Sudan Update

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on the situation in Sudan.

Thirteen days ago, intense fighting broke out in Khartoum. The conflict quickly spread across the country, and was being waged on residential streets in Omdurman, El Fasher in Darfur, and other Sudanese cities, until a US-led ceasefire was accepted by both sides. I am proud that we contributed to calling for that ceasefire, and we will continue to do our utmost to secure a lasting peace, but I remind the House that we anticipate that the ceasefire will end tonight at midnight local Sudanese time. I commend the hard work of officials from across Government and the military, not only those on the ground in Sudan but those who have been working day and night in our crisis response centre in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Their extraordinary efforts have been an inspiration to me and to all those who have taken the opportunity to visit them over the last few days.

The struggle for power between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has killed hundreds of Sudanese citizens and threatens to claim the lives, sadly, of many more. This is a monumental tragedy—one with the potential to destabilise not just Sudan but the wider region. It is therefore in our interests, and more importantly those of the people of Sudan, to secure a peaceful and sustainable settlement as quickly as possible. However, our ability, and that of all outside powers, to determine the course of events within Sudan is limited. What is within our power is the safe extraction of as many British nationals as practically possible. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the supported departure of British nationals from Sudan, facilitated by the UK, started on Tuesday. As of yesterday evening, six flights carrying 536 people had landed safely in Cyprus. More flights continue today, so that number is rising, and I will ensure that I find the opportunity to give updates to the House.

A ceasefire is due to elapse at midnight local time, and no one can predict the situation on the ground after that. We are encouraging those who wish to travel to make their way to the airport today. We will continue to engage with our international partners to attempt to extend the ceasefire and bring a permanent end to the violence, and I will of course keep the House updated on developments on that front. For those on the ground, as Members would expect, we are prioritising those in greatest need by allocating seats based on vulnerability, starting with families with children, the elderly, the disabled or people with documented medical conditions. We have been notifying British nationals registered with us about the evacuation flights, as well as announcing them through our travel advice and organic social media networks of British nationals in Sudan.

We are working with the Home Office, UK Border Force and FCDO staff on the ground to facilitate clearances for those boarding the flights, and we will continue to co-ordinate intensively with our international partners. Several countries without a diplomatic presence in Sudan have requested that we assist their nationals. We are energetically exploring options regarding how best to do this without compromising our duty to British nationals.

A ceasefire is not necessarily a prelude to peace and the situation could deteriorate over the coming days. We will continue to support British nationals, which is why we have established a temporary presence in Port Sudan on the Red sea coast and have put consular officials on the border points in Egypt, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Sudan is the third largest country in Africa. It is more than 800 miles from the capital to Aswan in Egypt and over 500 miles from Khartoum to the Red sea. Even if there were not a war, Sudan’s vastness makes the logistics of moving large numbers of people extraordinarily challenging. We are aware of a number of British nationals who have now left Sudan by other means, including some who were able to join evacuations led by our international partners. We are working with our diplomatic missions in the countries where they are arriving to provide consular assistance where required.

Although we are making every effort to evacuate our nationals, peace in Sudan will also be a key objective. We call on both sides to end the killing for the sake of the people of Sudan. They have already suffered enough, after decades of civil war. We are pursuing all diplomatic avenues to end the violence and de-escalate tension. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Development Minister and I are in regular touch with our international partners. The role of the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and our partners in the region, in the Gulf and beyond will of course be critical.

The United Kingdom has profound ties and a historic friendship with the people of Sudan. We stand in solidarity with them and their right to demand a peaceful and democratic future and a return to civilian rule. When conditions allow, the UK is ready to join international efforts to rebuild the Sudanese economy and ease human suffering. That will not be easy, but it is vital for the region, and of course for Sudan, that we try. We will bring as many of our nationals as possible to safety, and we can and will play a pivotal part in rebuilding that great and ancient country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and the briefings that he and his officials have provided. The ceasefire announced on Monday night opened a crucial window in which to evacuate UK nationals and pause the needless bloodshed. I place on record Labour’s sincere thanks to our brave armed forces and tireless FCDO staff. None of us doubts the complexity and very challenging circumstances of this operation. The whole House sincerely hopes for its success.

We welcome the fact that more than 500 UK nationals have now boarded planes out of Sudan, but just hours of the ceasefire remain, and 500 is only a quarter of those who we know have registered with the FCDO. The true number of British citizens in Sudan is closer to 4,000. Amid the very welcome stories of families reunited, there are tales of real concern: there are those unable to reach the airfield because of violence on the route; there are patchy official communications; and there are British citizens travelling hours overland only to find the borders closed.

Yesterday, The Times reported that a British doctor is stuck at home with a bullet wound in his leg and dwindling supplies of antibiotics after the Government rejected his 86-year-old mother’s request for a temporary visa. It is not right that British nationals should be unable to leave because their close Sudanese family members are excluded from safe passage, especially as we know that planes have left the airfield without being full. I urge the Foreign Secretary to take swift action to ensure that British citizens can travel with their family now.

We all hope that the ceasefire will hold, but there is every chance that it will not. How confident is the Foreign Secretary that all who want to be evacuated will be by the time the ceasefire expires at midnight? What are the prospects for an extension? Will flights continue tomorrow anyway? What planning is under way to create alternative routes out of the country, should fighting return to Khartoum?

In the coming weeks, the Government will face legitimate questions about their handling of the crisis. Germany ran the Wadi Saeedna airfield when the UK’s initial diplomatic evacuation operation was completed and stood down. The Germans managed to evacuate 700 people from over 30 countries before our evacuation of UK nationals had properly begun. Why did other countries choose to evacuate nationals straight away when there was no ceasefire in place, while we chose not to? Why were both the ambassador and the deputy ambassador reportedly out of the country when fighting broke out? Why are Hercules aircraft, which have been used in two airlifts in two years, still set to be scrapped? And the elephant in the room: which lessons of the Afghan evacuation have been learned and properly implemented?

The immediate priority of the British Government is rightly to ensure that as many UK nationals as possible can leave quickly and safely, but we must not allow the world’s gaze to turn away from Sudan once foreign nationals have left. Sudan is at risk of lurching into deeper crisis—a crisis that its people did not make or deserve. They face the threat of intense fighting, dwindling supplies of food and water, and a wider humanitarian catastrophe. As I heard at first hand on my visit to Kenya this week, there is real concern that fighting could bubble over and cross borders, amplifying this conflict and human suffering. While we press the Government on their vital efforts to support British nationals abroad, we will continue to press for action to end the bloodshed of the people of Sudan and the wider region.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his kind and thoughtful words about the military and other officials on the ground who are supporting British nationals in their evacuation. I also commend him on the tone that he has taken; he rightly pushes the Government and holds us to account, but is also being constructive and supportive of our first priority: the protection and evacuation of British nationals, where possible.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about communications. Communication with British nationals in Sudan remains a significant challenge. The mobile phone network is inconsistent and often down, the internet likewise. We have used multiple channels, including telephone calls, SMS messaging, and cascading information through organically created WhatsApp groups that existed before the conflict, but communications remain a huge challenge.



That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the total number of British nationals in Sudan. The UK does not routinely request that British nationals inform us when they are overseas. We did so when this conflict started, but just as it is difficult for us to communicate with British nationals in Sudan, it is very difficult in many cases for them to communicate back to us. We know that a number will have made their own arrangements for leaving Sudan. It is not possible for us to have an accurate assessment of how many have done so at this point. We hope to do so as they get in contact with us from third countries. We will continue to push information in whatever ways we can to the people we are seeking to help in country.

On an extension to the ceasefire, we are pushing hard for that. We are amplifying the voices of those in the region and more widely that a ceasefire is in the best interests of Sudan. I say here at the Dispatch Box to either of the generals, who might be watching this statement, that if they aspire to be the leader of Sudan, demonstrating a willingness to protect the people of Sudan would be an important starting point. We will continue to push, but it is almost impossible for us to predict whether there will be an extension and what the circumstances might be like if the extension does not happen. We will endeavour to keep evacuating people through the airhead in Wadi Saeedna, but we cannot guarantee our ability to do so. We are exploring the support to other routes, which is why we have set up a temporary presence at Port Sudan, and it is why we have officials at the border in neighbouring countries.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a couple of specific questions about members of staff who were in the embassy when the conflict started. The head of mission, our ambassador, was out of the country at the time, but we have a well-established chain of command passing-on process, and the formal No. 2 in the embassy was in command and control of the embassy when this initiated. The fact that the ambassador was able to plug in to the crisis response centre in the UK was invaluable. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about C-130 Hercules. The simple truth is that they are an old airframe. There are newer and better aircraft that will be replacing their functions.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in parallel with our evacuation operations, we have to work on the immediate and long-term stability of Sudan and make every effort to prevent this conflict from spilling over into neighbouring countries and destabilising the region, and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I place on record my gratitude to the Foreign Office staff, those on the rapid deployment teams, those in the crisis centre, our armed forces and Border Force. May I also point out how unacceptable it is that some media have been outside not just the homes of civil servants who are not senior civil servants, but their parents’ homes? That is utterly unacceptable, and I urge the Foreign Office to make clear to the media that that cannot continue.

Moving back to the crisis on the ground, when the ceasefire was agreed, the clock began for how we would make sure that hostilities did not return from midnight tonight. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that we will not see westerners removed and the Sudanese left to face appalling violence? The point was made just now about our criteria for evacuation, and I urge my right hon. Friend to please review them. The reality is that we treat children as dependents, but very elderly, sick parents should also be treated as dependents. On the specific case that was just raised, the family have made their way to the airstrip, after my suggestion that they travelled. The NHS doctor has had to receive emergency medical treatment at the airstrip under local anaesthesia because of how advanced the infection was following his having been shot. He has not been allowed on the flight that departed about three minutes ago, because he wanted to take his mother with him. I urge the Government that we have the ability to change the criteria. I cannot quite determine whether it is the Foreign Office or Home Office who have determined the criteria, but a key recommendation from Afghanistan was to recognise that dependents are also the elderly and not just the young.

[James Cleverly]

I am grateful to my honourable friend for echoing those words of support for our officials both on the ground and at home. It is completely inappropriate that people who have dedicated their lives to public service and have operated through incredibly intense situations should be hounded by the press in that way, and I call for responsible journalism in all respects.

I recognise that my hon. Friend has personal experience of some of the complexities of consular work from her life before politics and I always listen carefully to her suggestions and recommendations, which I know are all made with a genuine desire to improve the situation. There is a real challenge about extending the criteria for who we evacuate; we instinctively desire to be as generous as possible, but we must ensure that we discharge our primary duty to British nationals and the traditionally recognised dependents. I understand the point she makes about more elderly members of the family and of course we will look at what we can do to be as supportive as possible.

How many others we might be able to take is entirely dependent, as I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, on whether we can get the ceasefire to stick and on our ability to continue the evacuation if the ceasefire collapses. We will keep all those decisions under review in the regular Cobra meetings that we hold.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He is right that we must do everything we can to ensure a lasting peace and he is right to praise the performance of the men and women of the armed forces and others who have facilitated evacuations so far. However, time is of the essence. The Minister for Development and Africa said on TV last night that we cannot guarantee how many further flights will depart once the ceasefire ends, adding that,

“we hope there will be enough capacity to…get them all out”.

With the numbers arriving at evacuation points doubling or even trebling, why are we relying on hope rather than action?

The Minister also admitted on TV, when asked about safe and legal routes for Sudanese refugees, that they “don’t exist”. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that? What is the current status of people who have fled from Sudan to neighbouring countries to escape the violence? Bordering countries such as Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic have already become politically insecure. What are his plans to ensure that people fleeing here will be safeguarded?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Development and Africa is right that we will endeavour to continue to support British nationals in their evacuation when, or if, the ceasefire is not extended. We are one of only three nations in the world that have established an airhead in the vicinity of Khartoum to facilitate air evacuations. We, the French and the Germans are the only three countries in the world to have done so and that has allowed our aircraft and the aircraft of a wide number of other countries to airlift their nationals out. However, no one can guarantee what will happen when the ceasefire comes to an end.

With regard to the wider push of refugees because of this conflict, I remind the SNP spokesperson and the House that Sudan is not the only live conflict in the world. I know it is at the forefront of many people’s minds, and it is therefore completely legitimate that he asks questions specifically about it—[Interruption.] If he stops interrupting, he might hear, and I will answer his questions. Now that the Illegal Migration Bill has, despite his attempts to thwart it, gone through its parliamentary stages in the Commons, we will, as we have promised, establish safe and legal routes as part of our plan to control illegal migration. Further details will come through.

With regard to preventing regional instability, we remain closely aligned with the African Union and our partners in the region, with whom I speak regularly, to try to ensure that the conflict does not escalate and spill over into neighbouring countries.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

This country will always play its part in providing sanctuary to those fleeing war, and I thank the Government for their actions in Sudan to date. Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that the UK is indeed the fourth-largest recipient of individuals from Sudan through those routes operated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and that those routes will remain open for as long as feasibly possible?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This country has a long-standing reputation for and tradition of hospitality and generosity to those from around the world who are fleeing individual persecution or violence, and we have demonstrated that time and again. There have been tens of thousands of people who have come to the UK using safe and legal routes over the last few years since we have been in government, and we will continue to establish safe and legal routes. Our ability to do so will be enhanced by the legislation that he, I and our colleagues voted on last night.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I am grateful that constituents have been airlifted out and I thank the teams who have worked so hard on that. Can I raise with the Foreign Secretary the plight of those stuck because they are waiting for visas? A constituent’s partner has been in Khartoum for more than a year now, waiting for UK Visas and Immigration to handle her visa in the east Africa processing centre. She has now had to flee to Uganda, another very dangerous journey. Will the Foreign Secretary impress on the Home Office that its backlog has been pushing people into further dangerous situations?

[James Cleverly]

I will ensure that I pass on the hon. Lady’s concerns. I pay tribute to the intense work that Border Force and Home Office staff have done in conjunction with officials from my Department, the Ministry of Defence and others to try to ensure that we facilitate as quick a flow of British nationals and their dependants out of war-torn Sudan as we can, and we will continue to do that work.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on the progress he is making and the calm way in which he is operating in very difficult circumstances. Clearly, we have a large number of UK nationals in Sudan and it is difficult for them to move around, let alone be airlifted out. What actions is he taking to enable our citizens to get away from Sudan by road or sea, if that is what they wish to do?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. One challenge is that our travel advice must enhance the safety of British nationals overseas and not inadvertently put them at greater risk. There is often a lag between our finding out information, broadcasting it and its being acted on. One of the things that we have seen—not directly because of the advice that the UK has given, but the advice that other Governments have given—is that inadvertently people have been called into more dangerous circumstances and come under attack. We have to give general advice. We have given the advice that we have the airhead operating in Wadi Saeedna, and we have officials at Port Sudan and at the border crossing points of nearby countries. We cannot recommend safe routes. We cannot advise at that level of granularity because that advice may be out of date and therefore counterproductive by the time it is acted on.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm what is happening to those visiting Sudan on refugee travel documents? To echo what the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, how long does he estimate it will take to process those people who were waiting for papers from the consulate in Sudan?

[James Cleverly]

Ultimately, the processing of visas is a Home Office function. We are working closely with the Home Office, but I am not able to give her those details. The prioritisation that we have broadcast is to discharge our duty to support British nationals and their immediate dependants. I will of course make sure that my Home Office colleagues are aware of the hon. Lady’s question.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The FCDO is rightly focusing on the immediate need to evacuate nationals. For that they have my thanks and, I suspect, the thanks of everyone in the Chamber. When that is completed, however, we will leave behind a nation in conflict. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to galvanise international support, perhaps led by the African Union, to help to end the bloodshed?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That action is happening in parallel with our evacuation options. I have spoken directly to one of the generals and spoken through intermediaries to express my views to the other. I know that our action replicates the actions of our international partners, particularly those in the immediate region who have influence. We must push for peace in Sudan. The country has suffered enough, and we must ensure the conflict we are now seeing does not spill over into nearby countries. In particular, we must ensure that malign actors do not interfere in the events in Sudan in order to turn this into a regional conflict.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for updating the House on what he is trying to do to extract British nationals in what is obviously a very difficult situation. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent. My constituent’s husband, who is in Sudan, has been waiting 15 months for documentation to join her and for the family reunion visa to be processed. His passport is currently with the British embassy, which took it as part of the application process, and he is now stranded in Sudan.

When my office inquired about the situation, it received the standard reply that there is no timescale for dealing with the application. I appreciate that the Home Office is the lead Department in this situation, but surely we should have concern for all the people who are in this predicament. From what we have heard already, I suspect a lot of Members will raise this issue. We should have concern for all these people; we need to know there will be some attention to their situation.

[James Cleverly]

As I have said in response to previous questions, the issuing of visas is a Home Office function, but its officials work in close co-ordination—often physically close—with officials from my Department. There is the ability to issue temporary travel documents in lieu of a passport. Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific details of the case he raises, but the traditional functions of the Home Office and the FCDO will continue in parallel with the additional function of evacuation. Where appropriate and where they conform to the criteria we have set, we will continue to facilitate the issuing of family reunion visas. That is one of the reasons we have established a diplomatic presence not only in Port Sudan but in nearby countries.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is now just under 10 hours 45 minutes until the ceasefire ends, so speed is of the essence. I thank him for the statement about the aircraft that have left, taking so many hundreds out, but surely shipborne evacuation would provide us with volume as well. Will ships be going to Port Sudan and elsewhere to get people out of Sudan?

[James Cleverly]

The short answer is that we have, as a pre-emptive measure, diverted a Royal Navy vessel towards Port Sudan; that decision was made a number of days ago. We do not envisage that it will be used as a ferry, a relief platform or anything like that, but it will give us command and control capability and a protective platform in the region. We have also put forward a team of officials from across Government to facilitate the onward passage of people who get to Port Sudan. As I say, we already have diplomatic presence, which has been enhanced in Ethiopia, Egypt and across the Red sea in Saudi Arabia.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I just want to put it on record how refreshing it is to see a Secretary of State appear to make a statement himself. I do hope that other Departments can follow his lead.

There has been a puzzling story, put around by German politicians, that in some way our rescue efforts have hampered their own attempts to extract their own citizens. Secondly, there is a story that our soldiers did not have permission to land in Sudan. Could the Secretary of State throw any light on those stories?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure the House that I have a very productive bilateral relationship with my German opposite number. We speak regularly and have been in pretty constant text communication throughout this. I want to put on the record my huge gratitude to her, and through her the German military, who helped to facilitate the evacuation of British nationals and others. We have been working very well.

I see the concerns raised in the press; none of them have been directly raised with me. From the regular conversations I have with the Defence Secretary, it is not my understanding that at any point we flew without permissions, nor that that had a negative knock-on effect on others. I will, of course, in the near future, have the opportunity to have an extended conversation with my German opposite number. If there are any lessons that we need to learn about the complexity of operations like this, we will do so. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not been raised with me.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure we all share the deepest concern for the people of Sudan who are suffering this unfolding tragedy, as they have suffered so much tragedy in the past 20 years. We will have time in the future to debate why we failed to have a transition to civilian government in Sudan, but now we have the immediate issue of UK citizens trying to flee. One question that has not yet been raised is about the British and other international citizens stuck on the land border with Egypt, some of whom are in acute medical need. What is the Foreign Office doing to facilitate and work with the Egyptian Government to ensure that those citizens can traverse that land border and seek safety?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I remain in regular contact with my Egyptian opposite number. I have spoken to him directly a number of times during this operation and, as is the nature of modern diplomacy, we are in pretty regular text communication as well. I know he will have been made aware of the situation at the Sudanese-Egyptian border. I am planning to speak to him again at some point in the near future—either today or early tomorrow—and this will be one of the issues that we discuss. As I say, we have put forward an enhanced consular presence from the FCDO in those neighbouring countries to help to facilitate border crossings, which are always tricky, particularly during times of conflict.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement this afternoon. Like many other Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about friends and close family members who find themselves stuck in this terrible situation out in Sudan. Further to the questions raised by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), can I ask whether the Foreign Office is considering reviewing the eligibility criteria and, in particular, whether any consideration has been given to Sudanese passport holders who have entry clearance to the UK, be they students or other individuals, and whether there is any capacity to evacuate those individuals as well?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his praise of the work that officials across Government have done on this. I do not want to pre-empt any decisions by Cobra. We will of course look at the criteria, which we have kept constantly under review to ensure we are able to discharge our duty to support British nationals, which is the primary duty of the Government. I would make the broader point that if we were to change the eligibility, we would need to do so in a non-discriminatory way. We would not necessarily be able to say, “Sudanese people who—”; it would just need to be, “Foreign nationals who—”. That could potentially create an unsustainable degree of demand for evacuations that we might not be able to address. However, we always look at these things very carefully. We want to ensure that we not only discharge our duty to British nationals, but remain, as we have been, a generous at heart nation.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On the point about safe and legal routes, there are, of course, no safe and legal routes for people to come to the United Kingdom. In fact, in 2022, Sudanese nationality was among the five highest for the number of people travelling in small boats across the channel. Has the Foreign Secretary had any conversations with the Home Secretary about establishing safe and legal routes in the light of this particular crisis, and in the light of the vote last night on the Illegal Migration Bill, which means that anyone arriving irregularly, in the United Kingdom after 7 March which people in small boats will be counted as, will be detained and sent to a third country, which I assume the Government would say is Rwanda?

[James Cleverly]

I think the right hon. Lady meant to say that there are no current safe and legal routes established from Sudan. She said in her question that there were no safe and legal routes, but of course there are many specific to Sudan.

Let me also point out that Sudan is not the only conflict zone in the world. The Bill on which the House voted last night contains an explicit commitment to establishing safe and legal routes in parallel with ensuring that the people who come here illegally are administered quickly, fairly and efficiently, and it is right that we do both. Ultimately, establishing those safe and legal routes will be a Government decision, led by the Home Office with input from other Departments such as mine, and that is a discussion that we will of course have.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Reports have shown that people operating fake Twitter accounts are impersonating key players in this conflict, and are being legitimised by the recently introduced subscription service on the platform. One tweet falsely reporting the death of the RSF leader gained more than 1 million views before being removed. What consideration has been given to the role that social media plays in spreading misinformation about this conflict, putting lives and operations at risk as a result?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady has raised an incredibly important point. I cannot express the level of frustration I feel with what seems in many instances to be proactively and intentionally dishonest messaging. As I said to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) earlier, the passage of information to British nationals and others is extremely difficult, and if it goes wrong or is manipulated by bad faith actors, it could put British nationals and others in enhanced danger.

I do not have an answer for the hon. Lady here and now, but she is right to raise this issue. It is a classic example of why we have to be very careful and check the provenance of information, and I would advise all people to do that, particularly if they are about to make life-and-death decisions based on it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I have some real clarity from the Foreign Secretary about people who are not British nationals but who are nevertheless in the position of one of my constituents? My constituent has been working for Public Health Wales for the last two years and living in my constituency, and they went to Sudan to celebrate Eid with their family. They are now trapped there and, I understand, are being told that they will not get help from the British Government enabling them to return to their home and workplace in my constituency. Is that the Foreign Secretary’s policy, and if it is, can he change it forthwith?

[James Cleverly]

The eligibility criteria have been part of our travel advice throughout this situation. I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as I said earlier, we cannot expand the criteria just for those mentioned by Members. To do so could substantially and unsustainably increase the number of people to whom we have given the implication that we could evacuate them. As I have said, the window is limited, the ability to evacuate beyond that is completely unpredictable, and we have a duty to ensure that we do everything we can to evacuate British nationals and dependants as per the criteria already published.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

We have all watched Sudan’s descent into civil war with horror, but for the Sudanese diaspora in Britain and British nationals in Sudan this is a time of immense trauma and suffering, recalling the trauma and suffering involved in the evacuation of Kabul. The situation is different, but the casework that I am seeing and what we are hearing today are very familiar. The Secretary of State says that visas are not his responsibility. Will he confirm that he is working with the Home Office, as a matter of urgency, to establish a consistent and humane approach to those who do not have the requisite travel documents? That includes babies born recently, spouses in the process of applying for visas, and, as we have heard, people who live here and are on holiday in Sudan.

[James Cleverly]

It is inevitable that comparisons will be made between this operation and the evacuation from Kabul, but they are fundamentally different. The operation we have conducted—both the initial military operation to evacuate our diplomatic staff and those of other nations, and then the ongoing airlift of British nationals and their dependants from Wadi Saeedna—is fundamentally different from the situation in Kabul. As I have said, I am very proud of the fact that we are one of the three framework nations who have facilitated the operation from Wadi Saeedna, which has allowed the French, German, British and others to airlift people out. We will of course always make sure we protect the vulnerable where we can; I have said that in my statement and it is reflected in the travel advice. Ultimately our duty is towards British nationals and their dependants, and we have of course facilitated the evacuation of Sudanese nationals who are dependants of British nationals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his determination and leadership at a time when we look to him for that. Some 512 people have died and thousands have been injured since the power struggle began two weeks ago. The Foreign Secretary has urged all UK nationals to leave before the ceasefire ends at 12 o’clock tonight. I understand, and the Secretary of State can of course confirm this, that a number of UK nationals could still be left behind due to poor mobile phone contact or due to embassy staff not being available—that is not their fault, by the way; it is just about contact for people. I believe we have a duty to ensure protection for each and every one, and I know the Secretary of State also believes that, so what will he do to protect those UK nationals who were not fortunate enough to get out in time?

[James Cleverly]

The airhead at Wadi Saeedna is one of our preferred options; that is why we made the commitment to be one of the three framework nations to facilitate the use of that airbase. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify the fact that it is very difficult for us to make any kind of commitment beyond the ceasefire. One of the best things we can do to protect British nationals in Sudan is try to make sure the ceasefire continues, and we work incredibly hard, both directly and with partners and regional powerbases, to facilitate that and bring a lasting peace. Even if the airhead is no longer operational, there will be other routes out, and our presence at the borders and at Port Sudan will be to facilitate that. We will keep communicating best advice on evacuation and keep-safe options through all channels, notwithstanding the point I made earlier that communication remains incredibly difficult.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I have been reading reports about two NHS doctors who have been denied passage on planes evacuating from Sudan, and that struck me, because I have constituents who are NHS doctors themselves who are in Sudan with their young children. I am therefore very keen to hear what the plan is in relation to NHS doctors. I do not believe for one minute that the general public would expect that they will be abandoned by this Government to their peril in Sudan. How many children who are British nationals are in Sudan and not yet on one of the planes? What will the Foreign Secretary do to maintain proper food and water supplies for British nationals, and how does he plan to get these children home?

[James Cleverly]

As I said in response to the initial question from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), it is not possible for the UK, or indeed any other country, to know exactly how many of their nationals are in Sudan, or any other country. We do not demand that British nationals register with the Government when they are overseas. We have put out a “register your presence” website, which gives us some idea, but no Government in the world can say what the numbers are with certainty. Indeed, people who have registered on that “register your presence” website may well have already left. That is why no one can give a complete figure on the number of nationals in Sudan. We have pumped out messages across a wide range of channels letting people know that the airhead exists and we have called them forward. We will make sure that British national children, and of course dependants of British nationals, are airlifted out. Even if we are not able to maintain that airlift capability from Wadi Saeedna, we have a presence at the borders; we have a presence in Saudi Arabia and in Port Sudan.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their presence. Will anybody who wishes to leave the Chamber please do so quietly?

Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee

James Cleverly Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met today, 24 March 2023, in London with delegates attending in person and by video conference. The meeting was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and European Commission vice-president Maroš Šefčovič. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.

The Committee welcomed the agreement of the Windsor framework and adopted the new arrangements set out within the framework. The adoption of this agreement restores the free flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a new green lane; it gives the elected representatives of Northern Ireland a veto over new laws that apply there; and it protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union through fixing practical problems including on pets, parcels and medicines and ensuring that UK decisions on tax and spend benefit people and businesses in Northern Ireland as they do in Great Britain.

The Committee addressed other important issues including the rights of UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Both sides agreed on the importance of continuing to support these citizens and welcomed the efforts made over the past year to do so, including additional funding provided by both sides to external organisations.

The Committee also received an update on the work of the withdrawal agreement specialised committees since the last meeting on 21 February 2022 and adopted the withdrawal agreement annual report for the year 2021 pursuant to article 164(6) of the withdrawal agreement.

The Committee adopted one decision laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework.

The Committee also adopted two recommendations:

on market surveillance and enforcement,

on article 13(3a) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Both the UK and EU made five joint declarations relating to the Windsor Framework:

Joint declaration No 1/2023

Joint declaration on the application of Article 10(1) of the Windsor framework

Joint declaration on Article 13(3a) of the Windsor framework

Joint declaration No 2/2023

Joint declaration on the VAT regime for goods not being at risk for the Union’s internal market and on the VAT arrangements for cross border refunds.

The UK made five unilateral declarations and the EU made unilateral declarations noting these:

Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 agreement (annex I to the decision No 1/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework)

Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union

Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union

Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in article 18 of the Windsor framework, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union.

Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, noted by the unilateral declaration by the Union.

[HCWS671]

Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council

James Cleverly Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council met today, 24 March 2023, in London, with delegates attending in person and by video conference.

The meeting was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and European Commission vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. Representatives from the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive attended, as did representatives from the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. 27 EU member state representatives also attended. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.

The Partnership Council discussed implementation of the TCA and cooperation in a range of areas including energy, regulation, security and Union Programmes.

The Partnership Council supervises the operation of the TCA, providing strategic direction to the work of the Trade Partnership Committee and 18 specialised committees.

The UK restated its commitment to co-operating with the EU through the Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council.

[HCWS670]

The UK's International Technology Strategy

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Today we have laid before the House the UK’s international technology strategy. Technological advances bring huge opportunities for our economies and societies and how we collaborate internationally will be critical to realising the benefits of these.

The competition between authoritarian and liberal values will define how technologies shape our future. The integrated review refresh 2023 reiterated the central role of technology in driving growth and ensuring the security of the British people. This strategy sets out how we will work internationally to increase the UK’s strategic advantage in technology, using that advantage to drive economic growth, protect our citizens’ security and ensure our values of freedom and democracy thrive.

The international technology strategy is a cross-Government strategy. It underpins how we deliver internationally the vision set out in the UK science and technology framework.

The strategy defines a set of principles to shape our engagement on technologies internationally—open, responsible, secure, and resilient. It sets out a framework for delivering an ambitious vision and championing our principles on the international stage. Our approach will be guided by six strategic priorities:

Priority technologies and data: artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, engineering biology, semiconductors, and telecommunications, alongside data as a key underpinning enabler of all technologies. We will build strategic advantage in these areas to ensure the UK is world-leading and that they develop in line with our values.

International partnerships for global leadership: working closely with Governments, academia, and industry to support our shared growth and address global challenges.

Values-based governance and regulation: promoting our principles and vision for a future technology order that benefits all by working with partners and through international fora to shape technology governance.

Technology investment and expertise for the developing world: building capacity to bridge the technology divide and support partners to make informed choices.

Technology to drive the UK economy: continuing to drive UK technology exports and promote the UK as the best place for technology companies to raise capital and attract foreign direct investment.

Protecting our security interests: ensuring sensitive technology does not fall into hostile hands and that we retain critical technology capabilities in the UK.

To realise the ambition of this strategy, we will bolster our capabilities across the UK’s overseas network so the right skills and expertise can be deployed. This will include increasing the number of tech envoys, increasing technology expertise across our global network, and uplifting the capability of our diplomats through training, secondments, and recruitment.

A copy of the strategy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS660]

Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee: Tenth Meeting

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The next meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee will take place in London on 24 March 2023, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.

The meeting will be co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič.

The agenda will include:

1. Welcome and opening remarks from the co-chairs

1.1. Formal adoption of the agenda

1.2. Stocktake of specialised committee activity 21 February 2022-24 March 2023.

2. Update on withdrawal agreement implementation in accordance with Article 164 of the withdrawal agreement

2.1. Citizens’ rights

2.2. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland / the Windsor framework

3. Decisions and recommendations for Joint Committee adoption

3.1. Decision No X/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework

3.2. Recommendation No X/2023 on market surveillance and enforcement

3.3. Recommendation No X/2023 on Article 13(3a) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Joint Declaration to be made by the Union and the United Kingdom

3.4. Joint declaration No XX/2023

3.5. Joint declaration on the application of Article 10(1) of the Windsor framework

3.6. Joint declaration on Article 13(3a) of the Windsor framework

3.7. Joint declaration number X

3.8. Joint declaration on the VAT regime for goods not being at risk for the Union’s internal market and on the VAT arrangements for cross-border refunds

United Kingdom unilateral declarations and Union unilateral declarations taking note

3.9. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom involvement of the institutions of the 1998 agreement (Annex 1 to the Decision No X/2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor framework)

3.10. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement 3.10.1 Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on market surveillance and enforcement

3.11. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom

3.11.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on export procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom

3.12. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18 of the Windsor framework

3.12.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18 of the Windsor framework

3.13. Unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland

3.13.1. Unilateral declaration by the Union taking note of the unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom on strengthening enforcement action for goods moved in parcels from another part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland

4. AOB

5. Concluding remarks

[HCWS651]

Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council: Second Meeting

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The next meeting of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council will take place in London on 24 March 2023, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.

The meeting will be co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič.

The agenda will include:

1. Opening remarks by the co-chairs and adoption of the agenda

2. Energy

1. Electricity trading (Article 312 TCA)

2. Security of supply co-operation and working arrangements for TSOs (Articles 315 and 317 TCA)

3. EU green deal industrial plan

3. Regulation

1. MoU on financial services

2. Working groups (Article 9 TCA)

3. Intellectual property

4. UK Retained EU Law Bill

5. Bill of Rights Bill

4. Security

1. Co-operation on cybersecurity (Article 703 TCA)

2. Co-operation on counterterrorism (Article 768 TCA)

3. Passenger name records (Article 552(4) TCA)

5. Union programmes

6. AOB

7. Concluding remarks by the co-chairs

[HCWS650]

British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos Archipelago

James Cleverly Excerpts

Friday 17th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

Since the written ministerial statement made on 3 November 2022, the UK and Mauritius have held constructive negotiations on 23 to 24 November 2022, 11 to 12 January 2023 and 23 to 24 February 2023 on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago. These discussions have built understanding between the two sides, and covered issues relating to ensuring the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia; resettlement of the former inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago; strengthening our co-operation on a range of issues such as environmental and marine protection, improving security and tackling illegal activities in the region.

As agreed at the outset of negotiations, the UK and Mauritius have taken stock of negotiations and agreed next steps. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) and Prime Minister Jugnauth spoke on 14 February. The Prime Ministers welcomed the progress to date and agreed to continue negotiations, with a view to arriving at an agreement in the coming months.

[HCWS645]

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

24. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the security and human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The security situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories remains fragile. Last week I spoke with my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, and urged both sides to take steps to de-escalate and avoid a cycle of violence. We welcome the United States’ Middle East Partnership for Peace Act and the proposals for increased international funding for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

[Steven Bonnar]

Let me begin by condemning the recent spike in violence and bloodshed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and on behalf of us all I pay respect to all Palestinian and Israeli victims of conflict. The Secretary of State’s Department has acknowledged that there is a culture of impunity when it comes to crimes committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, and the SNP wholeheartedly agrees. What are the Government doing to encourage Israel to end the widespread and systematic discrimination against Palestinian populations? Will he outline any of the concrete steps that have been taken to deter land seizures, home demolitions, and the forced evictions of Palestinian people and their communities?

[James Cleverly]

The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Israel, which allows us to raise issues where we disagree. We have disagreed with settlement expansion, which we have raised directly, and we also disagree with the demolition of Palestinian homes. Our position on that is long standing and consistent. In my most recent conversations with the Israeli Foreign Minister, I raised our concerns about the speculation of settlement building on the E1 territories in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I am pleased that there has now been a moratorium on such expansions, because to do so would be damaging to the prospects of a sustainable two-state solution.

[Helen Hayes]

In February I visited Masafer Yatta in the south Hebron hills, where the Israeli Government are planning to evict more than 1,000 Palestinians from their homes. That sits alongside Prime Minister Netanyahu’s election pledge to annex west bank settlements, amounting to 30% of the territory, while Finance Minister Smotrich recently said that the village of Huwara should be “wiped out”. Has the Foreign Secretary raised those matters with his Israeli counterpart, and how does he intend to ensure that the new Israeli Government abide by their obligations under international law?

[James Cleverly]

We raise issues of settlement expansion with the Government of Israel, and I have raised with my Israeli counterpart the need for a careful use of language. I have raised with both my Palestinian and Israeli counterparts the need for all of us to try to find ways of de-escalating the tensions. At this stage, that must rightly be the priority for us all, while we continue to work with the Israeli Government on ensuring that we keep a sustainable two-state solution alive.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Five years ago, the British Government became the first in the world to endorse a concept of an international fund for Israeli and Palestinian peace. Since then, warm words have followed, but very little action. Given the desperate need for that fund right now, with the deterioration of the situation in Israel and Palestine, will the UK Government commit again to leading on that fund? Will the Foreign Secretary use the opportunity of the G7 summit in May to get other international partners lined up as well?

[James Cleverly]

People-to-people links between Israelis and Palestinians are incredibly important, and we fund projects to build co-operation, whether at Government-to-Government level, or people to people. We remain in close contact with our US counterparts about the international fund for peace. We want to ensure that it is the most effective use of funding allocated towards people-to-people links, and we will always look favourably at projects to build greater peace and co-operation. We want to ensure that anything we subscribe to, or any funding we commit, is allocated to the most effective way of bringing about that reconciliation.

[Andy McDonald]

In the west bank town of Huwara, over 400 settlers, backed by Israeli soldiers, torched Palestinian homes, businesses and vehicles, and killed 37-year-old Sameh Aqtash, in what senior Israel Defense Forces commanders have called a pogrom. Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich, who describes himself as a fascist homophobe, openly said Huwara should be wiped out. Such extremism is given licence by a lack of international accountability, so will the Foreign Secretary, if he agrees with the rule of international law, commit to banning all goods sourced from Israeli settlements illegally built on occupied Palestinian land?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said in answer to other questions, we have made it clear that the language used with regard to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories needs to be de-escalatory. It needs to be carefully thought through. Inflammatory language, as we have seen, is unacceptable. The behaviour of those settlers is unacceptable. That has been recognised by the Israeli authorities and we want to make sure that those people are held to account for the actions they have taken. We will always seek to reinforce the viability of a future Palestinian state as part of a sustainable two-state solution. The decision with regard to settlement goods is long standing and we do not speculate about any changes to those positions.

[Carol Monaghan]

I welcomed the recent joint commitment by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to reduce the surge in violence, and the Israeli Government’s pledge to halt new settlement constructions, but on the very day that commitment was signed, Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted:

“Contrary to tweets, construction and regulation in Judea and Samaria”—

the west bank—

“will continue according to the original planning and construction schedule, without any changes. There is and will not be any freeze.”

That is an indication of further violations of international law. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that whatever his diplomatic approach is at the moment, it simply is not working?

[James Cleverly]

The United Kingdom has a like-minded position alongside a number of our international friends and allies. We seek to protect the viability of a sustainable two-state solution. We raised with the Israeli Government our concerns about activities that might put that future at risk. That is not something the UK does alone; it is something we do in close co-ordination with a number of our international friends and allies. That will continue to be our diplomatic stance.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Last Thursday, a Hamas terrorist shot three Israelis in the heart of Tel Aviv, just a few streets away from the British embassy. Shooting and bombing attacks have rocked Israel for over a year now and this wave appears to be intensifying. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those attacks? What meaningful steps can he take to counter the resurgence in terrorist activity?

[James Cleverly]

The UK Government condemn terrorism in all its forms. Whatever criticism Palestinians may have of the Israeli Government, there is no justification for terrorist action. We always encourage dialogue, we always encourage co-operation and we always encourage actions that de-escalate. That will continue to be our posture with regard to Israel and the OPTs.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

The only way to permanently end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is to deliver Palestinian self-determination and preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity through a peaceful two-state solution. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department remains committed to achieving that solution based on 1967 borders and the recognition of Palestine as a state?

[James Cleverly]

Our position on a sustainable two-state solution is long standing. We will always encourage Israel to take actions that support that and we have the same conversations with representatives of the Palestinian Authority. We encourage dialogue, we encourage negotiation, we encourage co-operation and we encourage de-escalation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The emergence of Lions’ Den, a new terrorist group to go alongside Hamas, Hezbollah and many other Islamic terrorist groups, is clearly a threat to Israel’s security, and indeed that of the Palestinians. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of Lions’ Den and what co-operation is he pursuing with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government to combat this new form of terrorism?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will address terrorism in close co-operation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, neither of whom have an incentive or desire to allow terrorism to flourish. We will continue our close co-operation with the security services in Israel to try to ensure that Palestinians, Israelis and Brits in the region are all kept safe.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

When I raised these issues, the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and chief negotiator simply stormed out of the meeting. Does there come a time when simply raising issues is not enough?

[James Cleverly]

It is better than not raising them, I would suggest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

As we have already heard, on 26 February, following the appalling murder of two Israelis, a violent mob of 400 settlers attacked the Palestinian town of Huwara, killing one, injuring hundreds, and burning buildings and cars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, a far-right Minister in the Israeli Government called for Huwara to be wiped out. That shocking incident is part of the deteriorating situation in the occupied west bank and the wider problem of settler violence, for which too often no one is held to account. Again, will the Government press the Israeli authorities to condemn and crack down on these shocking incidents of settler violence?

[James Cleverly]

There has been condemnation of those actions within the Israeli system. We are always clear that where there is lawbreaking, authorities should take action. Within the Israeli system there has been recognition of the action being illegal and provocative, and therefore we will continue to work with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to find ways of de-escalating the situation and striving for peace, and for what ultimately is in the best interests of Palestinians, Israelis and the region: a peaceful and sustainable two-state solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

In February we welcomed the moratorium on new construction in settlement areas, as the Foreign Secretary has described. As we heard, that was followed by an immediate and blatant breach of trust by the Israeli Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary says that it is better to raise issues than not, but how does he measure success in raising them, because we see absolutely no evidence of success?

[James Cleverly]

I do not think it is news to anyone in the House that the situation in Israel and the OPTs is complicated and long standing. We are not the only country in the world that raises these important issues, and we can continue to do so because we have a strong working relationship with both the Government of Israel and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority—as I said, I had conversations with both very recently. We will continue to work at what we think is in everyone’s interests: a sustainable two-state solution. We will not be fatalistic about it. We will not give up just because it is difficult. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should walk away just because it is a long-standing challenge, that is up to him. We will not abandon the Israelis or the Palestinian people. We will continue working for a sustainable two-state solution.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

2. What progress his Department has made in helping to ensure that girls around the world have access to 12 years of quality education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. Whether he is taking steps to seize and repurpose sanctioned Russian assets to assist the reconstruction of Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The simple principle is that Russia should pay for the harm and damage that it has caused. We must ensure that any proposals are robust, safe and compliant with domestic and international law, and we will of course consider all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage and harm it has caused.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The UK Government have frozen Russian assets, but the EU has already set out a plan to shift such assets into a fund to help to rebuild Ukraine, and Canada has already passed a law to do the same. What is stopping us? Why can we not do the same?

[James Cleverly]

Both those projects are still in train; neither has come to a conclusion and no country has liquidated frozen assets. As I say, anything that we do needs to be in complete compliance with both domestic and international law.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Reconstruction of Ukraine will also require rehabilitating and helping women. In the wake of what we have done on preventing sexual violence in conflict, what steps will we now be able to take to help those who have been victims of sexual violence?

[James Cleverly]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area for many years. I am proud of the fact that the UK has been at the forefront of the campaigns for preventing sexual violence in conflict. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad organised a conference on this very issue last year. We must ensure that the perpetrators, the facilitators and those ordering this brutality are all held to account, and we will work with our international partners to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Ukraine’s 2023 budget alone has a $38 billion gap, and the cost of the damage done to critical infrastructure runs into the hundreds of billions. There is one party responsible: Russia. We support the Government’s plans for a reconstruction conference this summer, but we cannot have any dragging of the heels in making Russia foot the bill for its barbarous war. We have heard about other international examples, so when will the Foreign Secretary set out a clear plan to seize—not just freeze—Russian state assets and repurpose them?

[James Cleverly]

The sad but simple truth is that it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman’s question implies. The fact is that there have been conflicts around the world before and there have been perpetrators before, but there has never been a seizure of assets. As I say, we need to ensure that we are compliant with both domestic and international law. We will look carefully at the proposals being explored and tested by our close friends and allies, but I can reassure him and the House that we will ensure, working in close co-operation with our friends internationally, that Russia pays for the brutality that we are seeing in Ukraine.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to support those affected by the earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ role in Iran’s internal repression and activity in the region.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The UK will continue to hold the Iranian regime, including the IRGC, to account for its repression. We have imposed sanctions on the individuals involved in the repression of women in Iran, and we continue to sanction the IRGC in its entirety.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but the evidence of the IRGC’s brutality in Iran, particularly towards women, is clear. The evidence of its wider malign influence in the region is clear. Likewise its links supporting Russia and its reach to Europe, including threats on these shores. How much more evidence do he and the Government need to see before they do what I have asked many times in this Chamber and proscribe the IRGC?

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. Where it is involved in illegal activity, our security forces and police take action, and I commend the action they take. We do not routinely discuss future designations and sanctions, but we will always take actions that protect the British people and British interests and that deter malign activity.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), I have repeatedly come to this Chamber to ask about proscribing the IRGC, which is widely recognised on both sides of the House as a bunch of clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who particularly enjoy torturing and murdering women. I suspect the Foreign Secretary agrees with us, so why does he not take the final step and proscribe the IRGC?

[James Cleverly]

The actions this Government take with regard to the IRGC are to deter its malign activity within its own borders, within the region and here in the UK and to protect British citizens, including dual nationals, and British interests overseas. We will always act in accordance with those principles. As I say, the UK Government do not routinely speculate on future designations.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of Argentina’s decision to withdraw from the 2016 joint communiqué on the Falklands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

Yesterday I set out how the Government will ensure that the country remains safe, prosperous and influential. In San Diego yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister, alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, announced that we will deliver a multi-billion-pound conventionally armed but nuclear-powered submarine capability to the Royal Australian Navy.

Last month we negotiated the Windsor framework for Northern Ireland with our European Union colleagues, and last week at the UK-French summit we struck a deal that will help to stop the boats bringing illegal migrants to the UK.

On Ukraine, the UK stands ready to provide a further $500 million of World Bank loan guarantees to cover the cost of vital Government services. We are accelerating delivery of our £2.3 billion-worth of military aid and Challenger tanks and will keep—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Matt Vickers.

[Matt Vickers]

On behalf of the people of Stockton South, I offer our deepest condolences to the families of victims of last month’s devastating Turkish-Syrian earthquake. I was glad to see the Government’s fast response in sending humanitarian aid, but can my right hon. Friend ensure that the UK will assist both Syria and Turkey in elaborating strategies to prevent any future natural disaster from having such a devastatingly high fatality rate?

[James Cleverly]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Development Minister, who travelled to the region shortly after the earthquakes, keeping a close eye on the swift financial and technical response we deployed. I can assure both my hon. Friend and the House that we will continue to pay close attention to the humanitarian need as a direct result of the series of earthquakes in Turkey and Syria.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, allies in the US and EU have moved to ban TikTok from Government phones, but the UK Government’s response is to say that it is a personal choice. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify whether the Government will recommend a Government agency ban, or whether the UK will be behind the curve again?

[James Cleverly]

As it is a security matter, this issue is taken up by the Security Minister, which is a Home Office competency.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

T3. Last week, the UK warned that the regime in Tehran is now dangerously close to weapons-related activities, after Iran was caught enriching uranium to 83.7% by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Considering that Iran has systematically escalated its nuclear activities in the face of diplomatic efforts, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has now come for a snapback in sanctions, as enshrined in the joint comprehensive plan of action?

[James Cleverly]

We continue to work closely with our international partners and the leadership of the IAEA on Iran’s nuclear activities. Our position is clear: it is unacceptable for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon technology. We will continue to work with our international allies to prevent that from happening.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for aid match. The Government funding rounds for UK Aid Match and the Gavi and Malaria match funds ended in 2023 and totalled £377 million, which represents just 0.3% of UK overseas development assistance. When will the next round of aid match be announced, how much will be announced and will the Government increase the percentage of ODA that is aid matched?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

T5. The behaviour of Iran is increasingly concerning, particularly that of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) said earlier. What more will my right hon. Friend do, particularly by working with our allies, to ensure that we attack that threat head on?

[James Cleverly]

We have sanctioned individuals and entities in response to their malign behaviour, including the sanctioning of the IRGC in its entirety. We continue to work very closely with our international allies and friends in the region to deter Iran and the IRGC from further such actions.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

T7. I was in Ukraine two weeks ago, where I heard stories of horrific war crimes by Russian forces against the Ukrainian people, including sexual crimes and rapes of children as young as four and of women as old as 90. What are the Government doing to ensure that a special tribunal is set up for the crime of aggression?

[James Cleverly]

We continue to work with the International Criminal Court on ensuring that it is able to bring people to justice. We are working closely with our friends internationally to look at what other legal vehicles we may need to ensure that everybody—from perpetrators and facilitators right up to the decision makers in Moscow—is held to account for the brutality and perverse actions taken by Russian troops in Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

The abduction, so-called re-education and illegal adoption of 6,000 Ukrainian children is an act of genocide. So far, the UK has sanctioned only two Russian governors who are complicit in that activity, which has clearly been learned from China in Tibet and Xinjiang. Will we now back the Avaaz campaign and sanction the further eight responsible individuals, including the directors of the so-called boarding houses for Ukrainian children?

[James Cleverly]

The abduction, forcible deportation and—to all intents and purposes—kidnapping of Ukrainian children is a terrible and perverse act. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we will not rest until the people who are involved in that are held to account. She will know that we do not routinely discuss future sanctions designations, but I can assure her that, with our international partners, we look very closely at that terrible state of affairs.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

T9.   A loophole in the sanctions regime means that Russian steel is rolled in countries such as Turkey and then imported to the UK. The Foreign Secretary will know that the UK is the only country in the G20 where steel production is declining, and our domestic steel production is essential to our support for Ukraine. Will he follow the lead of the EU, which is closing the loophole in the regime, and tell us when the UK will also close the loophole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

The Ukrainian economy is suffering immeasurably because of the war imposed by Russia. One of the things that would help the Ukrainian economy now and post conflict is more joint ventures with western multinationals, which help with not just economic growth but governance reforms. What steps are we taking to help Ukrainian companies to partner with western multinationals?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes the right point. As well as ensuring that the Russians who have violated Ukraine repair the damage they have caused, there will be a need for a long-term relationship to rebuild the Ukrainian economy. UK Export Finance will help British-based companies to help Ukrainians rebuild their homeland once we have helped them to successfully defend themselves against this invasion.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

For the past 15 months, my team and I have been battling to bring five British children who are in hiding in Kabul to safety. Their British father was blown up by the Taliban. Their Afghan mother will not be granted a visa by the Home Office and they are too young to travel alone. Neither the Foreign Office nor the Home Office are responding to my correspondence on this case. Please will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers grant me an urgent meeting, so that we can bring this family to safety?

[James Cleverly]

I will look into the point that the hon. Lady has made about her correspondence not being responded to, and I will—[Interruption.] I will, of course, take the opportunity to meet with her to find out the situation. As she knows, we do not have a consular presence in Afghanistan, but our consular teams in neighbouring countries provide remote support for British nationals overseas.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Earlier in this session, we heard about the importance of respecting self-determination when it comes to the future of the Falkland Islands. Can my right hon. Friend update the House with regard to consultations with the Chagossian people on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend Lord Goldsmith had a meeting with representatives of the Chagossian community. We will ensure that, as far as we can, we keep those lines of communication open.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On 25 January, in the urgent question on whether the Government had assisted the Wagner Group in circumventing UK sanctions, I asked the Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), how many exceptions and waivers to the rules there had been over the past two years. The Minister said that a letter would be sent to me. It is now 14 March, so will the Foreign Secretary ensure that that letter is sent to me?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that issue to my attention. I will find out why there has been such a protracted delay, and ensure that he gets a response in good time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Whether China is a threat, a challenge, an opportunity or all of the above, the UK’s response to it will surely be enhanced by better Chinese language skills. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he is doing what he can with colleagues in Government to improve the UK’s capacity in that regard?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

AerCap is the largest provider of commercial aircraft in the world and, after the imposition of sanctions, it required a number of leased aircraft in Russia to be returned. That has not happened; instead, those aircraft have been re-registered in Russia, and continue to fly and operate. I know that there is a court case on the issue of loss with the insurance industry, but do the Government consider that to be an example of sanctions evasion?

[James Cleverly]

It is very difficult for me to come to an assessment based just on the points made in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am more than happy to look at the matter in more detail, if he will write to me about it or catch me privately. As I say, with regard to the legal action, he will understand that the Government cannot comment while that is ongoing.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I recently visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and what I saw made a deep and lasting impression on me. Does the Minister agree with me and with former Israeli ambassador Ilan Baruch, whom I met yesterday, that the UK and others must stop giving Israel impunity for its illegal actions under international law and again become serious and active players for peace?

[James Cleverly]

I assure the hon. Lady that we want nothing more than peace in that region. I have visited the OPTs and have met representatives of the Palestinian Authority and Israelis. Of course, it is in everybody’s interest that we have peace in the region: it is in the interests both of Israelis and Palestinians and of the wider region. That will continue to be at the heart of UK foreign policy in the region.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the many pieces of correspondence I have had from the Foreign Office regarding the death of my constituent’s son abroad—the many parliamentary questions and binary interactions across this Chamber. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me to discuss the finer points that will allow my constituent closure in this case?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

British nationals Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof still remain incarcerated in Iran. What is the Foreign Secretary going to do to bring them home?

[James Cleverly]

I assure the right hon. Lady that we continue to make every effort to support British dual nationals incarcerated in Iran. This remains an ongoing piece of work, and she will understand that it is not always possible, or in the best interests of the individuals, for us to go into details. However, I assure her that it remains a priority for the UK, and is one of the reasons why it is important that we maintain a bilateral diplomatic relationship with Iran.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary will be well aware of the huge demonstrations in Israel opposing the Government’s plans to control the judiciary, which will undermine the rule of law—a situation described by the President of Israel yesterday as “very serious”. Does the Foreign Secretary share President Herzog’s concerns?

[James Cleverly]

Ultimately, of course, the Government of Israel need to understand that they have a responsibility to the people of Israel. We always suggest that, when there are protests, Governments listen to why those protests are happening, and of course, we want to see Israel abide by the rule of law.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The Russell Group has co-ordinated new research, highlighting the scale of the ongoing delays in the academic technology approval scheme, which is having a detrimental impact on students, research projects and universities. These delays have already led to businesses retracting funding and PhD applicants withdrawing from UK opportunities. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues about that, and will he meet me to discuss the Russell Group findings?

[James Cleverly]

We recognise that international students coming to UK universities is an incredibly important part of our economy. That is important for our soft power internationally, and it is one of those things where the knowledge that those students take back to their countries of origin helps those countries, too. We recognise how important it is, and I will continue to work with other Departments to ensure that our international offer to students remains top quality.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The global crisis of malnutrition threatens the lives of 200 million people. Will the Development Minister look to support my early-day motion 951, which seeks to welcome the Bridgetown agenda, which will transform the mission, the model and the money in the global finance development architecture? Now is not the time for half measures.

Integrated Review Refresh

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the 2023 integrated review refresh. I smile because it is a genuine delight to see you back in this House and back in your place.

Two years ago, the Government’s integrated review set out a clear strategy on how the UK would continue to thrive in a far more competitive age. Our approach is the most comprehensive since the end of the cold war. It laid out how we would bring together the combined might of every part of Government to ensure that our country remains safe, prosperous and influential into the 2030s. The conclusions of that review have run as a golden strategic thread through all of our activities across defence and deterrence, diplomacy, trade and investment, intelligence, security, international development, and science and technology over the past two years.

Our overall analysis was right, and our strategic ambition is on track. On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller today than it has done for many years. We are meeting our obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as a leading European ally within an expanding NATO. We have strong relationships with our neighbours in Europe, and we will build on the Windsor framework to invigorate those relationships even further. We are deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific and active in Africa, and enjoy thriving relationships with countries in the middle east and the Gulf.

As I am sure this House recalls, today is Commonwealth Day, and I will be meeting my fellow Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in London over the course of the week.

We have maintained our position as a global leader on international development by pursuing patient, long-term partnerships tailored to the needs of our partner countries, and we succeed because those partnerships draw on the full range of UK strengths and expertise, in addition to our official development assistance. As this House will of course be aware, the severe global turbulence forecast in the 2021 integrated review has indeed come to pass, but events have moved at an even quicker pace than anyone could have imagined just two years ago. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and attempts to annex part of its sovereign territory challenge the entire international order. Across the world, state threats have grown and systematic competition has intensified. There is a growing prospect of further deterioration in the coming years.

Due to the far-reaching consequences for the security and prosperity of the British people that these changes have brought, it is right that I update the House on what the Government are doing to respond. In our “Integrated Review Refresh 2023”, we set out how we respond to an even more contested and volatile world. Rightly, our approach is an evolution, not a revolution. I know that the House will agree that our most pressing foreign policy priority is the threat that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine poses for European security.

The UK has provided huge quantities of military support for Ukraine’s defence. We led the G7 response on Ukraine, co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with our allies to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s Government. Thanks to the wisdom of this Government’s original integrated review, we have intensified our training for thousands of brave Ukrainian troops, who repelled Russia’s initial onslaught. That momentum must be maintained until Ukraine prevails and the wider threat that Russia and other states, such as Iran or North Korea, pose to the international order with their aggression or potential aggression is contained.

The 2023 integrated review refresh also sets out how the Government will approach the challenges presented by China. China’s size and significance connect it to almost every global issue, but we cannot be blind to the increasingly aggressive military and economic behaviour of the Chinese Communist party, including stoking tensions across the Taiwan strait and attempts to strong-arm partners, most recently Lithuania. We will increase our national security protections and ensure alignment with our core allies and a wider set of international partners. We must build on our own and our allies’ resilience to cyber-threats, manipulation of information, economic instability and energy shocks so that we remain at the front of the race for technologies such as fusion power, which will define not only the next decade, but the rest of this century.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more on Government spending commitments in his Budget statement on Wednesday, but today I can set out a number of immediate and longer-term measures that will help us to deliver on our priorities. We will increase defence spending by a further £5 billion over the next two years. That will bring us to around 2.25% of national income and represents significant progress in meeting our long-term minimum defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP. Today’s announcement of £5 billion comes on top of the commitments made by the Chancellor in his autumn statement, on top of the £560 million of new investments last year, and on top of the record £20 billion uplift announced in 2020.

Later today, the Prime Minister will announce, alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, the next steps for AUKUS, including how we will deliver multibillion-pound conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to the Royal Australian Navy while setting the highest proliferation standards.

We will provide an additional £20 million uplift to the BBC World Service over the next two years, protecting all 42 World Service language services.

We have established a new directorate in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, incorporating the Government information cell, to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and China, where it affects UK interests overseas.

We will double funding for Chinese expertise and capacities in government so that we have more Mandarin speakers and China experts. We will create a new £1 billion integrated security fund to deliver critical programmes at home and overseas on key priorities such as economic and cyber-security, counter-terrorism, and the battle to uphold and defend human rights.

We will establish a new national protective services authority located within MI5. It will provide UK businesses and other organisations with immediate access to expert security advice. A new £50 million economic deterrence initiative will strengthen sanctions enforcement and impact, and will give us new tools to respond to hostile acts. We will publish the UK’s first semiconductor strategy, which will grow our domestic industry for that vital technology, as well as an updated critical minerals strategy.

The 2023 integrated review reconfirms that the UK will play a leading role in upholding stability, security and the prosperity of our continent and the Euro-Atlantic as a whole. It underlines that this Government’s investment in our Indo-Pacific strategy is yielding significant results across defence, diplomacy and trade. Through those initiatives and many others that we have set out over the past two years, the United Kingdom will out-compete those who seek to destabilise the international order and undermine global stability. Our approach is imbued with a spirit of international co-operation and a pragmatic willingness to work with any country that does not seek to undermine our way of life.

We live in a competitive age, and the security challenges that the British people face today are the most serious in at least a generation. Time and again in our history, we have seen off the competition from countries that wish to do us no good. We were able to do so because the United Kingdom has always had more allies, and better allies, than any of our rivals or competitors. It will always be the policy of this Government to ensure that that remains the case. I commend the statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is very good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

Just over a year ago, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine marked a watershed moment for European security. In the time since, 25 NATO countries have revisited their security strategies. Germany announced a fundamental shift in its security policy. Finland and Sweden have taken the historic decision to join NATO. For a year, Labour has urged the Government to revisit the integrated review, so this announcement is overdue but welcome.

We are living in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition in a multipolar world. The interdependence of the global economy is increasingly being weaponised. There has been a blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic policy. This is a challenging moment for our security and that of our allies, and for our place in the world. The refreshed integrated review, and the decisions that it will inform, are therefore important to us all in this House. We all have an interest in the Government making the right long-term choices for our country.

Any future Labour Government will inherit the consequences of those decisions. Since the invasion, the Government have had our fullest support in providing military, economic and diplomatic support for Ukraine to defend itself, but we have pressed the Government where they have fallen short, and it is in that spirit that we approach the review today.

The original integrated review contained plenty of analysis that was sound and that could enjoy wide support in the House, but it did have serious shortcomings. It made no mention of the risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, just months before it happened. Nor did it foresee the risks of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or mention risks related to Taiwan. It had little to say about Europe beyond NATO, and it said almost nothing about the European Union, which was given one substantive reference in the entire document.

In too many areas, from the fight against kleptocracy to the importance of international law, rhetoric and ambition contrasted poorly with Government inaction or hypocrisy. Significant and regretful decisions, such as that to cut official development assistance spending to 0.5% of GNI and the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were taken before the review had even been concluded.

In security and defence, there was a clear mismatch between ends, ways and means. With threats increasing and a promise of “persistent global engagement”, the Government announced plans to cut another 10,000 troops, scrap Hercules planes and drop to 148 Challenger tanks. Those are the troops now reinforcing NATO allies, the planes used in the Kabul airlift, and the tanks being sent to Ukraine.

In the two years since the integrated review, in too many areas its promises have not matched reality. The so-called Indo-Pacific tilt has apparently been completed, but the UK’s diplomatic presence in key countries in the region, including India and China, has been cut by up to 50% over the past eight years. The review promised to maintain the UK as one of the world’s leading development actors; however, not only has aid been cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but it is now being used to prop up the broken asylum system. By some estimates, less than half of bilateral development assistance ever leaves the United Kingdom.

Rather than standing up for international law, Ministers have come to this Chamber to explain how they plan to break it. Successive crises, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, have demonstrated the vulnerability of international supply chains, but we have not seen a new diplomatic drive to reflect the shifting resourcing economy. Britain is falling seriously behind. United States chips legislation will provide $52 billion in subsidies for US chip manufacturers and the EU’s Chips Act will provide €43 billion, but the Government have put aside just £700,000 to commission a research project, and they still have not published their promised semiconductor strategy.

Today’s refresh is an opportunity to address these flaws and reset the Government’s approach. A test of the integrated review is how it contributes to making Britain secure at home and strong abroad, and that is how we will judge it.

The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support over Ukraine and reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to NATO remains unshakeable and our commitment to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is total. The review’s emphasis on building partnerships and alliances is welcome after a period of drift away from multilateralism. Britain is always a stronger and more effective force for good when it works with others. That is why Labour’s foreign policy vision is for a Britain reconnected. I am glad that the Government have been taking notes.

Nowhere has the sense of disconnection been stronger than in our post-Brexit relationship with the EU. It is good to see, on page 22, the Government finally acknowledge its importance. Labour would go further, seeking a security pact to co-operate on global challenges and keep us safe.

On China, we recognise the scale and complexity of the challenge that its rise represents and the breadth of our interests that are at stake. The initiative to improve understanding of China in government is vital, particularly given that the Foreign Office has been training only 14 people a year to speak fluent Mandarin. We need a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach to China, working with partners and allies, and engaging with China where our interests align to do so. It feels that after years of inconsistent and shifting approaches, this is at least something we can welcome.

It is good to see a new economic deterrence unit to help enforce sanctions, as is mentioned on page 48, because not a single individual or entity—not one—has been fined for breaching Russia sanctions since the invasion. Sanctions without enforcement are useless. I note the plan for a new Russia strategy, but the Government have not yet implemented all the Russia report’s recommendations.

On Iran, the Government are right to recognise the increasing threat, so it was disappointing that they opposed our amendment to create a new mechanism to proscribe hostile state actors such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is a unique and unparalleled platform, so the additional funding is very welcome. However, on defence spending, today’s announcement provides funds only for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment. That is why we welcome it, but it does not answer growing questions concerning capability gaps that weaken our national defence and undermine the UK’s NATO contribution. The National Audit Office said recently that the Ministry of Defence

“cannot…afford to develop all the capabilities set out in the 2021 Integrated Review”.

How does today’s announcement ensure the same does not happen now that the new 2023 integrated review has been published?

The reality is that the Government are dragging their feet on the big decisions. The long-term goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence sounds, I am afraid, a little bit like a hollow promise. There is no plan and there is no timetable. I can tell the Secretary of State that the last Labour Government left office with defence spending of 2.5% intact. The reality is that too much of the Government’s effort is focused on undoing their mistakes: the Windsor framework to fix the protocol they negotiated; a Franco-British summit to repair relations damaged by his predecessor’s clumsy diplomacy; a £16.5 billion investment in defence swallowed up by a blackhole in the budget they mismanaged; removing the Chinese state’s role in our nuclear power industry, after the Government invited it in in the first place; and trying to strengthen our leadership in international development after the Government squandered it.

We welcome this refresh, but we will continue to provide robust scrutiny where necessary to ensure that our country’s foreign policy and defence systems are secure for the next generation.

[James Cleverly]

I am not a religious man, but I understand that there is a phrase in the Bible about how there is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents, and it is really good to hear—[Interruption.] As I say, I am not a religious man, but I am joyful that those on the Labour Front Bench have finally, perhaps kicking and screaming, come to such a realisation.

Let us take official development assistance. At its lowest point, this Government are still spending a larger proportion of GDP on ODA than at the highest point under the Labour party when it was in government. I remember when the Russian state was instrumental in poisoning British citizens and the leader of the Labour party at the time was saying that we should share our intelligence with the very state that was poisoning British people. I am now glad, finally, to hear a commitment from the Labour Front Bench about maintaining the nuclear deterrent and about support for NATO. It is interesting that we are being criticised for getting defence spending to 2.25% of GDP with a commitment to 2.5% of GDP, because I hear no such commitment formally from the shadow Defence team.

The simple truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman made a number of points about what Labour would do differently, and then said that, broadly, he agrees with this strategy. I am glad that he agrees with the strategy, because we have been working on this, we have been implementing the 2021 integrated review and we have seen the positive impact it has had on our relations in the Indo-Pacific. The signing of the FCAS—future combat air systems—agreement between Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom is testament to that, as is the fact that the carrier strike group’s maiden voyage was to that region. The fact that we are seen absolutely at the forefront of the international support to Ukraine in its self-defence against Russia’s invasion is also testament to that.

This Government will always be an internationally focused Government. We will always make sure that we act in close concert with our international partners and we will build greater partnerships around the world. That is what this refresh is about. It builds on the work of the original integrated review, and I am very proud that we have put it in the public domain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

It is a joy to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome much of this pragmatic refresh, and it is good to see recommendations by the Foreign Affairs Committee embraced, such as making resilience a key pillar, the Mandarin capability, the criticality of critical minerals, deterrence diplomacy, and the importance of science and technology. However, the threat of China cannot be seen primarily as an economic one, because that is to fail to recognise that it is trying to undermine our security and sovereignty. The asks are: greater resolve when dealing with transnational repression. That means shutting down illegal Chinese police stations, and closing down the Iranian regime’s cut-outs that are operating in London and across our country.

I welcome the creation of the National Protective Security Authority to tackle techno-authoritarianism, but that is support for the private sector. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept my amendment on support for public sector procurement when the Procurement Bill comes forward in a couple of weeks. Finally, the Government rightly talk about the reconstruction of Ukraine in the refresh. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to using frozen central bank funds? The Government seem to claim that we do not have the law in place to do that, or that it is not legally tested. Tell us what law change is needed, we will make it, and let us test it in the courts.

[James Cleverly]

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee highlighted a number of important areas, and I commend her and the Committee for the work they have done in putting forward ideas. We always take those ideas seriously and, as she recognises, it is no accident that some of the conversations and thinking that her Committee has put forward are woven into this report. We always listen to constructive feedback from colleagues, whatever side of the House they come from.

We are conscious that the threat from Chinese activity is not just in the economic sphere, and I assure my hon. Friend that on our security—not just economic security —we are thinking across a full range of threats and risks. We must also recognise that there is the need and opportunity to engage with China in areas where we can work more successfully. I assure her that protecting ourselves against risks in that economic sphere will not be limited just to the private sector—we will of course look to give advice to the private sector, and more broadly, and I assure her that we will continue to think across the whole range of threats and risks.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Mr Speaker, while the Deputy Speaker is still in the Chamber, may I too welcome her back to her place? It is nice to see you here, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. There are clear things to welcome in the review, and I think everyone can say that funding for the BBC World Service is a good move. Measures to tackle and counter hostile information and manipulation are things we should be doing, and it is good to see them in the report. It is sensible to develop more expertise on China, although there are gaps in the strategy. It is painfully obvious that we need a reassessed Russia strategy, and it is important to come forward with that in detail. Support for Ukraine must be ongoing, and I repeat the call for frozen assets to be used in the rebuilding process.

The Secretary of State also needs to reflect on where his golden thread has frayed. The Government were flatfooted in the crisis over Afghanistan, and there is still the issue of British Council workers. What lessons have been learned for the future from that debacle? What are his ambitions in rebuilding with the European Union, and where is the detail on dealing with the global climate crisis? It is barely mentioned in the documents. International aid should not be used as a trade lever, yet that is still part of the UK Government’s plans. Increased military spending needs more detail. When will that come to the House? Security expert Edward Lucas has warned:

“Britain’s military cannot sustain a global role”,

describing UK armed forces as a

“clapped-out army, serious problems with…our naval vessels, and an air force short of planes and pilots.”

The presence of nuclear weapons in NATO countries did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine. Why would spending more on new nuclear be a good idea now? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that spending in conventional areas would be better than wasting on new nuclear, or has the £5.5 billion shambles of the Ajax tanks procurement left the Government afraid of that kind of investment?

[James Cleverly]

On who will ultimately pay for the terrible damage across Ukraine, it is absolutely right that the aggressor pays. We will work closely with our international partners to make sure that those who cause the damage repair the damage. The exact vehicle for doing so will be discussed and decided internationally, because it demands an international response.

On the nuclear deterrent, the hon. Gentleman has very much drawn the wrong lessons. He says that NATO having nuclear weapons did not prevent Russia attacking Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal. It was Russia’s failure to abide by the commitments made in the Minsk agreement—[Interruption.] He says it did not stop it invading Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. I can draw him a map if it helps. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Our nuclear deterrent is absolutely the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence, and the UK will always abide by its commitments to its friends and neighbours in the region. We will ensure the standing we currently enjoy as one of the most significant contributors to the Euro-Atlantic defence relationship is maintained and enhanced, in terms of both our nuclear deterrent and conventional means.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Defence posture matters. If we want to play a role on the international stage, then our hard power counts. We have to be honest. The last integrated review saw a swathe of cuts to our land, sea and air assets, which I think many in the House hoped would be reversed today. Page 8 of the review summarises the threat:

“There is a growing prospect that the international security environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond. The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in decades”.

We are sliding towards a new cold war and threats are increasing, yet here we are staying on a peacetime budget. My right hon. Friend has two days before the Budget is announced. Please, can we move to 2.5% of GDP now?

[James Cleverly]

We committed to 2.5% of GDP as a sustainable baseline. We announced the additional £5 billion to address the immediate impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As I said, that is on top of the £20 billion uplift announced in 2020 and the over half a billion pounds of new investment announced last year. We will continue to work with our international allies to ensure our collective defence posture is one that genuinely deters aggression against NATO and its member states. We have been successful in doing that, but we will, as this document has done, assess the likely and possible threats and make sure that our defence posture aligns with them.

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

Having ambition and slogans such as “global Britain” are fine, but without resources behind them they are pretty meaningless. Between 2010 and 2021, the Government cut the defence budget by 16%. A £5 billion increase in the defence budget was announced today—the Prime Minister is trumpeting it all over social media—but the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee, on which I sit, that he needed 11% just to stand still. It is interesting that he is not here to defend it. Can I ask about the £5 billion? Is the £3 billion for the nuclear deterrent new money or part of the existing £10 billion already put aside for the deterrent? If that leaves £2 billion additional expenditure, that is a long way from the Defence Secretary’s claim that we need 11% just to stand still.

[James Cleverly]

The Secretary of State for Defence was just at the Dispatch Box welcoming the money.

[Mr Jones]

Where is he now?

[James Cleverly]

He has gone to Japan, with which we have recently signed a defence agreement for the next generation of fighter aircraft. The slightly childish and raucous calls from the Opposition Benches would have more impact if it were not for the fact that on the Government Benches we are getting on with building those international defence relationships that will keep us, our neighbours and our friends right across the globe safe.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I very much welcome the commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, and the recommitment with our American and Australian allies to AUKUS. Will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be absolute alignment of our defence and foreign policy positions, to ensure that global Britain delivers in the way that it must for our own freedom and that of our allies?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why we have moved to integrated reviews, recognising that defence, diplomacy, international development and trade policy are all interwoven. To have a truly effective international posture, all those functions of government need to go hand in hand, in close co-ordination with non-governmental organisations such as the BBC World Service. That is why we had the integrated review in ’21 and the integrated review refresh today. I assure him and the whole House that we will continue to work in close co-ordination across Government to deliver on it.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome what I heard was the recognition that when it comes to China we need to do far more to defend our values, while recognising that there are global public goods that we need to work on together, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation in the Pacific and global development. Since the last integrated review, the so-called “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific has entailed £3 million extra in FCDO staff, three extra British high commissioners in the Pacific, two extra warships and less than 1% of the MOD headcount. That it not a tilt but a glance in the right direction. Could the Foreign Secretary tell us how big the package will be to finance the tilt needed to an area of £4.3 billion people?

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Gentleman seems have embedded in his question the idea that our posture to the Indo-Pacific is a one-off event. It is not; it is a permanent recalibration of our foreign and defence policy. My first set of bilateral visits as Foreign Secretary was to Japan, South Korea and Singapore. The Defence Secretary is flying to Japan at the moment to build upon the agreement that we have made between the UK, Italian and Japanese Governments. We have made a long-term commitment that is being resourced. The carrier strike group’s main voyage to the region is building towards what is a permanent recalibration of our international focus, to recognise that the centre of gravity of world affairs is moving eastwards and southwards. We are responding to that.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s crystal-clear commitment that from 2025 we will spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence. I will be interested to know whether Labour will match that. Part of that spending, referred to in the document, is the AUKUS programme, which will be a world-class collaboration between the United States, Australia and us. Does he agree that that not only will help deter Chinese expansionism in the Pacific, but is a perfect example of global Britain?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. When I was running through the list of things that underpin our Indo-Pacific focus, I did not mention AUKUS, because I know that the Prime Minister will do so extensively later on today. My right hon. Friend asked whether I think the Labour party will match that commitment of 2.5% on defence spending. I say no, for two reasons: first, no shadow Defence Minister has made such a commitment; and secondly, the Labour party will not be office in 2025—we will.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

We have faced our most perilous moments since the second world war and the height of the cold war, and we have seen a clear strategy from Russia, China and Iran to undermine democracy and western values. What we have before us today is a strategy that does not give any sort of signal or sign to Russia, China or Iran that we are serious about taking them on. We need to do what it takes. The Government, and this Parliament, need to decide that and do what it takes. Instead, what we have today is a paltry £5 billion—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he wanted £8 billion to £11 billion. Back in November, when he was asked about inflation by the Defence Committee, he argued for an increase of £8 billion over two years. Here we have got £5 billion, which does not even cover the inflationary part of the cost. It is an absolute nonsense and the Government should be ashamed of themselves. They are letting down this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I struggle to find a question among that stream of consciousness, but the simple truth is that the Secretary of State for Defence was at this Dispatch Box only few minutes ago welcoming this announcement. The hon. Gentleman says £5 billion is a “paltry” sum. I was just reminded by the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), that that sum is larger than our budget for prisons. The hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards public money demonstrates the classic problem with the Opposition; suggesting that £5 billion is an insignificant sum demonstrates a blasé attitude towards public expenditure, which is sadly the hallmark of the Opposition.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the refresh, which makes the country stronger today. Many of my constituents are concerned about the rise of China. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that China is one of the greatest challenges we will face in the 21st century? Will he confirm that we must build on our relationships in the Indo-Pacific, not just with our existing friends, such as Australia, India and Japan, and that we must find new friends and allies to strengthen our hand?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is right that it is important for us to build on our existing friendships and develop new ones in the Indo-Pacific region. Those friendships and partnerships are a good thing in and of themselves, not just in response to China’s activity. He is also right that China has demonstrated a range of behaviours that we oppose. I have raised those directly with representatives of the Chinese Government, so it is right that this review looks carefully at our relationship with China, those areas where we need to defend ourselves and our partners, and those areas where we need to work more closely with them.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a fine, glossy brochure, but we have waited an awfully long time and there is not a lot in it. The harsh realities are that at a time when inflation is denuding the defence budget in the way that it is, and when the Euro-Atlantic posture of the United Kingdom needs to redouble more than ever, the United Kingdom has committed itself to the Indo-Pacific. We have a war in mainland Europe and the response is £5 billion. It is not serious, especially not when £2 billion of that is to replenish stocks, which is non-discretionary so not a policy position, and the other £3 billion is for nuclear. Why is there always money for nuclear?

[James Cleverly]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman why there is always money for the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence posture; it is because it is the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence posture. When he starts to talk about expenditure on the armed forces, my heart goes out to those brave men and women in our British armed forces stationed in Scotland, who pay more tax than any other members of the armed forces in the country.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I very much welcome the review that my right hon. Friend has announced today. He spoke about the relevance of the critical minerals strategy. May I highlight something for him to take back to other Departments that work alongside his? We all recognise the lessons to be learned from our reliance on Russian minerals, and how we have had to change that, but 95% of the elements used in renewable energy—solar panels or whatever—are processed in China. We cannot escape the science, but we can ask other Departments to diversify how we do renewables. Will my right hon. Friend take back to other Departments the message that we need to look at investing in and working on things like hydrogen combustion, so that we are not entirely reliant on minerals coming out of China?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Russia’s use of energy supplies is a tool of coercion—that is something that we have witnessed. We must ensure that we do two things. First, we must wean ourselves off our global addiction to hydrocarbon energy, for the reasons that we have seen. Secondly, we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not inadvertently create a dependency on any one other country, particularly China. Our critical minerals strategy will bear that in mind. It is clear from conversations I have had—for example with leaders of the countries in Africa from which these minerals are mined and shipped to China for processing—that it would be better for them, for us and for the world if more of that processing were done on the continent of extraction rather than on the other side of the world.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

The integrated review refresh recognises the challenge from Iran, which has been behind 15 kidnap and assassination attempts in the UK since January last year. The Foreign Office is widely understood to be blocking attempts to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that is true? Given the seriousness of the threat, can he explain why we have not yet proscribed the IRGC?

[James Cleverly]

We respond to the threats posed by Iran in the region, against people in the country and internationally. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the numerous attempts that have been made on the UK mainland; I pay tribute to our security services and our policing services for preventing a number of attempted attacks here. The decision whether to sanction or proscribe is always one that we discuss across Government. Any decisions on future designations or sanctions will be made across Government, and I am not going to speculate on what future actions this Government may take.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

The velvet glove of diplomacy must cover the iron fist. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that even 2.5% of GDP on defence will simply not be enough to give the Foreign Office the support it needs to do its job?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the close working relationship between defence, diplomacy and international development. I can assure him that the Defence Secretary and I, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in close co-ordination to make sure that the money we spend defending our nation and defending our interests overseas is used most effectively. That will always underpin the decisions that we make. I recognise my hon. Friend’s desire for greater spending on defence, but ultimately we need to ensure that we protect the public purse in a way that protects our interests and values.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The 2015 strategic defence and security review estimated that the Dreadnought acquisition programme was

“likely to cost a total of £31 billion…including inflation”.

We have learned in the past week that the programme remains within budget. However, the SDSR set a contingency of £10 billion. How much of that £10 billion contingency is being used on Dreadnought? Is the £3 billion announced today for nuclear separate from that £10 billion?

[James Cleverly]

Future expenditure will be set out in more detail by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have said, and the ways in which the Defence Secretary will spend the money allocated to him will be set out by Defence Ministers. I have to say that I am still completely lost as to what the Lib Dems’ defence posture is. When I look back on our time in government together, I certainly cannot help thinking that if we had not had the sea anchor of the Lib Dems in coalition, we would have progressed much more quickly in securing the defence of this country.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

The extra money for stockpiles and for AUKUS is indeed welcome. The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of a challenge to the entire international order, and when we look at just two areas of capability in isolation—the size of the Army and the capability of the Air Mobility Force—we have to face the unpalatable fact that neither people nor equipment can do two things at once. Will he be working with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that our investment matches, and provides, the capability to be set against the challenges of which he rightly spoke?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this subject, and the points that he has made are points to which we listen carefully. I can only repeat that we will continue to work together closely, as we have done for a number of years, to align our foreign affairs and diplomacy posture—and, indeed, our international development posture—with our defence posture to ensure that we use most efficiently and effectively the public funds, the taxpayers’ money, given to us by the Chancellor to protect the British people and our friends and interests overseas.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary referred to a further £5 billion over the next two years, and to the commitment to spend 2.5% of UK GDP on defence. Let me ask him, very simply, when the 2.5% commitment will come into effect, and where that leaves the British Army. Will there be further cuts?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his question. The details of how the Secretary of State for Defence will spend his budget I will have to leave to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the Integrated Review Refresh sets out the broad parameters. The £5 billion brings us up to about 2.25% of GDP, which is well on track to that 2.5% commitment. As I have said, I will leave it to the Defence Secretary to give further details of the nature of that expenditure and the capabilities and equipment that it will cover.

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

I welcome some of the report, but I want to return to the issue of China, in which, as someone who has been sanctioned, I take a particular interest.

I have to say that I am somewhat confused about what the Government’s position actually is. It was the Prime Minister who, when standing for election, said:

“China…poses a systemic threat”

—there was then a backdown to “systemic challenge”—

which we would meet with “robust pragmatism”. That “robust pragmatism” means that we have sanctioned no one in Hong Kong while America has sanctioned 10; that we have sanctioned three low-level officials in Xinjiang while America has sanctioned 11, including Chen Quanguo, the architect of that terrible atrocity; and that we did not kick out the Chinese officials who beat people up on the streets of the UK. Now, however, I understand that “systemic challenge” has moved on to “epoch-defining challenge”. The document that the Prime Minister has produced today does refer to that “epoch-defining challenge”, but then goes on to use the words

“in the face of that threat”.

Does that now mean that China is a threat, or an epoch-defining challenge, or a challenging Government epoch, or even none of that?

[James Cleverly]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that in every meeting I have had with representatives of the Chinese Government, I have raised specifically their sanctioning of him and others in this House as being completely unacceptable behaviour. I have challenged them on every single occasion that I have had conversations with the Chinese Government.

I understand the desire to have a simple, short phrase or a single word to describe our posture towards China, but with a country as big, influential and significant as China, it is impossible to distil it down to a simple set of words or a phrase. That is not something we do with any other country in the world. We recognise that international relations are more complicated, so in the IR refresh there is more of a narrative than a single-word description. We want to describe the areas where we can and should work more closely with China, the areas where we need to defend ourselves and our interests against China, and the areas where we want to steer China into a different course of action. So there will always be descriptors, plural. I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for clarity on this, and he will see through our actions that we will respond robustly to China when it behaves in a way that we disagree with, but we will also attempt to steer China in a better direction.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Given the close way in which we have been working with our European allies to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is it not now time to seek a formal foreign policy and security partnership with the European Union alongside our leading role in NATO?

[James Cleverly]

I have just come back, at the tail and of last week, from the UK-France summit in Paris, and our closer defence co-operation was one of the main topics we discussed, as was our broader co-operation with the member states of the European Union on our collective self-defence, but ultimately NATO has shown itself to be the most effective mechanism for the defence of the Euro-Atlantic region. The UK has demonstrated its full commitment to NATO, and through the announcements we have made today and the previous announcements we have made, we will continue to be one of the leading contributory nations to NATO. That is the primary vehicle for our collective self-defence.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the presentation of this paper, which shows a far greater strategic awareness of the vulnerability that the whole of the west faces than we would have seen in any document just a few years ago. But is not the ghost at the feast still the money? I very much welcome his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence, but when are we going to see our armed forces restored to the critical mass that is capable of deterring the kind of aggression we are seeing in Ukraine and the kind of aggressive policies we are seeing from China? The £5 billion announced today will patch up what we should have been spending already, but it is not going to make a huge difference.

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is right to say that all defence postures need to be paid for, and that is why I am proud that we have the additional £5 billion that we have announced on top of the money previously announced in 2020. Obviously, when we are talking about expenditure as a percentage of GDP, one of the best things we can do is to grow the economy, which is why I full support the Prime Minister’s priority to grow the economy so that we can have a larger defence budget in absolute terms, because it will be a percentage of a growing economy. I highlight the fact that that is in stark contrast to the lack of commitment to a proportion of defence spending from those on the Opposition Front Bench, along with no credible plan to grow the economy. I take the point my hon. Friend makes to heart.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following his Department’s devastating international aid cuts, the UK Government cannot claim to be fully safeguarding vulnerable communities around the world?

[James Cleverly]

In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest—[Interruption.] In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest official development assistance donating countries in the world. I can assure the hon. Lady that, from the conversations I have with partners around the world, they hugely value the UK’s contribution, our expertise and the co-operation we have with them.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Many aspects of this statement are welcome, including the increases in our hard power and soft power capabilities, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that one-off increases are ad hoc, sporadic and make long-term planning difficult? What is required is a fundamental, threat-based review backed by long-term funding. To properly defend ourselves requires long lead-in times across many aspects of our defence.

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is right. We have published the integrated review refresh to set the framework for the risks and opportunities in the international sphere. Of course, we need discrete responses to one-off events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but those are within a wider framework of international posture. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is part of the journey towards our baseline of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, which is a commitment to which we will adhere.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Building on the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need an in-depth strategic audit of every aspect of our country’s relationship with China, from defence to diplomacy, technology, education and cyber-security? Will he assure the House that there will be no return to the utterly failed “golden era” strategy?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that we are looking at how China interacts with the British state, both at a Government level and in other areas, including the commercial world, the public sector and education. That is not to say that we should never, or must never, have Chinese investment in the UK, which would be unrealistic and counterproductive, but it must mean that we go into whatever relationship we have with China with our eyes open. We have to properly assess the opportunities, risks and threats, and that needs to be done across Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this is exactly how we will approach our relationship with China.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome the document’s strength and robustness with regards to Russia’s threat elsewhere than Ukraine but, following my quick reading, I am a little disappointed by how little it says about the Arctic. More than half of Russia’s navy and all its nuclear defence is in the Arctic, on which it has a 25,000-mile coastline, and most of Russia’s economic wealth also comes from the Arctic, yet only one paragraph is devoted to it. Frankly, I think the threat is quite substantial, so I am disappointed by the oft-repeated hope

“for the Arctic to return to being a region of high cooperation and low tension.”

Am I right in thinking that is more of a hope than a belief that it will actually happen?

[James Cleverly]

I have had conversations with my Scandinavian, Baltic and Canadian counterparts on the risk to the Arctic and the high north. Obviously, in a document that we are trying to make modest in page number but wide in aspiration, we have to be disciplined in how much we put across. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of that risk. The joint expeditionary force and my conversations with my Nordic, Baltic and Canadian counterparts are testament to that.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

The extra funding being made available to the BBC World Service is particularly welcome. The World Service does an admirable job of supplying news in a world of disinformation, so why did the Government decide to cut its funding in the first place?

[James Cleverly]

When the impacts of covid were felt across the world, every Government of every political persuasion had to make difficult decisions, just as we did. I am pleased that we have been able to work with the BBC World Service to ensure it delivers its services in the most efficient manner and that we are able to support it with this increase in funding.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Given that the biggest killer of our people, the most frequent breaches of our border and, arguably, the most significant impact to the integrity of our economy result from the work of overseas organised criminal gangs, why is there hardly any mention of them in this document? Where is the resource to allow the National Crime Agency to deal with threats that are felt on the streets of the Secretary of State’s constituency and mine every day?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that organised criminal gangs have an international component. This document is predominantly but not exclusively focused on state-level threats. However, I assure him that the role of international organised crime gangs is very much part of our interactions with our interlocutors internationally. We did not have the opportunity to put every single element of what we do internationally into this review, and of course a large of part of what he refers to lies within the home affairs area of responsibility. However, we liaise closely to ensure that we discuss with international interlocutors the threat posed within the UK by international criminality.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary referred to today being Commonwealth Day, but a little disappointed that there was only a passing reference to the Commonwealth, in that he is meeting Foreign Ministers from member states in the coming week. He was right to highlight the growing influence of China across the globe, which includes economic, political and security interests among many of the 56 members of the Commonwealth. How does he envisage the integrated review refresh in terms of Britain developing a modern, dynamic, refreshed friendship with many of those Commonwealth countries?

[James Cleverly]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Although we have not made many references to the Commonwealth discretely in this review, the Commonwealth is interwoven through much of what we do. The geographical nature of the Commonwealth means, inevitably, that our Indo-Pacific tilt will be delivered in partnership with Commonwealth countries, as of course AUKUS will be with Australia. This morning, I spoke to the Singaporean and New Zealand Foreign Ministers, and I have had meetings with the Malaysian Foreign Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK wants to see the Commonwealth being a meaningful, active and useful vehicle for the member states, particularly the small island states that disproportionately create the membership of the Commonwealth. I reassure him that even if this is not written down explicitly, it is absolutely interwoven throughout this document.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that soft power can often be as effective as hard power, if not more so, and that it is usually a lot cheaper? I therefore strongly welcome the additional funding for the BBC World Service, but will he go on to look at strengthening the support for other soft power projections, such as the British Council and the Chevening scholarship and John Smith Trust fellowship programmes?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend, my near neighbour in Essex, knows that he is pushing at the most open of open doors on that. I do not particularly like the phrase “soft power”, because it sometimes implies a subordinate relationship to hard power. He is right to say that the UK’s projection of soft power—I have to use the phrase as I have not thought of anything better yet—is incredibly powerful and cost-effective. He made the point about Chevening, Marshall and other scholarships. All those things, along with football, arts, theatre and so on, are incredibly powerful and absolutely at the heart of UK foreign policy.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

William Gladstone’s third Midlothian speech said that good foreign policy started with “good government at home”. We can see that in the US with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act, and even in the European Union being jolted into responding with similar initiatives. But the somewhat vague promises in the document published today of a protective security authority, an economic deterrence initiative, a critical minerals strategy and a UK semiconductor strategy leave me somewhat wanting more. Can the Foreign Secretary expand on those things? If he does not and there is no meat on the bone, we will fail to have met the moment that the White House and the Commission in Brussels have given us.

[James Cleverly]

There is a phrase, “Always leave them wanting more.” Is that not what they say? [Interruption.] Politics is show business for ugly people. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will remain, as I said in my statement, absolutely at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy to work in partnership and with partners. We need to make sure that we maintain our tradition as an open, free-trading nation, working closely with those countries that share our values and protect our interests, as we do theirs. He referred to further iterations which I have highlighted, including semiconductors and our critical minerals strategy. More details will be forthcoming, and he will see that those things are interwoven, not just through the UK foreign policy structure, but in close co-operation with our friends and allies internationally.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

A commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief was included in the last integrated review, and it is good to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the approach to working on this refresh has been one of evolution. Does he agree that the UK continuing to take a leading role in promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief across the world, and working with like-minded countries to challenge abuses, are even more important today than they were in the 2021 review, bearing in mind the increased abuses that are happening across the world, not least Russia’s misuse of religion in its attacks against Ukraine and the growing use of increasingly sophisticated technology to control, coerce and oppress people, and restrict their freedom of religion or belief?

[James Cleverly]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is right: freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for good behaviours by Government. Where those freedoms are impinged, that is typically the canary in the mine for other human rights abuses. She is right that we highlighted that in 2021, and we have not lost our commitment to it. This is a refresh—we did not attempt to cover off everything that we covered in the ’21 integrated review, otherwise the document would have been too large.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is no longer Government policy to view the aid budget as a giant cash machine in the sky, and does he recognise that where cuts have been made, they have had a tangible and negative impact? Why will he not show the same ambition to return to 0.7% gross national income for aid spending as he is showing to get to 2.5% GNI for defence spending?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman should listen when we make statements at the Dispatch Box, because we have made the commitment to get back up to 0.7%. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), we remain, both in percentage and absolute terms, one of the largest aid donors in the world.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the integrated review refresh. On China’s capabilities, as, I think, the only Mandarin and Cantonese speaker in the House, I encourage the Foreign Secretary to increase the number of Great Britain-China Centre courses, both for civil servants and for parliamentarians. On the integrated review’s assessment of middle-ground powers of growing importance, which include the three south-east Asian nations and ASEAN, which I serve, as he knows, does he agree that although our national interests are not always the same, we all share a strong interest in an open, international order, so we should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) suggested, sharply increase FCDO Chevening scholarships, British Council scholarships, armed forces’ course scholarships, and Westminster Foundation for Democracy programmes in the Indo-Pacific region to make those closer partnerships for which the review calls?

[James Cleverly]

It is incumbent on us to make sure that we understand China better. I am not fatalistic about our future relationship with China. The job of foreign affairs and diplomacy is to try to influence and improve. We certainly seek to influence China’s decisions. It is clear that we need to increase the number of people who speak Chinese and intimately understand China, which is why we have made a commitment to do so. With regard to the schemes that my hon. Friend highlighted, he is absolutely right that the more people understand us well, the better.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Some analysts believe that a war over Taiwan’s sovereignty could occur in the second half of this decade. Although the Prime Minister has voiced his wish over the past 24 hours to continue to engage with China, does the Foreign Secretary agree that conflict in that region would have devastating impacts and that we must protect Taiwan’s rights as an independent nation?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is right that a conflict across the Taiwan strait would be disastrous not just for the region but for the global economy, because of the interconnected supply chains that would be at stake. The UK’s position is long standing and well versed: we do not agree with any unilateral change of posture across the Taiwan strait and we will continue to work to de-escalate where there are tensions and to try to ensure peace in that region.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will not only help to keep us safe, but create much more certainty for the 390,000 UK jobs, many of them high paying and high skilled, in places such as Filton and Bradley Stoke, which rely on our defence spending?

[James Cleverly]

We have fantastic defence industries here in the UK. I think the reason countries are keen to work with us on projects such as AUKUS, the future combat air system and others is that internationally they recognise the huge value added to defence systems by the engagement of the UK, whether at governmental level or in the commercial sector. We value the jobs based in the UK’s defence sector, and of course this is about preserving those jobs, which are more geographically dispersed than in other sectors of the UK economy. Good value, high-paid, high-skilled jobs across the whole of the UK is something we will continue to focus on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement and welcome the Government announcement regarding the increase in defence spending—something for which I, along with many others in this House, have been asking for years. I note that the increase is in response to Russia and other global concerns and that the Secretary of State in his statement referred to the increase in cyber and technology, but it is also important to have an increase of soldiers on the ground. Is it not possible to have both cyber and technology, and boots on the ground?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point: just because new threats have emerged, as we have seen with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the old threats do not go away. We are seeing a full-spectrum attack by Russia, including cyber-attack, missile attack, tank attack and, sadly, first world war-style trench warfare around Bakhmut. We have to understand that it is not a case of either/or; it has to be both. This integrated review refresh recognises that, and I can assure him and the House that we will make sure we cover all the areas where we need to defend ourselves.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend has already said, Britain’s soft power is a strategic asset. Does he agree that it is important for two reasons—first, it gives us a strategic advantage in the world, and secondly, it gives us a platform to build relationships with allies to contain and resist the trend towards anti-democratic and authoritarian regimes around the world?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is right that the UK is proudly one of the most significant defence contributors to NATO and, as I have said, in absolute and percentage terms it is one of the largest aid spenders in the world. However, the one area where we are without risk of being contradicted is in our soft power. We recognise that, and we will continue to invest in that and to ensure that it is at the heart of our foreign policy.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

The £5 billion investment in defence spending in the upcoming AUKUS announcement offers substantial opportunities for those engaged in the nuclear enterprise and submarine-building programme, but it also makes clear the challenges we are going to face in skilling up people for that multi-generation-long programme and getting our supply chains ready to deliver on it. Can my right hon. Friend outline what cross-Government discussions are taking place now to make sure we are fit for that challenge?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just a cross-Government endeavour but a cross-society, multi-decade-long endeavour, meaning that we will need people who are perhaps currently in primary school to be developing the technical skills that will still be needed in 20 or 30 years’ time. I suggest to careers advisers around the country that advising boys and girls to gravitate towards that area of work is a very good investment, because the jobs are going to be there—they are going to be high-paid, high-skilled jobs scattered all around the UK that are going to be there for a very long time. My hon. Friend is right that this needs to be a whole-of-society approach, and that is exactly the attitude we are taking.

International Women and Girls Strategy 2023-2030

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) is today publishing a new international women and girls strategy 2023-2030.



Launching on International Women’s Day, the new strategy aims to tackle increasing threats to gender equality from climate change, humanitarian crises, conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, and recent attempts to roll back women’s rights, including in countries such as Iran and Afghanistan.



The strategy will set out how the UK will work to tackle global gender inequality at every opportunity, including combating attempts to roll back women’s rights, and work with partners around the world to do the same.



The strategy commits the FCDO to involving its entire network of high commissions and embassies around the world to deliver the strategy. This will include UK heads of mission developing plans and commitments specific to their host country and raising the most pressing issues with their host Governments. The UK will also develop an ambitious new research offer to help the UK and its partners make investment decisions.



The FCDO is also increasing support for women’s rights organisations and movements, recognising their critical role in advancing gender equality and protecting rights, and amplifying grassroots women’s and girls’ voices.



In addition, the strategy commits the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to at least 80% of its bilateral aid programmes having a focus on gender equality by 2030.



The strategy will be guided by five principles:



We will stand up and speak out for women’s and girls’ rights and freedoms on the global stage and in our bilateral relationships.

We will embolden and amplify the work and voices of diverse grassroots women’s organisations and movements, championing their role as critical agents for change.

We will target investment towards the key life stages for women and girls to maximise our effectiveness and secure lifelong and intergenerational impact.

We will act for and with women and girls impacted by crises and shocks, including conflict, global health, climate change, violence, food insecurity and malnutrition, and the resulting humanitarian crises.

We will strengthen systems—political, economic and social—that play a critical role in protecting and empowering women and girls, embracing innovative financing models and technology use to secure long-term development.

FCDO will remain focused on the three thematic priorities of educating girls, empowering women and girls, championing their health and rights and ending gender-based violence. These are considered areas where challenges are the most acute, potential gains are greatest and where the UK is best placed to add value and catalyse progress.

The strategy sets out new headline goals on how the FCDO will lead this work, including by:



driving the conversation, through a major UK global campaign;

leading by example, by ensuring women and girls are at the centre of FCDO’s operations and investments;

leading through knowledge, by driving forward new expertise, evidence and research;



A copy of the strategy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS614]