Ambassador to the United States
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh
I was just trying to give the hon. Gentleman some helpful advice, but there we are.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I have some advice for the hon. Member for Rugby: those that lick the feet of the unworthy gain for themselves nothing but a dirty tongue. [Laughter.]
Sir Edward Leigh
Joking apart, this is a very serious moment for our country and for Parliament. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is of incredible importance to our country. He is just about to arrive here and he must think that we in this country are complete plonkers, frankly, for the way that we have handled all this. First of all, he had a very good relationship with the previous ambassador, but she was just swept aside. Then a man was appointed who had traduced him in the past. All right, that man is a skilled operator and has built up a relationship. President Trump himself is probably rather embarrassed about his relationship with Epstein, and then he finds this being dragged up all over the media a day before one of his most important visits, which is of great importance to his country and to ours. He knows that there are going to be difficult questions at the press conference. The President of the United States must be absolutely furious about what is going on, so this is a very serious moment for us and we have to take it extremely seriously. I hope—I am sure—that the Government do so.
I will repeat what I said in the urgent question on Thursday. I have seen so many of these scandals, and it is usually not the original scandal or alleged scandal that is the problem; it is the cover up. I shall try to be helpful to the Government. We have already heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and it is an absurd part of our processes that if there is a monumental scandal, we have a public inquiry—where officials, Ministers, everybody must be dragged in and every document produced—but Governments can just brush aside a Select Committee. I am genuinely trying to be helpful now. Obviously a bad mistake was made, but an even worse mistake is being made if the Government are not honest with Parliament and they do not release every single document.
There are so many questions that need to be asked and that could be answered if the Government—the Foreign Office—were honest in response. Why was Mandelson chosen, given his known past associations with Epstein and his previous sackings? Were the risks merely misjudged, or did the existing vetting process fail to assess them properly? The Prime Minister claimed he did not know the full extent of the emails. We have no reason not to take him at his word. Obviously he tells the truth, but this raises serious questions about what assurances or information he received, from whom, and whether that constituted adequate due diligence. What exact checks were carried out at the appointment stage?
What was known by whom and when? If some of the unsavoury aspects of the former ambassador’s friendship with Mr Epstein were known but deemed “worth the risk”, what criteria were used to make that decision? Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team sufficiently rigorous? Was any personal, institutional or political bias exhibited in how risks were weighed?
The Government have stated commitments on transparency, integrity and protecting the victims of abuse or sexual violence. Having a senior representative such as an ambassador whose past communications appear to mitigate, defend or minimise a convicted child sex offender must run counter to those values. Was that considered at that stage of the vetting process? How do the Government reconcile this incident with their stated positions? Why was the appointment made knowing that there were links, but without understanding their full extent? Why was the Prime Minister publicly defending Lord Mandelson up until the revelations emerged, only to sack him in less than a day when the media pressure rose? Was he sacked for the content of what was revealed, or merely because the situation became embarrassing?
Lord Mandelson was appointed to arguably the most important diplomatic role in His Majesty’s diplomatic service. This is a time of intense international pressure, and President Trump is operating the levers of power in a way that we have rarely seen in the post-war world. What assessment have the Government made of the damage done to Britain’s diplomatic standing by having such an important ambassador removed abruptly under scandal? Light is the best disinfectant, and the public—and this House, through the Select Committee—have a right to be informed. Ministers must assure us that the full record of Lord Mandelson’s communications with Epstein will be disclosed, and soon.
We must also be told whether any of the information the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or any other Minister provided to the public has turned out to be inaccurate, whether intentionally or in good faith. The ambassador has been sacked, but this incident is far from over. Too many questions remain unanswered. It is the obligation and the responsibility of Government to ensure that Parliament and the public are given a full and frank exposition of this matter.
Stephen Doughty
I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—
Sir Desmond Swayne
It is. Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the House that when the Leader of the Opposition puts their hand on the Dispatch Box and seeks to intervene, the Minister gives way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.
Middle East
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her recent wedding. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She is absolutely right because there seem to be those in the Israeli Government who either want to see one state, in which case it is incumbent on them to be clear about how everyone in that one state has equality before the law, or want to see no state perpetuated forever. We must stand against that because it is not in the interests of Israel being safe and secure, and it is fundamentally against the interests of the Palestinian people, because the desire for two states is a just cause and one that we must stand behind.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What action will His Majesty’s Government take if the Government of Israel proceed with their plan to build in the E1 corridor?
Mr Lammy
I am not going to get ahead of my skis. We continue to work with partners internationally on making those assessments. I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister and was very clear that we stand against that. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when these plans surfaced the previous Government stood against the E1 development. At that time, I think the Government’s position was that they would recognise if they went ahead. We will continue to make that assessment, but I hope we can see the plans put to one side.
China Audit
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For an example of a quick question, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
No one should risk death or injury to feed their family. As I said in this House on 4 June, Israel’s aid delivery measures are inhumane. We will not support any mechanism that endangers civilians. We have continually called on Israel, including most recently on Sunday, immediately to allow the UN and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On three occasions in answering this question the Minister has said that “Israel must”. What will he do if Israel does not?
Mr Falconer
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have taken a series of actions in response to developments in Gaza. We will continue to take such actions until the situation changes.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we do not need any permission to make policy decisions. I think that if we did, the Israeli Government would have a rather different attitude towards Britain’s Minister for the Middle East.
The position in relation to recognition is that we wish to provide a state in which Palestinians can live safe and secure, side by side with the Israelis. That looks distant at the moment, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. Those reasons need to be addressed. We want to see progress, and we will consider our own position as part of the best possible way in which we can make a contribution.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sanctions are no remedy when it comes to the imperilled two-state solution. Is the Minister going to the conference with a plan?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman always asks succinct and clear questions. As he will recall, I was a diplomat for a long time. Sanctions are no remedy; they are an expression of a failure in the international system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said, we have heard week after week about the agonies. We do go to the conference with a plan, but it is a conference called by our friends and allies, and we are discussing our approach closely with them.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
On Sunday I was clear that Hamas should engage in ceasefire talks, should return to the table and should release all hostages. A ceasefire is desperately needed and is the only route forward.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Member will appreciate that in our private discussions with Israel we have been clear about the depth of feeling across the whole country, and indeed in this House, and we have been clear about the nature of further steps coming.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be deeply concerned about what is happening. We had hoped, and I know Vice-President Vance had hoped, that we would get a breakthrough in the ceasefire that was being brokered by the United States, Qatar and Egypt. She will have seen that the United States has been able to strike direct deals—it got its hostage out last week by going direct to Hamas—and that the breakthrough we had hoped for towards the end of last week has not come through. I do not foresee a ceasefire deal at this stage. That is why the only way forward is through more diplomacy, not less. It is not through military means. We have to be crystal clear that we disagree with the course that the Netanyahu Government are now taking.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The House wants to know, and Israel needs to know, exactly what the Foreign Secretary means by “further action”.
Mr Lammy
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the two words.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Leadbeater
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous comments that the Bill and these clauses and schedules have been drafted with the highest level of legal expertise. It is not something I anticipate being a problem.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Bill does allow applicants to shop around for doctors, and it strikes me that there is a danger that some doctors, who might have an ideological view of the Bill, will specialise in the provision of that service, which would give it rather greater scope than the hon. Lady intends.
Kim Leadbeater
I reject the assertion that patients will shop around. Bearing in mind that we are talking about dying people, they are not in a position to start shopping around for services, but I also agree that the Bill is strict in that regard. There are very strict protocols that doctors will have to follow.
Middle East Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Clearly the rhetoric of some Israeli Government Ministers has crossed a threshold after which we would all condemn them—the Foreign Secretary has condemned a series of statements. I was not familiar with that statement, but it looks as if it would fall very much in the same category. As she would expect, I will not comment on further sanctions. As I have made clear, we have taken action and we will keep further action under review.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has made the Government’s position crystal clear that the Israeli plan is unacceptable. How will British Government policy towards Israel change as that plan is implemented?
Mr Falconer
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we hope to avoid having to deal with that hypothetical, and we will seek to persuade the Israeli Government not to embark on a path so damaging, for all the reasons I have set out this afternoon. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be asking me that question in the House should we fail.
Prisoners of Conscience
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is an enormous privilege to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a tremendous advocate for the voiceless. May I begin by reiterating the importance of the questions that he has raised and by asking the Minister to address in her winding up the question of what action has followed the telephone call between the Prime Minister and President al-Sisi on the question of pursuing the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? Is there any plan for securing the release of Jimmy Lai?
We have had many prisoners of conscience of our own. At random, off the top of my head, I could name Thomas More, Dr Barnes, Latimer and Ridley, Cranmer, Archbishop Laud, and even John Bunyan in Bedford jail. A free Parliament that had the will to do so could have campaigned for their release, and history might have been significantly different. The problem for us now is that the prisoners of conscience are well beyond our jurisdiction, so when we raise cases with Ministers, often enough we have no leverage whatsoever with the jurisdictions that have imprisoned them. We can no longer simply deploy the Royal Navy, as we might have done in the past, and as indeed we did when we deployed it to eradicate the scandal of the international slave trade.
Even in those jurisdictions where we do have alliances, shared national interests and good diplomatic relations, often enough Governments have bigger fish to fry with respect to regional security and stability, and international trade, so when we raise cases with Ministers, we are told, “These were raised at the highest level”—indeed, when I was a Minister, I raised them at the highest level —but not much action follows.
Are we wasting our breath? Are we wasting the House’s time? This is not a counsel of despair. It is essential that we continue to do as the hon. Member for Strangford has done: to persevere. We have to try—we have to try to lift the odd starfish, as he says. At the very least, we will have sent a powerful message to those prisoners, their relatives and their friends that they are not forgotten, that we do campaign for them and, indeed, that we pray for them.
We are reminded in chapter 12 of the Acts of the Apostles that St Peter, guarded by four squads and chained between two soldiers, is sprung by an angel. In chapter 16, Paul and Silas are sprung in an earthquake and end up evangelising the prison governor. Until those miraculous days return, however, we are confined to continuing to raise matters with Ministers.
Accordingly, I raise the case of Ali Minaei, a young man in Iran who has been in prison for the last year. He was sentenced for having attended a church service in somebody’s home. He also has a severe heart condition. He is denied medical treatment in prison, and has been subject to beatings, including blows to his chest. It is not untypical for Christians in Iran to be sentenced for crimes against state security, to be given long sentences, to have prolonged interrogation, sexual harassment, and beatings, or to be denied privileges that other prisoners have access to.
I see young Ali as an architype for all those prisoners of conscience that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford mentioned, be they imprisoned for advocating for human rights, for their insistence on freedom of expression, or because of their adherence to a minority faith, and whether they be imprisoned in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, North Korea, Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Venezuela or wheresoever.
I share a belief with my hon. Friend that there will be a day of liberation, when the prisoners will be freed. But that day of rapture will also be a day of wrath and judgment for their oppressors. We ought all to shrink from that judgment, because we share in the guilt of their tormentors through our inaction and by our silence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.