Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. On the one hand, we do not want to take precipitate measures, but on the other we do want to take measures to prevent more and more UK nationals—particularly vulnerable ones—from being stranded overseas. It is a difficult risk-balancing exercise, and I will say more about that in the oral statement to follow.

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

Happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Speaker.

The lack of global co-ordination in tackling the covid-19 outbreak has been truly shocking, but is that any wonder, given that last week, according to the German Government, the so-called leader of the free world offered CureVac “large sums of money” to make sure that the vaccine it is developing would be available only for those from the United States? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Donald Trump’s response to this outbreak has been nothing but a disgrace?

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Lady that we need a co-ordinated international response, and we need to get better internationally at that—the Prime Minister made that point during yesterday’s G7 conversation. I do not think that just bashing the Americans or the President of the US is a substitute for the sensible, practical measures that we need to take to bring British nationals, and also our European partners, home on the repatriation flights that we have organised, to deal with research and the vaccine mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and to increase the resilience and capacity of those vulnerable countries that are trying to deal with an even greater challenge. We are addressing all those issues. The Foreign Office is working with the Department for International Development, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Defence, and we are talking to all our partners right around the world.

[Emily Thornberry]

The truth is that Donald Trump’s lack of international leadership has been quite extraordinary. He started by calling the outbreaks a hoax, comparing coronavirus to winter flu and dismissing health advice, but he now calls it the “foreign virus”, blaming Europe for its spread and today blaming China, and says that he takes no responsibility at all. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is shameful that such behaviour is what we have come to expect from the current American President, even at this time of global crisis?

[Dominic Raab]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that I think we have done quite a good job in this House of trying to adopt a bipartisan approach. Whether domestically or internationally, finger-pointing just does not help in any shape or form. We are going to work with all our partners—the US, the Europeans, those in South America and those in Asia, as I have already mentioned—to try to forge the most effective response. That is what all our constituents expect and deserve.

Covid-19

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We hear what he says on freight, but could he give us any guidance on what is “essential travel” when it comes to people? Does it include people coming home? This is a time of immense concern for tens of thousands of British nationals stranded abroad; they are not just dealing with the stress of trying to get accurate information and make their way home, but doing so facing the ever-present fear of infection.

I was contacted yesterday by Tom, one of the 65 British nationals in Cusco, Peru, which has announced a 15-day state of emergency, with its borders closed and the army enforcing a quarantine. Tom’s flight to Britain today has been cancelled and his calls to our embassy in Lima have not been answered. Why is that? Because the embassy itself has decided to close down for 15 days, just when its services were needed most. The Secretary of State said in his statement that our

“consular teams are working around the clock to provide the best…information available to UK nationals”;

well, I am afraid that that simply is not the case in Tom’s experience. He says:

“We have received no advice or assistance…we are all extremely concerned at being stranded here.”

Across the world, there are tens of thousands of British nationals in the same position as Thomas, and all have the same message for the British Government: “Help bring us home”. As far as they are concerned, their travel is essential and it is no use telling them to rely on advice from the Governments in the countries from which they are travelling when, inevitably, they will be the least of those countries’ concerns. Nor is it any use telling them to rely on the instructions of their travel operators, which, all too often in recent weeks, have been at odds with the official FCO travel advice and are driven by the fear of insurance claims and bankruptcy, not by the needs of our citizens.

The Government cannot keep passing the buck to others, especially when it comes to repatriation. Yes, it is difficult, and yes, it is expensive, but that is the nature of the crisis that we face. In his response, can the Secretary of State directly address Tom and his compatriots in Peru and all the other British nationals around the world currently in the same position, and tell them what he is doing to help bring them home?

Will the Secretary of State reassure us today that the Foreign Office will learn the lessons from this fiasco by asking itself some very basic questions? First, why were there no clear protocols in place for evacuation and repatriation in the event of an outbreak such as this? If those protocols were in place, why were they not followed? Secondly, why has official travel advice from the FCO been so slow to match what is happening on the ground? This weekend, we had tour operators going door to door in French ski resorts, telling British families to leave immediately, while the Foreign Office website said that there were no restrictions on travel. Thirdly and most basically, as Tom’s case in Peru illustrates, will the Foreign Secretary determine why the levels of consular support have been so out of step with the levels of global demand?

When the dust settles on this crisis, as we all hope it eventually will, we will reflect on what has been a chronic failure of global leadership and co-ordination in which our own Government has sadly been a part. Instead of every country working together to agree best practice and apply common standards on testing, tracking, travel restrictions, quarantines, self-isolation and social distancing, we have instead seen a global free- for-all, with every country going it alone. Instead of the international community coming together to pool its experience and work together to develop a vaccine and a cure, we have again seen individual companies and countries working in silos. We have also seen a shameful attempt by Donald Trump to buy the German company that is in the lead when it comes to discovering a vaccine, not just to steal the glory of the vaccine for himself, but to hoard it for the Americans alone. The challenges posed by the coronavirus are fearful enough for the world without our leaders compounding them through their incompetence or their inaction. That is exactly what we have seen when it comes to this Government’s approach to repatriation, but it is part of a pattern that goes far beyond that one issue and far beyond our one country.

Will the Secretary of State undertake today that, as well as fixing the immediate issues that we face with the coronavirus, not least around repatriations, Britain will lead the way in ensuring that these outbreaks will be better managed in future?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her response, at least in relation to recognising the scale of the challenge. She asked a number of questions, and I will give her as much of a substantive response as I can. She asked what essential and non-essential travel means. Ultimately, the Foreign Office gives travel advice, but the decision on whether to travel remains an individual one. Travellers may have urgent or particularly exceptional business—family, commercial or otherwise—and circumstances may differ, but what we are doing is strongly advising against global travel. That is, in part, a reflection of the domestic measures that were announced yesterday around social distancing. We also want to limit the number of people, particularly vulnerable people, who find themselves in the plight of not being able to get home because of some of the issues that she has raised.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the team in the Philippines—

[Emily Thornberry]

It was Peru.

[Dominic Raab]

In Peru, yes. That team is working as best it can under very difficult conditions. I am very happy to take a look at the case to which she has referred. We have a whole range of practical advice for hon. Members to give to their constituents. Our FCO travel advice is available online. Hon. Members and their constituents can sign up to receive email updates, so they get it in real time. My officials also run a specific hotline for hon. Members to contact. I have also shared details with hon. Members in a “Dear colleague” letter, which will go out shortly today. We are doing everything that we can to give hon. Members on both sides of the House the practical information that they need in what is a fast-moving and fluid situation.

The right hon. Lady asked what we were doing more generally in relation to helping people to get back home. The first thing to say is to avoid travel if you might find yourself in a situation, either because of current or future measures, in which you are unable to get back home. We are liaising with the tour operators and the airlines to make sure that even when restrictions are in place there is a window of opportunity to get out with commercial flights. We do not have precise numbers, but given the volume of British nationals who are abroad—not necessarily permanently or living abroad, but travelling abroad—to expect that the Government can repatriate them all is unrealistic. What we do is make sure that we are in a position to protect the most vulnerable.

The right hon. Lady asked why our consular teams were stretched. She ought to have a look at the scale of the international challenge that this country and everyone are facing with covid-19. Teams across Government, including consular teams in the Foreign Office, are doing an exceptional job in very difficult circumstances. She is right to point to different measures that have been taken around the world. The UK approach is to follow the best scientific advice that we have, and to take measures, both domestically and internationally, in line with trying to reduce the peak of coronavirus in the UK and the number of infections, and making sure that we maximise the capacity of the NHS to deal with that. Finally, the right hon. Lady did her usual routine of sniping at the US President. That is no substitute for a serious question on the substance, let alone a serious policy answer.

Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. For all of us who regard the Iran nuclear deal as one of the crowning diplomatic achievements of this century and a path towards progress with Iran on other issues of concern, it is deeply distressing to see Iran join the United States in openly flouting the terms of the deal, as the Foreign Secretary has described.

I firmly agree with the action that has been taken today alongside our European partners. I welcome every word of the joint statement issued at the weekend by Britain, France and Germany in relation to the JCPOA. I agree with their commitment to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation regime. I agree with their determination to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon. I agree with their conclusion that the JCPOA plays a key role in those objectives. I would have been stronger in my wording. Although I agree with their “regret” and “concern”, I would have said “revulsion” and “condemnation” over the Trump Administration’s attempted sabotage of the JCPOA and their re-imposition of sanctions on Iran.

I agree with the E3’s attempts to preserve the agreement despite the actions of Donald Trump and the reciprocal actions of the Iranian regime, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his statement. I also agree that Iran must be obliged to return to full compliance with its side of the agreement. That was a sensible and balanced statement on the JCPOA, stressing the international unity around the importance of retaining and restoring it, and accepting that both sides have breached it in terms and that neither has any justification for doing so.

That is what makes it all the more remarkable that this morning we heard from one of the signatories to that statement—our very own Prime Minister—telling “BBC Breakfast” the following:

“the problem with the JCPOA is basically—this is the crucial thing, this is why there is tension—from the American perspective it’s a flawed agreement, it expires, plus it was negotiated by President Obama…from their point of view it has many many faults. Well, if we’re going to get rid of it let’s replace it—and let’s replace it with the Trump deal. That’s what we need to see…that would be a great way forward. President Trump is a great dealmaker by his own account, and by many others…Let’s work together to replace the JCPOA and get the Trump deal instead.”

In the space of two or three days, the Prime Minister has gone from signing a joint statement with France and Germany calling for the retention and restoration of the JCPOA, to calling for it to be scrapped and replaced by some mythical Trump deal. The Foreign Secretary did not refer to any of that in his statement, and we could be forgiven for thinking that he and the Prime Minister are not exactly on the same page, but perhaps in his response he could answer some questions about the Prime Minister’s remarks.

First, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that in his discussions with his American counterparts, they have said that one of the problems with the JCPOA is that, to quote the Prime Minister,

“it was negotiated by President Obama”?

We all suspect that that is Trump the toddler’s main issue with it, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister was correct?

Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary tell us how this supposed alternative Trump deal, which the Prime Minister is so enthusiastic about, differs from the current JCPOA—or, like his mythical middle eastern peace plan and his mythical deal with the North Koreans on nuclear weapons, is it simply another Trump fantasy?

Thirdly, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why on earth Iran would accept a new deal negotiated with Donald Trump, with new conditions attached, when he has shown his readiness to tear up the existing deal and move the goalposts in terms of what it should cover?

Finally, based on what the Prime Minister said this morning, are we now to understand that—despite everything the Foreign Secretary said in his statement just now and everything contained in the joint statement at the weekend—it is now the official policy of the UK Government to replace the JCPOA and get a Trump deal instead, and that that would represent a “great way forward”? If that is not official Government policy, why did the Prime Minister say it, and why is he walking all over the Foreign Secretary’s patch?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the action we have taken today and the action that we are taking as part of the E3. She made a number of valid points at the outset of her remarks about holding Iran to account for the technical failures, and also about the importance that we certainly attach to leaving a diplomatic door ajar for Iran to come back from its non-compliance into compliance and to live up to its responsibilities.

The right hon. Lady made a whole range of comments about the Prime Minister, which I will address. First, it is Iran that is threatening the JCPOA, with its systematic non-compliance. The Prime Minister fully supports the JCPOA and bringing Iran back into full compliance; that is the clear position and he has said so on many occasions. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady should draw breath and allow me to respond to her remarks. As usual, she made a whole series of attacks on the US Administration, which seemed rather to cloud her judgment in this area. In fact, not just President Trump but also President Macron has argued for a broader deal with Iran—a deal that would address some of the defects in the JCPOA, which is not a perfect deal but is the best deal we have on the table at the moment, and that would address the wider concerns that the US and many other states, including the United Kingdom, have about Iran’s broader destabilising activities in the region. The US and our European partners want us to be ambitious in our diplomatic approach with Iran, and I fully subscribe to that. I fear that the right hon. Lady is rather confusing her attacks on the US Administration with sober and sensible policy making in this area.

As of now, we—the Prime Minister and the whole Government—believe that the JCPOA is the best available deal for restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and we want Iran to come back into full compliance. Equally, as was discussed in Biarritz last year, the Prime Minister, the United States and our European partners are fully open to a broader initiative that would address not just the nuclear concerns, but the broader concerns about the destabilising activity that we have seen recently, in particular in relation to the Quds Force.

The choice of the regime in Iran as of today is very simple. It can take the diplomatic path. It can come back into full compliance with the JCPOA and thereby give this country, our European partners and our American partners—and, crucially, many partners in the region—reassurance about its nuclear ambitions. If it wants to, it can also take the diplomatic path to resolve all the outstanding concerns that the international community has about its conduct. That is the choice for the regime in Iran. If it is willing to take that path in good faith, we will be ready to meet it with British diplomacy.

Britain in the World

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and the report confirms that. The budget has been cut, and the group of experts who are supposed to lead overseas support to the victims of sexual violence in war zones has been cut from 70 to 40. This is a damning indictment of a Government who have steadily deprioritised the importance of human rights since the departure of William Hague and who now treat them as an afterthought next to the vital importance of doing trade deals with human rights abusers. [Interruption.] If Foreign Office Ministers reject that charge, let them stand up and explain themselves over the downgrading of sexual violence as a priority.

[Dominic Raab]

Wrong.

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman says that that is wrong. If he would like to get up and explain how it is that the budget has fallen to that extent and how that is not evidence that this is no longer being prioritised, he is welcome to intervene on me right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

It is not true. We take issue with the report. There have been a whole series of initiatives to take this forward, and it remains a key priority and agenda item for the Government. We do not accept this, based on either the figures that the right hon. Lady has provided or the level of diplomatic work that has gone in. We will ensure that there is a fuller account, and I can write to her if that would be useful.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know whether it is right that, for example, the number of experts has dropped from 70 to 40. Could he perhaps tell us that? Is it right that the budget has fallen from £15 million to £2 million and that, instead of there being 34 staff, there are only four including an intern? What conclusions can we draw from that? Perhaps we can particularly focus on that, because it seems to be a damning indictment of this Government.

[Dominic Raab]

We have committed £46 million since 2012. Our upcoming international conference in November will bring together countries from around the world to focus on justice and accountability. On that basis alone, to say that this has dropped off the radar is clearly nonsense. We hosted the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict in June 2014. We are the only Government in the world to have a special representative for taking that forward, and the only Government in the world to have a dedicated team and funding focused on tackling conflict-related sexual violence. And because actions matter more than words, our team has completed more than 90 deployments to places from Libya to northern Iraq and the Syrian borders, and we look forward to continuing that crucial work. So I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has again got her facts wrong.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is interesting that, in answering my question, the right hon. Gentleman relies on spending that has happened since 2012. I accept that in 2014 the budget was £15 million and there were 34 staff. My point is that now, in 2020, under this Government, the budget is £2 million and there are four workers, one of whom is an intern. That is the point. We cannot just keep rolling back to previous things. My point is that this started well, but is now trailing off and is no longer a priority. That is an indictment of the current Government. This is what being held to account looks like—[Interruption.] The point is what they are doing now, today; that is what is important. They cannot rely on what happened eight years ago.

If I might move on, I have a fifth point, which is on Iran. I echo everything my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said in response to the urgent question earlier. As he rightly said, the rest of the world cannot sit back and wait and see what happens. As we saw with the disgraceful shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner, we are now only one misdirected missile away from not just further appalling loss of life, but an escalation of violence and brinkmanship that could finally topple all of us into war with a country that is five times the size of Iraq and nine times the size of Syria and that has a population of 83 million people. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Hard as it is, I believe that the UN and the EU need to go back to the drawing board, get all the parties around the table, and discuss how we can revive the process of engagement, starting with getting the nuclear deal back on track. What actions are the Government taking to that end?

In closing—I will not take any further interventions—I said at the outset that I have been looking at my past debates with the current Prime Minister, and I note that he is to the art of prescience in foreign policy what Basil Fawlty was to customer service. I looked back at our Queen’s Speech debate in 2017—I believe it was the only one in which he took part as Foreign Secretary—and what is so depressing is that, just like today, I had to point out that there were no new policy initiatives to discuss: a total vacuum where British global leadership should be; no solutions on Iran, Yemen, Syria, North Korea or Libya; silence on Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan and the middle east; and a pathetic paucity of action on climate change.

I closed my speech two and half years ago with words that I will repeat now. Unlike the current Prime Minister, every word I said has been proven utterly true and is just as depressingly relevant today. I said:

“Why is…this Tory Queen’s Speech such a blank space with regard to foreign policy?...their sole foreign policy ambition is to stay in lockstep with Donald Trump, whatever hill he chooses to march us up next. That means we are left with a Government who no longer know their own mind on foreign policy because they are beholden to a President who keeps changing his…we could have a Britain that actually has a foreign policy of its own—a Britain ready once again to be a beacon of strength and security, prosperity and values for every country around the world. This Queen’s Speech does nothing to advance that. This Government are doing nothing to advance that.—[Official Report, 26 June 2017; Vol. 626, cc. 424-25.]

Two and a half years later, as someone once said, absolutely nothing has changed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is a stalwart defender, supporter and champion of NATO and will know that we continue to meet our 2% defence spending target. We contribute to every NATO mission, including leading the Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Estonia. We also lead the Joint Expeditionary Force of up to nine NATO allies and partners, and we do not want that to be undermined by anything done within the EU. Indeed, we want to keep EU, US and North American solidarity as strong as possible.

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

On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Labour Front-Bench team, may I welcome you to your new role, Mr Speaker? A vital part of co-operation with our NATO allies is defending ourselves against Russian attempts to interfere with our democracy. To that end, what possible reason can the Government have to delay the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report until after the general election? What on earth do they have to hide?

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Lady will know, as she has been in her post for quite a while now, that ISC reports go through a number of stages of clearance and other processes between the ISC and the Government. The reports often contain sensitive information, and I know that she would want to see the integrity of such information protected. The reports have to go through that process before they are published, and it usually takes several weeks to complete.

[Dominic Raab]

The recent average, just to respond to the hon. Gentleman, is six weeks. This report was only submitted on 17 October, so it has been handled correctly.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am surprised that the Secretary of State could answer with a straight face.

On a related issue, I ask the Foreign Secretary a simple yes or no question pursuant to my letter to him on Friday. Does Mr Cummings have unredacted access to top-secret intelligence and unrestricted access to top-secret meetings relating to NATO, Russia, Ukraine and Syria—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The family and friends of Harry Dunn have been let down in the most appalling way, not just by the lack of justice for their son but by the complete lack of answers from the Government to questions that they and we have raised. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State one more simple question that any mourning family would want answered? Can he tell me how long Harry had to wait between being knocked off his motorbike and the arrival of an ambulance?

[Dominic Raab]

Like the right hon. Lady, we feel a huge amount of sympathy for the family, who are very distraught. We are doing everything we can to clear the path to an investigation. I do not know the answer to her question, but I gently say to her that on all these matters, particularly on something so sensitive, we should all proceed and talk about it responsibly.

Harry Dunn

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

First and foremost, our hearts go out to the family and friends of Harry Dunn, especially to his parents, Charlotte and Tim, and their partners, Bruce and Tracey. As the mother of a 20-year-old boy myself, I can only imagine the devastation they feel at Harry’s loss. But in their case, that loss is compounded by the complete lack of justice for their son, the complete lack of respect they were shown in their meetings not only with Donald Trump but, I am afraid, with the Foreign Secretary—with the family describing one meeting as a photo opportunity, and the meeting with the President as an attempted ambush—and, finally, by the complete lack of answers that they have had to even the most basic questions about why their son’s case was handled in the way it was and why Mrs Sacoolas has received the treatment that she has.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement today is welcome, in so far as it is a first attempt by the Government to set out a chain of events before Parliament, but it still leaves so many questions unanswered and so many facts unestablished. In the time I have today, I would like to work through those questions with the Foreign Secretary in chronological order.

Let me start by pressing the Foreign Secretary on the issue of immunity. He can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that spouses and dependants enjoy diplomatic immunity by virtue of the protection enjoyed by the employee. But if, as he has just said, it was agreed between the UK and the US with respect to Croughton that the diplomatic immunity of employees was waived, can he explain the legal basis by which it still applies to spouses? He has talked today about it being an “exchange of notes”. Was it an exchange of notes or was it a memorandum of understanding, and could he please explain the difference? Why is there this anomaly? Was it done deliberately, and if so, what is the justification for that?

A second, related question is whether, if the United States has agreed to waive the full diplomatic immunity of Croughton employees under the Vienna convention, those employees are still entitled to the limited immunity provided under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. If so, surely the legal position should be that the spouse is entitled only to the same protection as the employee. In that case, based on Crown Prosecution Service guidance and previous precedent, the immunity would have applied only if Mrs Sacoolas had been driving from RAF Croughton to her home address, which is an impossibility given that her home address was RAF Croughton. The Foreign Secretary has been talking particularly about the Croughton annexe. Is that the same as RAF Croughton, does it apply to RAF Croughton as a whole, or is it a different area?

Finally on the question of immunity, if the protection enjoyed by spouses of Croughton employees is so clear-cut, why did it take the UK embassy three days to assert it in respect of Mrs Sacoolas? If she and other Croughton spouses do, as the Foreign Secretary said, enjoy full diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention, why was Mrs Sacoolas’s name never placed on the diplomatic list? When the Foreign Secretary states that the US embassy notified us that the spouse of a member of RAF Croughton was involved in an accident, who is “us”? Is it the police, the Foreign Secretary and his private office, or some other part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Moving on to the aftermath of this tragedy, will the Foreign Secretary agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish all correspondence and records of all other communications and meetings between his Department, Northamptonshire police and the CPS, and between his Department and US officials, about the handling of this case subsequent to 27 August? It is particularly important to look in detail at what happened between 30 August, when the US asserted diplomatic immunity, and 15 September, when Mrs Sacoolas left, because, as I understand it, the FCO was told that she would leave the country imminently unless the UK raised strong objections. What strong objections did the UK raise, at what level, and by whom? Were assurances requested that she would not leave the country until the issue of immunity had been clarified, particularly given the memo of understanding—or the exchange of documents—as this seems to be extremely murky? What liaison was there between the FCO and Northants police prior to Mrs Sacoolas leaving, and did either the police or the FCO know that she would be leaving before she did so?

All these questions need to be answered. Did Mrs Sacoolas leave on a scheduled flight? Did she leave from Mildenhall? Had the ports been alerted pending resolution of her status? Will the Foreign Secretary explain why his Department asked Northamptonshire police to delay informing Harry Dunn’s family of the departure of Mrs Sacoolas for, to quote him, “a day or two”? Why did they not have the right to be told immediately? What possible legal, let alone ethical, basis was there for the Foreign Secretary to be interfering in operational police matters? Surely this family had the right to be informed straight away. Why, indeed, did it then take the Northamptonshire police 10 days to tell the family?

Given that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the supposed diplomatic immunity status granted to Mrs Sacoolas has ceased to apply since her return to the United States, while I am not asking him to intrude on the independent decisions of prosecuting authorities, can he say whether he has he been advised on whether there are any barriers to the CPS commencing extradition proceedings to return Mrs Sacoolas to the UK?

As the Foreign Secretary will know, tomorrow Harry Dunn’s family are due to meet the chief constable of Northamptonshire police. As I mentioned earlier, this brave family have already had one disappointing meeting in his office—and another in the Oval Office. In fact, may I ask a question in relation to that? Was the Foreign Office aware that the White House had summoned the family to the White House, let alone that the President was intending to ambush them with a meeting with Mrs Sacoolas? If so, did the Foreign Office think it appropriate not to give this vulnerable family some assistance? They have many legitimate questions, and they are not getting answers. Unfortunately, they have been led to believe that they will not get any answers from the chief constable of Northamptonshire tomorrow either, as it is his intention merely to offer them his personal condolences. That is not good enough. The time for condolences and sympathy is over. What Harry’s family need now are answers, the truth and some justice.

[Dominic Raab]

May I thank the right hon. Lady for the tenor of her opening remarks? I join her in expressing my deepest condolences to the family. I also agree with her that the natural grief that any parent would suffer as a result of losing their child has certainly been compounded by having to go through these legal and what will feel like bureaucratic obstacles. Equally, on our side, we have to ensure that justice is being done by adhering to the legal route; otherwise we impair the very objective that I think we are all seeking to achieve.

The right hon. Lady raises a number of issues. On the suggestion that there was an attempt at a photo opportunity, it had actually been requested by the representative of the family to bring media to the meeting that I hosted, and I declined because I thought it was inappropriate. I expressed my deepest condolences and sympathies to the family and made it clear when I met them that I would do anything that I could and that they should feel free to come back to me directly if there was any support that they felt they needed.

The right hon. Lady asks about the difference between an exchange of notes and a memorandum of understanding. The exchange of notes and exchange of letters under international law is not decisive; what matters is the tenor of the language. However, they effectively implement administrative arrangements under the Vienna convention of diplomatic relations, so they would be of similar status to an MOU.

The right hon. Lady asks about the anomaly that spouses were not covered by the waiver arrangements. I agree that that is an anomaly. That is why I have instituted a review. Since 1995, we have not seen—certainly, having looked very carefully at this, I am not aware of—any case that has tested them. Therefore, this is probably the first time that the anomaly has come to light, certainly to me, but also, given that they have not really been implemented or tested in this way, more generally to the Foreign Office. The exchange of notes covered the technical and administrative employees at the Croughton annexe—which was the subject of another of her questions—whereas the diplomatic list that she refers to applies to members of the US embassy.

The right hon. Lady asks what we knew at the point at which the individual left this country to go back home to the US. We were made aware, I think, a day or two before—I can check—and we registered our strong objections. The right hon. Lady suggested—this is very important—that there should have been checks at ports or that we should immediately have tipped off the police. It would have been unlawful to arrest the individual under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, so that would not have been, I think we can all agree, a responsible or productive thing to have done. Indeed, it would have been an illegal thing to do.

The right hon. Lady asks about the family’s visit to the US. We were aware of that visit. I was not aware of who Mrs Dunn would meet, but I did make it clear during our meeting that I would help with anything and gave her the direct line to my office. Indeed, we have contacts with the representative of the family, and no request was made to us for support when they went to the US, nor were we aware of the details of that trip.

The right hon. Lady asks about the delay in informing Harry Dunn’s family once Ms Sacoolas had left the country. As I said before, it was one or two days. The reason that we asked for a little bit of time—this request was not made by me, and I was not aware of it, but by my officials—was to make sure that we could be very clear on what the next course of action would be, and, indeed, precisely so that they could inform Ministers before the family were aware, because we were aware that there would immediately be questions coming back about what we would do next. There was a further delay from the police. I know that they have been very mindful of the sensitivities of the family at every stage, but ultimately that is, I am afraid, a question for them.

The right hon. Lady asks about barriers to justice being done. Ultimately, that must be for the CPS and the police to decide, and we are obviously in close contact with them, but I am currently aware of no barriers to justice in this case. At every stage during this process, I have been keen to ensure, as have my officials, that we can remove any obstacles to justice being done.

The right hon. Lady talked about the need for transparency, which I know she has made some remarks about in the media. In the same spirit, I point out that, while we have never had a case that has tested these arrangements since 1995—at least, as far as I am aware, and I have checked very carefully—the arrangements were reviewed in 2001. That review was an opportunity to address this issue. It was left unresolved, but the number of staff at the Croughton annexe was substantially increased. In fact, it doubled in size.

That is the full background to not only this case but the arrangements made for the Croughton annexe. I think that the whole House will join me in not only expressing our condolences but trying to ensure that, independently and in the correct way, the police and the CPS are free from political interference and any bureaucratic obstacles to see justice done. Having talked to the parents of Harry Dunn, I know that ultimately, that is the solace that they are looking for right now.

Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I share many of my right hon. Friend’s concerns, which he expressed both eloquently and powerfully. He made the point about the destabilisation of the region, which is absolutely right. Like him, I am concerned that this takes our eye off the ball when it comes to the overriding focus that we should have in counter-terrorism terms on Daesh. It is also set to make the humanitarian situation worse.

My right hon. Friend made a number of other specific points, which I will try to address in turn. We will not recognise any demographic change that is brought about as a result of this incursion. I have been very clear with the Turkish Foreign Minister that any returns must be safe and voluntary. We are also engaged with all our partners—the US and the EU—as my right hon. Friend asked, and he will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday adopted conclusions that condemned the Turkish military action for all the reasons that he has raised and that I have made clear. He has also called for a genuine political transition, in line with the Security Council resolutions and the 2012 Geneva communiqué, to be negotiated by the parties within the UN-led Geneva process. Given one of the other points he made, I think that it is worth pointing out the continued efforts of the international community, including at the UN Security Council, to stop this military unilateral action, which we agree is urgently required.

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

I thank both you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing it. As he and I and many other colleagues warned last week, the situation in northern Syria has gone from bad to worse to utterly catastrophic and horrifying since the Trump Administration withdrew their troops and gave a green light to Turkey to invade. As we have seen, it is not just Turkey’s airstrikes and artillery barrage that have caused the deaths of dozens of innocent civilians, but the barbaric actions of the jihadi death squads, armed and supported by Turkey, which are now freely operating inside Rojava. May I ask the Minister whether, as part of the Government’s welcome review of arms sales to Turkey, which I believe is worth £1.1 billion, they will look specifically at whether any of the arms that our country has supplied to Turkey have ended up in the hands of the jihadi militants?

It is clear to anyone with any understanding of the situation in Syria that if the Kurds did not have the support of the US and faced another Turkish invasion, they would be driven reluctantly into the hands of Assad and Russia simply for their own protection, and, sadly, that has proved correct. Was the Foreign Office in any way surprised at what has recently happened? Yet again, it prompts the question, which I hope the Secretary of State will answer today, about the Government’s strategy on Syria. It seems likely that responsibility for tackling the Daesh remnants, escapees, and sleeper cells will fall, not to the coalition, but to the Kurds and the Assad regime between them. It seems likely that the Kurds will be brought into the constitutional reform committee, and that once the other areas are stabilised, there will be a merciless assault on the areas of Idlib held by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, at which point the war will effectively be over. Again, I ask the Secretary of State: what is the Government’s strategy? Was he surprised when the Defence Secretary seemed to be a dog in the manger on the word “condemn” yesterday at the NATO summit? Was he concerned that The Times reported his comments as ones that seem to be giving support to the Turkish action, and will he make it clear that we certainly do not support the Turkish action? Finally, may I ask him this very specific question: before Donald Trump took his catastrophic decision to withdraw US troops from Rojava, did he inform the British Government?

[Dominic Raab]

Let me say at the outset that we share the right hon. Lady’s concerns about the worsening humanitarian situation, about the impact that the Turkish intervention has on stability and about the terrorism threat on the ground and more generally. She asks about the export regime. She will know that we have one of the most rigorous and robust export licence regimes in the world, but we keep it under constant review and will continue to do so—particularly in relation to this instance—in the way in which I have described.

The situation on the ground has been very fluid, but we are deeply disappointed with Turkey’s decision. The right hon. Lady asks what we need to do now. Well, we now need—more than ever—to have closer co-operation between our international partners, and that means the US and the EU. We do not accept the frankly inaccurate characterisation of the UK’s position in Monday’s EU Foreign Affairs Council. We work with our partners. There were different views, but we always want to ensure that we take a balanced approach, as our EU partners did. The most important things are the conclusions that were agreed, and which I have set out at some length.

The situation also shows that we need NATO now more than ever. I gently say to the right hon. Lady that that is one of the reasons that it is so irresponsible that the leader of the Labour party has called for us to come out of NATO.

[Emily Thornberry]

No, no, no—take that back!

[Dominic Raab]

No; that is well known. We need to be strengthening NATO, not weakening it, as well as working very closely with our UN partners and agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The action we want to see changed on the ground is for Turkey to withdraw, and we are looking at what is the most effective means of engaging with Turkey and encouraging it to withdraw as quickly as possible and undertake maximum restraint. We will continue to do that, and obviously we will look closely at all the levers and approaches that we need to take in order to achieve that objective with our European, as well as our American, partners.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could get your assistance. How can I, first, correct the record and, secondly, force the Foreign Secretary to withdraw his thoroughly misleading comments about the Leader of the Opposition’s commitment to NATO? He has never spoken about withdrawing from NATO. Our support for the NATO alliance is absolute and we are committed to spending the 2%. The shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), was as outraged as I was to hear the silly, partisan comments that were being made, and indeed we have been together to see NATO and discuss how Labour would work in future with NATO.

Iran

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

We have been summoned back here due to the unlawful actions of the Prime Minister, attempting to avoid debate on one vital issue, but it is important that we debate other vital issues, including the threat of war with Iran. First, Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity of this discussion of vital issues in the middle east to apologise publicly to my Liberal Democrat colleagues for my crass throwaway “Taliban” remark in an interview last week? I am sorry for what I said. I believe that our politics is better when we are honest and apologise for our mistakes—a lesson that our country’s Prime Minister, Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, would be well placed to learn.

I do not have a scintilla of doubt that Iran was responsible for the drone attacks in Saudi Arabia and the attacks on oil tankers in Hormuz. I totally agree with the Foreign Secretary that Iran’s actions are utterly unacceptable and must be condemned by all sides. Sadly, this was all too predictable, because just like during the tanker wars in the 1980s, there is a reckless and ruthless logic being applied by the Iranian hard-line theocrats who are now in the ascendancy in Iran, and it is this: “If you stop our oil supplies, we’re going to stop yours.”

That development has been inevitable since the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran. There are absolutely no excuses for what Iran has done, but there is also no excuse for the Trump Administration wilfully wrecking the nuclear deal, destroying the chances of progress on other issues, and handing power back to the Khamenei hard-liners, who have always wanted to reverse the Rouhani Government’s attempt to engage with the west. What are we left with now? With a Trump Administration agitating for war and Iranian hard-liners actively trying to provoke it—war with a country that is nine times the size of Syria and has three times Syria’s pre-war population. That leaves us with a choice to make as a world and, even more important, a choice to make as a country and as a Parliament.

In an era when we can no longer rely on the United States to provide any global leadership on matters of peace and war, or anything to do with the middle east, we need the EU and the UN to step up, to do our job and to demand that, after working so hard to negotiate the nuclear deal, we will not let it be thrown away and allow the spiral into war to continue. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, real security does not come from belligerent posturing or reckless military interventions; it comes from international co-operation and diplomacy. Let me add that it does not come from what successive Governments have done by committing to military intervention with no planning for what comes next, creating chaos in the aftermath and opening up ungoverned spaces in which the evil of jihadist death cults thrives.

If war with Iran is where the world is headed and we cannot stop it, we have a choice to make as a country, and we should have a choice to make in this Parliament. That choice is whether our country is involved and the lives of our servicepeople are put at risk as a result of a power struggle between Tehran and Riyadh, as a result of a power struggle between Khamenei and Rouhani, and as a result of a power-crazed president in the White House who wants to start wars rather than end them. In that climate, there is only one thing we should be doing now, and that is working to de-escalate the tension with Iran, getting the nuclear deal back on track, and using that as the foundation, which it promised to be, of addressing all the other concerns that we have about Iran, not least its continued detention of Nazanin and other dual British nationals.

Instead, at this crucial moment, we have a Prime Minister openly talking about sending troops to Saudi Arabia, in an apparent bid to please Donald Trump. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, have we learned nothing? On a day when we are also rightly focused on the powers of Parliament and the abuse of power by the Government, let me close by asking the Foreign Secretary one simple but vital question. Will he guarantee that, before any decision to join Donald Trump in military action against Iran and to put British servicepeople in harm’s way, this House will be asked to approve that action and given the chance to save our country from the disaster that war with Iran would be?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we have agreement on at least some of them—on unequivocally condemning Iran for its responsibility for the Aramco attacks, for its attacks on shipping in the strait of Hormuz and for its treatment of dual nationals, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

I share the right hon. Lady’s view that we want to maintain the JCPOA and that we remain committed to it, and that is the position of the Government. However, we can, we should and we must do better, because the JCPOA is limited. That is now recognised by the President of the United States—she has lambasted that—but also by the French President. Rather than trying to engage in tit for tat over whether this is a European or a US initiative, we should welcome the opportunity to forge a stronger international consensus. The choice here is not between the US and Iran, Saudi and Iran, or indeed the US and the EU, which is the paradigm the right hon. Lady presented. The choice is about those of us who are willing to stand up and uphold the rules-based international order, and the UK will be unflinching and unwavering in committing to doing that.

The right hon. Lady also talked—she will correct me if I am wrong—about whether the UK will be sending troops to Saudi Arabia. There has been no suggestion of that at all; it is simply wrong for her to say it. What has been said is that the US is sending troops to Saudi Arabia to make sure that Saudi can protect itself from further attacks or repeats of the attacks on Aramco. We have said that we would consider requests that we have received for support in relation to air defences. However, we are absolutely clear that our overarching strategic objective is de-escalation and reducing tensions. We want to see Iran come in from the international cold, but we need to be absolutely unwavering and clear in our resolve that the only way that that will happen is if Iran steps up and starts to meet its responsibilities, whether it is on dual nationals, nuclear compliance or the basic rules of international law, such as not attacking one’s neighbours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

As I explained to the House—I am happy to repeat it—the concerns and issues that the hon. Lady has raised are very serious, and I raised them directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August.

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

And detentions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

It is the usual froth and frenzy from the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that no deal was debated on both sides, including by me, during the referendum—and it has been sourced—and that it was an in/out referendum. We remain committed to a deal with the EU, but the one thing that would undermine our prospects of getting a deal would be passing the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It would undermine our chances at this critical moment of the negotiations.

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

I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his position, and indeed his seemingly entirely new team—it is certainly position churn—and pay tribute to his predecessor, who served for 12 months with a concern and diligence that had been so sorely lacking for the previous two years. I hope the new Foreign Secretary will follow the right example.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the concern of people across the country with health conditions such as schizophrenia and epilepsy for whom, as the Yellowhammer leaks reveal, it will not be possible to stockpile medicines. They will be left exposed and at grave risk because of the shortages that will follow a no-deal Brexit. Can I ask him a simple question? Have the Government asked for legal advice on how coroners would be expected to record the deaths of anyone who loses their life after 31 October as a result of the entirely preventable medicine shortages?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her generous welcome to the Dispatch Box. On no deal and medicines, the UK has a long-standing relationship with pharmaceutical companies, through the NHS, involving hundreds of vaccines and medicines, whereby we do stockpile, without any context of Brexit, but in the ordinary course of events. Both the Health Secretary and the head of the NHS have made it clear that the plans and arrangements are in place to make sure that people can receive their medication supplies in all circumstances. I am sure she will not want to engage in irresponsible scaremongering. It is very important that this be a fact-driven risk analysis.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but the truth is this: the whole point of the Yellowhammer leaks is that some essential medicines—the ones about which I am asking—cannot be stockpiled, which is why there is genuine concern for these individuals.

As a lawyer, the Secretary of State knows his case law as well I do. He will know that if dependent individuals are denied their medicine and die as a result, their cases may meet all the tests in the watershed cases of Jamieson, Khan and Staffordshire and justify a coroner’s finding that they died as a result of neglect. I will submit a freedom of information request today to obtain the advice that the Government have been given to that effect.

Is it not a shameful disgrace that, in 21st-century Britain, we are having to talk about people who are denied their medicine and about people having access to “adequate’” supplies of food—the Foreign Secretary’s own words—so that this shameless, shameful Government can play games of brinkmanship with Brussels and generate the pretext for a general election? This is no way in which to run a country.

[Dominic Raab]

Let me gently say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that what is shameful is to take a potentially vulnerable group in our society and scaremonger in such an appalling way. I think that she should listen to what the Health Secretary and Sir Simon Stevens have said and take into account the reassurances that medical supplies will be protected in any scenario.