched by the UK in the margins of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The previous summit in Tokyo mobilised $27 billion through commitments made by 181 stakeholders across 78 countries. Unfortunately, the previous UK Government were not able to make a commitment at the Tokyo summit in 2021, which sparked widespread criticism from partner countries. Thanks, I believe, to the great efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who was then a Minister in the FCDO, that decision was reversed two months later and the UK made a £1.5 billion pledge. We still hope that this year the UK will play its full part in ensuring the summit is a success.

The Paris summit is a crucial opportunity to build on that momentum and a critical step in turning the tide against the scourge of malnutrition. It will also put nutrition at the heart of the sustainable development agenda, recognising that nutrition is foundational to development—as indeed it is to the UK’s wider development aims—and will make the fight against all forms of malnutrition a universal cause. Since 2013, the Nutrition for Growth summit has been a key event for driving greater action towards ending malnutrition, mobilising the international community and placing nutrition higher up the development agenda.

This year, the commitments made will be more important than ever in elevating the fight against malnutrition. The summit’s outcomes will have a lasting impact on the health, development and economic potential of millions of people worldwide, especially women and children. We welcome the fact that the new Minister for International Development will represent the UK at the summit, but I hope the Minister here today will be able to confirm that the UK will demonstrate its commitment to leadership on sustainable development goal 2 by doing everything we can to ensure that the summit is a success. I also hope that he will commit to a strong, ambitious and well-targeted UK pledge at the summit—or, if that requires the spending review to be completed, that that pledge will come after the spending review.

In addition, I hope the Minister can reaffirm the recent commitment to integrating nutrition across all aspects of development at the summit to make meaningful progress in tackling the underlying causes of malnutrition. As the International Development Committee inquiry report recommended, as well as a generous pledge at the summit, I hope the Minister will commit to

“a new reach commitment on nutrition and food security within the next six months”,

which would

“focus efforts and improve accountability.”

The all-party group on nutrition for development, which I co-chair alongside the hon. Member for Exeter, is calling for the UK to invest at least £500 million in nutrition-specific interventions by 2030. I hope the Government can confirm that they will begin this journey by investing £50 million in the child nutrition fund this year. That would give us an opportunity to maximise our investment by leveraging domestic resources and philanthropic funding, with the potential to transform a £50 million contribution into up to £500 million-worth of impact.

Whatever colleagues’ views on the overseas aid budget, I am sure we all agree that taxpayers’ money should be spent as impactfully as possible. Therefore, we must prioritise nutrition and use summits such as the Nutrition for Growth summit to maximise our contribution at a time of restricted finances, and we must co-ordinate our approach with other countries to maximise the impact even further. It is vital that low-cost, high-impact nutrition-specific interventions, such as MMS and ready-to-use therapeutic food, are protected and prioritised. They can pull young children back from the brink of starvation in weeks.

I hope the Minister will set out an ambition to reach at least 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition-related interventions by 2030, and commit to reporting yearly on how many people are reached with nutrition-specific interventions. I also hope the UK Government will support global accountability efforts by funding the global nutrition report to enhance the nutrition accountability framework, which is a critical tool to ensure that Governments follow through on their Nutrition for Growth commitments. Finally, I hope the Government will ensure that partnerships with local civil society organisations are strengthened, so that they can advocate more effectively for nutrition to their own Governments.

To conclude, let me give just one example of the difference that such commitments can make by speaking about Hanzala. Hanzala struggled with pneumonia and malnutrition before he could even sit up on his own. Born in a remote village in Afghanistan, his mother was unable to access care, with the nearest clinic being more than 40 km away. That was until 2023, when World Vision Afghanistan opened a health centre supported by the FCDO in Hanzala’s village.

Hanzala’s mother rushed him to the clinic, where he was found to weigh just 6.8 kg, well below the 9.2 kg that a healthy 13-month-old boy should weigh. Hanzala was immediately enrolled in the out-patient department for severe acute malnutrition programme, receiving ready-to-use therapeutic food. His mother received nutritional counselling and a sanitation kit to improve their living conditions. I am sure that everyone will be pleased to learn that only four months later Hanzala had made a full recovery and was able to play like any other child—a direct result of decisions made by the UK Government and the support of organisations such as World Vision.

Let us grasp the opportunity that the Nutrition for Growth summit this week affords. Let us continue to wield our convening power as the UK and play a leading role as a key global nutrition partner, driving this agenda and working alongside other donors and high-burden countries to ensure that global nutrition investments are prioritised and deliver maximum impact. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister’s positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

We have 42 minutes left for this debate. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Monica Harding to continue, please.

[Monica Harding]

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I was saying, driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition has risen by 150 million in five years. At this moment, we have a broader challenge. The Government have chosen not to redouble efforts to fight hunger, but to slash the official development assistance budget to its lowest level this century. We believe that that is a moral and strategic mistake that will exacerbate food insecurity and render all of us here in the UK less safe. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement in February, there has been little clarity about UK development priorities or about what existing promises this Government intend to honour.

The Nutrition Action for Systemic Change report published last year found that the Government were then tracking to meet our nutrition for growth commitment, made following the 2021 summit in Tokyo, of spending £1.5 billion on nutrition objectives between 2022 and 2030. Just one week before the development budget was cut by 40%, the then Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), again affirmed the UK’s commitment to that £1.5 billion figure. Will the Minister today repeat that pledge and assure us that the UK will not renege on the resources promised by multiple Governments to fight hunger?

In addition to worsening levels of hunger, the overall nutrition picture is growing increasingly complex. The so-called triple burden of malnutrition, obesity and vitamin deficiency requires solutions that combat all three issues together. Those solutions must encompass ready-to-use therapeutic food, vitamin A supplementation as well as other nutrients, and health interventions targeting obesity. Will the Minister share the specific steps that the FCDO is taking to ensure that UK nutrition policy addresses all dimensions of that triple burden, including by requiring that the development finance investments made by arm’s length FCDO bodies align with UK nutrition goals?

Nutrition-specific ODA, often delivered in a context of urgent humanitarian need, is indispensable. It is regularly the difference between life and death for some of the world’s poorest. As we speak, the UN World Food Programme is closing offices in Africa. That agency received about half its funding last year from USAID—the United States Agency for International Development— so is now facing acute financial pressures, cutting the delivery of lifesaving RUTF and other supplies.

The impact of USAID’s gutting is already devastating. In the coming year, reduced food assistance could result in as many as 550,000 deaths, according to The New York Times. We Liberal Democrats believe that there is a moral imperative for the UK to act in the face of that looming catastrophe. We believe that filling some of the funding gaps left by the retreat of USAID will require the UK to play a vital convening role, so could the Minister inform us of what conversations the UK is having and leading with partner nations, NGOs and other philanthropic organisations, aimed at catalysing targeted nutrition interventions?

At the same time, we must recognise that highly focused, specific interventions are capable of addressing only about 30% of the most persistent nutritional challenges, such as child stunting and child wasting. Progress on the other 70% requires progress on a wide range of nutrition-sensitive development areas, including maternal health, agricultural productivity, WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—and climate change, and vice versa. A pregnant mother experiencing malnutrition and unable to access multiple micronutrient supplements is far more likely to give birth to a stunted child. Even vaccines are less effective when delivered to children experiencing malnutrition.

As the International Development Committee argued in its most recent report—as a Committee member, I must declare an interest—nutrition and food security are cross-cutting themes across UK ODA programming, so success requires not only highly targeted interventions, but a strategic approach that integrates nutrition throughout development work. I know that this integration is a priority for the FCDO, and I am pleased that the Minister will be championing a global compact on nutrition integration in Paris. However, according to the NASC’s 2024 report, from 2021 to 2022, the nutrition-sensitive share of the FCDO’s ODA spend actually declined. For humanitarian spending it fell from 27% to 22%, for health spending it fell from 11% to 5%, and for education spending it fell from 4% to just 1%. What concrete steps is the FCDO taking to reverse that trend and to model nutrition integration going forward? Moreover, what accountability mechanisms will be tied to the global compact on nutrition integration such that it changes behaviour and produces results?

There may be no area of development linked as closely to nutrition as conflict. The World Food Programme found that conflict was the key driver of food insecurity last year, and it showed that two thirds of those facing acute food insecurity did so in fragile or conflict-affected locations. Not only do violence, conflict and instability lead to displacement and migration, and create a breeding ground for terrorism that can threaten us here in the UK, but they undermine our professed nutrition objectives. Yet the integrated security fund, which addresses acute national security threats and is partially funded through ODA, is facing significant cuts due to the Government’s decision to slash aid. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the Government’s development cut will not result in cuts to the ODA-funded portion of the ISF?

I am also concerned that the cut will mean a further hollowing out of the UK expert capacity. When the Department for International Development was merged with the Foreign Office in 2020, it was expert teams that gave Britain the know-how on how to lead on areas such as nutrition, which were chronically under-resourced. Our capacity suffered as a result, and I urge the Minister to prioritise protecting the UK’s health and nutrition expertise, embedded in-country and in the FCDO.

I am very pleased that the UK will be represented by a Minister at the Nutrition for Growth summit. I give our envoy all our support and encouragement in convening and corralling support for a compact on nutrition integration, yet it is difficult to lead on global nutrition policy when we are stepping back from funding nutrition. I remain deeply disappointed that no new financial commitments will be announced by the Government to mark the summit.

Nutrition is foundational for development. Investments in nutrition are low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest value development initiatives. We also know how to do it. Indeed, we have achieved remarkable success, halving the proportion of people suffering from undernourishment in developing regions between 1990 and 2015. We have led that, but we are now in retreat. I urge the Government to renew that ambition, because nutrition is foundational. Without it, progress on global health, gender equality and peace building is nearly impossible, and the need for that is greater than ever.

Middle East

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I echo those who have thanked the Foreign Secretary for the tone that he has taken, and the way in which he has reflected the relief of the whole House that there is at last some hope for the families of the hostages, members of which are here today, and for the population of Gaza. He spoke of the need for a political process to ensure that the deal succeeds, and of the hope that needs to be part of eradicating extremism in the middle east. Does he agree that this is perhaps the appropriate time that he has talked about for holding out hope of a two-state solution, and that now might be the perfect time for the Government to recognise a state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that a two-state solution is the only way to a stable peace. She knows, too, that recognition in itself does not achieve that. It has always been my view, and that of important international partners such as France, that this is an important issue. If we are serious, and achieve that political process, recognition might properly be part of it, to cement the two states that are necessary. This Government, and I suspect previous Governments, fully understand the importance of the UK’s role in applying that at the appropriate moment, precisely because we have the distinguished responsibility of having a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Detained British Nationals Abroad

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned by the number of arbitrarily detained British nationals at risk of human rights abuses abroad and the apparent lack of active support for those detained; and calls on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide regular reports on when it last raised the cases of those people with its international counterparts.

I am enormously pleased that the Backbench Business Committee agreed to find sufficient time to debate this issue. Too often, the issue of British citizens detained abroad gets washed away in all the other debates, no matter who is in government. As I have said before, regardless of who is sitting on the Government Benches—be they Conservative, Labour or whatever—I tend to find myself in opposition on issues such as this, as do many Members here. We have serious concerns that the issue is not raised enough, and cases are locked behind a wall of silence. I want to change that today.

My intention is to call on the Government, first of all, to provide regular reports—something they never do —on when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last raised the cases of British nationals who are arbitrarily detained abroad and at risk of human rights abuses. Individuals detained abroad are particularly vulnerable to torture, ill treatment and other serious human rights violations from the moment that they are detained. At least 100 UK nationals are tortured or ill treated abroad every year. In 2023, the FCDO received 188 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. It goes on and on.

Arbitrary detention and hostage-taking are devastating, but are practised by a number of regimes, chief among those being Iran. That is devastating for the individuals affected and their families. Survivors bear the physical, psychological and socioeconomic scars of their captivity. Survivors’ families also endure significant psychological distress, often facing vicarious trauma as they fight for their loved ones’ release and feeling that they are fighting a losing battle against even the establishment here in the United Kingdom.

The support that the British Government can provide to their nationals in these harrowing circumstances is crucial. They are sometimes the only link between the individual and the outside world.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The right hon. Member mentioned support from the British Government. Does he agree that that support is not always as consistent across the globe as we might like and as many members of the public would imagine it to be? There is no guarantee or legal right imposed on the UK Government to do it in the way that there is, for example, on the American Government. Does he think that the situation is unsatisfactory and, if so, what does he think the Government should do about it?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I completely agree. I have no problem agreeing on this matter. It has been a long-standing issue for families and Members of Parliament that, somehow, the FCDO puts a cloud of obscurity in the way of real knowledge about what is going on. For families, that can be incredibly difficult.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the hon. Lady that I met with Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family just a few weeks ago, and I raised the issue once again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in a subsequent call.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Like every Member, in my constituency I receive hundreds of representations from Hongkongers in this country who are concerned about their own safety—I have experience of it myself: I was filmed by a drone while speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh—but they are also concerned about their families at home. What assurances can the Foreign Secretary give us about the safety of Hongkongers in this country, and more importantly about plugging the gaps in the British national overseas scheme?

[Mr Lammy]

The national security law is of great concern, which is why I raised it with the Foreign Minister. Of course Hong Kong nationals should be assured of their safety in this country. Our police and security services keep these things under close scrutiny.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am advised that the meeting is, I think, today.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of my constituents have written to me concerned that the UK is delaying its ratification of the global ocean treaty, which could limit human activity in what would be known as sanctuary areas in order to protect valuable marine life. Has a Minister made an assessment of how that could work with the blue belt programme to ensure that our overseas territories have the highest possible protection for their water and their biodiversity?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Government are extremely well joined up on that—I made the point earlier about the DEFRA Minister working closely with the Foreign Office on these matters—so I think she can reassure her constituents that that matter is very much in hand.

Human Rights: Consular Services

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consular services for cases involving human rights.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As many other Members probably do, I have a wee blue laminated badge that says “Free Nazanin”. It was given to me by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband Richard the first time I met him, during his hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy in London. I keep it in the corner of a mirror in my flat. Originally, it was a daily reminder of Nazanin and the emotional torture that she and her family were being put through. Now, I keep it as a reminder of those who are still enduring imprisonment abroad and having to fight for the right to fair representation and fair trial, which in this country we take for granted.

Jagtar Singh Johal has been arrested and held without trial in India for seven years—seven years in which the Indian Government have presented no evidence to link him to any crime. There have been claims of his having to sign a false confession under torture. Ryan Cornelius was arrested in 2008 and convicted of fraud in the United Arab Emirates. After completing his sentence, he now faces a 20-year extension, decided behind closed doors without legal representation. British-Russian journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza, for his criticism of the regime of Vladimir Putin, was given the longest prison sentence for political activity in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union: 25 years, in one of the country’s harshest prisons.

How can that happen, we ask ourselves? How can it be that British nationals can find themselves without legal representation or recourse to support? It was only in a recent conversation with Richard Ratcliffe that I realised the lengths to which he had to go to ensure that Nazanin got representation. As it stands, there is no legal guarantee that any British citizen will have the right to assistance from the consulate in the country where they are held. There is no process, threshold or mechanism. In other countries, there is: in the United States there is a statutory requirement for the State Department and the President to advocate on behalf of US nationals who are wrongfully detained. They must also endeavour to provide support and resources for the detainee’s family, whose advocacy can be crucial in securing release, as we know from the case of Richard and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Yes, support can be provided, and sometimes it is, but the problem is that that is at the discretion of the consulate. Although the UK ratified the Vienna convention through the Consular Relations Act 1968, so much of it relies on diplomacy, good faith and international relationships—discretion. Surely that is not enough. It is not enough that if any of our constituents find themselves detained abroad, they will have no guarantee that their Government will protect them and their wellbeing, and that the right to protest their innocence or transfer home to this country will be dependent on diplomatic niceties and international relationships.

Too often, the fair treatment or the eventual release of British citizens detained abroad depends on publicity, on campaigns by the family and on the support and hard work of their MP. Many of us have direct experience of offering such support to our constituents. In my previous career as a journalist, I covered the case of a schoolteacher from the north-east of Scotland whose release from jail in Thailand was secured by the then MP for Gordon, my noble Friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie —it is a long-standing issue. I have already mentioned the efforts on behalf of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, many of which were made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has worked on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal; the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) does a power of work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance. But the people they have represented are just a tiny fraction of those affected, and the problem is growing.

Just last year, a Foreign Affairs Committee report recognised the scale of the problem. It is a problem that the Government are familiar with, not just through the high-profile cases that I mentioned earlier, but through the 5,000 new cases of British citizens arrested or detained abroad that the Foreign Office estimated in 2022 that it can deal with annually.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful and well-informed speech; I congratulate her on bringing the issue to Westminster Hall. Is she aware that 10 years ago the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a report on consular assistance that said that the level of support did not meet public expectation and that there were huge gaps? Does she think that things have changed since then?

[Christine Jardine]

Unfortunately, if things have changed they have got worse. The public have become disillusioned, in a way, and are beginning to think that nothing will ever be done to improve the situation. Everyone who is affected is currently dependent on discretion as to whether their human rights will be protected in the way that we might all expect, and that the public have a right to expect whenever they go abroad. The responsibility falls on families to lobby MPs, the media and even the public to raise awareness of cases and ensure support.

It is vital to stress that none of what I am saying is meant as a criticism of existing consular services—quite the opposite. I hope that we can put on the record our support for the hard work that our consular staff do across the world. We also need to push the Government to recognise that more needs to be done. I believe that it is necessary to strengthen the powers and responsibilities of embassies and consulates around the world to help those in need and provide an automatic response. The fact that that does not exist just now means that the response of the authorities, if it happens at all, is slower than it would ideally be.

We need to overcome the inconsistent level of support across the globe by establishing a clear process to be followed. To that end, my private Member’s Bill—the Consular Assistance Bill, which is due a Second Reading on 26 April—would impose a new obligation on UK Government Ministers to inform consular officials if they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk of a British citizen suffering an abuse of their human rights. It would have to be investigated, and consulates would have to inform the Government and relevant authorities. The person detained would be protected and would then be subject to more intensive and comprehensive investigations by the consulate, which would then have to inform the heads of mission and Ministers of any developments. Visits, discussions or deteriorations in circumstances would also have to be reported. Family or designated persons would have to be informed.

There would also be enhanced responsibilities towards detainees. It would be the duty of the consulate to take reasonable steps to secure the safety and support of the person detained, with visits, food, water, reading and writing materials and, if necessary, medical supplies. Is it not astonishing to be discussing even the possibility that any British citizen detained abroad would not have those things?

For the most serious cases, the consulate would have to ensure access to the correct legal advice and support. We should not forget that in some cases individuals may be the hostage of another state, may have been detained arbitrarily or may even face a possible death sentence. It should be the Secretary of State’s responsibility to bring forward the processes that I have mentioned.

I stress again that none of this is meant as a criticism of existing consular services. Quite the opposite: I would like to give consular services the tools to protect British citizens in the way that we and they would surely wish. To that end, I would like to assure the Government of what I am not suggesting. I am not suggesting giving a blanket right to consular assistance in all cases, nor am I suggesting forcing the UK Government to act in every case. My suggestion is specifically to improve the responses for British citizens in extreme or severe cases in which their human rights are at risk or denied. For routine cases such as the loss of a passport or other minor issues, the provision of services will, I hope, remain at the discretion of the consulate.

Of course there is a balance to be struck between personal responsibility and Government support in extreme circumstances, but human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and inhumane treatment need to be addressed specifically. We should not forget the cases of those who are in detention across the globe just now. I would like to mention the work that Richard Ratcliffe has done to draw attention to the issue—he opened my eyes to what is needed—and the work of charities such as Redress. Their concern, like mine and many other people’s, is to ensure that citizens have the assurance that they deserve: that in the most extreme cases and in the most desperate circumstances in which they might find themselves abroad, their Government will be there for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate for making such a concerted and powerful case for change. I fully appreciate what the Minister says about the good work that our embassies and consular services do every day across the world, but it is clear from what right hon. and hon. Members said that more needs to be done. The public in this country need reassurance that if something goes wrong when they are abroad, they will get the help and support they need. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for informing us that a new Labour Government would take a different approach and would improve the situation. We will hold her to that if there is a new Labour Government later this year or next year.

I would like the Minister to take this point away and consider it: it is time for change. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, it has been more than 10 years since the Foreign Affairs Committee report that said that the public expect better than they get at the moment. If we do that, perhaps we can be confident that the service will live up to the promise in our passports of support, help, passage, safety and security wherever we go in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered consular services for cases involving human rights.

Israel and Gaza

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman has served at a senior level in government and knows what Governments do and do not publish. However, he can rest assured that when we receive advice on international humanitarian law, we look at it extremely carefully, and when the Law Officers make their judgments on this matter, we come to the House and update it. That is what we will do in due course.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of us in this place have been calling since November for the release of the hostages, the removal of Hamas, an immediate bilateral ceasefire, and humanitarian aid. Sometimes, it seems the only thing that has changed is that the situation has got worse for people in Gaza. My constituents write to me constantly. They feel that the Israeli Government are ignoring pleas, and that the people of Palestine have been abandoned. The Minister said that he would do whatever it took in this situation —I have every respect for him and believe him when he says that.

Does the Minister accept that one of the biggest barriers to peace is illegal Israeli settlement in the west bank? Recently, there were sanctions against four Israeli settlers who had committed human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats hope that that is just the start. Will the UK Government consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who promote that extremist agenda, and all the settler movements connected to them in a way that finally makes a difference to what is happening?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady will be aware that Britain has consistently condemned settler violence. We have made it clear that we expect those responsible to be caught, arrested, tried and punished for it, and we will continue to do so. As she mentions, four settlers have been sanctioned. We do not discuss on the Floor of the House the operations of the sanctions regime, but she may rest assured that the opinion of the Government is that the settlements and the acts that she described are illegal, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they stop.

Israel and Gaza

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The earlier part of the hon. Lady’s question underlines the fact that these issues should not be resolved at the whim of Ministers but through the arms export Committee, which is both independent and legally advised. It is the toughest regime in the world and Ministers should look to it for guidance, which we do.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I hope the Minister will agree that there is clear consensus in this House that we want an end to the horror that we are seeing in Gaza and to the misery of the Israeli families who are missing those taken hostage. The Minister has made a great deal of the fact that a humanitarian pause is all that can be achieved, but that it can be a route to a ceasefire. We are hearing promising noises from the talks that there may be a pause in hostilities. While that is not enough, can the Minister assure us that our Government will do everything they can to reflect the will of this place and the people we represent in pursuing an end to the horror in Gaza and the long-term establishment of a two-state solution in the middle east?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can assure the hon. Lady. Her point underlines the degree of agreement rather than disagreement across this House. She said that the Government believe that a pause is all that can be achieved, but that is not the case. The Government believe that a pause will enable us to get the hostages out and aid and support in. It is part of the journey towards a sustainable ceasefire. It is certainly not all that we believe can be achieved, but it is necessary for the other things that we want to achieve.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.

Our motion calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, from all combatants. I wish to put on record, once again, our unequivocal condemnation of the Hamas attack of 7 October, and to repeat our call both for the immediate release of all the hostages and for seeing those involved in those atrocities called to account for their actions. The war in Gaza is one of the great defining moments of our time, yet, until today, this House has not been given the opportunity to debate both the unfolding human catastrophe and the wider implications for regional and global stability. Nor have we had the opportunity to debate the urgent and pressing need for an immediate ceasefire, as an essential first step in finding a lasting and just peace.

No one would deny that Israel has the right to defend itself—every country has that right. What no country has the right to do, however, is lay siege to a civilian population, carpet-bomb densely inhabited areas, drive people from their homes, erase an entire civilian infrastructure, and impose a collective punishment involving the cutting off of water, electricity, food, and medicine from civilians. And no country, regardless of who it is, can, in the name of self-defence, kill civilians at such a pace, and on such a scale, that in just 16 weeks almost 30,000 are known to have died, with a further 80,000 injured. We cannot allow the core principle of self-defence to be so ruthlessly exploited and manipulated in order to legitimise the slaughter of innocent civilians. If we do that, what hope is there for the future of the international rules-based order, an order created to protect people from atrocities, not to be used as a smokescreen to hide the execution of them?

If we accept what Israel is doing in Gaza as the new norm—as the new accepted standard of self-defence—we undermine that core principle, which is meant to protect and defend us. Therefore we cannot accept that what is happening now is self-defence, because of the precedent that it will set. I have no doubt that that thought contributed to the United States issuing its clearest warning yet to Netanyahu that it would not support his proposed ground offensive in Rafah. This is why the UN Security Council is currently debating a ceasefire as we speak today, and even the US has recognised that a ceasefire must happen for a peaceful political solution. Of course, that does not go nearly far enough, but it does show that things are moving, opinions are changing and the guarantees that Israel has come to rely on are gradually withdrawing.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I think that, at the moment, very few people, not only in this House but across the country, would differ from the sentiments being expressed by the Scottish National party spokesperson. Each night, we all watch the torture of the people in Gaza with horror, and we remember every morning the pain being felt by the families whose loved ones are being held hostage. But does the hon. Member not agree that we would serve their cause, and ourselves in this place, so much better if we built a consensus behind an opinion today, rather than indulging in petty party politics that helps no one?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not quite sure what she means about petty party politics. The behaviour that we have seen today has been pretty petty, but we are all about consensus. If there is anything that can build a consensus for peace, which has to be based around peace, justice and an immediate ceasefire, then we will be there.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and entirely right that Israel has an absolute right of self-defence in this matter. On the options to which he alludes, I can assure him that a great deal of thought is going on, not only in Britain but across the region and elsewhere.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

A lasting peace and a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee dignity and security for both Palestinians and Israelis. Hamas, a terrorist organisation, cannot be part of that, but a month after their contemptable attack on Israel, it is clear that a military solution is not working. It is not removing Hamas, and instead we have the humanitarian catastrophe to which the Minister referred. Does he agree that the way to achieve that peace and a two-state solution is to back a political solution with an immediate bilateral ceasefire, explicitly contingent on both parties adhering to it, so that if one party breaks the ceasefire, a military operation remains on the table?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is entirely right about the importance of a political solution. She knows the position of the Government and Members on the Opposition Front Bench on the issue of ceasefires, but I hope she will draw some comfort from the emphasis on extended pauses that we are now seeing. On the politics, I remind her that the great progress that was made at Oslo, which brought things so tantalisingly close, took place on the back of the first intifada.