Aleppo

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for engaging with this and doing his best to make sure that Parliament is up to date and involved in what is happening in Aleppo. He touches on the issue of war crimes. It is important to understand that it is unlikely that we will be able to hold the perpetrators to account today or tomorrow, but we will hold them to account in the months and years to come. We are keeping lists so as to understand who the military leaders are who are conducting the air attacks, no matter what country they come from, and all those participating in these crimes and supporting the Syrian regime must remember that their day in the international courts will come. We are collecting that evidence to make sure we can hold them to account.

On the important question of airdrops, the UN has tens of thousands of pieces of kit and material that it wishes to get into these areas, but it is being denied access by the Syrian regime. We cannot enter the regime’s airspace, or use its roads, without its permission. If we sought to do so without its permission, we would end up with exactly the situation we had on 19 September, when a UN-led convoy moved into Aleppo and was destroyed from the air by Russian aeroplanes.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). As she made clear, there is no more urgent situation in the world right now than the humanitarian crisis in east Aleppo. With no functioning hospitals to handle the mounting civilian casualties, food supplies exhausted and tens of thousands of people already facing starvation, we truly have reached the point of last resort, and the Government have previously made it clear what that should mean. The former Foreign Secretary said in June:

“While air drops are complex, costly and risky, they are…the last resort to relieve human suffering across many besieged areas.”

To be clear, nobody in the House underestimates the complexity and risks involved, but with no alternatives and thousands facing death if they do not get immediate supplies of food and medical equipment, these are risks that we must be prepared to take. Will the Minister take the urgent steps required today to agree a plan for airdrops by British planes with the UN and our international partners, as has been called for by the White Helmets, whose representatives I too met last week? The UN’s humanitarian adviser, Jan Egeland, was asked at the weekend what plan B was if Russia and Assad kept up their criminal assault on east Aleppo and continued to block supplies of aid by road. He said:

“Plan B is that people starve. And can we allow that to happen? No, we cannot”.

He is quite right, and I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Mr Ellwood]

Britain’s humanitarian effort should be praised by everyone in the House. We are providing £2.3 billion—that makes us the second-largest donor— £23 million of which is going directly to UN organisations geared to making sure that the aid gets to where it is most urgently required. We are now debating the tactics of how to get the equipment into place, and the hon. Lady is advocating that British aeroplanes—Hercules aircraft or otherwise—go into Syrian airspace and make those drops.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I think that what the world needs now is the UK to build on its relations with the United States, which, as most people in the House accept, are of fundamental importance for our security. As I have said very candidly to hon. Members, there are three central points we will be making to our friends: the vital importance of the transatlantic alliance of NATO, the importance of free trade and free enterprise, and the importance of jointly promulgating the values that unite our two countries. That is the message.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

As we meet today on the 53rd anniversary of John F Kennedy’s death, we have the prospect of a very different president about to enter the White House in a matter of weeks. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State said last week, and has said again today, that this new president is “a liberal guy” with whom he shares many values. He does not end there; we have, he tells us,

“every reason to be positive”

about a Trump presidency. Will he tell us what reasons there are to be positive about the attitude of the new president to climate change?

[Boris Johnson]

It is vital that we are as positive as we can possibly be about the new Administration-elect. As I have said to the House before, I believe that the UK-US relationship is vital, and I think that President-elect Trump is a deal maker. The UK has led on climate change globally, and we have had outstanding success. I will be open with the House that we will be taking to the Administration-to-be the message that we believe that the issue of climate change is important; it is of importance to the United States and the world.

[Emily Thornberry]

The reality is that we have a new president who says that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, who has repeatedly promised to scrap the Paris treaty and whose top adviser on the environment calls global warming “nothing to worry about”. There is no doubt that that is a hugely dangerous development for the future of our planet, so let me ask the Secretary of State this: when the Prime Minister goes to see the new president in January, will she have the moral backbone to tell him that he is wrong on climate change and must not scrap the Paris treaty, and will she lead the world in condemning him if he does?

[Boris Johnson]

I really must say to the hon. Lady that she is being premature in her hostile judgments of the Administration-elect. Any such premature verdict could be damaging to the interests of this country. It is important that we in this country use our influence, which is very considerable, to help the United States to see its responsibilities, as I am sure it will.

Chagos Islands

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s passion on this subject, which he has demonstrated for many years. He has become a champion of this issue. However, as he will appreciate, the Government and I do not agree with many of his points. First, we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians. In fact, the issue here is one of sustainability and viability—[Interruption.] Well, let me go into that.

When I was an International Development Minister, looking at communities such as the Pitcairn Islands, one needed to appreciate that it is demographically difficult to sustain a population of that size in such a remote area: services cannot be provided; the travel distances are enormous; and the costs are quite significant. The costs here have been estimated to vary between £55 million for a mere 50 people and something like £256 million for 1,500. The obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to pay on an annual basis the costs of sustaining the population would be triggered. When no hospital is available and when care cannot be delivered urgently, it is unsustainable to expect a community of any such size to exist in such a setting.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. After four decades of intense debate on the disgraceful relocation of the Chagossians, after the campaign for their resettlement and after all the legal disputes, the marches and rallies, the parliamentary debates and the reviews and inquiries, it is disappointing that the Government thought they could deal with the issue with a 500-word written statement in the other place yesterday.

After KPMG provided a comprehensive analysis of the resettlement options, why have we not at least seen an equally detailed evaluation of those options from the Government, so that we can understand the rationale behind the decision? We are told that cost is one of the three factors, but that comes from a Government who have spent £285 million building an airport on St Helier—[Hon. Members: “St Helena.”] Whether it is called St Helier or St Helena, the fact is that we have spent £285 million on an airport where it is impossible to land planes. If cost is of such importance, let us put it in that context. If the Government are prepared to spend such amounts on an airport that does not work properly, why not evaluate this situation in those terms?

We are told that the agreement with the United States on the Diego Garcia military base is another factor, but that agreement is due to expire at the end of this year. Has the Minister even discussed with the incoming US Administration whether the renewal of the agreement could be made conditional on both parties facilitating the resettlement of the Chagossians?

Finally, we are told that feasibility is also a factor, but why has that not been tested by means of a pilot programme of relocation, as considered by KPMG? The treatment of the Chagos islanders is a dark stain on our country’s history. Yesterday’s decision, and the manner in which it was made, has done nothing to remove that stain. It is another disgraceful attempt to cover it up, but it will not be covered up. The Chagossians can be assured that the Opposition, led as we are by someone who has campaigned for them for 30 years, will never give up on their right to return.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

May I at least agree with one thing the hon. Lady said, which is that we all deplore the relocation that took place in the 1960s, and the manner in which it took place? That is why compensation has been paid to those who were displaced in that manner. May I also point out that the written statement yesterday was not in another place, but here in this House of Commons?

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, it was.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The statement goes out in parallel to both Chambers. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to learn something about how parliamentary procedure works. It went out at the same time.

The Government have been looking at this issue for more than four years, and the decision was made at Cabinet level by appropriate Ministers. During that process, there has been a full consultation. Perhaps I should point out that, of those invited to express a view, 832 people answered. When it was described what life on the islands would look like, only 25%—approximately 200 people—indicated that they would like to go to reside on the islands. As for Diego Garcia, the hon. Lady needs to appreciate that the Chagos Islands, or the British Indian Ocean Territory, comprise 58 islands—it is not just Diego Garcia. The agreement is likely to be renewed before the new President comes in and is expected to continue—indeed, it will continue—until 2036.

Counter-Daesh Campaign: Iraq and Syria

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in recognising the extraordinary commitment and bravery of the men and women of our armed forces. As we approach Remembrance Day, our thoughts are with not only those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the past, but those who put their lives at risk every day to keep us safe.

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s update on the progress made in fighting Daesh in both Syria and Iraq. Even in the past week, we have seen further evidence of the medieval horror and barbarism that has become Daesh’s trademark: a Free Syrian Army prisoner blown to pieces with an artillery gun; children being forced to carry out executions; and Daesh’s own fighters in Mosul being forcibly drowned for attempting to surrender. Equally disturbing was yesterday’s audio message, attributed to Daesh leader Mr al-Baghdadi, calling on jihadis inside Mosul to fight to the death and urging their counterparts around the world to strike at western targets, and doing so in terms that were nakedly sectarian in their demonisation of Shi’a Muslims. What assessment have the intelligence agencies made of the authenticity of that audio message? If it is authentic, what is its significance?

There is no doubt that those words and actions, despicable as they are, are those of a movement that is embattled, weakened and in retreat. Nowhere is that more true than in the ongoing battle for Mosul. I join the Secretary of State in saluting the bravery of the Iraqi armed forces, the peshmerga fighters, the Shi’a militia and the Sunni tribesmen who are leading this courageous and vital fight. I also pay tribute to the skill and expertise of the personnel from Britain and other countries who are advising them.

As the battle moves deeper into the city, it is more important than ever for this operation to proceed with discipline and professionalism. We know that Daesh will be fully prepared to use Mosul’s population as human shields, to execute those who try to surrender and to use terrorist tactics against the Iraqi forces. Unfortunately, high numbers of civilian casualties therefore seem inevitable. Can the Secretary of State tell us how the Iraqi forces plan to keep those casualties to a minimum when conducting their own operations? I am sure that he will have been as shocked as I was by reports from Amnesty International of Sunni tribesmen taking part in the anti-Daesh coalition engaging in reprisals in the villages that they have liberated around Mosul against civilians who were alleged to have supported Daesh. How can we best ensure that such behaviour is not repeated inside Mosul itself? How can we best ensure that stability is restored? How can we avoid sectarian violence? How can we avoid a dangerous power vacuum once Daesh’s forces in Mosul have been destroyed?

The Secretary of State has rightly referred to Chilcot and the lessons that need to be learned from it. Over the years, we have learned one clear lesson from Iraq: winning the battle is never enough; we must also plan effectively for the peace. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State can tell us how those plans are progressing.

Finally on Mosul, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide lasting support to the tens of thousands of civilians who have been displaced from their homes and will face destitution in the aftermath of the battle. Have there been similar commitments of humanitarian aid from our coalition partners in Iraq? If there have not, will he press them to match the UK’s contribution?

I also thank the Secretary of State for his update on progress against Daesh in Syria. Although much of our attention has been focused on the dreadful assault on eastern Aleppo—I fully agree with his remarks about Russia and the Assad regime—we must not lose sight of the fight in Syria against Daesh. Last week, the US Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter, said that an attack on Raqqa would begin

“in the next few weeks”

This level of urgency was reportedly triggered because of fears that an imminent attack on targets overseas was being planned within Raqqa. However, the question remains as to whether Kurdish fighters can be part of any operation on Raqqa if Turkey is also involved. If they cannot, without those Kurdish fighters, are there sufficient numbers of trained moderate Sunni rebels to take Raqqa on their own? What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the likely timetable to move on Raqqa, of the composition of the ground forces who will wage that battle, and of the role that UK personnel and resources will play?

We welcome the progress that has been made in the fight against Daesh in recent weeks in Mosul and elsewhere. That vital fight is one on which we support the Government and that we are clearly winning. We also welcome signs that this progress will be maintained in Raqqa, meaning that Daesh will lose its strongholds in both Iraq and Syria. I thank the Secretary of State again for his update, but hope he can address the few outstanding issues I raised.

[Boris Johnson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her general support for the progress that has been made by the coalition forces, involving 67 nations, in defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria. British servicemen and women in that theatre will welcome her words and the support from the House of Commons.

Let me deal with some of the points that the hon. Lady raises. She asked about Mr al-Baghdadi’s propaganda video inciting people to fight, which many Members will have seen. It is a cruel irony that, as she may know, some of the intelligence we have suggests that the gentleman in question has vacated the scene, but he is none the less using internet media to encourage people to take part in violence.

The hon. Lady asked the most important question, which is really about the management of Mosul after it is recaptured. I am talking about the management of a city of 1.5 million people who are mostly Sunnis. How will it be managed? It is vital that that should be done with a force that is plural in its composition—President Abadi and the Iraqi forces have done their level best to ensure that it is so—and that there is a government structure that commands the confidence of the people of Mosul, that delivers services for the people of Mosul, and that gets that town running again in a way that, frankly, it has not done under the tyranny of Daesh.

I can give the hon. Lady every possible reassurance that a huge amount of preparation has been made over many, many months by the United Nations Development Programme and others, with the active participation of this and other Governments around the world who wish to see a secure future for that city. Everybody understands the paramount importance of bridging the sectarian divide. Prime Minister Abadi has talked the right language about wanting to reconcile his country and the communities therein.

The hon. Lady asks about the timetable for the recapture of Raqqa and the American plans for that. It would be premature to give such a timetable now. What Ashton Carter was referring to was the plan to isolate Raqqa rather than specifically to recapture it. I do not think that we should get into detailed speculation about the timetable now.

None the less, looking at the situation in the round, I think that the House will accept that considerable progress is being made by the coalition in defeating Daesh, which not only has sustained a series of military defeats but, since 2014 when this campaign began, has lost Tikrit, Baiji, Sinjar, Ramadi, Hit, Ruqba and Fallujah in Iraq. In the Kurdish areas of Syria, it has lost al-Shaddadi, Manbij, Dabiq, Jarabulus and al-Rai. Very substantial progress has been made territorially, which is having a profound moral impact on the credibility of that evil body and exposing it for what it is: a disintegrating and failing terrorist organisation.

Yemen

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen, and notes that the country is now on the brink of famine; condemns the reported bombings of civilian areas that have exacerbated this crisis; believes that a full independent UN-led investigation must be established into alleged violations of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Yemen; and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible for any such violations.

When we discussed Yemen in this House last week, we did so in the hope that the 72-hour ceasefire negotiated by the UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ahmed, could lead to a lasting cessation of hostilities from all sides and desperately needed access for humanitarian aid. These hopes, unfortunately, were dashed almost immediately. Regardless of who was first responsible for breaking the ceasefire, it is the ordinary civilians of Yemen who will pay the price. It is distressing to learn that on top of all the other threats they face from air strikes, cluster bombs, acute malnutrition and the risk of famine, the Yemeni population now face an epidemic of cholera. I believe that, wherever any Member stands on the justification for this conflict, on the UN mandate for the Saudi-led military action and on the threat to regional stability caused by the Houthi uprising, the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children are directly at risk if this conflict carries on in its present form—and none of us can tolerate that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right that the ceasefire was critical. The efforts of the Foreign Secretary, John Kerry and the Saudi Foreign Minister as well as the special envoy were vital to ensuring that we had that ceasefire. Does she agree with me that the involvement of the British Government and the American Government is crucial to ensure that we get a permanent ceasefire?

[Emily Thornberry]

I applaud my right hon. Friend’s commitment on this issue. I know that he was born in Yemen and that he feels very strongly about it. His approach is, of course, absolutely right: the British and the Americans have a very important influence, although most important of all is the fact that we support the efforts of the United Nations.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Let me make a little progress, and then I will give way.

Let me make it clear that this debate and today’s motion are not about the causes of the conflict or whether it is justified. Today’s debate is about the grave concerns that many Members of all parties share about the way in which the conflict is being conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend has moved on from the point I wanted to raise, but I thank her for giving way. She said that whatever people think about the origins of the conflict, we can debate how terrible the situation is for Yemenis on the ground, and I agree entirely. Is there any debate, however, about the origins of the conflict or the UN Security Council resolution? I thought that we were pretty much agreed across the House that we should support that resolution.

[Emily Thornberry]

Of course no one is saying at this stage that we should not support the UN resolution. However, further action needs to be taken in respect of the conflict. For example, it has been suggested that the UN resolution of 30 September has already mandated UN experts to work alongside the joint incidents assessment team—perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to that.

The difficulty is that if we look at the history, we find that in August the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights

“called on the international community to establish an international independent body to carry out comprehensive investigations in Yemen”,

which is exactly what we are calling for today. When the compromise resolution was agreed on 30 September, the Commissioner’s Office said that it was disappointed at the outcome, stating:

“We did not have any say in the final text.”

If that resolution was not what the Commissioner’s Office wanted, I do not think that we should be satisfied with it either.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has received, as many MPs have, a letter from the deputy speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, in which he says that the

“demand for an independent UN-led investigation goes contrary to the United Nations Human Rights Council decision in September which called for the UN to support instead the Yemeni National Commission’s investigation into civilian casualties in the conflict.”

Would my hon. Friend like to comment?

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, I would. I have seen the letter, and I think it is important to condemn any breaches on both sides. It is also important to note that the UN has stated that 60% of civilian deaths have been a result of actions by the coalition. In this debate, it is important for us to examine what it is that we are doing.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, and I have already taken three interventions. I would like to make some progress before giving way again.

In view of all these grave concerns and dire consequences, the debate is about whether Britain should continue to support the Saudi forces leading one side of the conflict. The shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), will later address the humanitarian consequences in detail, but I want to focus on concerns about the way in which the conflict has been conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously by the Government or indeed properly investigated.

Last week, I said that there had been

“thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen”.

In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said:

“There are not thousands…—that is to mislead the House”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 667.]

Let us look at the facts. In August, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on the conflict in Yemen, which stated that between 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016, 2,067 civilians had been killed in that conflict. On the basis of careful investigation of each incident, it said that 60% of those deaths—as I have said—had been caused by Saudi airstrikes. The report concluded—and this is important—

“In several of the…documented attacks, we have been unable to identify the presence of possible military objectives.”

In September, the independent Yemen data project went further. It examined more than 8,600 airstrikes that had been conducted between the start of the conflict and the end of August 2016, and found that 3,158 of them had struck civilian sites, while a further 1,882 had struck sites of undetermined use.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

I must make some progress. I know that many other Members wish to speak.

[John Woodcock]

It is on that very point.

[Emily Thornberry]

I will give way later, but I will not do so now.

[John Woodcock]

It is really important.

[Emily Thornberry]

May I just catch up with myself?

All those airstrikes took place before the recent devastating strikes on a wedding party and a funeral hall. So when I say that there have been thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets and thousands of civilians killed, I am certainly not misleading the House, as was suggested by the Under-Secretary. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps someone is misleading him.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

I will of course give way to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Crispin Blunt]

The Yemen data project, which looked at the numbers, pointed out that the identification of the targets as civilian or otherwise referred to their original use. No further assessment was made of the time of the airstrike or the circumstances that led to it. We must try to be very careful with the use of data.

[Emily Thornberry]

I respectfully agree. Indeed, I think that that very good point supports the argument that we are advancing today about the need for an independent investigation, so that we can establish the facts rather than going on assumptions and presumptions. We must all be satisfied that whatever investigation takes place is independent and internationally recognised.

There is evidence of a further disturbing trend in the way in which the conflict is being conducted. According to Yemen expert and London School of Economics professor Martha Mundy, detailed examination of Government agriculture statistics has revealed hundreds of cases in which farms, livestock, water, infrastructure, food stores and markets were targeted by Saudi airstrikes. Her analysis suggests that the extent of the bombing in rural areas where there is little activity besides farming is clear evidence that Yemen’s agriculture sector is being deliberately targeted. Some Members will doubtless argue that what was effectively a blockade imposed on Yemen in 2015 has helped to exacerbate the starvation crisis that we are seeing today, but Saudi Arabia did at least claim some UN mandate for that action. There is no UN mandate for the destruction of Yemen’s agriculture sector, which, if it is indeed deliberate and targeted, represents a clear breach of the Geneva convention.

That brings me to the question of how alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen are being investigated. In September, the House discussed the fact that the Government’s position had changed from saying that, according to their assessment, there had been no violations of international humanitarian law to saying that they had made no such assessment, and that it was for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate any such incidents.

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

The Saudi Foreign Minister was recently reported as saying that, although they do not play a role in choosing the targets, United Kingdom military officials in Saudi Arabia have access to the list of those targets. If that is true, does the hon. Lady share my bewilderment about how the Government can claim not to have reached a conclusion in respect of the very serious breaches of international humanitarian law that are taking place in Yemen?

[Emily Thornberry]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I heard only half his intervention, because there is a certain amount of noise coming from behind me. Perhaps I will take another intervention.

[John Woodcock]

It is so gracious of the shadow Secretary of State to give way. I welcome the fact that this subject is being raised in the House today and I agree with her calls for an independent investigation into this matter. The coalition is precisely focused on training Saudis to be better able to be in compliance with international humanitarian law so that our interventions, if effective, will create fewer civilian casualties. Can she explain why she has insisted, despite a number of us asking about this, keeping in the motion the fact that the UK should withdraw support for the coalition, making it very hard for many of us to vote for it?

[Emily Thornberry]

I take on board what my hon. Friend says, and I considered that in advance of this debate. I read something said by California Congressman Ted Lieu:

“When its repeated air strikes that have now killed children, doctors, newlyweds, patients, at some point you just have to say: Either Saudi Arabia is not listening to the United States or they just don’t care,”

and I fear the same might be true for the advice we might be given.

A Pentagon spokesperson has said:

“Even as we assist the Saudis regarding their territorial integrity, it does not mean that we will refrain from expressing our concern about the war in Yemen and how it has been waged”.

I will talk later about why I believe there may be a particular reason why, although I hear what my hon. Friend says about advice that may be given in relation to some of the targeting, there may not be advice in relation to all of it, and if he has some patience he will get an answer to part of his question.

My concern is that we are therefore putting our faith entirely in the Saudis’ joint incidents assessment team to give us the truth on these alleged violations. I showed earlier that there had been thousands of documented airstrikes on civilian sites and thousands of civilians killed as a result, so we would expect JIAT at the very least to have published reports on hundreds of these incidents, but it has published just nine. That is less than 0.002% of all airstrikes documented by the Yemen data project up to the end of August.

And how credible are those reports? The United Nations protests that four World Food Programme trucks have been attacked; JIAT blames the officials in charge of the convoy. The UN protests that 73 civilians were killed and injured in a market in Sana’a; JIAT says there have been no direct attacks on civilians and no fault on the part of the coalition forces. The UN protests that another 106 civilians were killed in a market in Hajjah; JIAT disputes that there were civilians and finds no proof of fault. The UN protests that 47 civilians were killed and 58 injured at a wedding in Dhamar; JIAT says no such bombing took place.

In only two of the nine incidents it has reported on, and the thousands more it has not, has JIAT accepted there was any fault on behalf of the Saudi-led coalition: the bombing on a residential complex in July 2015 and the airstrike on the funeral hall in Sana’a this month.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, despite the frank admissions over the funeral bombing, when we have met representatives of the Saudi Government they have refused to even give a timetable for giving information on these investigations, let alone answers that might be satisfactory? Does she agree that they must come forward as soon as possible and that there should be an independent investigation?

[Emily Thornberry]

I was at the same meeting and heard the Saudi Foreign Minister telling us he was not able to give us a timetable on the investigation and I share my hon. Friend’s grave concern about that.

When asked at the weekend about the latter incident, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, called it “a deliberate error”, by which I believe he meant at least one individual within the coalition forces was able to deliberately unleash this terrible attack killing 140 civilians without the authorisation of the coalition command in Riyadh.

This raises major questions. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to experts on this conflict who say that there are essentially two coalition forces operating in Yemen. One is run from the capital and carries out pre-planned operations based on strong intelligence under the direction of the Americans and UK advisers. There is, however, another centre operating out of southern Saudi Arabia, which carries out dynamic reactive operations, often based on sketchy evidence, often without thinking through the so-called collateral damage and inevitably often with significant civilian casualties. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has just raised.

If any coalition forces are acting in a reckless or indiscriminate manner in carrying out airstrikes on civilian areas, that would be a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and it should cause the whole House grave concern. The Minister’s explanation that the Sana’a funeral bombing was a deliberate error raises the prospect that there has also been intentional targeting of civilians by elements of the coalition forces, but he cannot tell us—because he does not know—how many of those thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets have also been deliberate errors.

That brings me to the crucial point of today’s motion: the need for a full independent UN-led investigation into all alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen. There must be an investigation into all the thousands of attacks on civilian sites, not just nine of them, and into all the thousands of civilian deaths, not just a few hundred of them. We need to know whether Yemen’s agriculture sector has been deliberately targeted in breach of international humanitarian law. We need to know whether elements of the coalition air forces are routinely operating in a reckless and indiscriminate way. We need to know whether that deliberate error in Sana’a was a one-off or part of a more systemic problem. Finally, from a UK perspective, if there have been violations of international humanitarian law, we need to know whether UK-manufactured weapons and planes have been used to commit those violations. With all due respect to the individuals who make up Saudi’s JIAT, its output to date—whether in terms of volume, speed or content—gives no confidence that it can carry out this type of comprehensive investigation, let alone an independent one.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. In making the case for an independent UN-led investigation, will she make it clear that it should investigate alleged violations committed by both sides in this conflict?

[Emily Thornberry]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that there have been violations on both sides. I stated that at the outset of my speech, and it is important to make that fact absolutely clear to the House. It is also important that when we are giving support to one of the sides, we should hold that fact up to the light of day.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making the case very well for an independent investigation, but given all that we know, and what she has outlined, would it not be right to suspend arms supplies to Saudi Arabia while that independent investigation takes place?

[Emily Thornberry]

I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me turn that question round. At present, we are unclear—perhaps the Government will tell us definitively today—whether the weapons and planes sold to Saudi Arabia today will be used in Yemen tomorrow. Until we have an answer to that question, it is impossible for us to say what type of support we will be giving to the coalition. Should that support include the sale of arms that could be used in Yemen next month?

It is manifestly clear that we need a UN-led investigation. It is equally clear to me, and I hope to all Members, that until that investigation is concluded, it is right for the UK to suspend its active support of the coalition forces. That is partly a matter of our own moral protection, but, we should not be actively continuing to support those forces while their conduct of war is under investigation. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision—[Interruption.] If I can just finish this sentence, I will give way in a moment. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision would place on the coalition forces to avoid further civilian casualties, to engage constructively in peace talks and to allow full access for humanitarian relief.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. Will she explain her proposal to the thousands of people across the country who support our allies in the region? Does it mean, for example, that she is in favour of suspending all spares for the aircraft operated by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the coalition? Does it mean that she wants to withdraw the advice given by skilled British employees that helps our Saudi friends? If that is what she means, she is doing great damage to the British national interest.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The question is about whether it is right at this stage, given the impact on our economy, for us to be suspending our support for Saudi Arabia. Given the amount of arms and planes that we sell, is it right for us to suspend arms sales to Saudi if that is part of the support that we are giving the coalition? We have always complied with international humanitarian law when selling arms to our allies. We have regulations about who we sell arms to and in what circumstances. The Foreign Secretary himself said that the test for continued arms sales

“is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law.”

We have rules on arms exports and we must make sure that we abide by them. We are a proud country that does our utmost to abide by international law. The questions that we are raising today are important because if our support means supporting a coalition that is acting in contravention of international law, we must reconsider that support. That is the right position.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I urge her to think for a moment about the impact that such a suspension would have on our credibility as an ally in this dangerous, fractured part of the world. There is a great difference between saying that civilians have been killed because terrorists are perhaps sheltering around what were civilian facilities and actually alleging that there is a deliberate programme of mass slaughter.

We have been doing an awful lot of historical commemoration and it is worth remembering the huge number of French civilians whom we killed in the build-up—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to make interventions, but many Members want to speak in this debate and we are not going to get there. The time limit could be three minutes, so short interventions, please.

[Emily Thornberry]

I refer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to the earlier part of my speech in which I quoted one of his own Ministers saying that a “deliberate error” had resulted in hundreds of deaths in Yemen. He must bear that in mind when we are deciding whether to continue supporting the ongoing action in Yemen. I will answer the rest of his question in the rest of my speech.

This is about the kind of signal that we are sending to the rest of the world. On Syria, Members on both sides of the House have rightly protested the bombardment of eastern Aleppo by Russia and Assad, demanded tougher international action against Russia, dismissed Russian claims that civilians are not being targeted, and called for those responsible to be tried for war crimes if necessary—they must face justice.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

No, I am not giving way—26 people want to speak.

We have heard all those things strongly from the Foreign Secretary, so does he accept that when he says nothing about Yemen apart from unflinching support for Saudi Arabia, when he says that the Saudi coalition should be left to investigate itself, when his Ministers dismiss reports of thousands of civilians being killed as somehow misleading the House, when we say one thing about Russia and Aleppo but another about Riyadh and Yemen, what the rest of the world hears is hypocrisy and double standards?

Today’s motion gives us an opportunity to send the opposite message to the world: to show that we hold all countries, friend or foe, to the same high standards that we aspire to ourselves, and that although Saudi Arabia will remain a valued strategic, security and economic ally, our support for its forces in Yemen must be suspended until the alleged violations of international humanitarian law in that conflict have been fully and independently investigated, and until the children of Yemen have received the humanitarian aid they so desperately need. That is the right message to send to the rest of the world and that is the message that reflects who we are as a country. I hope that it is the message this House will vote to send today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the motion? That would help him, if he could take a moment—perhaps we could read it together. It states:

“This House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen”,

and goes on to say

“and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible”.

I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman enough time to read the motion.

[Boris Johnson]

Most fair-minded Members of the House will recognise that under pressure about whether she would suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the huge economic damage that that would entail, the hon. Lady retreated in the course of her remarks. I thought that was very striking and her judgment was entirely correct.

We take our arms export responsibilities very seriously indeed. This country operates one of the toughest control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the established criteria. The most relevant test is whether there is a clear risk of those weapons being used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We keep this under careful and continuous review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is right for us to support the legitimately elected and UN-backed Government of Yemen. It is also important for us to work tirelessly to bring about the ceasefire to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, because without it we shall not be able to get humanitarian aid into the country or advance a political settlement. However, I cannot support the motion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), concentrated on only part of the story, which she does quite a lot when it comes to this conflict. She condemned the actions of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but completely ignored what is being done by the Houthis, and the Iranian-backed weapons that are being taken into Yemen to fuel the conflict and help the Iranians to destabilise the region.

War is a horrible thing, and if there are violations on either side, I strongly believe that they should be investigated. It is sad that it was only in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said yes, we should investigate all sides.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because time is limited.

The Iranians are fuelling the conflict with millions of pounds’ worth of weapons. That is not a sign that a regime wants a peaceful settlement. As for their involvement in the peace process, there is evidence that they undermined the ceasefire that was in operation in the past few days. That is not helpful.

I accept that there are people, in the House and elsewhere, who take a moral stance against either the manufacture or the export of arms. Do I respect those people? Yes, I do, but I do not agree with them. I take what is perhaps, in the Labour party, the rather traditional view that we should be able to manufacture weapons, and that individual countries should be allowed to protect themselves when that is possible. I am proud that our legislation on arms exports was one of the achievements of the last Labour Government. The Export Control Act 2002 was the first such legislation for 50 years. We have a robust system in this country, and we should not shy away from it.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) that if Members want to comment on certain matters in the Chamber, they should consider them in detail first. When the Saudi Foreign Minister came here, I asked him about cluster munitions. However, I did not simply take his word for it. I knew from my own experience that using a 30-year-old cluster munition would be unsafe—and, in any case, how could it actually be delivered? I entirely agree that those issues should be investigated, but I do not think that they should be represented as facts when there is evidence to show that it might not be possible for such munitions to be used.

The situation is complex, but I do not think that the motion does anything to support the peace process, which I think is what we all want to do. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a united voice from the Chamber this evening would be the best way of achieving what we all want to achieve. I am thinking not just of peace in Yemen but of the need for us to support our allies in the region, who are important not just to stability in that part of the world, but to the prevention of terrorism and other threats to us at here at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

No, I do not think I will as we are running short of time.

The argument that the support should be removed is wrong.

On the motion itself, it was interesting to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary telling us about the two command centres. That is what leaps out from the motion. She talks about the northern command centre in Riyadh, where our advisers are and where the strikes were not authorised. She then talked about the southern command centre, where our advisers are not, and says that that is where the problems are in terms of targeting. Well, it does say something that we are going to pull away from the site where it is not happening, which would not make any difference.

[Emily Thornberry]

The southern command centre has been identified, but who is in it has not been identified. Neither has it been identified whether it included anybody from any particular company—whether it be a British company or not; or indeed what British personnel, if any, are involved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman will know full well that it is completely unrealistic to expect the Government to put their negotiating position to a vote in this House before those negotiations are concluded. That has never happened before. I remember all sorts of negotiations on Maastricht and other European treaties, and they were never put to this House before they were concluded, as he knows full well.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

There has been reference to the draft newspaper column in favour of remain that the Secretary of State wrote in February. He wrote:

“This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms…Why are we so determined to turn our back on it?”

The argument he made back then is exactly why we on this side of the House are so concerned about a hard Brexit that would put our access to the market at risk and risk the jobs of British people. Why does the Secretary of State no longer agree with himself?

[Boris Johnson]

Most people will understand that the arguments have moved on and that the people have spoken overwhelmingly. Indeed, one of the most powerful cases that could possibly have been made for leave was to be found in the article that I wrote for remain. Everybody who has read it has told me that they emerged from it feeling a profound sense of obligation to leave the European Union, and they were quite right. That analysis, I am afraid, is absolutely justified and I am delighted that the people voted accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady has raised the important question of who is doing the bombing, what is actually happening, and how those responsible can be made accountable. There is no doubt that this is a very difficult war. One of my reasons for inviting the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, to the House yesterday to meet parliamentarians was to ensure that everyone here could put those very questions, and so that he could hear from our Parliament about concerns that have been expressed not just yesterday, or indeed today, but over a number of months. A coalition has been put together under United Nations resolution 2216 to support President Hadi. We must ensure that that war is legitimate, but let us not forget that the devastation has been caused by Houthis as well.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The whole House will welcome the announcement of a 72-hour ceasefire in Yemen, which will begin on Wednesday night. We share the hope of the United Nations that that can become the basis of a lasting peace, and that the children of Yemen can now receive the humanitarian relief that they so desperately need. However, as the Secretary of State observed in respect of Aleppo last week, and indeed today, the end of a conflict does not end the need to investigate possible violations of international humanitarian law. When can we expect full, independent, UN-led investigations of the thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady received her answer when she posed the very same question to the Foreign Minister yesterday. It is standard for any country engaged in warfare, when a mistake is made, to conduct its own investigation and produce a report. I have said in the Chamber that if I feel that that report—or any report—is undervalued and is somehow to be dismissed, I will certainly join the hon. Lady and others in saying that there should be an independent UN-led investigation. After I visited Saudi Arabia, however, we saw a report that made very clear exactly what had happened. I have encouraged people, as I did at yesterday’s meeting, to say that there are reports outstanding. There are not thousands, as the hon. Lady suggested—that is to mislead the House—but there are a number with which we are concerned that need to be clarified.

Aleppo and Syria

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I start by welcoming the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to her new position? I also welcome to his post the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), whom I have not seen in this place until today. I hope that they will both find their new roles fulfilling.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this debate, and for the eloquent and passionate way in which he has spoken up for the people of Aleppo. He spoke up for them throughout his time as International Development Secretary. He stood on the side of the poor and oppressed throughout the world, and he has done so again today. He also understood how much the commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on helping those most in need mattered, which is something from which his successors could learn. He agrees with me that Britain’s work in international development reveals the better part of ourselves and is something about which we should be inordinately proud.

The situation for innocent civilians in Aleppo is truly a hell on earth. They are trapped, impoverished and desperately in need of food, clean water and medical care. That would be bad in any circumstances, but they are also living in daily fear of death coming from the skies—from airstrikes in the east of Aleppo and from mortar bombs in the west. The scale of suffering is beyond our comprehension. We should be in no doubt that the parties responsible for that—whether it is the Russian forces and the Assad regime on one side, or the jihadists of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, otherwise known as the al-Nusra Front or al-Qaeda—stand equally condemned in the eyes of public opinion and are equally guilty of crimes against humanity. In time, there must be a reckoning for those crimes. That is why we support the efforts of France to enforce a tougher approach at the Security Council to the violations of international humanitarian law. Will the Foreign Secretary be supporting the French Government in those efforts?

Equally, the effort to hold the Russian forces and others to account for their actions, and the anger that people rightly feel here, must not prevent us, difficult as it is, from seeking to work with the Russian Government to restore the Kerry-Lavrov peace process. That means securing and maintaining a ceasefire, isolating the jihadi extremists, opening safe—

[Mr Bradshaw]

There is no ceasefire.

[Emily Thornberry]

Absolutely there is not a ceasefire now; that is what I am moving on to. Of course there is no ceasefire, and there needs to be an initiative. In the end, we all know that we can move forward only by way of negotiations, and that no negotiations will happen without a ceasefire.

[Angela Smith]

Can my hon. Friend present us with the evidence that she clearly has that it is realistic to believe that the Russians will seriously engage in further ceasefire negotiations? Does she think for a minute that they will stop bombing Aleppo while they are doing that?

[Emily Thornberry]

I have thought about this a great deal and spoken to a number of experts about it, and I have some suggestions that I wish to make to the House and to put before the Secretary of State. We want to be helpful. If she will give me a moment, I will explain.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

If the peace that we all want is not achievable, will the hon. Lady support the application of military force, if it is needed?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am not a pacifist, personally. I believe in using military force when it can be effective, if we can achieve the ends that we have identified, and if we know what we want to achieve. I believe that in a multi-layered, multifaceted civil war such as that in Syria, the last thing that we need is more parties bombing. We need a ceasefire and for people to draw back.

[Tom Tugendhat]

While we all look for peace, does the hon. Lady agree that sometimes backing down, looking weak and hiding one’s head achieves quite the reverse? It encourages violence, treachery and the brutality that we are seeing today.

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, I agree, but let us be strong about this and let us put forward a plan that might work. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I will explain what I am suggesting.

I was recommending that, despite the difficulties and the anger that many parties feel, we work with the Russian Government to restore the Kerry-Lavrov peace process. That means securing and maintaining a ceasefire, isolating the jihadis and opening safe channels for humanitarian aid—we should make that the basis to negotiate a lasting peace. Looking at the situation today, we accept that that could not look further away or seem more difficult, but we need to have that goal in mind. It is the only conceivable solution and the only way to bring relief to the people of Aleppo, so how do we do it?

[Mr Bradshaw]

We had a ceasefire; it was brutally blown apart by Russian and Syrian air power. I still have not heard from my hon. Friend a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s and Assad’s action. I have not heard her call it out as it is—a war crime.

[Emily Thornberry]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend. I thought that that was exactly what I said. For the avoidance of any doubt—obviously, it is now in Hansard—of course the actions of the Russians can well be seen as war crimes. A number of war crimes have been committed during this terrible war, and as I said at the outset, there are the war crimes of Assad and Russia, and the war crimes of the jihadis. In time, we will expect those war crimes to come before the international courts, and those people should and must be held to account. It was for that reason—perhaps my right hon. Friend did not hear me—that I urged the Government to support French efforts to ensure that more initiatives are taken to bring the parties to international justice.

Mr Speaker, many people are getting impatient that I have not yet put forward my plan, so perhaps I will not take any more interventions at the moment so that I can actually do that.

What is the only conceivable way of bringing relief to the people of Aleppo? I believe that it will require strong statesmanship on all sides and not more brinkmanship. We need to talk to experts in the field. Their concern is not just how we stop the conflict as it stands, but how we avoid it escalating further. Yesterday, one expert said to me:

“On the ground, we are just one bad decision away…from Russian and American forces ending up in armed conflict.”

Facing that chilling prospect, we must all work for the alternative, and we need to start by looking carefully at the plan put forward by the UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has already referred to it, and I respectfully agree with him. Staffan de Mistura has bravely promised that if the jihadi forces of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham agree to leave the city of Aleppo, he will personally escort them from the siege to Idlib, or wherever they wish to go. Such a move would isolate the jihadi fighters from the moderate rebels inside Aleppo and remove from the Russians and the Syrian forces their current pretext for the bombardment of east Aleppo. That process could—I stress it only could—provide the basis to restore talks on a ceasefire and on opening up the humanitarian channels that we all wish to see.

There is a precedent for such a step in the way the Jabhat fighters were escorted out of Homs and other towns in Syria. While we must treat the Russian assurances with caution, it is an approach that Sergei Lavrov has said they are ready to support and can persuade the Assad regime to agree to, so will the Government lend their support to the plan put forward by the United Nations? The Government have yet to respond to the initiative at all. I believe that it is a serious initiative with some prospect of hope in it, and that it should not be ignored. Will they persuade their French and US counterparts to do likewise and seek to use this pragmatic proposal as the basis to restart talks?

While we are rightly focused on Syria today, we know that many other countries in the world will listen to what we say about Syria, look at the values that we claim to uphold and ask whether we are true to those values when it comes to other countries and conflicts. Today we will hear Members from all parties rightly condemn Russia and Assad for the airstrikes against civilian targets. We will hear calls for independent UN investigations into breaches of international humanitarian law. We will hear calls to take further action against Russia to oblige it to cease the bombardment. While that is all correct, if we say those things about Russia and Aleppo, we must be prepared for what is said about Saudi Arabia and Yemen. We cannot condemn one and continue selling arms to the other. We cannot call for investigations into one and say that we are happy for the other to investigate themselves. We cannot pour scorn on the assurances of one that they have not hit civilian targets while blithely accepting the assurances of the other. Most of all, we cannot cry for the people of Aleppo and the suffering that they face while turning a blind eye to the 1 million children in Yemen facing starvation today. So I ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the House how the actions that the Government propose in Syria compare with the actions that they are taking in Yemen.

The suffering of Aleppo has gone on for too long. Every day that it continues, we must redouble our efforts to end it. We suggest a four-point plan to the Government. We suggest that we begin with more statesmanship and less brinkmanship. Secondly, we must adopt the UN plan to escort the jihadis from Aleppo. Thirdly, the Kerry-Lavrov plan needs to be revived and we must work together towards a lasting peace. Fourthly, we must de-escalate overseas military involvement in the conflict from all 14 other nations involved, including ourselves. That is how we will create safe corridors for aid, stop the destruction of Aleppo by Christmas and end the suffering of its people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one problem with the ICC is that not enough countries, including some influential ones, are members. Perhaps an international lead from some of our larger friends would be of great assistance.

[Stephen Crabb]

The Opposition spokeswoman makes an important point. Far too many countries have not signed up to the ICC, and a job for our diplomacy in the months and years ahead is to encourage buy-in to the court. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary update us on any discussions that he has had with his French counterpart before the scheduled visit by President Putin to France next week, and on the need to ensure that there is a united stance by international allies when discussing the latest events in Syria?

I welcome the business-like tone struck by the Prime Minister when she met President Putin at the beginning of September at the G20. It is right that our initial posture should be one of reaching out and seeking improved relations with Moscow, but one can be forgiven for thinking that Putin is taking the west, including us, for fools, in the belief that the distraction of a US presidential election and Brexit means that there is neither international interest nor resolve to try to stop the brutal and so far effective power play that he has undertaken in Syria.

Aleppo is a litmus test of whether Russia wants to play a constructive role in the region and whether it is willing to work in collaboration with the international coalition to bring peace to Syria, acknowledging that its interests may be different in key respects. Unfortunately, the events of recent weeks demonstrate that it has failed that test and that its behaviour is not consistent with that of a responsible actor. It behaves instead like a thuggish gangster regime flouting international law at will.

We can be business-like in our relations with Russia, but that does not mean business as usual when Russia behaves shamelessly in attacks on innocent civilians in Aleppo and then defeating attempts at the UN to secure some respite from the hostilities. The bombing campaign in Aleppo amounts to a war against children. Almost half of the casualties since the current attack began have been children, as bombs and mortars have landed on hospitals and broken through underground bunkers that sometimes also serve as schools. Last week, newspapers carried photographs of children playing in water-filled craters in the ground created by bombs and mortars—images, I suppose, of innocence amidst the conflict. The images that we should hold before us are others that we have seen in the past fortnight: the lifeless, dusty, broken-limbed bodies of children being removed—exhumed—from bombed-out buildings and piles of rubble. This is indeed a war against children.

In conclusion, the point has been made several times this afternoon that there are no easy solutions. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield described in some detail the complexity of the challenge before us. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire made a really powerful point when he discussed the effort of will needed from the international community, with leadership from us, to show that there is a resolve to make progress and to hold Russia in particular to account for its actions, given its responsibilities as the key player at this moment in time in achieving respite from the bombings to secure an enforced ceasefire, including safe passage for humanitarian supplies while allowing room for a diplomatic process that might possibly stand a chance of achieving some lasting peace.

We have heard practical suggestions this afternoon, such as having a no-fly zone and discussion of economic sanctions as a way of bringing more pressure to bear on Russia. I will be particularly interested to hear the Foreign Secretary’s response to those two suggestions, and on what more the Government can do to show leadership and increase the international resolve and will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

All of the above.

[Emily Thornberry]

I just want to make sure that the record is absolutely accurate. The difficulty with taking Syria or Russia to the ICC, as things stand, is that they are not members. The French initiative is to try to get an International Criminal Court prosecutor to set up a way of prosecuting. That we certainly support.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my Front-Bench colleague for that clarity.

Finally, we can certainly offer support to the credible, inclusive plans the Syrian opposition are putting forward.

I cannot help noting that, in serving as co-chair of the friends of Syria group, I am taking up the role of my friend, Jo Cox. She would have been here and she would have known what was needed. Most of all, I think she would have said that we should help refugees fleeing Syria—not just 20,000 by 2020, but many more and much more quickly.

On London’s south bank, there is a memorial dedicated to the international brigades—those who fought for democracy in the Spanish civil war. On one side of the sculpture, there is an inscription that reads:

“They went because their open eyes could see no other way”.

In Syria today, the world is confronted by unspeakable evil and unimaginable suffering. Some of us might have hoped that the advent of social media and new means of technology would have opened eyes even more so than in the 1930s, but the pictures we see make us want to close our eyes and turn away from the horror. But we cannot unsee what we have seen and we must not turn our backs on the greatest crime of our century. The people of Syria are suffering; let us do everything we can to bring them relief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

You caught me slightly unawares, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate being called at this juncture.

It was right that the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) moved towards geopolitics and the constraints we have in finding a positive resolution, and also the willingness to do so. Although he, like many other Members, has not had as much time as he would have liked to focus on the compassionate reasons why he is motivated by this case, those reasons are well grounded. In paying tribute to him and all colleagues who serve on the friends of Syria APPG, it is important that we always remember the rationale for engaging in this discussion and those people who are suffering continually in Aleppo and beyond.

I have been encouraged by a great number of the contributions that have been made this afternoon, save one. When I listened to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I despaired. I despaired for the people of Syria and I despaired of the paucity of positive policy proposals she had to make. I am glad that that has not been reflected by Back-Bench Members. What we heard can be summed up like this: more statesmanship and less brinkmanship—platitudes. Withdrawal was mentioned—withdrawal from every other country that we associate ourselves with and that we are allied with to do a good job, leaving the Syrian people by themselves. It is appeasement: allowing the jihadists safe passage out of Aleppo in the hope that—these were her words—we will get “lasting peace” by December. That would let the jihadists live to fight another day—to be parasitical and go and find another host community in which they can do their evil deeds. I think it is appalling.

[Emily Thornberry]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen what happened in Homs when it was being besieged? The proposed action I have put before the House today in relation to Aleppo worked in Homs, and lives were saved as a result. Does he not think that we should look at that?

[Gavin Robinson]

Where did those people go and what did they do? I will take no lectures from Labour Front Benchers about the appeasement of terrorists, whether it is in Northern Ireland or Aleppo. I am glad that what has been shared from the Labour Front Bench has not been reflected in what has been said by the honest, decent and caring individuals who sit behind it. We recognise how serious this matter is.

The Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have a big job to do in considering how we, as a country, can appropriately and responsibly deal with Russia. It is an age-old saying that, “Mine enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Here, that is turned on its head, because in the case of Russia, mine enemy’s enemy is my enemy. It is as stark as that. Russia is moving nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad. It has sorties day after day, whether in the Baltic sea, the Black sea or the North sea, in contravention of NATO. Having shot down a Russian jet a number of months ago, Turkey, a NATO ally, signed a deal with Russia just yesterday. What is the NATO view of that? How will Turkey’s future engagement be affected when our ally is signing a trade deal for gas and a deal for military intelligence with Russia?

Those are huge questions, yet the immediate consideration must be the people of Aleppo. The ICC has been mentioned, and there is concern about whether Russia is a member. My understanding is that Russia has signed, but has not ratified membership of the ICC. I am keen to hear from the Foreign Secretary whether that is an impediment to progress. Last night the BBC was suggesting that, given the nature of previous prosecutions focused on African states, there is the ability to pursue the French option to pursue the Russian state, but there is no will to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

I take that point very sincerely, but it is vital that we concentrate our efforts and our censure on the Russians and on the Assad regime, who are primarily responsible for what is going on in Syria now. We can get lost endlessly in all sorts of moral equivalences, and I heard a few earlier from the Scottish National party, but it is vital that we focus on what is happening in Syria. That is the question before us this afternoon.

I must say bluntly to the House that if Russia continues on its current path, that great country is in danger of becoming a pariah nation. If President Putin’s strategy is to restore the greatness and glory of Russia, I believe that he risks seeing his ambition turn to ashes in the face of international contempt for what is happening in Syria. Russia tries to justify its onslaught on Aleppo by saying that its sole aim is to drive out Jabhat al-Nusra, or Fatah al-Sham as it now calls itself, which is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. No one questions that these people are terrorists, but their presence in that city cannot justify an assault on 275,000 innocent people, still less the imposition of a siege, which is, by its very nature, a wholly indiscriminate tactic. I agree with the phrase of Staffan de Mistura who said that the Russians should not be able to use the presence of Jabhat al-Nusra as an alibi.

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I wonder whether he will go further in relation to Staffan de Mistura. Is he in a position to say today that the British Government will support Staffan de Mistura’s initiative to escort the jihadi fighters out of eastern Aleppo so that the Russians no longer have an excuse to bomb that section of the city?

[Boris Johnson]

I will come to the way forward for Aleppo in a minute. Let me remind the House of all the ways in which the UK is trying to be of use and trying to salve the situation. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the White Helmets, who rescue men, women and children from the rubble of bomb sites. Many Members have met them. Funded partly by the UK Government, they are doing an heroic job. Of the 3,000 volunteers, 142 have been killed in the line of duty and 400 have been wounded.

Britain is at the forefront of this humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis. We have pledged £2.3 billion—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis—which makes us the second largest donor after the US. We can be proud in this country of the help that we are giving to hundreds of thousands of people. Britain has done a huge amount to mobilise the international community. I pay tribute to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their work in that regard. In February, we co-hosted a conference and secured pledges of more than $12 billion, which is the largest amount ever raised in a one-day conference.

Let me answer the question about whether we are taking enough refugees asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). Yes, of course we should take our share, and we are doing so, but Members will agree that the overwhelming priority is to help those nearest the centres of conflict in the berm and elsewhere and to keep them as near to their communities as we can.

Let me turn to the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and repeatedly by other Members. Many have expressed the view strongly that they want this country to go further. Others have spoken about no-fly zones, or no-bombing zones. I have every sympathy with those ideas and the motives behind them. We must work through all those types of options with our allies, especially as this House is not committed to putting boots on the ground. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, we cannot commit to a no-fly zone unless we are prepared to shoot down planes or helicopters that violate that zone. We need to think very carefully about the consequences.

[Boris Johnson]

I am really sorry, but I must make some progress.

We must consult on this as widely as possible, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield suggested, I will certainly be talking to everybody involved in the 1991 effort to provide no-fly zones over northern Iraq. We must ensure that we have innovative ways of getting aid into Aleppo and, as several Members have said, we must step up the pressure on Assad’s regime and on the Russians through sanctions. I listened carefully to what was said. The House will accept that there is a certain friability in the European resolve to impose sanctions on Russia, given the large dependency of many European countries on Russian gas. It is vital that our country remains at the forefront of keeping that resolve from crumbling, which is what we are doing.

In the long term—to get to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury—the only realistic solution is to persuade both sides to agree to a ceasefire and then to work towards a political solution. It is of course true that that process has been stopped since April, when the ceasefire was destroyed. That does not mean that the process is dead, and it must not mean that the process is dead. On the contrary, this country and this Government have worked to keep that flame of hope alive and have worked for a settlement. On 7 September we hosted a session in London with the high negotiations committee of the Syrian opposition, which set out a detailed and progressive vision for how to achieve a transition in Syria towards a democratic, pluralist administration in which the rights of all communities in that country would be respected, but would also preserve the stability and institutions of the Syrian state while getting rid of the Assad regime.

[Emily Thornberry]

Before we run out of time, may I refocus the right hon. Gentleman on the question that I asked about getting rid of the jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo?

[Boris Johnson]

As the hon. Lady will understand, one cannot get rid of the jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo as long as the population of Aleppo is being bombed in a ruthless aerial bombardment that is driving people into a position in which they will do anything to fight and resist the Assad regime. Our best hope is to persuade the Russians that it is profoundly in their interests to take the initiative, to win the acclaim of the international community, to do the right thing in Syria, to call off their puppets in the Assad regime, to stop the bombing, to bring peace to Aleppo and to have a genuine ceasefire. That is the way; that is the prelude. I am perfectly prepared to look at Staffan de Mistura’s proposals for leading out al-Nusra and all the rest of it, and perhaps to bring in a UN contingent—that all sounds eminently sensible—but a ceasefire and the end of the Russian bombardment has to come first, and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees.

I think that millions of people in Syria are yearning for that outcome and for a return to talks. I hope that they will hear the passion of this afternoon’s debate. They will recognise that, of course, there are no easy solutions and no pat answers to this. They also know that this House and our constituents are disgusted by the behaviour of Assad and his regime. I hope that in Moscow and Damascus they will hear the message from British MPs that we are willing to consider anything honestly and practically that can be done to bring peace and hope back to Syria. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken so passionately this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I echo strongly the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); the incorrect answers that he and other Members were given were totally unacceptable, as was the time in which they were corrected, which has added insult to injury. It is clear that the assurances this House was previously given on breaches of humanitarian law have proved inaccurate. Do other assurances that we have been given remain valid? In May, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told this House that there was “no evidence” that coalition forces in Yemen had used cluster munitions in civilian areas. Indeed, he claimed that the cluster munitions found in Yemen, which had been responsible for the deaths and maiming of many innocent civilians, had come from “previous conflicts” in the region. Does the Foreign Office stand by that assessment? In May, we also asked a question that that Minister repeatedly failed to answer, so I give today’s Minister an opportunity to answer it: have the coalition forces in Yemen used weapons or planes manufactured in Britain in this conflict? Have they used them to drop cluster munitions? Have they used them to commit breaches of international humanitarian law? If we simply do not know the answers to those questions, is it right to continue selling weapons and planes to Saudi Arabia until we have answers?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady began by saying that it was unacceptable that these erroneous statements were put out, and I agree with her, which is why I wrote and took measures to make sure that the record was corrected. I make it very clear that the profile of interest in Yemen, with more than 90 written ministerial questions on the matter, is such that we had to correct the issue. Two errors were found, with a further four found on a trawl. That is why I wrote the necessary letters and produced the necessary statements to correct the matter, and I apologised to the Chamber. I hope that that apology is recognised; this was not some big plot or conspiracy to mislead. Our policy remains extremely clear on where we stand on our support for our friends in the Gulf.

The hon. Lady raises the sale of cluster munitions by Britain, which did happen before we signed the convention on cluster munitions—I think she is referring to the BL-755. I have seen one piece of evidence on that incident, and the bomb was unexploded; the bomblets themselves were in the case.

[Emily Thornberry]

So, that is okay then.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not saying that it was okay at all. What I am saying is that as soon as we found out about it, we asked Saudi Arabia to do exactly what any other country should do in the same situation, which is to determine what is going on. As soon as we have more information, we will certainly share it with the House. I invite the hon. Lady to pose those questions to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he comes to the House on Wednesday.

Turkey

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Turkey.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for applying for the urgent question.

As Members on both sides of the House will have seen from events unfolding on their television screens, it became clear on Friday evening that a military uprising was under way in Turkey. In plain terms, it was an attempted coup, which we condemn unreservedly. It was ultimately unsuccessful, and constitutional order has been restored, but 210 people have reportedly been killed, and some 1,400 injured. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathies and condolences to the people of Turkey on the tragic loss of life.

Her Majesty’s Government have, of course, been closely engaged throughout the weekend. Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular staff worked tirelessly throughout Saturday and Sunday to support British nationals who have been affected, and they continue to do so. We have thankfully received no reports of British casualties. Our advice to British nationals remains to monitor local media reports and to follow FCO travel advice, including the advice provided by our Facebook and Twitter accounts.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdogan last night. She expressed her condolences for the loss of life, and commended the bravery of the Turkish people. She underlined our support for Turkey’s Government and democratic institutions, stressing that there was no place for the military in politics, and also underlined the importance of our co-operation on counter-terrorism, migration, regional security and defence.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was regularly updated by officials as events unfolded. He visited the teams in the FCO’s crisis centre who responded to Nice on Friday morning, and visited those responding to Turkey on Saturday morning. He spoke to his Turkish counterpart, Mevlüt Çavusoglu, on Saturday to express our concern and our support for Turkey’s democratic Government and its democratic institutions, to urge calm, and to encourage all parties to work to restore democratic and constitutional order quickly and in an inclusive way. Her Majesty’s ambassador in Turkey has been in constant touch with his Turkish counterparts. I spoke to him myself yesterday, particularly in order to express our concern for the welfare of embassy staff, and I plan to visit Ankara tomorrow.

The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, and participated in a discussion about Turkey. There is a strong sense of common purpose between us and our European partners. The Foreign Affairs Council has issued conclusions strongly condemning the coup attempt, welcoming the common position of the political parties in support of Turkey’s democracy, and stressing the importance of the prevailing of the rule of law and its rejection of the death penalty.

The Turkish Government now have an opportunity to build on the strong domestic support that they gathered in response to the coup attempt. A measured and careful response will sustain the unity of purpose which we have seen so far, and which was so evident on the streets of Istanbul and Ankara. The United Kingdom stands ready to help Turkey to implement the reforms to which it has committed itself, and to help the democratically elected Government to restore order in a way that reflects and supports the rule of law.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and may I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new position? It is unfortunate that he and his team have had to be brought to the House and did not think it right to make a statement themselves. I hope that the emergency landing at Luton of the right hon. Gentleman’s boss is not a bad omen, but we do wish the all-male ministerial team well at this crucial time.

Turkey is of pivotal cultural, political and strategic importance to the world, straddling as it does the east-west divide with borders to eight countries. It is a vital NATO ally and has important minorities, particularly Kurds and Armenians, as its citizens. Half a million people of Turkish or Kurdish descent live in the UK and they are desperately worried about their families. With 2 million British visitors a year, Turkey is greatly loved in this country, and the interests of our two countries cannot be separated.

How many British citizens have been arrested, if any, and what support is being provided to them? What is the current advice to British nationals within Turkey and to those who may be booked to travel over the next few days and weeks?

On Friday we saw the Turkish people, whether they supported the current Government or not, coming out to support democracy and making a clear statement that military coups have no place in modern Turkey. The question is whether President Erdogan will use this as an opportunity to deepen and strengthen democracy or to undermine it. The signs so far are deeply worrying, with 9,000 police officers and a third of the generals dismissed, 7,500 people arrested, including the most senior judges in the country, and the death penalty being introduced.

What reassurances has the right hon. Gentleman had that there will be fair trials for those accused of complicity in the attempted coup? Was the Foreign Office taken by surprise by this attempted coup? How big is the Turkish team in the Foreign Office? Does he have plans to expand it? What will happen to this vital ally—what will happen next to this partner, this friend? It is vital that we work together to ensure that Turkey has a secure foundation of democracy, freedom of speech and human rights into the future.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome—to me at least—but I respectfully point out to her that the noble Baroness Anelay, who is also a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, was, when I last spoke to her, a woman. From a personal point of view, may I point out that I am also able to add to the spectrum of choice the hon. Lady would like to see in our ministerial team? [Interruption.] I might say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that he, of all people, should be aware of how exactly I add to that spectrum.

I am not aware of any UK citizens having been arrested, but obviously that is a very serious consular objective for us to pursue, find out and make sure that it remains the case. I think the whole House will agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the importance of wanting the due process of law to be upheld, and for any trials, should they happen, to be fair, and to make sure that the highest principles of democratic standards are upheld, for which of course one needs a functioning and independent judiciary.

I will be discussing all these matters when I go to Ankara tomorrow, and I very much hope that in the reaction Turkey displays to this coup attempt it will be able to remain a very important member of NATO and a partner to other countries in Europe. The answer to the hon. Lady’s straightforward question about whether we were taken by surprise is, yes; I am not sure there is anybody who was not.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

If this is the Foreign Secretary’s last appearance at the Dispatch Box in his current role, he has made a typically serious and thoughtful speech for his farewell. It behoves all of us to reflect seriously and thoughtfully on the Chilcot report, and the Labour party has a duty to apologise for the mistakes made to all the families of the British servicemen and women and civilian personnel who lost their lives, to all those who suffered life-changing injuries, and to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died and are still dying today. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly done that.

If there is one grave danger that we face, it is that we will assume that all the lessons of Chilcot have been learned. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary, and I am concerned about some of his statements. One draws from them that he assumes that the mistakes made in Iraq cannot be made again. Indeed, the outgoing Prime Minister, in his statement last week, seemed to pick out the same five lessons that the Foreign Secretary mentioned today and said that he felt the lessons had been learned. He seemed to say that the actions that have already been taken, such as the setting up of the National Security Council and the creation of the conflict, stability and security fund, had effectively fixed the problems that arose from the Iraq war.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I will repeat what I actually said. I am confident that many of the most important lessons identified in the report have already been learned and the necessary responses implemented, but in the weeks and months ahead, as we examine the report in greater detail, the Government will look further at whether any additional steps are required.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, because it is important to emphasise that further lessons need to be learned, some of which I hope to address. I will not spend time repeating any of Chilcot’s factual findings, because, looking to the future, we need to consider the lessons and make sure that we do not make any of the same mistakes again. The Secretary of State for Defence will speak later about operational lessons that the military must learn, and it seems to me that there are more lessons than the five that Ministers have outlined so far.

I want to outline some of the points that jump out at us from the report. It seems to me that we have continued to make mistakes during the current Prime Minister’s time in office, and I will explain why.

On the flawed intelligence, although Chilcot finds that no deliberate attempt was made to mislead people, the intelligence on which the war was based was clearly flawed and did not justify the certainty attached to it by the Government. Has that lesson been learned? Last year, the Government asked this House to authorise military action in Syria. By contrast with Iraq in 2003, the military action did not include the deployment of ground troops.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of an attempt to get the House to consider a contempt motion against Tony Blair? Does she agree that, whatever else is in the Chilcot report, it does not give grounds for such a motion?

[Emily Thornberry]

That is a serious point, and I hope that Members will consider it. The question is whether the House was deliberately misled. Chilcot concluded that, although the intelligence may have been flawed and the House misled, it was not deliberately misled. Therefore, in my opinion, if the House tried to make any findings of fact and act on them, it would move away from those previous times when the instrument of a contempt motion has been used. When it has been used previously, there has been a finding of fact upon which the House has been able to act, meaning that someone has either been found guilty or admitted an offence. There has been no admission of deliberately misleading the House, so if the House attempted to make a factual finding, it would become a kangaroo court, because the person accused would not be allowed to represent themselves or speak. In my view, such circumstances would fly in the face of this country’s established principles of justice. Opposition Members are particularly interested in the Human Rights Act, and in article 6, on the right to a fair trial.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has pre-empted what I was about to say. It seems somewhat strange that some Members who rightly proclaim our need to adhere to the European convention on human rights should suggest a process that cannot meet article 6 requirements under any circumstances.

[Emily Thornberry]

I always get very worried when I agree so thoroughly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I find it happening on many occasions. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position, “You lawyers are all the same”, but we do agree on certain principles. Frankly, our concern is sometimes to ensure that our colleagues who are not lawyers understand these basic legal principles.

[Alex Salmond]

Instead of worrying about agreeing with Government Members, should the hon. Lady not be worrying about disagreeing with the comments that her leader made just at the weekend? Has she actually read the private notes that the former Prime Minister sent to the President of the United States of America, and compared them with his public and parliamentary remarks? Does she find the two things consistent?

[Emily Thornberry]

Chilcot considered those notes and statements over a long period. Sir John Chilcot is a man of great standing, and the report is very thoughtful, and I will not gainsay what he says. There are plenty of lessons to learn from the report, and in my view they go much further than simply focusing on one individual and what happened many years ago. What is important is what is happening now. We need to make sure that the Government make the correct decisions before intervening in other people’s countries and risking loss of life.

[Alex Salmond]

Is it the hon. Lady’s position that someone can be found in contempt of this House only if they admit that contempt? That is what she seemed to say.

[Emily Thornberry]

No. What I am saying is that there are standards that we have always upheld. For example, I believe Warren Hastings was tried by this House 200 years ago, but he was tried by judges, he was represented and he was given an opportunity to say what he had to say. We should not draw conclusions that Chilcot did not without the person involved having an opportunity to speak or be represented.

[Alex Salmond]

In that case, will the hon. Lady tell us in which court the former Prime Minister could be tried?

[Emily Thornberry]

I appreciate that there is speculation about what may or may not happen to the former Prime Minister. That is not within my brief today, speaking as the shadow Foreign Secretary and attempting to draw the lessons from Chilcot. It is important that I address that this afternoon and leave it to others to take such legal action as they think appropriate. It will be for them to take that to the proper court, which will make a decision. We cannot, within the great traditions of our country, constitute ourselves as a court.

Last year, the Government asked this House to authorise military action in Syria. By contrast with Iraq in 2003, the deployment of ground troops was ruled out, which meant a reliance on local forces instead. I mentioned flawed intelligence; at that stage, we were told that there were 70,000 moderate rebels in Syria who would help defeat Daesh, which would force Assad to negotiate a peace agreement and step down. Many of us were sceptical about that 70,000 figure, and I was certainly one of them. That figure was produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee, and the Government declined to say which groups were included in that figure, where they were, what the definition of “moderate” was, how we could be sure that all these rebels were signed up to the coalition’s military strategy, or how they would get to the battlefield. All those questions mattered.

As the Government acknowledged, no military strategy could succeed without forces on the ground. Time will tell whether those 70,000 moderate Sunni rebels existed and whether they were in a position to fight the battles that it was claimed they would be able to. However, it seems to me that there is a parallel to be drawn between the intelligence that was relied on in relation to the 70,000 figure and the flawed intelligence that has been relied on in the past. It is therefore important for us to learn a lesson from Iraq 12 years earlier. Serious questions have been raised about the intelligence that underpins our decisions to take military action. Once again, Parliament was asked last year simply to take on trust what the Government said about intelligence.

There are further issues to consider, including a lack of ability for people to challenge things internally. Chilcot makes it clear that both civil servants and Cabinet Ministers lacked the opportunity, information and encouragement to challenge the case being made to them. The Prime Minister says that his National Security Council has fixed all that, but if so, why does the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy say that the NSC has so far proved itself to be

“a reactive body, rather than a strategic one, which seems to us to be a lost opportunity”?

That criticism is important, and we should not be complacent in the face of it.

The NSC certainly did not challenge the short-sighted and highly damaging cuts to our armed forces in the last Parliament, despite the huge and justifiable misgivings of senior military figures about the impact on our defence capabilities. Nor is there any evidence of the NSC doing anything to challenge the inadequate planning for the aftermath of the intervention in Libya, a subject that I will address shortly. Ultimately, while making progress in small ways, the NSC has failed to address the fundamental problem, which is a culture in Whitehall of overly optimistic group-think, which exposure to independent views could help us challenge. It is not good enough to say that it has been fixed, because it has not. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary asks how I know that. I am giving him the evidence of how I know that there is overly optimistic group-think. It is partly because of the results of decisions that have been taken, but there is more, which I will go into later in my speech.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is completely wrong in her analysis of how the NSC approached the strategic defence and security review in 2010. All the papers were put before members of the National Security Council—I was one of them—and we spent weeks reading the best possible advice. We made our decisions in the light of the very difficult economic situation that the country found itself in and the £38 billion black hole left in the defence budget by the Labour Government, but the idea that we lacked expertise before us at that time is completely wrong.

[Emily Thornberry]

I spent only six months in the area of defence, but although I spent a great deal of time immersing myself in it, I am not just relying on my own views in saying what a disaster the coalition’s first so-called strategic defence review was. It is not just me who thinks that. Senior military figures, not just in this country but among our allies, were very concerned about what cuts to the military budget were doing to our capability. It is my view that the second strategic defence review spent a great deal of time patching up the holes that had been created by the coalition’s first one.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. However, once again, she is wrong. The most senior military officials and soldiers in the country were at the table for the first security and defence review. They were part of the discussion; they were not locked out.

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to put his views on the record, and I am sure that he will speak later. My view is that if things had been fixed in the way that the Foreign Secretary has stated, we would not be swinging backwards and forwards on our military budget. We make cuts and create holes in our defence capability, then the next time we try to patch them up.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As one of the Defence Ministers at the time, let me say that it was a most unpleasant experience, as a Conservative, having to make cuts in our armed forces. However, the truth was that the Budget deficit we inherited of £156 billion was itself a threat to our national security. We had to take action. Sadly, defence had to take some of those cuts. Where would the hon. Lady have made cuts, if not in defence?

[Emily Thornberry]

We are moving a long way from the lessons that need to be drawn from Chilcot, and if I may, I will return to my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed defence on many occasions. I always enjoy the discussions, and I am quite happy to take his points at another time. However, I do not want to spend the entire afternoon discussing defence, much as I am tempted to. I simply say that if the NSC has brought in outside perspectives from time to time, it has clearly not done so enough to deal with the underlying problem.

Another issue that comes out in Chilcot, and that has not been fixed, is the lack of challenge in Parliament. That was the other potential source of challenge to the Government. Although there were vigorous debates in the House, those debates and the 217 MPs who voted to indicate that the case had not been made were ultimately not enough to stop the march to war. I was not yet in the House; I was on the demonstrations. Although more Labour MPs than MPs from any other political party voted against the war, there were not enough of us to stop it.

Have we moved on since then? Many people have said that the 2013 vote against taking action in Syria was a watershed moment. It cemented the convention that whatever the views of the Executive, this House has the final say. The House was asked to approve a broad mandate for the use of military force without a coherent strategy, clear objectives or a long-term plan. It was all too reminiscent of the approach to Iraq. Members from all parts of the House exercised a healthy degree of scepticism, and they were right to do so.

At the same time, the Government have increasingly taken advantage of loopholes in that convention to intervene in more conflicts with less oversight. They have developed military capability in cyberspace, but they refuse to say in what circumstances it might be used or when Parliament might be informed. They have increased investment in drones and special forces at a time when there have been many cuts to other parts of the armed forces. They have shown a willingness to use both as a means of intervening in conflicts to which the UK is not a party; that has included the use of special forces in quasi-conventional combat roles. In doing so, the Government seek to bypass not only parliamentary support for their interventions but any form of parliamentary oversight. The development of hybrid warfare demands new mechanisms for holding the Executive to account. All parties, on both sides of the House, should be working on developing those mechanisms, because as we all know, hybrid warfare is likely to be the future.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is at least an argument that to use the whipping system to secure a parliamentary majority for a predetermined war emasculates the House of Commons rather than empowers it, because it prevents Back-Bench Members of Parliament from thereafter holding the Government to account? Does she agree that there might be an argument in favour of introducing some kind of UK war powers Act to get around that difficulty?

[Emily Thornberry]

There is continuing debate about the matter. As long as we can be confident that a decision made in this House will not need to be taken off to the courts, for the judges, eventually, to decide whether we go to war—that would be entirely inappropriate—and as long as we can keep control of any such legislation so that it ensures that, where possible, the Government will come to Parliament and allow us to express our view, I think that that is right.

I understand that this is the system that we have at the moment, but I am concerned that although the convention continues to develop and strengthen as time goes on, it is still in the gift of the Executive to decide whether they will bring the matter to Parliament. There is an argument for putting the convention on a more formal footing, but there is the danger of court intervention. It is a moot point, and something that we must continue to look at.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s strategic lesson in the modern combat capability of Her Majesty’s armed forces. I was interested in her description of the use of special forces in almost-combat capability. Having served with various parts of Her Majesty’s forces in the past, I know that most foreign deployments are considered to be near to combat even if they are in a training role, because of the pressures on them. It is a very novel interpretation to suggest that hybrid warfare may not continue to exist.

We are getting into a rather bizarre discussion, if the hon. Lady will forgive me for saying so, on the strategy and use of the armed forces, when surely the focus should be on the legality and the appropriateness of the deployment. It might be best to stick to the areas that the House is qualified to talk about, rather than to dress up as armchair generals and pretend that we know what is going on in different areas.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is important that we look to tomorrow’s problems. Special forces are likely to be used increasingly. On the idea that we will send, for example, special forces into Libya in a training capacity, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about how that might end up a quasi-combat role. Presumably, if the training forces are in Libya, they will be in a camp. They may be in a part of Libya that is allegedly safe, but they will need to be guarded. Who will guard them? We can see how it is possible to slide down a slippery slope. At the moment, although it would be inappropriate in the case of a decision to send special forces or trainers into an area, if we can have parliamentary scrutiny of our secret service—if the behaviour of MI5 and MI6 is at least answerable to a Committee of this House—it is not beyond our wit to allow there to be similar accountability over special forces. I have written about this issue.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

It is important to point out that the oversight that the Intelligence and Security Committee, prominent members of which are present, exercises over the intelligence community is always post the fact. The only kind of meaningful oversight over special force deployment of the type that the hon. Lady is talking about would have to be before the fact. That would be a very different proposition.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making that point. I do not expect special forces, before they are used, to have to go before a Committee of Parliament and get permission, but I do think that there should be some form of accountability and some explanation. It was embarrassing, and it demonstrated the democratic deficit in relation to hybrid warfare, to read in the papers that the King of Jordan was gossiping with Congressmen in America about our special forces, when nobody in this House had officially been told about it. That highlights the democratic deficit in this country. We should learn lessons from Chilcot. We should learn lessons about accountability and about not simply trusting the Executive to get a decision right. We should make sure that there is more accountability, and that we are on our toes. We must be prepared to modernise our structures as necessary to reflect the changing nature of warfare in the 21st century.

Let me go back to my speech. I talked about the development of hybrid warfare and new mechanisms for holding the Executive to account, and I believe that all parties should work together on that. Another point was raised about American-British relations. Chilcot made it clear that American-British relations would not have been harmed had the UK not joined the US-led coalition. Chilcot argues that that was not a basis for joining the invasion. In my view, that is another lesson that we have not learned. In 2013, pressure from the United States played a major role in the Government’s rush to intervene in Syria. It became obvious that the US Administration’s efforts to persuade Congress to back intervention hinged on the Prime Minister’s success in persuading Parliament to do so. Speaking after our House declined to support the action in Syria, the then Defence Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—said that the vote would “certainly” damage the Anglo-American relationship. In my view, the relationship has endured. We have got over it without any adverse consequences, and it serves as a reminder that our alliance with the United States rests on stronger foundations than an expectation of unquestioning British compliance with American wishes.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady speaks of the special relationship, and I would be the first to acknowledge that the relationship with the United States goes much deeper than one incident or one vote, but is it not also valid to listen to the words of various American generals, including General Jim Mattis, who, as she knows, commanded Centcom? After the vote, he pointed to the damaging impact that it would have on the enduring commitment and understanding between the US and British militaries. Does she recognise that just as that special relationship is made up of many threads, undermining it thread by thread will weaken it?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sure that some American generals were disappointed that Harold Wilson would not agree to British involvement in Vietnam, but we got over it and our relationship is strong enough to endure differences of opinion. If we are to be good friends, it is important to recognise that good friends trust each other enough to disagree at times. The 2013 Syria vote made it clear that Parliament understood that; it also suggested that the Government did not. That is why it is such a tragedy that cuts to the Foreign Office budget have weakened Whitehall’s institutional knowledge of the world. It is important for our leadership role in the world to have proper understanding of it, and for hundreds of years we have had an insight into the world that other countries have not had. We have a leadership role, and we can have a voice that is different from that of the Americans because we will have a different understanding. To have 16% cuts in the Foreign Office year on year, and a hollowing out of our institutional knowledge, has in my view been a tragedy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice. I am taking a very long time, and I ought to get on with it.

Chilcot says that Tony Blair ignored warnings about the sectarian violence that would sweep Iraq after Saddam fell, and after the appalling loss of life that has followed in Iraq and surrounding countries, we are still very much living with that mistake. Again, has that lesson been learned? If we consider the intervention in Libya, it is clear that it has not been. During the uprising against Gaddafi, armed militias across the country focused their attention on toppling the regime, and the British Government later seemed almost surprised that once that goal had been achieved, those militias turned their fire on each other. Although divisions in Libya were always more tribal than the sectarian divisions in Iraq, the result has been the same. The belief that democratic elections would help to fill the power vacuum proved hopelessly optimistic, when factions that found themselves in the minority simply refused to accept that the result was legitimate.

Had those with knowledge of the country been directly consulted at the time, they would have warned the Government that such things would happen. Had informed and impartial advice been sought out, such warnings were readily available and in the public domain. It was also clear to many experts in the region that if Gaddafi was toppled there was a huge risk of knock-on instability when well-armed, highly trained mercenaries returned to their native countries such as Mali, Niger and Chad. Again, the warnings were there, but such advice was either not heard or not listened to until it was too late. Again, a parallel can be drawn between our intervention in Libya and our understanding of what would happen next and listening to experts, and what happened in our first intervention in Iraq when we did not listen to expertise or pay attention to what was said.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

First, the intervention in Libya was at the request of the Arab League, which I suggest would have had an insight into the region and would count as people who knew what was going on. Secondly, although I understand the hon. Lady’s analysis, does that lead to the conclusion that toppling any despot always runs the risk of creating chaos and confusion? That is the nature of despotism. We are five years down the line from ending a 40-year brutal dictatorship in Libya. The game is not over yet, but I predict that Libya will end up a better place than it was under Gaddafi.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that issue is one of speculation. In my view it is not legal to intervene in a country to topple a regime, and morally we should not intervene in a country unless we have some form of strategy to ensure that the country we leave is in a better state than when we first arrived.

[Mr Grieve]

When I was in government I had some involvement in the Libyan intervention, and from memory I do not think that there was a blinding of oneself to potential problems as a result of that intervention. We must also bear it in mind that the trigger for the intervention was the fact that Colonel Gaddafi was about to kill tens of thousands of his own citizens. That prompted the Security Council resolution that provided the legal basis for the intervention. That highlights—I will come on to speak about this—some of the really difficult decisions in those areas, where even questions of legality do not come into it. I certainly would not be willing to characterise that intervention as having been wrong in the circumstances that prevailed at the time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but my point is that, again, information was available and could have informed the intervention. Once the initial intervention had been made, what happened thereafter? How were manifest and obvious dangers protected against? I do not think that those important points were considered, and again we learn a lesson from Chilcot and Iraq that is so much more important that any form of soap opera regarding Tony Blair or not Tony Blair.

The other important issue is post-war planning, some of which has been touched on—this is my final point, Mr Speaker, as everyone will be glad to hear. Perhaps most devastatingly, Chilcot highlights the total absence of adequate planning for what would happen after the war and the long-term strategy for Iraq. If ever a mistake should never be repeated, it is the idea that we enter into another military intervention with no idea of its consequences, no plan for the aftermath, and no long-term strategy. And yet, that is the exact hallmark of all the outgoing Prime Minister’s interventions.

Again, we see the evidence in Libya. In the words of President Obama, the Prime Minister became “distracted”, and once the Gaddafi regime had been overthrown, the lengthy, arduous task of post-war reconstruction was all but ignored. In the years since, Libya has been riven by factionalism and violence. Its experiment with democracy was brief, with power in the hands of rival militias, and the ungoverned space that that created was an invitation for Daesh to establish a strategic foothold on the Libyan coast. It is a stain on this Government that they began to pay real attention to the mess they had left in Libya only once that terrorist threat from Daesh became too urgent to ignore.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has said anything about Chilcot’s findings on the circumstances in which it was ultimately decided that there was a legal basis for UK participation in Iraq, but he says that they were far from satisfactory. I am sure she will agree with me and endorse the view presented earlier that the Attorney General should give independent and impartial advice. According to evidence to the Committee, Chilcot details how the then Attorney General initially resisted the legality, and eventually acquiesced in the view that the use of military force against Iraq could be legally justified. Has the hon. Lady formed a view about what changed the then Attorney General’s mind?

[Emily Thornberry]

Tempting though it is to debate that issue with the hon. and learned Lady, it is important to note that any Attorney General knows that they are the only person in the Cabinet who can say to the Prime Minister, “No. You can’t do that. It is not legal. You are not allowed to.” That heavy burden must be exercised by people of great courage and substance. It is about the rule of law and the fact that no one is above the law. All AGs need to learn that lesson, and they must be confident and capable of standing up to their leader. That is an important point and perhaps another lesson.

Britain has always been a leading light in the development of international law, and much international law has been a result of documents that we have drafted. Our adherence to international law has been a very important part in its development. One thing that has been clouded, as a result of the Iraq intervention and other interventions since, has been the need for a clear law on the circumstances in which one can and cannot intervene. That has not developed as well as it might have if there had not been a temptation to try to press the facts into what is understood of the law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is a big fan of the Responsibility to Protect. The effect the Iraq war had on the development of RtoP is very sad: Cook was attempting to develop it at the time of the Iraq war and it was held up as a result of the intervention in Iraq. Were the lessons on long-term planning from Iraq learned in Libya? I would say absolutely not. The central lesson is this: you cannot bomb a country from 30,000 feet into a western-style democracy.

In conclusion, we cannot turn the clock back. We cannot correct the mistakes that were made. We cannot bring back the lives that were lost. We cannot undo the chaos we have created, but we can, and we must, stop those mistakes being repeated. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out today, whatever his rhetoric and whatever his well-meaning intentions, too often the outgoing Prime Minister has repeated exactly the same mistakes in his own military interventions: relying on speculative intelligence, keeping Parliament in the dark, and failing to plan for what happens afterwards. It is to be hoped that the new Prime Minister will study the Chilcot report not as a commentary on decisions made in the past but as a guide to the decisions she will have to make. Let us hope she does so. As she takes on her new and onerous responsibilities, we wish her well.