British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Minister enlighten us as to the attitude on the deal of the incoming Trump Administration? Does he know, or shall I ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?

[Stephen Doughty]

We very much welcome, as I have said before, the election of President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance. During the transition period, there are restrictions on what conversations can go on. As I have said repeatedly in the House, we are confident that when the full details of the deal are provided by the US national security apparatus, any concerns will be allayed.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If it is possible legally to deport illegal migrants from Diego Garcia to St Helena, is there any legal reason why we cannot deport illegal migrants landing on these shores to St Helena or any other overseas territory? Is it, as a former Home Secretary told me recently, because after five years they would acquire rights to British citizenship?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely confident that this agreement is compliant with international law, and we will be working closely with the Attorney General of St Helena to ensure that it is compliant with our law, with St Helena law and with all our international obligations.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.

Israel and Gaza

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the middle east. I was very disappointed to miss yesterday’s foreign affairs debate due to the European Political Community summit, and I welcome this early opportunity to come to the House.

Last weekend, I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, meeting leaders on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spoken to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and I have discussed the issue with colleagues from the G7 and, of course, the region. This has been a priority from day one because of the desperate situation in Gaza, and the serious risk of escalation in Lebanon in particular. I must be frank: Britain wants an immediate ceasefire. The fighting must stop. The hostages must be released. Much, much more aid must enter Gaza—Israel promised a “flood of aid” back in April, but imposes impossible and unacceptable restrictions—and there must be de-escalation on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I sincerely hope the parties will agree a ceasefire as a matter of urgency.

I have been discussing with partners the need for planning for what follows, on reconstruction, governance and security, and for reforming and empowering the Palestinian Authority, but President Biden presented his proposals nearly two months ago, so we in this new Government have not sought to cloak our position in qualifications or conditions. This horror must end now.

My visit brought home the conflict’s appalling impact. I met the families of those murdered and taken hostage so cruelly by Hamas, now separated from their loved ones for so long. I told them that the UK would continue to push for the immediate release of all hostages. I also met Palestinians displaced by settlers. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government have seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. This Government will challenge those who undermine a two-state solution.

Finally, I met aid workers from the United Nations agencies operating in Gaza. More aid workers have been killed in Gaza than in every other conflict globally combined this year. Those who risk their life to save others are heroes. With journalists banned from entering, aid agencies are a vital source of information from the Gaza strip, and their reports are devastating: almost 40,000 killed, mothers so malnourished that they cannot produce milk for their babies, rivers of sewage in the streets, a surge in disease among children—with 40 times the normal rate of diarrhoea, and with polio now detected—and looting; one aid truck driver was killed only yesterday. I announced on my visit new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began.

Humanitarian aid is a moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe, and it is aid agencies that ensure that UK support reaches civilians on the ground. UNRWA is absolutely central to those efforts; no other agency can deliver aid on the scale needed. It is already feeding over half of Gaza’s population. It will be vital for future reconstruction, and it provides critical services to Palestinian refugees in the region. I was appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks, but the UN took those allegations seriously. I have spoken to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Commissioner-General Lazzarini. Following Catherine Colonna’s independent review, we are reassured that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and is strengthening its procedures, including on vetting.

UNRWA has acted. Partners such as Japan, the European Union and Norway have also now acted, and this Government will act too. I can confirm to the House that we are overturning the suspension of UNRWA funding. Britain will provide £21 million in new funds, with some directed at supporting the management reforms recommended by the Colonna review. UNRWA supports more than 5.5 million Palestinians, and almost 200 of its staff have died in this conflict. I thank the agency for its lifesaving work.

As we look for a pathway out of the wider crisis, I am conscious of this conflict’s complexities and am determined to listen to all sides. I approach every decision I must take carefully. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. There is no way out of this crisis without a route to both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying security, justice and opportunity in lands that they can call their own. We are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in a renewed peace process, and to contributing to that process by recognising a Palestinian state at a time determined by us, not anyone else.

I know that other aspects of this crisis are of great interest to the House, including the Government’s assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and what further measures might help to deter malign activity by the Iranian regime. Let me reassure the House that I take those issues extremely seriously. Our commitment to international law is clear, and we are following the necessary processes. As soon as I took office, I tasked officials with a comprehensive review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and that process is now under way. I will update the House again once the process is complete.

Twenty-four years ago, just weeks after I first joined the House, President Clinton hosted the Camp David summit—a reminder that this tragedy has lasted far too long. There are those in this House who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand Israel’s predicament. To them I say that Israel is in a tough neighbourhood and is threatened by those who want it annihilated. There is no equivalence between Israel’s democratic Government and Hamas, a terrorist organisation responsible for an act of barbarism on 7 October that sought to kill countless Israelis and provoke wider conflict with Palestinians. I fully supported the UK’s role in defending Israel when Iran launched its unprecedented attack, and I utterly condemn the Houthi attack on Tel Aviv overnight.

There are also those who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand the depth of Palestinian suffering. To them I say that civilians in Gaza are trapped in hell on earth. The Palestinian people have been in purgatory for decades, and have been denied the state that is their inalienable right.

As Foreign Secretary, I understand both those perspectives. I recognise the pain and anguish felt on all sides. It makes me only more determined to do all I can in this office to advance the cause of peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is very experienced, experienced enough to know that the minute any individual describes their leverage, that leverage is lost. Therefore, if he will forgive me, I will not share that at the Dispatch Box at this stage. However, the passion that lies behind his question is a concern that, for nine months, Foreign Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box and said that the aid must get in and that we must follow international humanitarian law—and now, months later, there is a new Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box and there are still serious concerns about international humanitarian law and the aid has simply not got in in the quantities needed. He shares my frustration, and it was frustration indeed that I shared with leaders in Israel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Emily Darlington.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was not bobbing, but I am happy to ask a question. Are you sure it was me you were calling on?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Please go ahead. The Clerks are struggling a bit with new Members.

[Emily Darlington]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his entire team on their positions, and thank him for the restoration of funding to UNRWA. As someone who has worked in international development, I have seen the vital work those organisations play, and in particular those organisations under the United Nations umbrella, because they are where we can come together as an international force. Does he agree that the solutions in the Israel-Palestine conflict are not necessarily solutions here in Parliament, but solutions that we will have to work with our international partners to build?

Ukraine

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is deeply encouraging to hear what unites the two Front Benches on support for Ukraine. Whatever differences there are, those differences and concerns are expressed by people from all political parties and from no political parties. I very much welcome the tone of the debate.

The Prime Minister was right to warn that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous that our country has ever known, and to refer to an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—as a direct threat to global stability and global peace. Whether we like it or not, war has returned to Europe. Our eastern NATO allies are right to warn that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next. After all, Putin is explicit that his war in Ukraine is against NATO and the west.

The strategic situation is far from satisfactory, but we are at a turning point that hinges on how US policy now develops. That was something the Deputy Foreign Secretary did not address in his remarks; I would be grateful if it could be addressed in the summing up.

The Russian military may be running out of equipment more rapidly than we think, and its economy is more fragile than its hydrocarbon revenue would make it appear. However, Russia is still able to sustain massive casualties, and the Russian population still supports the war. Russia has accepted a subservient position in its relationship with China in order to ensure continued Chinese economic and technological support for the duration of the war.

The US and Europe are distracted from Ukraine by Gaza and other theatres, such as the Sahel and New Caledonia, where Azerbaijan appears to be manoeuvring against French interests. US domestic politics delayed aid to Ukraine by six months—a delay that Russia is exploiting, albeit with massive losses in personnel and equipment.

The delay has offered Putin an opportunity to gain an advantage on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine, but the biggest danger is that Putin will win the war on the diplomatic battlefield, which is more a contest of wills than of military supremacy. Putin still believes that he can wear down the west’s will to support Ukraine before the Russian will to fight fails. Ukraine is now under significantly increased military and political pressure.

However, the re-establishment of US aid and strong statements from the UK and others, coupled with the battlefield losses, have forced Putin to take domestic measures to enable Russia to continue fighting indefinitely. The appointment of the economist Belousov—I hope that I am pronouncing that correctly—as Defence Minister marks a decision to increase the level of militarisation of Russia’s economy, putting it further on to a war footing. The new Minister will have the job of doing that, and of ensuring that the measures do not destroy Russia’s economy, as they did in Soviet times.

Any change programme—and Belousov’s appointment indicates a significant change in Russia—creates a temporary weakness in the organisation being changed. Russia is compensating for that weakness by stepping up hybrid warfare attacks on the west, which could include assassination. I do not think that we should rule out some Russian involvement in the recent attempt on the life of the Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, who may be widely identified as pro-Russian but who is not.

Official US policy is still not robust enough. President Biden does not want to allow Ukraine to lose, but nor does he want to empower Ukraine to the extent that it could inflict a crippling and destabilising defeat on Russia. The US is treating this like a regional crisis that has to be managed, but war is war, not just a crisis, and this war is part of a global conflict. A war must be won, or far more than the war will be lost.

Ukraine rightly complains that the US will not allow the weapons that it supplies to Ukraine to be used to hit targets on Russian soil. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Defence Secretary encountered that frustration when they were there. Before the recent advance towards Kharkiv, the Ukrainians had to watch the Russians build up their forces on the Russian side of the border without being able to use US weapons to disrupt them. The Russian advance on Kharkiv demonstrates—this is the elephant in the room—that the US policy of limiting weapons use is totally illogical. It puts into jeopardy President Biden’s own policy of preventing Ukraine from losing. It makes this a critical turning point.

During a visit to Kyiv on 15 May, US Secretary of State Blinken said in a speech that

“Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war”.

Did that indicate a tacit change of policy? When my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that Ukraine could use British weapons to hit Russian soil, it provoked a huge reaction from Russia, obviously designed to put others off saying the same thing. Blinken’s statement produced no reaction at all, except Russia’s advance stopped when it could have made further progress. Two days after Secretary of State Blinken’s statement, on Friday 17 May, the Ukrainians launched one of the largest drone and missile attacks on Russian targets in occupied territory and also in Russia itself, accompanied on the 16th and the 18th by massive attacks on Crimea.

Secretary of State Blinken’s statement could indicate the first steps towards a significant change in US policy to allow Ukraine to use US weapons against targets on Russian soil, reflecting the realisation of at least some within the Administration that Ukraine must be enabled to win in order to expel Russia from its territory. We do not know. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces could address that question in his reply. There could be other reasons, such as record daily Russian casualties in their recent attacks. If US policy is not changing, there will be a de facto stabilisation of the frontline, with Russia in a stronger physical and psychological position than before, despite having achieved little of operational importance in terms of territory, and at significant cost in lives and equipment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nothing justifies what Putin has done, but what worries me about all this is what will happen if the most likely outcome materialises: namely, a stalemate. Many people in Europe, such as President Macron and others, will say that we have to start negotiations, so what will our attitude be then?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is an unthinkable prospect. A stalemate would be a defeat. A stalemate would be a victory for Putin, who would be holding territory that he has claimed illegally. I thought the Deputy Foreign Secretary was very clear on that, supported by the shadow Foreign Secretary in the same terms. I do not think we should talk about defeat; we should be concentrating on how to ensure that we can expel Russia from all occupied Ukrainian territory.

If the Ukrainians’ hands are tied and they cannot use US weapons to strike targets in Russia itself, they will remain vulnerable to further Russian attacks. Russia will appear stronger than it really is, having obscured its growing deficiency in weaponry. Russia will be able to continue to keep up moderate military pressure on Ukraine, to prevent the Ukrainians being able to benefit from an operational pause—in other words, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Russians will have the upper hand. Russia will also step up its information warfare and influence campaign in Europe, employing hybrid and grey zone attacks.

Worse, with the US’s failure to call Russia’s nuclear bluff—that is what this policy amounts to—other states, most immediately in the middle east, will increasingly see nuclear weapons as conferring invulnerability. In the last few days it has been reported that Iran is willing to share nuclear technology with neighbouring countries, proving that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is ineffective. We should be more honest about that. Too many Governments in the west cling to the illusion that the treaty can lead to a world free of nuclear weapons, but even European countries beyond the UK and France may soon have to consider acquiring nuclear capability, or at least accepting US tactical nuclear weapons on their soil once again.

Gaza has put western influence in the middle east into freefall, while tying up western political attention and US military supplies and helping the Russian narrative to become dominant in the global south. Russia’s information efforts have played their part in making Gaza a debilitating issue for the west and interventions in other theatres, such as New Caledonia, keep the west on the back foot. The axis of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is strengthening. The temporary stabilisation on the frontline in Ukraine means that western European countries have still not yet had sufficient stimulus to make them appreciate the importance and urgency of going on to a wartime footing themselves and increasing their own defensive capacities.

If the US is, in fact, changing its policy, as I indicated it might be, that is a serious game changer and we must encourage it. It gives notice to Putin that eventually he will lose the war; the US can re-establish the credibility of its leadership of the democratic world and of NATO; the Chinese will draw an important lesson about US resolve, which will have significant implications for Taiwan; the Russian model will appear much less attractive to the global south and Russian influence will wane; and the impetus towards nuclear proliferation will lessen. Sadly, some European countries will feel let off the hook, and it will be harder to galvanise a united European defence effort.

What can the UK do? Sadly, even in the UK we are still reacting too slowly. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December that the Ukraine war was

“existential for Euro-Atlantic security”,

but there is little sign of that understanding in our day-to-day politics. The Defence Secretary has said that the UK defence industry must be put on to a war footing, which means that the whole of Government must be mobilised for that effort, and our voters must understand that the sacrifices to fund victory in Ukraine will be far less than the costs of defeat for Ukraine in the longer term.

The UK should build a cross-party assessment, which I think has already been built in this debate, of what needs to be done to move the UK by stages on to a war footing and to increase defence capability and capacity, rather than just talking about increasing the defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is a very realistic speech. The trouble with this war, as with Russia’s previous wars, is that early incompetence has now been replaced by a ruthless authoritarian determination to win at any cost by mobilising the entire economy and being utterly impervious to the loss of human life. I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I have put to the House: although we may breathe fire and brimstone about how we are determined to win, what is actually happening is stalemate, and we have to work out how the west will navigate itself around a possible peace negotiation with Russia. I am not saying that I want that—it is thoroughly unpalatable and not a very popular thing to say—but we have to be realistic.

[Dave Doogan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I do not share the logic that he applies to the potential outcome in Ukraine. I began in a position of consensus, and I do not think that the Deputy Foreign Secretary would join the right hon. Gentleman in his summation—and nor would I. Whatever the size of the bite that Russia takes out of Ukraine, if Ukraine does not get it back, that is a Russian victory whatever way we cut it and whatever wrapper we put on it, and where Russia prevails, aggression and the tearing up of the rules-based international system also prevail. We cannot allow that to happen.

The strides that Russia has made in regenerating its heavy armour should serve as a wake-up call to UK and western partners. To counter that, Ukraine must have serious supplies of anti-armour weapons. I note that Russia’s missile capabilities are being regenerated at significant cost to Ukraine, and that raises serious questions about the efficacy of sanctions, which I will come to shortly. We must ensure the most accurate calibration in the reconciliation of that which Ukraine needs and in how the UK and NATO allies can satisfy that unmet demand.

Ukraine’s key foreign military aid requirements are air defences, long-range missiles and artillery ammunition. Its shortages in air defence over the past weeks have allowed Russia to conduct a destructive missile campaign against national infrastructure, civilian populations and military targets, including the largest thermal power plant in the Kyiv region. Long-range missiles are required to strike Russian supply depots, command-and-control centres and military infrastructure, and artillery ammunition is essential for offensive and defensive action on the frontline, but they remain in short supply.

The United States Agency for International Development package passed only on 23 April, as we all watched months of delay take their toll on the war effort. The battle to pass that Bill has sparked fresh fears that a Republican election victory—a matter, of course, for the US electorate—could significantly reduce essential US aid to Ukraine, so it is important that the UK, along with the rest of Europe, has contingency plans in place for a potential reduction in the US footprint in aid to Ukraine. That also highlights the need for long-term planning in the military aid pipeline, as opposed to pulsing batches.

Are sanctions working, and who is suffering? Russian oil products are getting through to the UK despite the UK officially banning the import of Russian oil from 5 December 2022. A loophole in the legislation allows Russian oil to continue to flow into the UK provided that it has been refined into fuel in a third country, after which it is no longer considered to have originated in Russia. That is deeply disingenuous to domestic and commercial energy bill payers across the UK, who are facing huge increases in their energy bills because of the rise in gas prices caused by the conflict, while aviation fuel and other distillates from Russian oil continue to pour into the UK’s economy unabated. What do the Government say to UK taxpayers, who are funding billions in military aid to Ukraine so that it can defend itself from a Russian aggression that is, if we follow the money, part-funded by UK purchases of fuel refined from Russian oil? It is desperate stuff, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you do not need to be a forensic accountant to figure it out.

UK purchases of fuels from China, India and Turkey—much of which originates from Russian oil—have increased considerably since the sanctions regime began. From 2021 to 2023, purchases from India went up from £402 million to £1.5 billion, those from China rose from £30 million to £663 million, and those from Turkey from £1.8 million to £60 million. How do the Government explain that loophole? Will they close it off and, in so doing, close off the revenue to Putin and his war machine?

Not unrelatedly, UK businesses continue to see record growth in exports to Russia’s former Soviet state neighbours. That manifold spike coincides precisely with the introduction of sanctions on goods to Russia. Are the Government even interested—let alone concerned—by that patent economic blip and reality? They should be, given the possibility that such exports could contain important components for military purposes. That matters, because although Russian missile production has increased since the war began, Russia faces a serious vulnerability: its most complex weapons, such as missiles, are heavily dependent on western-sourced components. Against the backdrop of a 1860% increase in the export of UK-manufactured vehicles to Azerbaijan, is anybody in the Government really under any illusions about what is happening there?

Russia has maintained a steady supply of the necessary components to make high-end missiles because of the incoherent approach to sanctions adopted by western states. A less laissez-faire approach to countering the Russian defence industry will help to disrupt Russian military supply chains and, in turn, Russian supply lines. That must be a strategic priority for all of us who care about the integrity and future of Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nothing I will say in this short speech in any way approves of what President Putin has done—he is an appalling man; a tyrant who has caused massive damage to infrastructure and countless deaths—but we have to be realistic in these debates. We cannot just will what we want. There is a mismatch between our determination, our interest and our will, and those of the Russian state.

Let us go back in history. When people in the west discuss Ukraine, they often assume this is a simple case of a large state invading a small country that has always been independent. That is not the view of the Russian state or most people who live in Russia. Ukraine means “borderland”, and for centuries, since Catherine the Great, Ukraine was effectively part of Russia. Even under the Soviet Union, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation, and it was only willed to Ukraine by diktat in the 1950s. Not a single Member of Parliament objected to that and the Crimean people were not consulted.

I am not in any way defending the Russian position—what they have done is appalling—but from that historical reality, and it is a reality for the Russian state, they are absolutely determined to pursue their objectives, as wrong as they may be. As we have heard, Putin is a tyrant. He has put the entire Russian economy on a war footing. He is apportioning a part of the economy to defence that we have not been spending since the second world war. Although we may want to win the war, we have to be realistic. Given the mismatch in resources between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and given all the difficulties that the Ukrainian state has been trying to cope with in the management of its economy for many years, with corruption and many other issues, it is extremely unlikely, sadly, that Ukraine can win this war.

As I said earlier, this war is following the pattern of earlier wars that Russia has engaged with: early incompetence replaced by an utter determination to win that is completely impervious to the loss of human life.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the right hon. Member not agree that if the battle in Ukraine is lost, then it will go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and eventually the whole way back to us? The battle in Ukraine has to be won. It is not a matter of giving in; we have to win it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If we are going to win this war, we have to be prepared to give the resources necessary to do so. The truth is that such is the overwhelming predominance of the American industrial military estate that it could have won the war by now. America could have armed Ukraine to such an extent that it could have won. America could have allowed the Ukrainians to use its weapons to bombard Russian forces within Russia. America does not want Ukraine to humiliate Russia and win this war. America does not want Ukraine to lose the war. America could have won this war by now, as it won the second world war, but apparently it is not prepared to will the resources. We may not agree with that or like it, but that is the reality. We all know the strength of the American economy, and we all know that for months weapons deliveries were delayed.

All that I am trying to do is inject a note of reality into this debate. We cannot keep having these debates, saying, “We are determined to win this war. We must win this war”, when we are not willing the resources. I therefore ask the House these questions. Are we determined to put our own economy on a war footing? Are we determined to spend less on health, education, justice, and all the other good things in which we believe, in order to win this war? Are we prepared perhaps to put our own troops into Ukraine? Are we prepared for our own young men to die, or are we just prepared for thousands of young Ukrainian men to die and not have a single casualty ourselves? Those are the realistic questions.

The most likely outcome is that there will be horror and stalemate, and eventually somebody in Europe—President Macron or that sort of statesman—will then say that we have to conduct peace negotiations. What do we do then? Will we be part of a movement to have peace negotiations? Will we reward Putin for his aggression? Will we accept that there is a stalemate, and therefore Russia is enabled to grab part of Ukraine? What is our attitude? Nobody yet in this debate so far has seriously addressed those questions. All they have said is that we will win this war.

Members should look deep down into their hearts. Is there anybody sitting in this Chamber—I mean not what they say publicly, but what they think privately—who actually thinks now that Ukraine will win this war? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say that, but how? Given the huge mismatch in resources between Russia and Ukraine, and given the fact that America is not prepared to furnish Ukraine with sufficient armaments to ensure that we win, how will we? I am with you all. I am prepared to put our own economy on a war footing. I am even prepared to send our own troops to Ukraine. I am prepared to spend less on all the things I value, such as health, justice and all the rest. But we have to be realistic, and at the moment we are not being realistic. As a result, Europe is trembling in a sort of arthritic way, neither pursuing the war with full vigour, which is how we won the second world war, nor prepared to conduct peace negotiations. The result is a stalemate, which is deeply damaging to our reputation, our economy and everything else.

I just pose the question. I am not saying that we should give in or that we should have peace negotiations, but I ask those on the Front Benches to be realistic in this debate.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

We want the pause to become a complete ceasefire without—I say this to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—a return to fighting. That is the focus of our diplomatic efforts as talk turns to a military offensive in Rafah, which has the potential for devastating consequences. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reflect to the House on the latest developments. As the Prime Minister said to Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, we continue to support Israel’s right to defend its people against Hamas’ terror, but we are deeply concerned about the loss of civilian life in Gaza and the worsening humanitarian crisis.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will in a moment. Let me also reflect on the terrible impact of this conflict. On 7 October, Israel suffered the worst terror attack in its history at the hands of Hamas. More than 1,200 Israelis were reported killed, and more than 5,000 Israelis were reported injured. Even now, more than 130 hostages are still thought to be held by Hamas in Gaza. Last week saw the first hostage rescue since late October, with two hostages returned to their family. We continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages, including British nationals and their families. We are using all diplomatic channels to push for that, working with partners across the region. Meanwhile, we have helped more than 300 British nationals to leave Gaza. The devastating humanitarian crisis is worsening daily, with hunger and disease spreading. According to latest reports, more than 29,000 people have been killed, 69,000 injured, and 1.7 million people have been displaced. We want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets and avoid harming civilians and destroying homes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 2 January and received a reply from one of his junior Ministers in the House of Lords about the plight of the 650 Christians held in the Holy Family church, who are innocent hostages of this appalling situation. I asked the Foreign Secretary if we could give those people asylum as they are clearly in the cross-fire. I received a frankly disingenuous reply saying that the Government would “seek respite” for those people. That means nothing. Are we prepared to offer asylum to those people and get them out?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will know that this is a difficult area that involves other Departments. I will ensure that he gets an update on that issue from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) when she winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just been talking to a lady colleague who received a green card to go to speak to people in Westminster Hall. The moment she explained the Government’s position and her support of their moderate amendment, she was surrounded by a screaming mob videoing her and intimidating her. All this hatred has to stop. We have to pull together in this country. Nobody in this country or in this House was responsible for the horrific attacks by Hamas. We all utterly condemn Hamas and their genocidal activities.

We must support moderates. There are many moderate people in Israel who want a two-state solution and who are horrified by the activities of settlers trying to intimidate Palestinians. We must give hope to Palestinian people. Nothing can justify the genocide on 7 October, but still there is a degree of hopelessness among the Palestinian people at the rate of settlements in the west bank and what is happening in Gaza. We must give them hope.

That is one side of the story, and surely we can unite behind that. I support the efforts of the British Government in trying to do so, but surely we can also take a moderate and sensible position on this issue of a ceasefire. There is no point in having a unilateral ceasefire now if a death cult will use that ceasefire to go on bombing and killing innocent Israelis—it will achieve nothing. We have to have a balanced, sustainable ceasefire in which the hostages are released and Hamas’s leadership is removed permanently from Gaza. Now I am speaking largely on behalf of the people who live in Gaza. There is no future for the Palestinian people in Gaza with Hamas in control. There will be constant warfare, hatred, disaster and bombing. We have to get rid of Hamas. We have to get the Palestinian Authority, for all its faults, back in control, and we have to push the peace process forward. The Government amendment is moderate and sensible. It is trying to achieve peace and we should support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make clear that all of us seek that there should not be an escalation of this conflict in the middle east. That is why right at the start Britain moved military assets to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. More recently, as he alluded to, we are expressing strong support for freedom of navigation on the high seas, stopping attacks by the Houthis. We are degrading their capacity to carry out their attacks, and have made clear that we will not accept that challenge to international freedom of the sea.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One problem with the middle east is the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people, which is fuelling terrorist outrages. What steps can the Government take with our American friends to try to put pressure on the Israeli state to stop the imposition of new settlements in the west bank, so that we can gradually reduce tensions in the whole region? Is that not the way forward?

[Mr Mitchell]

We have made it clear that the settlements are illegal and should not have gone ahead and should not go ahead. On the wider point, we are working closely with our American friends and others through the superb diplomatic network that Britain possesses, to try to lift people’s eyes and move to the day after, when a political track can start. That is the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question—the political track, which can then start to offer hope in resolving this dreadful and long-standing problem.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to do things differently. We have been pressing very hard for these changes to be made. When he was in the region, my noble Friend Lord Cameron tried to advance the various issues epitomised in the five-point plan, which we are trying to drive forward. The right hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the judgment on international humanitarian law. As I have said to the House before, we know that Israel plans to act in accordance with international humanitarian law and has the ability to do so. Clearly, these things are looked at all the time, but the judgments that we have made, which I have set out to the House in the past, remain current today.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Israel is much more than Prime Minister Netanyahu. What more are we in the US and the UK doing to encourage the moderate voices in Israel who argue for a definite democratic future for Gaza and the west bank? Above all, is there any more progress we can make to convince the Israeli Government that it is not in their interests to have any more settlements or expansions of existing settlements? It is the sense of helplessness among the Palestinian people that is fuelling this whole conflict, so what more pressure can we put on the Israeli Government?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend accurately says that there is a plurality of opinion in Israel. We strongly support, and say within Israel, what we think is the right way forward, which above all is a two-state solution. During the course of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s visits, he was able to engage with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority and assure them that there is a plan to push forward at the point where certain changes are made in the way that the Palestinian Authority is run, and that Britain will be there at their shoulder to assist when that moment comes.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I declare an obvious interest: I am the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, the purpose of the Bill is for the sake of my successors, to ensure that the role and office is placed on a statutory footing. Why? One reason is that the landmark Truro review by the noble Lord Bishop of Winchester, previously the Bishop of Truro, recommended that it should happen. The Truro review was initiated by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and I thank him for his support for my work and this Bill. I also thank the current Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, for his support for the Bill, and in particular the Minister of State present today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for coming to respond to this debate and for his support for my role.

In 2019 the noble Lord Bishop, then of Truro, was asked to review what more the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office could do to address the persecution of Christians around the world. The Truro review made practical recommendations for an enhanced response to the plight of persecuted Christians. I emphasise that those recommendations also covered people persecuted for holding other religions or beliefs, or no religious beliefs at all, as does my envoy role.

In particular, recommendation 6 was to specifically establish

“permanently, and in perpetuity, the role of Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief with appropriate resources and authority to work across FCO departments”.

That recommendation, along with the other 21 recom-mendations, was fully accepted by the Government, not least because it was—and remains—this Government’s manifesto commitment to fully implement the Truro review. It was endorsed by the Prime Minister just last October, and I am pleased that it is supported on a cross-party basis by Members from every party in this House and across civil society. I am also very pleased to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who will be responding to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, because she too has supported the work of the role of special envoy on many occasions.

The independent review of the progress made in implementing the Truro review’s recommendations, which took place in 2022—three years into the implementation of the Truro review, which was published in 2019—stated that recommendation 6

“appears to contemplate a permanent Special Envoy position established by law rather than appointed by the Prime Minister… The establishment of such a permanent position has not occurred, and so ‘no substantial action has been taken, to date’ with respect to delivering this aspect of the Recommendation.”

I am honoured to be the special envoy, but I am very conscious that I hold that office at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day. It has been my privilege to serve under three Prime Ministers, but there is no guarantee that such an appointment will be made under any future Prime Minister.

The Bill is an important measure to solidify the position and work of the special envoy. I am humbled to say that the role has acquired leading international standing, not just through my work but also that of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and Lord Ahmad—the first envoy, who has supported the Bill strongly and publicly. He made that clear at the launch two weeks ago of the latest Open Doors world watch list, a gathering of almost 100 Members of Parliament. By making the role statutory, the Bill would remove any risk of the envoy’s role being at the whim or interest of any future Prime Minister, whatever their political colour.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her sterling and dedicated work over many years. Although she is talking about the mechanics of why her job is necessary, I hope that she will say a few words about what is actually going on in the world and the appalling religiously motivated attacks. In Nigeria’s Benue state there were 119 attacks in 2023 alone, and 400 people were killed. In neighbouring Plateau state, 300 people were killed. The world seems to be ignoring these massacres. Black lives matter everywhere. They matter in Nigeria and everywhere, and we should talk much more about this, but that is not the fault of my hon. Friend, who has done so much in this field.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I might come on to discuss how important it is to challenge the perception that this is somehow a niche interest, perhaps for those who have strong religious beliefs. It cannot become a niche interest, because hundreds of millions of men, women and children around the world suffer persecution and discrimination, whether under the hard arm of authoritarian regimes or at the ruthless whim of militant mobs, and they need not just our voices but our partnership; not just our words, but our actions; and not just our good will, but our good deeds. The Bill will help in the long term to support those actions and good deeds, which we need to take in partnership with others across the world.

Today we have an opportunity to deliver the sixth recommendation of the Truro review, and the recom-mendation of the experts who provided an independent review three years later. The Bill will provide in law the authority and permanence that is consistent with the significance of the issue internationally—exactly the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just made. If there is insufficient time to speak at length about the many atrocities being perpetrated across the world as we speak, I urge those listening to the debate to read the Hansard report of yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on religious persecution and the Open Doors world watch list 2024. That is one of many debates that we have hosted in the House.

I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians across the parties, because my work internationally shows that we are unique in this country in having such strong cross-party collaboration on this issue. There is no other Parliament in the world with so many parliamentarians who regards this as a critical issue, and who actively engage. The fact that there are about 170 members of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief—the biggest APPG in Parliament, I believe—is testament to that.

Enacting this Bill would, as I have said, provide in law the authority that is consistent with the importance of this issue and the leading global role that the UK plays, including through its Ministers—I know that the Minister of State who is present today is passionate about this issue—in championing that foundational human right. As we have recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, drawn up after the atrocities of the holocaust, and as we approach Holocaust Memorial Day tomorrow, what more fitting way could there be to demonstrate our commitment to article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights than to pass this Bill? Article 18 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Passing the Bill would show that we are serious about advocating that fundamental human right for the long term.

Regrettably, too many Governments view FORB merely as a topic of niche interest, to be engaged in by a few of us with a particularly religious perspective on life. But FORB is not a niche topic and that perception has to change. We live in an increasingly unstable world in which there are increasingly authoritarian regimes. Religious belief is anathema to any authoritarian regime, as they demand undivided loyalty. We can promote change today by supporting the Bill. Indeed, FORB concerns should be core concerns at every international summit, because they are at the core of so many violations of human rights across the world today.

FORB is a foundational human right, and I give the example of women in Iran who bravely lead the charge against that brutal regime. Journalists and politicians alike have not fully grasped the fact that, at heart, their protests are about FORB violations. The imposition of religious dress codes is a FORB issue. It is FORB that the Iranian regime fears most, because FORB represents an existential threat for it. With angry crowds shouting, “Woman, Life, Freedom”, it is the full realisation and actualisation of freedom of religion or belief that will ensure not just respect for women, but for all of society. On that issue hangs the future of Iran.

We have become accustomed to countries paying lip service to FORB rights and obligations, and signing up to international agreements such as article 18 without honouring the obligations within them. It is simply not acceptable for a young girl to be kidnapped from her home and forcibly so-called married by being raped multiple times, and then when she goes to a police station or tries to get justice through the courts, to be turned away in a country that has signed up to article 18, with all of that happening simply because of her religious beliefs.

Without the freedom to believe or not to believe, it is hard to see how other human rights can make sense. Freedom of speech, assembly, movement and expression, and the right to equality before the law, to education, to privacy, to family life and to marriage—all those things and more are predicated and contingent on the right to thought, conscience and religion. Citizens cannot be truly free if they are not able to live according to their beliefs. Without the existence and expression of what has long been considered a sacred inner liberty, those other external rights lack grounding and legitimacy. Political social and economic freedoms cannot co-exist alongside major limitations on freedom of religion or belief. Freedom of religion or belief can exist without democracy, but it is hard to see how democracy can exist without freedom of religion or belief. That is why this work and this Bill are so important.

So why not support the Bill? The independent Truro review pointed out that the creation of the envoy role in statute

“would be unprecedented, as no special envoy position in the UK has thus far been established by law.”

Yet the argument about precedent is that it always takes a precedent being made the first time for good reason to create a long-standing precedent. There is good reason to do so here, as I hope I am stating. In reality, the unprecedented level of persecution across the world on account of what people believe, which is affecting hundreds of millions across swathes of religions and beliefs, makes the Bill so important. That was at the heart of the Truro review.

After he embarked on the review four years ago, the Bishop of Winchester stated that he was “shocked” by the scale, scope and severity of the abuse of FORB globally. The Pew Research Centre estimates that 83% of the world’s population lives in countries where there are some restrictions on religion or belief. A Christian is killed every two hours somewhere in the world, simply on account of their belief. The Open Doors world watch list 2024 sets out an increase again in the number of Christians persecuted—up to 365 million, which is one in seven across the world. As I have said, the issue does not just affect Christians but people of all faiths and beliefs.

I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak, but I turn briefly to pressing concerns about the violation of FORB. If we wanted to look at an example of why the precedent of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in this country is so important, we need only look over the Atlantic to be inspired by the United States’ International Religious Freedom Act, which permanently established the equivalent role of an ambassador-at-large for religious freedom and an office to support the role some 25 years ago.

In my role, I have had the privilege over the last three years to work closely, weekly and in some cases daily, with the US State Department. From 2022 to 2023, I was chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which is a growing alliance that now has 43 counties committed to working together, and following the end of my term, I am honoured to have been elected as vice chair. Having worked with the US State Department, I have seen its capacity, experience and knowledge, which has come only as a result of having an established office over many years, and its effective work to support international collaboration on the issue of freedom of religion or belief.

I will not speak for much longer, as I sense a number of colleagues wish to contribute. Marc Sidwell, the director of the Henry Jackson Society, wrote recently:

“To build on all that has been achieved, the Government should act decisively, follow the recommendation of the Truro Report and make championing international religious freedom an official duty of Whitehall, embedded in legislation. The law which brought similar reforms to the US Government, the International Religious Freedom Act, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and shows the enduring value of such a commitment…

As America learned during the Cold War, the defence of religious freedom abroad is not just a humanitarian priority but a key component of standing up for the values of the free and democratic world. An increasing body of research shows that the price of religious repression is measured not just in human suffering, vast and appalling as that toll remains, but in the growth of intolerant, dangerous ideologies, as well as economic immiseration.

The global decline in religious freedom is both a humanitarian and a strategic crisis. By taking religious freedom seriously, we can see emerging threats more clearly, and understand better how to act against them.”

Professor Malcolm Evans was one of the independent reviewers of the Truro review, and he is a member of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advisory group on human rights. I urge the Minister to look at convening a meeting of that advisory group soon. He attended a parliamentary event in this place last October on the publication of the report I just quoted from. He is an expert in this field—a professor who has worked for decades on the subject. He said:

“In particular, the establishment of the Office of the Special Envoy has been a real driver of, and catalyst, for change. What is needed is for that Office to have legislative grounding to ensure that this continues, that it has a more clearly defined position and that its impact continues to grow. This will also mean that the lens of freedom of religion or belief is used when engaging with foreign policy more generally: after all, a duty is a duty—and something that Government understands. Making it so will help support the development of detailed, focussed and clearly articulated policies and strategies which will complement, take up and lend further substance to what is already now in place.”

We need to secure the groundwork already in place here in the UK to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. We need to build on the firm foundation that many here have laid. We must not risk slipping back. I ask colleagues to support the Bill.

Israel and Gaza

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady will understand that I am not in a position to make that judgment, but I have heard with great respect what the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has said.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

All of us were deeply sympathetic to the plight of our Jewish brothers after the October pogrom, and most of us accepted the argument that an immediate ceasefire would have played into the hands of Hamas, but I think on these Benches the mood is changing. Frankly, what Israel is doing is totally unacceptable. This is indiscriminate bombing of vast civilian populations. Leaving aside the outrage at the Holy Family church, it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel that it radicalises whole generations of Arab youth. It is not in our interests, either, to be involved in any way on the side of Israel doing that. We must up the rhetoric and condemn that unequivocally.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the article co-authored by the Foreign Secretary and his German counterpart. He is right to refer to the pogrom that was instigated in October, and also to the importance of a sustainable ceasefire and respect for international humanitarian law. In my view, the answer to his final point is that the moment there is an opportunity to advance a political track, it must be seized by the region, and Britain will do everything it can to support that.