Middle East
Debate between David Lammy and Judith Cummins(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Iran.
In Gaza, the situation on the ground is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words, but we can and must be precise with our language, because on 22 August the United Nations-backed IPC mechanism confirmed what we are witnessing: famine—famine in Gaza city; famine in its surrounding neighbourhoods now spreading across the wider territory; famine which, if unchecked, will spiral into widespread starvation.
This was foreseen: it is the terrible conclusion of the obstacles we have warned about for over six months. Since 1 July, over 300 people have died from malnutrition, including 119 children. More than 132,000 children under the age of five are at risk of dying from hunger by June next year. This is not a natural disaster; it is a man-made famine in the 21st century, and I am outraged by the Israeli Government’s refusal to allow in sufficient aid. We need a massive humanitarian response to prevent more deaths, crucial non-governmental organisations, humanitarians and health workers to be allowed to operate, and stockpiles of aid on Gaza’s borders to be released. In the past three months, more than 2,000 Gazans have been killed trying to feed their families, and Hamas themselves are exploiting the chaos and deliberately starving Israeli hostages for abhorrent political purposes.
I know that these words of condemnation, echoed across legislatures all over the world, are not enough, but be in no doubt: we have acted as a country where we can. We restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza. We signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We stood up for the independence of international courts. We have delivered three sanctions packages on violent settlers and far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We have suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government. We are at the forefront of the international community’s work to plan for a stable, post-conflict peace. We have now provided more than £250 million in development assistance over the past two years.
Today, we are going further. I can announce an additional £15 million of aid and medical care for Gaza and the region. We continue to work alongside regional partners, including Egypt and Jordan, to enable the United Nations and non-governmental organisations to ensure that aid reaches those most in need. Brave medics in Gaza tell us that essential medicines are running out and they cannot operate safely. That is why we are funding UK-Med, whose field hospitals have treated more than 600,000 Gazans. It is also why we are funding the World Health Organisation in Egypt to treat thousands of evacuated Gazan people.
Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we are working with the World Health Organisation to get critically ill and injured children into the UK, where they will receive specialist NHS treatment. The first patients are expected to arrive in the UK in the coming weeks. Extracting people from a war zone is, of course, complex and dangerous, and it relies entirely on Israeli permissions. I am pressing the Israeli Government for that to happen as quickly as possible. We are also supporting brilliant students granted Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Chevening scholarships and other scholarships to escape Gaza, so that they can take up their places for the coming academic year.
I recognise that those things only touch the edges of this catastrophe. We all know that there is only one way out: an immediate ceasefire that would see the unconditional release by Hamas of all hostages and a transformation in the delivery of aid. We know it, our US and European allies know it, and our Gulf partners know it, too. I am working night and day with them to deliver a ceasefire and a wider political process to deliver long-term peace. To make a ceasefire last, we need a monitoring mechanism, the disarmament of Hamas and a new governance framework for Gaza. That is the focus of our intense diplomacy in the region.
In contrast, further military operations in Gaza City will only prolong and deepen the crisis. Together with our partners, we demand an immediate halt to the operation. Each week brings new horrors. Last week’s double strike on Nasser hospital—one of Gaza’s last remaining major health facilities—killed 20 people, including five journalists. I remind Israel once again that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians. These actions will not end the war, and they will not bring the hostages home, let alone make them safer, as hostage families have recognised. Such actions will sow despair and anger across the region for generations.
In the west bank, the Israeli Government are tightening their stranglehold on the Palestinian economy and continue to approve illegal settlement construction, including just recently in the E1 area east of Jerusalem. That would erect a physical barrier to the contiguous Palestinian state, and it must not happen.
In July, I described before the UN General Assembly our intention to recognise the state of Palestine later this month, unless the Israeli Government take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term sustainable peace. That commitment responds to the current crisis, but stems from our historic responsibility to the region’s security, reaching back over a century to the Balfour declaration. As I said last month in New York, I am deeply proud that it was a British Foreign Secretary who helped establish a homeland for the Jewish people, but the same declaration promised that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights”
of the Palestinian people. Those rights are more under threat than at any point in the past century.
To those who say recognition rewards Hamas or threatens Israeli security, it does neither. Recognition is rooted in the principle of a two-state solution, which Hamas rejects. We have been clear that any Palestinian state should be demilitarised. Indeed, President Abbas has confirmed that in writing. We see no contradiction between the two-state solution and our deep commitment to Israeli security, because security comes from stable borders, not indefinite occupation.
Before I finish, I would also like to update the House on Iran. On 28 August, the UK, along with France and Germany, triggered the snapback mechanism under UN Security Council resolution 2231. That means that if no new agreement is reached within 30 days, the sanctions that were lifted under the Iran nuclear deal—the joint comprehensive plan of action—will come back into force. Those wide-ranging sanctions include a full arms embargo and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear, missile and drone programme. It was not a decision we took lightly. For years, we have worked with international partners to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal was meant to do just that, but Iran has repeatedly undermined the agreement. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is now 40 times over the limit set by the JCPOA. Despite that clear escalation, we have made every effort over years of negotiations to bring Iran back to compliance. Those efforts have continued in recent months. I have urged Foreign Minister Araghchi to de-escalate and choose diplomacy.
In July, we offered Iran more time if it agreed to return to negotiations with the US and restore full access to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Last month, I warned Iran that time was short and we would have little choice but to trigger snapback. I regret to inform the House that Iran has not complied with its legal obligations, nor chosen the path of diplomacy, so we have had no choice but to act. I have long been clear that I will not allow snapback to expire without a durable and comprehensive deal. It would be unacceptable to allow this issue to fall off the UN Security Council agenda, despite the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. Snapback is not the end of diplomacy, as Secretary Rubio has also recently underlined. Iran can still meet our conditions. It can restore full IAEA access and address our concerns about its stockpile and enrichment, and it can return to negotiations. Alongside our partners, I will continue to urge Iran to choose that path.
In the worst of times, this Government will continue to take all the steps that we can to alleviate suffering, to help bring regional conflict to an end and to create the conditions for long-term peace and security. We will not rest until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, the hostages are returned, and a flood of aid reaches those in desperate need. Despite the obstacles before us, we will work with partners to preserve the two-state solution. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, who can speak for up to six and a half minutes.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. I am pleased that she agrees with me and, indeed, shares the sentiment of the entire House on the dire—as she described it— humanitarian situation in Gaza and the inhumanity that she also described. She will recognise that even before we came to power, the last Government were calling for the ceasefire that we all want to see.
The right hon. Lady asked what the Government were doing in relation to Hamas. In New York, with our Arab partners, the French and others, we were doing just that—supporting the Prime Minister’s framework for peace, and working with colleagues to establish the circumstances of the day after. We have been crystal clear: there can be no role for Hamas. We need the demilitarisation of Gaza, and we are working with partners to try to set up the trusteeship, the new governance arrangement with Gaza. No Government are doing more than we are. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, and we are working with it on reform in a deliberate, day-to-day action, because there must be a role for it subsequently.
The right hon. Lady asked what new solutions on aid might be found. That is where I depart with her sentiments, because I am not sure that we need new solutions. We need the old ones: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the World Food Programme. They exist, so let us support them. It was this party that restored funding to UNRWA when it was opposed by the Opposition. Let me say gently to the right hon. Lady that that is not what feeds women and girls. The mechanisms are there, and they work all over the globe. This worked the last time we had a ceasefire, when as many as 600 trucks a day went in, and we can do it once more. That is the position of the UK Government.
I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the United Nations this morning to get the latest. The moderately good news is that the number of truck movements in August was higher than it was when I last updated the House in July, as the House was going into recess, but he reminded me that 60 or 70 trucks a day was nowhere near the number needed. I found the extra resources today because we know that the medical situation is dire, and the work that we can do with UK-Med is so important and so valued even when we are up against this horrific situation.
Let me be crystal clear: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Our demands are unconditional and have not changed. The hostages must be released without delay, and there can be no role for Hamas. But equally, the right hon. Lady will have seen the situation in the west bank. She did not comment on the E1 development running a coach and horses through the idea of two states, which has been the united position of every single party in this Chamber. That is why we set out the plans for recognition. Unless we get the breakthrough that we need on the ceasefire and a full process, we will move to recognition when UNGA meets in New York.
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s support on Iran and the snapback. My assessment is that no country needs the percentages of enriched uranium that we see in Iran. We do not have them in our country. We do not have them at sites like Sellafield and others, including the Urenco site. There is absolutely no need for them. We need a baseline, and that is why we need the inspectors back in. We need to know where the highly enriched uranium has gone, and that is why we have been very clear with the Iranians on the need to trigger snapback. We will see the sanctions come back unless we can reach a diplomatic solution in the next 30 days.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend —my dear friend—for her remarks, and I commend the work of her Committee on the day after and the thoroughness of approach that is required. I have read the reports, but it is speculative stuff that I have seen in different news articles; it is not a comprehensive approach. In my discussions with the US system, I have seen nothing confirmed along the lines of what she said. The day after requires the removal of Hamas; it cannot be about the further displacement of the Gazan people. It is going to require a degree of finance and stability, which I think will require other states, particularly Arab partners. They would set themselves against the sorts of reports I have seen in the papers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has up to three minutes for his remarks.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the robust approach of the E3 in initiating the snapback mechanism in response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programme, which are in breach of its undertakings.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement on 21 July shocked this House, and we had a long debate about the situation in Gaza, yet the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the west bank has deteriorated even further since then, as he has acknowledged. We have seen hundreds more Palestinians killed while seeking aid; famine declared in the strip; a chronic lack of medical supplies, attested to by UK medics volunteering in Nasser hospital; the start of IDF operations in Gaza City; and the images of emaciated hostages still held in brutal captivity by Hamas terrorists.
The human suffering is indeed beyond comprehension, yet the extremists are indifferent. Hamas terrorists publish videos intended to torment the families of hostages. Cabinet members Ben-Gvir and Smotrich advocate for the forced displacement of Palestinians. In Israel, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum and Opposition parties call for an end to the violence. In the UK, our constituents are desperate for the same. The bloodshed can be stopped only by decisive actions—actions that I regret the Government have so far failed to take.
The Prime Minister was wrong in principle to condition the recognition of Palestine on the actions of the Netanyahu Government, and wrong in practice, as he has been ignored. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm today that the UK will recognise Palestine later this month at the UN? The Government must learn a lesson and now apply relentless pressure on the Netanyahu Government, so the Liberal Democrats call today on the Foreign Secretary to finally sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu for expanding his military campaign and pursuing the illegal expansion of the E1 settlements, and to take the steps necessary to ban the export of all UK arms to Israel, including F-35 components. Will he also make representations to the Qatari Government to demand that they exile Hamas from their political headquarters unless they agree to the release of all the hostages immediately and unconditionally?
The Foreign Secretary bemoans that words are not enough to alleviate the suffering. He acknowledges that the Government have failed to move the combatants, yet there is one man who could unlock progress. Donald Trump has the power to secure peace in Gaza, if he chose to, by picking up the phone to Netanyahu. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how he will use his special relationship with Vice President Vance to help secure that goal, and will the Government commit to making a ceasefire in Gaza a priority during President Trump’s state visit?
Middle East
Debate between David Lammy and Judith Cummins(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Like others in this House, I am frankly astonished at the statement of the Foreign Secretary. At a time when we have got daily lynchings and expulsions on the west bank, and dozens being murdered as they beg for aid, I am just beyond words at his inaction—and, frankly, complicity by inaction. He said himself that there is a massive prison camp being constructed in the south of Gaza and he knows that leading genocide scholars from across the world are ringing the alarm bells, yet he has the temerity to show up in this House and wave his cheque book as if that is going to salve his conscience. Can he not see that his inaction and, frankly, cowardice are making this country irrelevant? Can he also not see the personal risk to him, given our international obligations—that he may end up at The Hague because of his inaction? Finally, frankly, I make an appeal to Labour Back Benchers: we cannot get your leadership to change their minds; only you can, if you organise and insist on change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I bring in the Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that we have other business to proceed with tonight, so please keep questions and answers short.
Mr Lammy
I understand the fury that the right hon. Gentleman feels, but I have to tell him—
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On the Foreign Secretary’s watch and in his statement today, he has refused to call it a genocide, he has refused to end all arms sales to Israel and, of course, he continues to refuse to recognise a state of Palestine, so here is something he could do. On his watch, just two wee kids who have been bombed or shot by the Israeli forces have been evacuated to the UK for medical treatment. The First Minister of Scotland wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we stand ready to provide hospital treatment to such children. Shamefully, the Prime Minister has not even bothered to respond. Will the Foreign Secretary do what his boss will not, and commit the UK to making sure that children who have been bombed by Israel are treated—
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza. He should look closely at our export licensing regime, because much of it is not about arms. It is about, for example, equipment that we send to support non-governmental organisations and others in the area. Of course, I am happy to look, with the Home Secretary, at what more we can do for children who are suffering.
Mr Lammy
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made back in September and the addendum to that statement, which set out the basis on which I have judged that there was a clear risk to international humanitarian law. He knows that the long-established position is that it is for the international courts to make any determination of genocide. Our assessment is there is a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law.
China Audit
Debate between David Lammy and Judith Cummins(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, I will make a statement on the China audit.
China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner.
Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all. China’s power is an inescapable fact. After what the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 described as a “completely inadequate” approach over the past decade to deal with China’s “size, ambition and capability”, we must now look at the facts. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton attempted a golden era. Boris Johnson let Huawei into our critical national infrastructure before U-turning. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak decided that China was a threat but failed to devise any policy response, instead burying their heads in the sand.
This Government conducted an audit of our most complex bilateral relationship to deliver a long-term strategy, moving beyond cheap rhetoric to a data-driven, cross-Government approach. I would like to thank the hundreds who contributed to it, including hon. Members, of course, and experts, businesses, diaspora communities, devolved Governments and close allies. The audit is less a single act than an ongoing exercise that will continue to guide the UK’s approach to China. It informed the Government’s strategic defence review, which assessed that China was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. It informed the national security strategy, published today, which sets out China’s impacts on each strategic pillar of UK national security. It has steered our trade and industrial strategies, which analysed where greater engagement is possible, given the important role China can play in delivering UK growth.
Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do—from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure.
Hon. Members will again recognise that disclosing the detail of the responses to those threats would undermine their effectiveness. However, I can confirm that following the audit we are investing £600 million in our intelligence services; updating our state threats legislation following Jonathan Hall’s review; strengthening our response to transnational repression; introducing training for police and launching more online guidance to support victims; launching, as announced in the industrial strategy, a 12-week consultation on updating the definitions covering the 17 sensitive areas under the National Security and Investment Act 2021; and working bilaterally with China to enhance intelligence flows related to illicit finance specifically, organised immigration crime and scam centres, using new National Crime Agency capabilities.
On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that.
The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights—notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet—while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.
The audit made it clear that our approach will always be guided by the UK’s long-term economic growth priorities. It provided ample evidence of the extent to which our economies are intertwined. China is our third biggest trading partner and our universities’ second largest source of international students. China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK’s secure growth, but over the past decade we have not had the structures either to take the opportunities or to protect us from the risks that those deep links demand. Businesses have told us time and again that they have lacked senior political engagement and adequate Government guidance.
We have already begun to develop new structures, including regular economic and financial dialogues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, setting us on course to unlock £1 billion of economic value for the UK economy and positioning the UK’s world-leading financial sector to reflect China’s importance to the global economy; joint economic and trade commissions; and joint commission meetings on science. We will also launch a new online hub, bringing together detailed and specific business advice. The forthcoming trade strategy will set out how we will support British firms to enhance links with China’s vast and growing consumer market as well as assess new tools to keep goods made by forced labour anywhere in the world off Britain’s high streets.
The audit recognised that China’s global role does not fit into simple stereotypes. China is the world’s biggest emitter but also the biggest producer of renewables. It offers $80 billion towards development annually. It is also the UK’s second largest research collaborator: 11% of British research output included Chinese authors.
So the audit was clear: the UK must develop new dialogues with China on issues such as climate, development, global health and science, as well as on trade. In doing so, we are driving our long-term interests and creating secure opportunities for UK plc.
We cannot deal with China’s complexity unless we improve our capability to understand it, for our national security and for secure trade and growth. The audit showed that under the last Government there was a profound lack of confidence in how to deal with China and a profound lack of knowledge regarding China’s culture, history and—most importantly—language. Over the past year, I have found that far too few mandarins speak Mandarin. We are already taking action to address that by introducing a new China fast stream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, creating an FCDO global China network and training over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. Enhancing those capabilities still further will be a core focus for the £290 million FCDO transformation fund announced in the national security strategy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a short time ago. The new strategy, which proceeds from the audit, will ensure that the Government examine the full spectrum of interests in their decision-making processes and deliver the consistent approach that was so sorely lacking.
Anyone expecting a simple prescription on China is not living in the real world. The audit has painted a complex picture, but it has provided us with a clear way forward. The UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism, taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will co-operate where we can and challenge where we must. Never compromising on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth—those are the hallmarks of grown-up government, acting in the long-term national interest.
Mr Lammy
I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it.
Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring.
The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interest that she has taken with the China audit. I did say that I would update the Committee, and I look forward to appearing before it and taking questions on this subject.
In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification. She will note, when she looks across the G7 and other Five Eyes partners, that many of them have handled their approach to China in the way that I have set out. I refer her to the strategic defence review and its contents on China. I refer her to the national security strategy, which has just been published, and its references to China. I also refer her to the UK’s industrial strategy and its references to China, alongside the statement that I have just made.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For years, UK Governments have failed to take seriously the challenge posed by China. The Conservatives failed to deliver even the semblance of a coherent approach to dealing with Beijing. Today, after months of waiting for this audit, the Government’s failure to publish a stand-alone document is immensely disappointing. Will the Foreign Secretary set out how Members of this House, including those on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those on the Front Benches with responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security, can be briefed on the more sensitive elements of the audit?
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise China for what it is: a threat to our values and interests. The Foreign Secretary is right that our approach must confront the facts as they are. They include China’s hostility to the UK’s allies and support for our adversaries, its abuse of human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the theft of intellectual property and its efforts at transnational repression. Instead of trying to establish warm relations with President Xi, the Government should commit to clear red lines on what they will not accept. For example, we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong when on a private visit to see her family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what steps he will take if Beijing refuses to give an assurance that MPs will not be blocked from visiting Hong Kong or China?
We now hear reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to wave through Beijing’s application for a proposed mega-embassy in the heart of London. That is not a technical planning matter to be cloaked in the veil of quasi-judicial powers; it is a matter of national security. Opposition has been expressed by the United States and by pro-democracy Chinese and Hong Kong activists living in the UK, who already face Chinese Communist party-sponsored bounties. Has the Foreign Secretary met those activists, and will he formally request that the mega-embassy application be blocked?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of capabilities. We must have more diplomats with a fine understanding of China and more Mandarin speakers, and we are doing that. Sadly, the last Government cut the number of diplomats with that capability and understanding. We need to invest in the Great Britain-China Centre so that understanding of the culture is across our country, and she is absolutely right on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is essential that we have a fuller understanding of the reach of China, as well as of our goals. British citizens have contacted me about the human rights violations, not only against those in China but those who live on our shores. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that China understands that its reach stops before our shores, and that our people are entitled to think and have freedom of speech whenever they desire, without any fear of reprisal?
Points of Order
Debate between David Lammy and Judith Cummins(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he refers to was a matter of debate and nothing disorderly occurred. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I would urge that good temper and moderation be followed at all times in this Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of record that former Prime Minister May was considering matters that pertain to our nuclear capability. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was an adviser at that stage, and she had to withdraw her recommendations on the China General Nuclear Power Group. That is a matter of record, and anyone in this Chamber can google it.
Lebanon
Debate between David Lammy and Judith Cummins(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in Lebanon.
On 27 July, Hezbollah launched a series of rockets into northern Israel and the occupied Golan Heights. Tragically, in Majdal Shams, one strike killed at least 12 civilians—young people, one just 10-years-old, who were playing football. I extend my deepest sympathies to their families and to the Jewish community as they grieve for their loved ones. The Government are unequivocal in condemning this horrific attack and calling on Hezbollah to cease its rocket strikes. This atrocity is a consequence of indiscriminate firing and paying no heed at all to civilian life. This attack is part of an intensifying pattern of fighting around the Israeli-Lebanese border. For months now, we have been teetering on the brink. The risk of further escalation and regional destabilisation is now more acute than ever.
At the end of my first week in office I spoke to Lebanese Prime Minister Mikati, and yesterday I called him again to express my concern at this latest incident. I have also visited Israel and discussed the situation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Katz. I shall visit Lebanon as soon as the security circumstances allow. We support Israel’s right to defend itself in line with international humanitarian law. As I have said before, it is in a tough neighbourhood, threatened by those who want to see its annihilation. More than 40 people, including 24 civilians, have now been killed by Hezbollah strikes in northern Israel and the Golan Heights, and tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced from the area, while in Lebanon more than 100 civilians have died and almost 100,000 are displaced.
A widening of the conflict is in nobody’s interest. Indeed, the consequences could be catastrophic. That is why we continue to press for a diplomatic solution based on UN Security Council resolution 1701, which called for a long-term solution based on the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, no foreign forces in Lebanon without its Government’s consent, and no armed forces, other than the UN and the Lebanese Government troops, deployed south of the Litani river, near the border with Israel. It is why, even in the face of serious provocation, our counsel is restraint.
We welcome the Lebanese Government’s statement condemning violence against civilians and urging the cessation of all violence. We continue to support the Lebanese armed forces, and the UK has provided more training and equipment to four of Lebanon’s land border regiments. We are working intensively with the United Nations and our partners, including the United States and France, to encourage de-escalation.
With our partners we will do all we can to prevent the outbreak of full-scale conflict, but the risk is rising. I therefore want to underline the Government’s advice to British nationals. We advise against all travel to the north of Israel and the north of the Golan Heights, and against all travel to Lebanon. There are frequent artillery exchanges and airstrikes. Tensions are high and the situation could deteriorate rapidly.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired a Cobra meeting this morning, and I am working with Foreign Office consular teams to make sure that we are prepared for all scenarios. However, if the conflict escalates, the Government cannot guarantee that we will be able to evacuate everybody immediately. People may be forced to shelter in place. History teaches us that in a crisis such as this one, it is far safer to leave while commercial flights are still running, rather than run the risk of becoming trapped in a war zone. My message to British nationals in Lebanon is quite simple: leave.
The tensions on the Israeli-Lebanese border are one aspect of a wider crisis in the middle east. Across the region we see evidence of malign Iranian activity—in their support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and other groups whose actions destabilise the region, and who show scant regard for the death and destruction that this causes. This Government are committed to working alongside our partners to counter Iranian threats.
Meanwhile, in Gaza, fighting continues. The scenes at the Khadija schools—civilians killed and shocking images of injured children—underline the desperate conditions endured by civilians. The reports of the humanitarian situation remain sobering, with the threat of disease and famine looming ever larger. This Government continue to do all they can to provide relief to Palestinian civilians. I recently announced new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began. We have restored funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, providing £21 million in new funds to the agency that is able to deliver aid at the scale needed.
What is urgently needed is an immediate ceasefire. All the hostages must be freed. The fighting must end, and much, much more aid must get into Gaza. A ceasefire would not only alleviate the suffering in Gaza and secure the hostages’ release but reduce tensions across the region, helping to prevent an escalatory cycle in Lebanon, and it would offer hope of renewed peace processes between Israel and Palestinians.
As I said in my first appearance at this Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary, we are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. We do not want to see more civilians killed or more innocent lives cut short, but the risks are clear. We are urging the de-escalation of the current crisis while ensuring that we are prepared if diplomatic efforts do not succeed, with a clear call today for all British nationals in Lebanon to leave immediately. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the Lib Dem spokesman for the tone and manner of his remarks. I can reassure him that I have been in touch with the UN special envoy, Amos Hochstein. I have spoken to him several times and I intend to speak to him again over the coming days. As I have indicated, it is my hope to get to the region if the security situation allows.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an immediate ceasefire is what we need. We need those hostages out and we need the aid in. If we get that immediate ceasefire, if the Biden plan is adopted, it will allow de-escalation across the region. That is why we need to see that plan adopted by both sides as soon as possible.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Hezbollah’s horrific attack and his condemnation of the awful strike in Majdal Shams. What steps will he take to put maximum pressure on Hezbollah to cease its rocket attacks for good?
Mr Lammy
It was very important for me to visit the occupied territories and Israel within the first week in office. We said this in opposition and we say it again in government: of course, given the hostages who are still in Israel, Israel has a right to defend itself, but it is a qualified right—it has always been, within international humanitarian law. The scale of civilian loss of life—the children and the women who have lost their lives, the aid workers who have lost their lives—against a backdrop in which journalists are not allowed into the country has been a matter of deep concern and worry across the international community, so of course I have raised these issues. It was also important to meet hostage families and to be absolutely clear that we want to see those hostages returned.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment.
I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the escalation of violence can be reduced if we look at ending the suffering in Gaza. At a briefing that I attended today with Oxfam and Medical Aid for Palestinians, they talked about how Israel was using water as a weapon of war. People have 4.7 litres of water per day to wash, clean and cook. That is less than a toilet flush. I welcome the position that we have taken—we have moved greatly—but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go much further and much faster?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken up these issues over many years in this Parliament. Let me be clear: what I saw and what I continue to see in the occupied territories is unacceptable. He will know that the community who experience this violence in the Golan heights are Druze in background, and that this is occupation of the Golan heights—I do recognise that. I want to see de-escalation across the board and a solution along the lines of Oslo and 1967. A two-state solution is what we all want to get to, and we will achieve that if we have an immediate ceasefire and get back to political dialogue and conversation.