Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I will make a bit of progress, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will give way later.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a pedant for procedure in this House, but I have forgotten something: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for securing the debate. I am sorry that I did not thank them at the beginning of my remarks, but the shadow Foreign Secretary tempted me, and I felt the need to bite. I am equally grateful to all other Members for their contributions. One thing I have learned is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has done a bit of gin-drinking and linen-wearing while travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I need to up my game!

Let me set out and respond to some of the many points raised in the debate. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, mentioned by many Members, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s security landscape. Like many of our allies, we recognise the need to reduce overall reliance on the United States for our defence. Strengthening the UK’s sovereign defence capabilities is essential in this new era. It is in that strategic context that the Government have taken difficult but necessary decisions, although I appreciate that that view is not shared across the House. The Government have taken those decisions in that strategic context, while ensuring that the UK still plays a full part in European security and remains able to protect our people, our interests and our values.

I am known for many courtesies in this House, but I found it slightly disingenuous of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), to skip over the fact that a Labour Government introduced ODA funding to begin with, and then gently suggest that the Lib Dems reached the 0.7% target after the 2010 general election. It is not my style to be combative in this House, but I thought that was slightly disingenuous—and I will leave it there.

The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, mentioned the ICAI. I can confirm that no decision has been taken. I appreciate that that will not please her, but we remain totally committed to meeting our statutory obligation, as the independent evaluation of ODA spending is extremely vital for the Government’s work.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—I hope I have got the name of his constituency right—asked about Abercrombie House in Scotland. We are committed to maintaining Abercrombie House. In fact, we are considering how other Government Departments could be based on that. I give him that assurance on the record, and I am more than happy to take the conversation away from the Chamber if doing so would be helpful to him.

There have been many questions about a plan, a way forward and the transformation agenda. I do not underestimate the challenges that come with FCDO 2030. Just a few moments ago, I made very clear my support for the civil service in the FCDO—whether on King Charles Street, in Abercrombie House or across the globe—but I have also heard civil servants themselves talk about the need for change in order for the service to be more agile in responding to the global events that many Members have mentioned. There is no hiding from the work that we need to do.

The FCDO needs be equipped to meet challenges today and in the years ahead. The permanent under-secretary of state is leading the transformation programme, to build an organisation that is agile, innovative and equipped to seize the opportunities of the day. They build on deep expertise, which I know is a concern for colleagues, and on the professionalism and commitment that the civil service brings to Britain’s diplomacy and development work every single day. Our workforce reforms are designed to strengthen that foundation, with officials developing a clear sequenced strategy supported by a Department-wide assessment of our skills, capabilities and requirements. I want to stress that point, because Members from across the House have raised the skillset, the institutional memory, and the scale of the knowledge that we bring, across the world, through our diplomatic service. We want to improve those things, not lessen them, and that can be done, among other things, through the skills audit.

As part of that audit, we of course remain committed to maintaining our development capability, but reduced ODA means deploying it with greater precision and impact. It will also mean closing and transitioning programmes in a planned way, drawing on lessons from previous budget adjustments. This includes strengthening the skills we need most for the future, expanding opportunities for specialist development, and ensuring that colleagues can gain the depth of knowledge and experience, both in the UK and overseas, that underpins a world-class diplomatic service. In short, our aim is to build a workforce with the right mix of expertise, regional insight and professional capability to deliver consistently for the UK in a rapidly changing world.

Let me focus on the specific challenge put to me this afternoon: that of development. The Government remain committed to returning to 0.7% when fiscal circumstances allow. We should be proud of the progress made in international development this century, but the world has changed and so must we. The British people and our partners around the world want a new approach to international development—that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law)—and the phrase “partners not patrons” is testament to where ODA needs to move to. We must listen to the countries that we support through ODA, not dictate the terms of what we think they need. That is important and I know the International Development Committee will agree with it, as will Members across the House.

The days of viewing aid as charity are frankly over. This modernisation is not simply the product of tighter budgets. It reflects what our partners have told us directly: they want support that is more responsive to their priorities, with partnerships focused on better health and education, and on ensuring that their people have opportunities at home. We have listened to that—I have listened, as have the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary—and our new approach is designed to match what our partners say they need, not what outsiders think they should have.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale spoke about a plan. The new approach is based on four fundamental shifts: it moves us from donor to investor; it moves us away from delivering services ourselves and towards supporting the capacity of our partners to improve their own service delivery; it moves us away from providing grants to offering our expertise; and it moves us from imposing change from overseas to championing local leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised the latter point with respect to co-operatives, and I was pleased that at the development conference at the beginning of November, I was able to include the crucial work done by the co-operative movement. I reassure him that while I remain in the job, co-operatives will be an extremely important part of how I see development moving forward.

As we progress through the aid budget work, and to announcements on decisions, I confirm that we plan to publish indicative ODA allocations for the next three years shortly. Those three-year budgets will provide the predictability that our teams need—the need for long-term funding allocations has been raised, and I can assure the House that the announcement will come soon. Effectively managing the reduction in aid spending will demonstrate how we intend to put our modern approach into practice. Our development work has never been solely about our aid budget, and access to private investment—the shadow Foreign Secretary raised that—remittance flows, efficient tax systems and trade opportunities are essential foundations for countries to achieve self-reliance. With less money to spend, we must make choices and focus on greater impact, as has been said by many Members. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support. The UK remains committed to meeting our statutory obligation on the independent scrutiny of our ODA spending—I am saying that again for emphasis, and to reassure the International Development Committee and its Chair of that work.

Let me come to points raised the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about water, sanitation and hygiene. We have increased humanitarian funding that includes WASH support in both Gaza and Sudan, working with the World Bank and the UN. The shadow Foreign Secretary may see things differently, but I reassure the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes that that part of our ODA change is about being a player in this space—as an advocate in the room, ensuring that we campaign and lobby for investment within the multilateral space. I also speak as the Minister responsible for multilateral issues, and the change can be a crucial part of such work. We are also supporting several fragile and conflict-affected states to strengthen WASH services, and we have supported more than 700,000 people in Sudan with access to water. I assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that we understand the importance of access to water, and how that can lead to security in the spaces where people are living and on which they are reliant.

The UK will also remain at the forefront of the world in relation to responses to humanitarian crises, particularly in supporting people affected by violent conflict, whether in Ukraine, Gaza or Sudan, and helping displaced people in or near their counties of origin. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raised the right of women and girls to live in a world free from violence, which I know is an issue that she champions. We recognise that human rights, good governance and our work through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative are key enablers of our wider FCDO priorities. I cannot stress enough to the House how important this is to both me and the Foreign Secretary. It is vital that we find solutions to the fact that the rape of women, girls and boys is used as a tool of war. I am sure that there would be no dividing line for anybody in the House over the part that the UK Government will play in reducing and, we would all like to hope, ending that practice. We will champion the rights of women.

We will accelerate the global clean energy transition, promoting green and resilient growth and seizing the opportunities for Britain. We will also continue to support countries to build resilient and sustainable health systems, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale—I seem to be highlighting him today, but I promise I will get to other Members —including through major investments, such as our £1.25 billon pledge to Gavi and our £850 million commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a clearer reassurance than that. This will help to protect millions of children from disease and save well over 1 million lives in the years ahead. All this is underpinned by our commitment to sustainable, inclusive long-term economic development, and it is built on the foundation of our strong relationships with countries around the world and our standing on the global stage.

Let me turn to questions raised by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and others, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, about soft power. I know, understand and support utterly and totally the UK’s role in making sure that soft power is relevant and crucial to our wider work within foreign affairs and diplomacy.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee held a session on 8 January on the BBC World Service. At that session, we pushed for the BBC to be given a budget for the World Service, but here we are, two months on, and I understand that we have still not had notification of that budget, although we are nearly at the beginning of the next financial year. Will the Minister tell us when that budget will be forthcoming?

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for his question. As I set out at the beginning of my speech, the announcements will be made shortly.

I want to expand on some of the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Maldon, among others. We are developing a soft power strategy to try to reverse the decline on the UK’s role in soft power. There have been four meetings of the Soft Power Council since January 2025, so I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are still working on developing a new strategy on soft power and ensuring that every part of the United Kingdom is supported by the work of the Soft Power Council.

Our offer to the world remains utterly unique. As hon. Members have said in different ways during the debate, and I completely agree with them, the UK’s democracy, rule of law and world-class institutions give us real global influence. That is why soft power is at the heart of our diplomacy, but we cannot take this soft power for granted. If we are to make progress on the challenges we face and create a world that is safer and more prosperous, we must engage the sectors, institutions and networks that together contribute to our success and project it to the world.

We are building our partnerships with all those institutions and businesses that contribute to our soft power, specifically to give us the edge when it comes to both geopolitics and growth. We are drawing on advice from bodies such as the Soft Power Council, alongside wider Government expertise, to enhance our attractiveness. In response to another point that was raised, our leadership of two major global alliances—the Open Government Partnership and the Media Freedom Coalition—reinforces our values internationally and shows that we practise what we preach on transparency and accountability. I can reassure the right hon. Member for Maldon and the House that just this morning I had a meeting with leading experts in the media freedom space, and I will be speaking at the Media Freedom Coalition’s conference in London tomorrow—[Interruption.]—as will the right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to hear.

What I want to see, through us retaking the chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, is a move back to the original pillars of this work to ensure that we have meaningful outcomes. One of the things I was challenged on today is leadership in this space, and I can reassure the right hon. Member for Maldon and the House that I care deeply about the freedom of journalists and their investigative work. They are often at the forefront of how we understand what is happening in conflicts across the world. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

I also happen to be the Minister with responsibility for the World Service and the British Council, and Members have rightly raised the work of both those distinguished organisations. The BBC World Service’s role has been especially clear in recent days—BBC Arabic and BBC Persia services are crucial in providing impartial and accurate reporting on events to audiences across the world, as was referenced by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury.

That is why we have boosted the World Service’s grant by £32.6 million this financial year to a total of £137 million—a 31% increase in a tight fiscal situation. I reassure colleagues across the House that we are doing our best to work with the BBC World Service. Just last week I met Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the World Service remains a cornerstone of the charter review.

Similarly, the Government highly value the work of the British Council in promoting the English language, arts and culture, and education. We are providing the Council with grant in aid funding of £163.1 million in this financial year alone, and we are working with its leadership and trustees to ensure its financial stability. I stress to the House that senior officials and I have had frequent, often and regular—however we wish to express it—meetings with the chair, vice-chair, chief executive and deputy chief executive. I have also provided briefings to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, and its ranking member, the right hon. Member for Maldon.

I am determined to find a way through for the British Council to make it sustainable. We have talked about the losses that it has experienced, and I can assure the House that we are working through a plan—I will do my very best to ensure that Members are updated in due course. I want a sustainable future for the Council that allows it to grow and become a part of soft power for decades to come, and I give that commitment to the House.

I need to conclude—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have gone on far too long. That was another pet hate of mine when I was Comptroller of the Household, but nevertheless I will stretch your good will towards me slightly longer. I can even see the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami)—I should know better. May I quickly canter through some of the other questions that have been asked?

I particularly want to respond to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Yesterday, in FCDO questions, the Minister for the Middle East offered to have a conversation with one of her colleagues—forgive me, I forget who it was. Can I make the same offer to the hon. Lady, if she wishes to meet the Minister to ensure that we work together in this space? I cannot be clearer that there is no space for antisemitism in the United Kingdom, or for us to be, in any way, supporting or funding anything that leads to hate towards Jews—either here or across the world. If the hon. Lady would like to take me up on that offer, I am happy to speak to the Minister for the Middle East.

To conclude—I am sure to the delight of the Government Whips Office—this Government have a modernised approach to development. We have the right combination of hard power and soft power tools to achieve our objectives. We have a plan for what we want to deliver, and we know that we have the best people and institutions working throughout the world to deliver it. I applaud all those members of staff for the work that they continue to do, and I commend the estimate to the House.

Venezuela

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The Maduro regime did not have the support of the Venezuelan people. That was the consequence of the July 2024 election, for which they have continually refused to publish the results because of all the evidence that Maduro lost the election. We have been very clear that the oil in Venezuela should be used to the benefit of the Venezuelan people—that is what is most important now.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has repeated time after time today that she believes in the rules-based system. Therefore, will she argue for that vociferously at the United Nations so that the world knows what British values are? Will she also discuss with the American Administration a realistic plan to make Venezuela a democracy and make it clear, as she has just said, that the oil should benefit the Venezuelan people and no one else?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes is the answer to the hon. Member’s questions. We are continuing to raise and promote international law through the United Nations and the Security Council; we are continuing to raise the importance of international law with the US Administration on a range of issues; and we are continuing to argue for a democratic transition in which Venezuelan assets should be used for the Venezuelan people.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.

May I say what a pleasure it is to have you invigilating our proceedings, Mr Twigg? This debate is about North Korea, but it is also specifically about the 75th commemoration of the Korean war, in which we took part. I have just discovered that this morning North Korea fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East sea, just a week before President Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. I think North Korea may well also have done so because it had heard about this debate. [Laughter.] I pride myself on that, rather than APEC, being almost certainly one of the greater reasons why it did so.

It is a great privilege to open this debate on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war. The world today is yet again at a crossroads between democracy and the axis of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as we have not been since the fall of the Berlin wall. Over 81,000 British servicemen fought in the Korean war, providing the second largest military contribution to the United Nations Command after the United States, which is something that people rarely talk about. Over 1,100 of them never came home, which is more than the total British losses in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined.

Among their most heroic stands was the battle of the Imjin river in 1951. There, 652 men of the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment faced three Chinese divisions, numbering at least 42,000 men, in one of the most courageous defences in British military history. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will no doubt share in detail, those brave Gloucestershire men held the UN line for three days against the overwhelming Chinese spring offensive. When the battle ended, of the 652 men who fought there for those three days, 67 walked away. The rest were killed or captured, and the name Gloster Hill was etched forever into history, although too often schools do not remind everybody of the sacrifice that they made for those who now live free.

Today, only a few veterans of the Korean war remain with us here in the United Kingdom. One of them, Mr Scott, shared a story later recounted by his son in Stockport:

“Of all the campaigns I fought in, Korea was the one that affected me the most. One night, I was called out on a reconnaissance mission I didn’t want to do. But when I returned to my platoon, they had all been wiped out.”

His son, Mr Steven Scott, reflected:

“My father was deeply affected by the Korean War. He had served in the Army during the Second World War and was called up from the reserves for the Korean War.”

Their sacrifice, courage and service secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula, a freedom that the democratic world still cherishes today. The other half remains in darkness, suffering under the most brutal regime on earth; it is hard to imagine the brutality of that leadership. We must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered by generations to come.

Many young people around the world today enjoy K-pop, K-dramas and the vibrant culture of modern South Korea, yet without the sacrifice of those who secured its freedom, none of that would be possible. In stark contrast, totalitarian Pyongyang denies its people access to the internet, mobile phones, YouTube or social media, and those who are caught watching anything from the south or from the outside world face imprisonment or even execution.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is worse than he says in North Korea. If someone is caught committing any of these minor crimes, such as listening to a memory stick from the west, it is not only they who are imprisoned; it is their entire family. That is almost invariably a slow death sentence, because they will then be worked terrifically hard without adequate food.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures.

It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes.

Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states. In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea.

In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war. Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones.

What of the north? While half of the Korean peninsula enjoys freedom, the other half remains under totalitarian rule. It continues brutally to repress its own people. In his recent book “The Dictators”, Iain Dale observes that the Kim family’s dictatorship ranks among the 10 most brutal and evil in history, alongside those of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. That reality is consistently reflected in global human rights and religious persecution indexes. Organisations such as Open Doors UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and others continue their vital advocacy, reminding the world each year that North Korea remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. It is a nation in which human rights are trampled daily and persecution remains unmatched, topping the world watch-list year after year.

Just 12 days ago, North Korea marked the 80th anniversary of its ruling Workers’ party, inviting delegations from China, Russia, Vietnam and other authoritarian states to join the celebrations. For decades, the North Korean people have endured unimaginable suffering from ongoing nuclear development and security threats, starvation, brutal repression and systematic abuses, including enslavement, torture, imprisonment, forced abortions, enforced disappearances and persecution on political and religious grounds. North Korea’s human rights record stands among the worst in the world.

To make matters even more harrowing, for three decades China has forcibly repatriated North Korean escapees. Many—especially pregnant women, who are highly vulnerable and are often trafficked after crossing the border—are sent back into North Korea, where they face imprisonment, torture, forced abortions if their child is of Chinese descent, or even execution. One escapee, Ms Kim Kyu-ri, now lives safely in London and testified at the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea. I was present, as the co-chair with Lord Alton, who I know is watching this debate. Tragically, Ms Kim’s sister was among the 600 repatriated in 2023, and her fate remains unknown. Such acts surely represent only a fraction of the brutality and loss that exist because of the existence of North Korea.

All these issues were thoroughly investigated by the 2014 UN commission of inquiry into all the awful acts North Korea has done. The commission was led by the Australian judge Michael Kirby, who said:

“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

Its recommendations included the imposition of further sanctions on the regime’s illicit activities, on its nuclear programmes and on the forced production of goods by North Korean political prisoners, including textiles, wigs and fake eyelashes, which are often deceptively labelled as having been made in China. A report produced by the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, “Made in China: How Global Supply Chain Fuels Slavery in North Korean Prison Camps”, gives evidence of these shocking practices.

I want to return to the anniversary point. British soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to Korea to fight for a people far distant. At the end of it, their bravery and determination secured, at least, freedom for half of that peninsula. Without their sacrifice, we would not be using the word “North” in front of the word “Korea”. We would be talking about the abuses of a deeply fractured communist regime that is destroying life for those who would love to have the freedoms that we have. Their sacrifice, and their deaths, must always be remembered. There is a tendency to forget that in the aftermath of the second world war we were involved in yet another major conflict. We have the right to be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their sacrifice secured freedom for a second time, following the second world war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, and on his excellent opening speech.

It is a great privilege to represent my consistency of North Cotswolds. It is an area that I have had the honour of representing, in some guise, since 1992, and it includes the largest geographical chunk of Gloucestershire, where undoubtedly members of the Gloucestershire Regiment’s families still live. As we commemorate this important anniversary, let me start as others have by paying tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Gloucestershire Regiment during the battle of the Imjin river in April 1951. Like my right hon. Friend, I acknowledge that, of course, not only the Gloucestershire Regiment but all our other airmen, naval men and soldiers were part of that operation.

In the face of a powerful force of 42,000 Chinese soldiers, the 1st battalion—the Glorious Glosters—held their position alone for three days. In the end there were 662 casualties. Fifty-six were killed, and 522 were taken prisoner—and many of them had already endured German and Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two, as has been said.

It was because of my connection with the Glosters that I chaired the APPG on North Korea for many years. I was very pleased that it was taken over from me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. On behalf of all the families, and the relatives who live elsewhere, I would like to pay tribute to the Glosters.

According to General James Van Fleet, commander of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Glosters’ stand at Imjin was

“the most outstanding example of unit bravery in modern warfare.”

Their heroic defence plugged a large gap in the allied line and, ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, it prevented the North Korean forces from capturing Seoul—where I have visited on several occasions—and helped to pave the way for the establishment of a free, prosperous South Korea. The courage and sacrifice of the Glosters secured freedom for one half of the Korean peninsula—even as the other half continues to suffer badly today under the repressive yoke of one of the most brutal regimes with the worst human rights record in the world.

For their actions during the battle, the Glosters were awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation, a rare honour for non-American armed forces. Two of the men from the regiment were also posthumously rewarded the Victoria Cross, the British empire’s highest military decoration for valour. They included Lieutenant Philip Curtis for leading a counter-attack on the Chinese position at Castle Hill, buying time for his comrades. There were also two awards of the Distinguished Service Order, six Military Crosses, two Distinguished Conduct Medals and 10 Military Medals. The actions of the Glosters at Imjin remains one of the British Army’s finest hours.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the Glorious Glosters were awarded a US Presidential Unit Citation, which is extremely rare for a non-American unit. Another link is that the Korean war memorial in Washington has a very brief inscription that reads simply, “Freedom is not free.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the defence of Gloster Hill by the Glorious Glosters, and the casualties they suffered, are a living embodiment of that great motto?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right: freedom is not free, and nor is it enduring. We cannot assume that we will always be free; we have to continuously fight for and believe in it. That is why we want to support Ukraine and other countries that are being unjustly penalised in an illegal war, to make sure that they can remain free, just as we in this country have freedoms that we often take for granted. We must never take those freedoms for granted.

I come now to a slightly sad bit in my speech. The bodies of many of the Glorious Glosters who were killed in North Korea still remain there. As many of my colleagues will be aware, I have previously been involved in efforts to try to return their remains to Britain. While noting the current geopolitical climate, I would like to ask whether the Minister will work with me to ensure that the remaining Glosters are brought home, so that their families can finally give them a dignified burial. There is precedent for this: the last time there was a little bit of rapprochement, around the time of President Trump’s meetings with the President of North Korea, some of the American bodies were brought home. If there is an opportunity in the next rapprochement, and if the Minister supports me in pushing for this, I could arrange for the bodies to be categorised and returned to the families in a dignified way, so that they can lay them to rest.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean war, let us turn our attention to the situation in the peninsula today. Anyone who looks at a satellite photo will see that half, the south, is lit up with bright lights—the lights of a free, prosperous, democratic society. The other half, the north, remains in darkness—a darkness of cruelty, repression and poverty. As has been mentioned, those who are brave enough to try to escape from North Korea very often end up in China. China uses facial and other recognition technology to make sure those people are returned, certainly to torture and most likely to their death.

We are very honoured—I have his permission to mention this—to have Timothy Cho in the Gallery today. He is one of those who tried to escape from North Korea. He failed on the first occasion, and he has huge scars all over his body from the torture that he went through when he was recaptured. But he was even braver, and wanted to escape for a second time, when mercifully he succeeded. We are very proud to have him here in Britain.

In 2013, the United Nations established a commission of inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. A distinguished Australian judge, Justice Michael Kirby, was appointed to chair it. Together with the experienced Serbian human rights campaigner Sonja Biserko and the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea at the time, the former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, he conducted a comprehensive set of hearings, gathering witness testimony and first-hand evidence. As has been quoted today, their conclusion was:

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations”

—this is the important bit—

“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

Having been chairman of the North Korea group, I can tell the House that some of the stories that I have heard are just unbelievable. It is a harrowing catalogue of crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape and forced abortions, among the other atrocities that people there have to endure, as well as severe religious persecution, enforced disappearance and starvation. The inquiry recommended that this should lead to a referral to the International Criminal Court. More than a decade later, I ask the Minister: what is the status of the UN commission of inquiry? What plans do the Government have to revisit the human rights and humanitarian crisis in North Korea at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council?

Seventy-five years on from the war on the Korean peninsula, North Korea, together with China, is a major facilitator of President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, providing Russia with weapons, munitions and men. While we remember that 75 years ago our brave soldiers were on the Korean peninsula defending freedom, North Korean troops today are on the continent of Europe, on our doorstep, reminding us that independence and liberty cannot be taken for granted. What steps are the Government taking to hold North Korea to account for this act of aggression?

We live in an increasingly turbulent and uncertain world. That should remind us how imperative it is for democracies to stand together to defend freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism. Nowhere is there a clearer example that shows why that is needed than on the Korean peninsula. Imagine what Korea would be like today if the Glosters had not taken such a heroic stance. All of us in this House should pay tribute to their courage and selfless actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

Mr Twigg, it is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, although I have never done so as a Minister, so it is nice to be in this slightly different role.

I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I know from having been in the House for almost a decade that when he speaks, many Members across the House listen. He always does so with great dignity. If I may say so, with genuine affection, he gives us a huge history lesson on the conflicts around the globe, which come with real authority. I mean that most sincerely, and I know that many Members across the House respect the work that he has done over the decades he has served in it. I also pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, and to the work of Lord Alton. I am sorry to hear that Lord Alton is currently in hospital; I do hope that there are ways in which our wonderful NHS can provide support to him as he recovers from his broken back.

The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is responsible for the Indo-Pacific, would have been delighted to take the debate today, but she is travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.

I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I am not sure we have ever sparred on any subject, including in our years of me shadowing her when I was in the Whips Office in opposition. I hope we can continue that friendly relationship as we start this new relationship as Minister and shadow Minister.

I am grateful for the many poignant contributions by Members from across the House, and I will try my best to respond to all the points raised. I make a commitment at this point that if I miss something, I will be more than happy to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members receive written responses, because I appreciate that this debate has cross-party consensus in the House, and it is our job as Members of Parliament to show that it is at its best when we are trying to find resolutions to some of the most difficult events, including those that took place 75 years ago.

Seventy-five years ago, the United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea and the United Nations, defending freedom and democracy in what became the Korean war. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), had the privilege of visiting the national memorial to this conflict in Washington, where the words “Freedom is not free” are etched in granite. As has been said, it is a powerful reminder of the price that so many paid.

From this war-scarred island 75 years ago, more than 80,000 British troops crossed the seas to fight in the Korean war, standing with a community of nations committed to freedom for the Korean people. More than 1,000 never returned. Their lives were given in the cause of liberty. Many more were wounded or taken prisoner.

A short distance from here, a beautiful bronze statue, crafted by Philip Jackson, stands—on a base of Welsh slate, I should tell Members—in Victoria Embankment Gardens. That memorial, a gift from the Republic of Korea, is a lasting tribute to those who served. When it was unveiled, veterans spoke of their sacrifice finally being recognised. Today, this House stands united in honouring that sacrifice, which must never be forgotten.

I also pay tribute to those who continue to serve and support the UN Command in supporting peace on the Korean peninsula. Twenty-two nations joined together in the Korean war, and it was our collective effort that secured an armistice, enabling South Korea to flourish. Today, the Republic of Korea is an important and valued partner, and our relationship spans defence, security, trade, climate action and far more. Sadly, the same cannot be said for North Korea.

Today, global risks are evolving and tensions are rising, but our commitment remains firm to peace and prosperity across the Korean peninsula, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and supporting a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for the people of the Indo-Pacific.

I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for their deeply moving contributions on the Gloucestershire Regiment. We could never do the brave men who served our country justice, but we stand united in thanking them and indeed, as the shadow Minister referenced, their families, who still talk, I am sure, about the sacrifice of their relatives.

The hon. Member for North Cotswolds asked about the repatriation of bodies, and I appreciate that this is a huge piece of work for him. The Ministry of Defence, along with partners, continues to identify the remains of those who fell during the war. If the opportunity arises, it will look to support efforts to repatriate the remains of those soldiers, so I encourage him to keep doing that work and to work with MOD Ministers to ensure that we do all we can to bring those remaining men home.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for the Minister’s words, but what I was really trying to ask in my speech was whether the British Government would work with the Americans. It is only through the Americans that we will get the political buy-in from the North Koreans to allow these things to take place.

[Chris Elmore]

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we do huge amounts of work bilaterally with the Americans. I will ensure that Ministry of Defence colleagues come back to him in a substantive way and that he gets an answer.

The UK Government’s long-standing position remains the same: we believe that diplomacy and negotiation are the best way to secure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. That is not straightforward and progress is slow, but to honour the values our armed forces fought for, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the region and across the globe towards peace and a better life for the people of North Korea.

However, the UK is clear about the threat the regime continues to pose to international security. We continue to condemn the DPRK’s illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in the strongest terms, alongside our allies. Over the past year, North Korea has continued testing, launching one intermediate-range and six short-range ballistic missiles. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referenced —as has been said, in good humour, although I am not sure that this was timed to coincide with the debate—the short-range missiles launched this morning are a brazen violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

The launches show that the DPRK continues to advance its illegal ballistic weapons programmes, posing a clear threat to regional stability. It continues to destabilise the peace and security of the peninsula. We call again on the DPRK to refrain from illegal launches and return to dialogue with the international community. As the G7 made clear in our joint statement at Charlevoix in March, these launches are a clear breach of UN Security Council resolutions. Today’s launches are no different. We will continue to call them out and work with partners across the region and beyond to uphold international law and protect global security.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has already been mentioned and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the DPRK’s active support for Russia’s illegal war. The partnership between the DPRK and Russia poses grave risks to global security. Over the past year, Pyongyang has grown bolder, deploying 11,000 troops to Kursk. Our assessment is that there have been 4,000 North Korean casualties, including 1,000 fatalities. That is why in February the UK imposed sanctions on the DPRK, including sanctions against DPRK officials directly involved in supporting Russian military action against Ukraine. Alongside our partners, we will continue to impose costs on Russia and DPRK for this dangerous expansion of the war.

This year, we have stepped up our focus on cyber-space, working closely with partners. Today, I can inform the House that the UK, alongside key allies in the multilateral sanctions monitoring team, is publishing a report that exposes the DPRK’s malicious cyber-activity and use of overseas IT workers. Its cyber-activity includes theft of cyber-currency, fraudulent IT contracts and cyber-espionage. North Korea is using these tactics to bypass UN sanctions and fund its illegal weapons programmes. The report is available today on gov.uk; I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.

While we continue to address the threat that North Korea poses to international peace and security, we have not lost sight of the fact that ordinary North Koreans are suffering. The DPRK’s regime prioritises weapons and illicit activity over the wellbeing of its people, whom we seek to support. We want a stable and prosperous DPRK. That is why we continue to highlight ongoing, widespread and systematic human rights abuses, and call them out. Last year marked 10 years since the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and in June our permanent representatives at the UN Security Council said that the perpetrators of human rights abuses remain unaccountable and the people continue to suffer. Last month, the UN high commissioner’s report confirmed that, if anything, the situation has worsened since 2014.

We continue to call on the DPRK to address its appalling record. In April, the UK co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution renewing the special rapporteur’s mandate and calling for stronger accountability. The isolation of the DPRK regime is a major barrier to progress; we urge the DPRK to engage with the international community and to take steps to improve its human rights record. We also continue to press for the reopening of our embassy in Pyongyang and for the return of humanitarian agencies.

In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a passionate advocate for freedom of religion or belief, I cannot stress enough that we consider it unacceptable that the people of DPRK face surveillance, imprisonment or even death because of their religion or belief. The House should be utterly united in the belief that people should have the ability to practise their religion, whether that is reading the Bible or anything else. We raise the issue of the lack of freedom of religion within the DPRK directly with the authorities there, and at the UN, including at the Human Rights Council. Freedom of religion remains an absolute priority for the British Government.

To continue this theme, we are also deeply concerned by reports from Human Rights Watch that, as many Members have already mentioned, China has forcibly returned over 400 North Koreans since last year, despite UN warnings of torture, imprisonment, sexual violence, forced labour and, tragically, execution. In May, the UK raised the issue at the UN General Assembly, calling on all states to respect the principle of non-refoulement and to ensure that refugees from North Korea are not sent back there.

We must also remember that the Korean war has never officially ended. The 1953 armistice still holds, yet the DPRK continues to claim that the US, South Korea and their partners are hostile. We are not aligned with the DPRK, but we do not seek its destabilisation or to harm its people. Our aim is clear: to limit the DPRK’s weapons programmes, to prevent proliferation and to urge the regime to prioritise its people over its nuclear ambitions. Our approach is one of critical engagement—we hold the DPRK to account, but we also seek dialogue. We want to reduce strategic risk and encourage a return to international co-operation. We hope that our embassy in North Korea can reopen, so that we can once again understand the lives of the North Korean people from the ground up.

I have almost reached my conclusion, Mr Twigg. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cotswolds, I should say that I touched on the work that we were still doing from the 2014 report until last year. I reassure him that we are continuing that work; we will continue to try always to have constructive dialogue with North Korea, while also making sure that it is held to account for human rights abuses.

Finally, I come to the shadow Minister’s questions and those from Members across the House. Building on the Downing Street accord, we are developing an enhanced shared agenda through the UK-Korea joint growth mission, aligning UK priorities on economic growth, clean energy leadership and security with President Lee’s priorities, including growth, defence industry exports, AI and climate action.

Later this year, we plan to convene the first UK-Korea high-level forum, bringing together industry leaders, politicians, academics and civil society to deepen collaboration in defence, AI and soft power. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), we are looking forward to concluding negotiations on our enhanced UK-Republic of Korea free trade agreement by the end of this year, as agreed by the Prime Minister and the President over the summer. Both sides will hold a series of talks in October and November to finalise the remaining areas of the negotiation.

Let me end by reiterating that the Government remain firmly committed to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. We continue to believe that diplomacy and dialogue are the best path forward. We urge the DPRK to show restraint, engage meaningfully and choose peace. Over 75 years, we have seen what collective action and shared purpose can achieve. We have also seen the cost of isolation. It is our hope that the DPRK will reconsider its duty to its people and reconnect with the world, and that all Korean people will one day know freedom.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Restrictions on aid, fuel, food and even water in Gaza is inhumane and unacceptable. If the Minister cannot get a decision next week to recognise the state of Palestine, will he at least ask for a collective message to be sent to our allies, the Israelis, that these restrictions are unacceptable and that, unless they are reversed, serious consequences will follow?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have delivered that message with our 26 partners on aid and we have been clear that, unless the situation changes, further actions with the leaders of France and Canada will flow. I will not repeat my answers about the conference next week, but I thank him for the important focus that he puts on the humanitarian situation.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

No, absolutely not. There is no automatic right for them to travel from St Helena to the UK. St Helena will undertake the processing of any cases in a proper way. Of course, anyone who fails to get a positive decision will be removed. St Helena will process them, but there is no automatic right to come to the UK. As with any overseas territory, people will be able to apply for British overseas territory citizenship after a period of time, but it is not automatic.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Minister has repeated several times this afternoon that no migrants have gone to BIOT in the last two years. He studiously avoided answering my right hon. Friend, the shadow Foreign Secretary’s important question about how many migrants he is providing contingency for. In order to calculate the £6.5 million, he must know how many migrants are likely to go to St Helena—or not, as the case may be. Will he now tell the House what that number is, and will he publish the full impact assessment?

[Stephen Doughty]

Like most people, I do not have a crystal ball. Our expectation, based on the evidence, is that hopefully nobody will make that journey because it is dangerous and BIOT is not a suitable place for migrants. However, it is only right that we put contingency arrangements in place were anyone to do so before any treaty is concluded with Mauritius, which will then take responsibility for dealing with any migrant arrivals. The £6.65 million figure is for health and education. As part of the agreement with St Helena, any support for additional costs, were anyone to arrive, would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Foreign Secretaries do not comment on such capabilities, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

As we have mentioned, this Government are committed to restoring overseas development assistance to 0.7% of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow and, overall, to restoring our development reputation and reconnecting our country to countries in the global south. The delivery of aid by this Government is made more challenging by what took place previously, with the uncontrolled expansion of so-called in-donor refugee costs. In 2023, the UK spent £4.3 billion of overseas development assistance on in-donor refugee costs—that is 27.9% of UK ODA. We are determined to ensure that we do not have the kinds of unplanned reductions that we saw before.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

What steps will the British Government be taking, following the highly disputed result in Venezuela of the election of President Maduro, to work with our American colleagues over the disputed land in Guyana to prevent any incursion there?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. The disputed election in the last few days is of huge concern, and I issued a statement on it yesterday. There are ongoing discussions with our American friends, and indeed with the state of Guyana, given the threats from Maduro in the past.

Ukraine

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I very much hope that progress will be made at the G7 meeting later this week. Things are moving in the right direction, and we must hope for success by the end of the week.

The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about the so-called Chelsea fund, and he reflects the immense frustration that many of us have felt over the last year in trying to get the fund up and running. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely determined that we will do so. It will be the second largest charity in Britain after the Wellcome Trust. Every sinew is being bent to get it to operate. It is mired in legal and technical difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman has my personal assurance that we are doing everything to try to ensure the money is used to good effect.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The news that my right hon. Friend has given the House this afternoon on the amount of military equipment and money going into Ukraine is greatly encouraging. Britain has courageously led the world on co-ordinating the effort against Russia’s operation in Ukraine, supported, of course, by the Americans and, to be fair, the Germans, but we three nations cannot do it all. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage other rich nations and allies around the world to contribute their share?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the importance of that. I think the position is a little better than he suggests, but he may rest assured that we are pressing everyone to give the support that Britain is giving, in whatever way they can.

We are continuing to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia and, with the US, we have taken decisive steps against the global trade in Russian metals. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, we are bearing down on the circumvention of sanctions and, as the House knows, this was a major focus during the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to central Asia. We are adopting new measures to target the shadow fleet that transports Russian oil.

We have also consistently said that Russia must pay the price for its illegal invasion. Ahead of the G7 summit in June, we have been leading international efforts to build consensus on a lawful route to use Russian assets to generate the maximum possible support for Ukraine. We are, again, working with our partners so that they join us in giving Ukraine the long-term support it needs to win this war by ramping up defence production, supporting Ukraine’s own industry and imposing more sanctions to undermine Russia’s military industrial complex and reduce its export revenues.

Finally, we need to invest in Ukraine’s future security and prosperity by backing it not only in the war but after it. Last year’s London recovery conference raised $60 billion for Ukraine. In January, Britain was the first to sign an agreement offering bilateral security commitments to Ukraine following the Vilnius declaration. And now we are the first to commit to multi-year military support for as long as it is needed.

We are seeing encouraging signs of many partners making similar investments. The Americans and the European Union have agreed generous funding packages. Germany will host the next Ukraine recovery conference in June, and our main NATO allies and G7 partners are now following us in signing long-term security agreements with Ukraine. In July, at the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace, we will urge our partners to underline once again our unity in standing with Ukraine, which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who made a very good point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I think this House is at its best when we get serious issues of this kind, and those on all sides of the House are in agreement—broad agreement—about what needs to be done. We have heard some excellent and informed speeches from both sides. I think the announcements made at the beginning of this debate by the Deputy Foreign Secretary are very welcome, particularly the £3 billion this country is going to give Ukraine this year and every year thereafter, while some of the significant sums—for example, on artillery and drones—are very welcome.

We have reached a critical point in the Ukraine-Russia war when we, along with our allies, need to decide how far and for how long we can take our support. In recent weeks, Russian forces have made slow but important advances in the area of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, compounding their advances by stretching the Ukraine army along a wide front. Opening up new fronts as well as widening those in the south-east Donetsk and Luhansk regions will stretch Ukrainian forces in a battle of resources, as Ukraine awaits the delayed US aid and equipment.

The UK and US have provided strong support for Ukraine, but there have been limitations and critical delays, as others have said, in providing the weapons and equipment needed. We are at a point where this war is dragging on, with limited and slow advances on both sides. The west has provided enough support for the Ukrainians to defend themselves, but not enough to make decisive advances, let alone enough to end the war. We must decide with our allies whether we will step up this support to persuade the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine. What we should not do is allow a war in Europe to drag on for many years and become a frozen conflict. That would cause an increased death toll, damage Ukrainian infrastructure and impact on our own and other western economies. Not only would it continue to prolong the suffering of the brave Ukrainian people, but it would make the job of rebuilding the country in the longer term much more difficult.

There is a strong possibility that, if we are not sufficiently determined to oppose Russia now, its aggression will not cease with Ukraine. We have only to look at what is happening in Georgia at the moment. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the demonstrations against the foreign agents law, it is clear that the majority of people in Georgia want a closer alignment with Europe and NATO than with their historical ties to Russia. That will be a cause for thought in Moscow. I use those words carefully.

In Europe, there is the possibility of risk to a Baltic state or Moldova. What would it mean if a NATO state were targeted next? Estonia’s Prime Minister urged NATO allies at the security conference in Tallinn to follow their response by stepping up support for Ukraine, while Moldova has recently defied Russia with a EU security pact deepening defence co-operation. Of course, one of the outcomes, whatever happens in the war in Ukraine, is that both Sweden and Finland have become members of NATO. Those deeply independent, non-aligned, neutral countries joining NATO must be a real slap in the face for the Russians. European countries have a huge vested interest in continuing to provide considerably more equipment and training. As I have mentioned, some countries such as Germany and Poland are to be commended for what they have done.

As I have said, the UK is sending an extra £500 million on top of the £2.5 billion in military aid that it had already pledged to give Ukraine in 2024. In February, the EU agreed to a further £42 billion package, but by March it had failed to meet its targets on sending shells to Ukraine. After the US and Germany, the UK is the third largest supplier of weapons and equipment to Ukraine.

As I said in my intervention on the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who made an excellent speech, I think we must do much more on the diplomatic front to encourage a coalition of the willing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the consequences of the Russians winning in Ukraine are huge in the longer term. I think it would mean that a number of non-aligned nations will decide that they are perhaps better off with the coalition of Russia and China, rather than with the west, which would be an utter disaster. It is important that we try to build that coalition of the winning, and I am not just thinking of Europe and America. There are countries in south-east Asia and in the middle east that we should be trying to persuade to join this coalition.

The US has been a huge supplier of arms and financial support, and its contributions to the war have far outweighed what has been sent by all other countries put together. In a recent visit to Kyiv, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, pledged ongoing US support for Ukraine after Congress approved the $61 billion aid package. Arriving at the frontline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has said, are the ATACMS—army tactical missile systems—which are long-range precision-guided missiles. Of the $61 billion-worth of aid being provided, about $8 billion will be used to resupply Ukraine with missiles and ammunition. That is a crucial point, because these missiles are absolutely critical.

The US has also been stepping up its own arms manufacturing, as we heard on the Public Accounts Committee visit to the Pentagon two months ago. That is critical. Europe needs to step up its arms manufacturing, which it has pledged to do, but it seems to be doing that far too slowly. This is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said, just about manufacturing. Huge volumes of hardened shelters are required to store the shells. There is a lot attached to building up this capacity, and my hon. Friend was right to indicate those figures. Furthermore, after that first year, the step-up in the second year will be even greater, which is good news.

As the Prime Minister said, we are facing some of the most dangerous and yet transformational years to come. Others have mentioned that the Ukrainians must be free to make decisions on how they use the arms that we supply, and they should not be hampered by conditions imposed by us. It is utter nonsense to watch Russian troops massing on the border near Kharkiv, and then to expect the Ukrainians not to use the vital weapons we have supplied to prevent that from happening.

An important area that has not yet been discussed is that, as any military tactician knows, to win a ground war air superiority is needed. Therefore, if the west really wants to help Ukraine, it must be far more generous in providing fighter aircraft, complete with trained Ukrainian pilots and anti-aircraft missiles. Ukraine has consistently asked the US for fighter jets to counter Russia’s air superiority. In May 2023, the US agreed to let other nations supply Ukraine with US-made F-16s. However, the US has hundreds of those aircraft, which are being rapidly superseded, and it could well afford to donate some of them. Instead, it says that the F-16s must be supplied by Denmark, the Netherlands and other nations, and we must train those pilots in how to use them. As others have said, our missiles have been very effective at deterring Russian ships in the Black sea.

I am not really criticising, but the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) slightly dismissed the fact that grain was getting out of Ukraine. It is not only good in itself, but important—others have touched on this—that small businesses are able to flourish in Ukraine. It is important that they are able to generate profits, and even more important that they are able to employ people who are not able to fight in the war, such as women who are not at the front. It is important that the Ukrainian economy is beginning to flourish again.

[Dave Doogan]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman at all. I was very specific in what I said, and I talked about a “tactical advantage”, which is minimal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

As Russian advances were being made in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin was making a state visit to China, in a show of strength. China is the largest investor in Ukraine after Russia, and it is propping up the ailing Russian economy by buying a significant quantity of Russian oil and gas at cheap prices. China could have a significant influence on Russia to settle the war if it chose to do so. A group of colleagues visited China the other day and made those points, but I do not think we had any impact on the Chinese. Surprise, surprise some might say, but we have to go and we have to engage, otherwise we certainly will not have an impact.

Putin has been making recent changes, dismissing his Defence Minister who had been in charge since 2022—the beginning of the war, when Putin expected Russia to take Kyiv in days—and replacing him with a very different person in Andrey Belousov. He is now overseeing the $117 billion defence spending that Russia has embarked on, and building up a Russian war machine that is reminiscent of what they did in world war two, by turning the entire economy to a war footing, which suggests that Putin is preparing for a long war with Europe. In addition, Russia’s allies, China, Iran and North Korea, have huge manufacturing capabilities that could replace a significant proportion of the Russian arsenal if it wished. If we and our allies are unwilling to provide more decisive support, there will inevitably be a political settlement between the two countries, which will leave Russia in a far more powerful position.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex indicated, we do not know what the US position will be after the elections in November. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is imperative that we engage with both sides in that election—Republicans and Democrats—so that whatever happens we strongly make the point that it is vital that the Americans continue on their course. Otherwise there is a danger that we will not be able to win this war.

Hotbeds of tension that could unravel in the years to come in the middle east and in east Asia around Taiwan and China are being carefully managed at the moment. Eyes are on the west and how we deal with Russia. The more Russia succeeds in Ukraine, the more co-operation between Russia and China seems to be strengthening, and the old enmity between them is reducing. That is incredibly dangerous. Urgent concerted and positive help must be given to the Ukrainian people in their hour of need for as long as it is needed, to deter Russia from taking any further offensive action in the rest of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The Public Accounts Committee looked in great detail at how we built capacity during the covid pandemic for producing vaccines. Will the Minister look at the lessons learned in that campaign? In particular, during that campaign we invested directly in capacity, not through the firms that were producing. Will he look at that as a method of how we could rapidly build up our military capabilities?

[Leo Docherty]

That is one of the things we are looking at.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who spoke about this being Europe’s war, not just America’s, which was an interesting contextual point. She spoke about the brutality in Bucha and the strategic importance of a Ukrainian victory, which was welcome. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made a provocative but sincere speech and asked the question, “Do we have the resolve to win?” The House answered that question with a resounding yes—we do have that resolve.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made a welcome historical point, putting in context the journey to statehood for Ukraine, mentioning the Viking establishment of Kyivan Rus’, the Scythians and Crimea. He also mentioned the ancient grain-based relationship with Europe, which was an interesting insight, and which disputes much of the propaganda coming out of the Kremlin. He pointed out the human cost of the war in Ukraine.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about the chauvinism of the Russian state, which was a good way to put it. He outlined his party’s support for our policy, for which I was grateful. He drew an interesting and relevant parallel to the Russian experience of invading Afghanistan.

The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) paid tribute to the tenacity of the Ukrainian people. He pointed out that the first invasion was in 2014. For understanding the geopolitical journey of Ukraine, 1992 in Lisbon and 1994 in Budapest are important dates that we must all recognise when we consider our posture. The views of his fellow members of the NATO parliamentary delegation from eastern Europe and the Baltic states were welcome because they are highly relevant. I agree with him that increased defence spending is not an indication of warmongering; no—it is the surest safeguard of peace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of the struggle of the whole nation, which was a good way of putting it. He spoke about the brutality of Russian forces, the threat to the Baltic states and the horrendous impact on the education of young people in Ukraine, which will surely last a generation.

I was grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who reflected on his visit to Ukraine last week, and the horrific experience particularly of young people there; he gave two examples of young people being kidnapped, sent to camps and told that Ukraine does not exist. Well, the whole House knows that Ukraine does exist, and it has proved that to the tyrannical invader in magnificent fashion over the past two years.

I was grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for reiterating his support for the Government’s policy, and for the unity and resolve reflected across the whole House—across the political divide. He mentioned the 800 miles of frontline, which indicates the scale of the challenge for the redoubtable Ukrainian military. In answering his three questions, I can give him the assurance that our energetic and dynamic support in supplying lethal aid and military training will continue. Our effort is reflected in the increase of resource therein, from £2.5 billion to £3 billion this year. Our energy in that quarter will be matched by our diplomacy across the landscape of important diplomatic events this year, which I have already mentioned, and we will sincerely carry out a ramping up of industrial production. I give him the commitment that we will keep him and his Opposition colleagues updated as that is expedited.

Putin’s war has demonstrated one thing above all others: he will never be able to subdue the will of Ukrainians to be Ukrainian, which is why he should end his unwinnable war, and the hideous suffering he is inflicting on Ukrainians and Russians, by withdrawing his forces. Putin should also know that this is not the outcome Ukraine and its allies are planning for. In January, the Prime Minister and President Zelensky signed an historic 100-year partnership, and more and more of our allies are following suit.

Since Putin’s invasion of Crimea, we have helped to train over 65,000 Ukrainian military personnel. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, we have sent almost 400 different military capabilities; in terms of resource value, that amounts to £3 billion this year. We are making long-term investments in Ukraine’s security, in the air, on land and at sea, including by hosting a forum with Ukrainian defence companies this week.

Taken together, our current support will help to keep Ukraine in the fight; our continued support and diplomacy will ensure it prevails; and our long-term support and co-operation will help the Ukrainian people to rebuild their country, strengthen its defences and deter future aggression. Putin thinks he can outlast us, but he should be in no doubt. The United Kingdom will stand with the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

War in Gaza

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I have given the hon. Lady the update from the Dispatch Box, in so far as there is an update to give. She asks me about the words that we are using in respect of Rafah. I have made it clear that we have not seen a credible plan for military action in Rafah so far, so we are not able to judge whether it would be in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that is the point that I have been making to the House.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Israel is our friend and ally, but that does not stop us questioning its actions. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary says that he wants to see much more aid getting into Gaza. The actions in Gaza over the weekend have only made those miles-long queues of lorries even greater. Air and sea drops are difficult. Will he today, on behalf of the Government, appeal to our allies to allow those in those miles-long queues in Rafah to rapidly go into Gaza and relieve the suffering of the people there?

[Mr Mitchell]

We continually appeal for more aid getting in by road. We have made arrangements for maritime entry, and entry from the air, but getting aid in through entry points on the road system is, by miles, the best way. I said at the outset of my remarks that we were very concerned indeed about the fact that no aid got in through Rafah or Kerem Shalom yesterday. We are doing everything we can, as we have been since the start of this crisis, to ensure that more aid is getting in, and we will continue to do so.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

We have always made it clear to Israel that we are its closest possible friend, but friends give candid advice and do not always say what people want to hear. The British Government will continue—with, I believe, the strong support of this House—to make the right points to the Israeli Government, and we are able to do so because of our extremely close alliance and friendship with them.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The human misery and death on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, are the worst I have witnessed since I became a Member of this House, and they will be solved only by a long-term political solution. Will my right hon. Friend, with whom I totally agree, explain what the British Government are doing in strategic planning to bring about a two-state solution?

[Mr Mitchell]

There is an immense amount of work going on about how we get to the point where we can achieve that. As I set out in my statement, there is no alternative to the two-state solution, and all interested parties should get behind that.