Violence in Israel and Palestine

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) (Urgent question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the violence in Israel and Palestine.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

The recent escalation in violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is deeply concerning. It is the worst violence seen there for several years. As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear, this cycle of violence must stop and every effort must be made to avoid the loss of life, especially that of children. The UK offers our deepest condolences to the families of those civilians killed. Civilian deaths, both in Israel and Gaza, are a tragedy.

We urge all sides to refrain from any kind of provocation so that calm is restored as quickly as possible. As we enter the final days of the holy month of Ramadan, restoration of peace and security is in everyone’s interest. The UK will continue to support that goal. The UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and other locations in Israel. We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism from Hamas and other terrorist groups, who must permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. There is no justification for any targeting of civilians. Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence and to defend its citizens from attack. In doing so, it is vital that all actions are proportionate, are in line with international humanitarian law, and make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable. The UK has been clear that the attacks on worshippers must stop. The status quo in Jerusalem is important at all times, but especially so during religious festivals such as Ramadan. Our priority now must be an immediate de-escalation on all sides and an end to civilian deaths.

As I made clear over the weekend, we are concerned about tensions in Jerusalem linked to threatened evictions of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. That threat is allayed for now, but we urge Israel to cease such actions, which in most cases are contrary to international humanitarian law. The UK continues to support international efforts to reduce the tension. The Foreign Secretary delivered a message of de-escalation in a call to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday and will speak to the Palestinian Prime Minister shortly. I have spoken to the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian head of mission in the UK to urge them to de-escalate and to restore calm. The UK has also engaged at the UN Security Council, calling for all sides to take measures to reduce further violence and making clear our deep concern at the violence at the holy sites in Jerusalem. I am sure that the Security Council will continue to monitor the situation closely, and it is due to reconvene. UK embassies throughout the middle east are engaging with regional partners, and we remain in close contact with the US Administration and our European allies.

The situation on the ground over the last few days demonstrates the urgent need to make progress towards peace. The UK remains committed to a two-state solution as the best way to bring peace and stability to the region. I repeat: we urge all sides to show maximum restraint and refrain from taking actions that endanger civilians and make a sustainable peace more difficult.

[Layla Moran]

Ibrahim al-Masri, 11; Marwan al-Masri, six; Rahaf al-Masri, 10; and Yazan al-Masri, aged just two—those are some of the names of the children killed this week, and last night an Israeli child was added to their numbers. My heart breaks for them, and my heart bleeds for Palestine, for Jerusalem, the city of my family, for the worshippers attacked by extremists at the al-Aqsa mosque on the holiest night of Ramadan and for all innocent civilians, Israeli and Palestinian.

We cannot allow this to escalate any further. The Israeli Government pursuing evictions in Sheikh Jarrah that would be illegal under international humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva convention, and the subsequent overly aggressive reaction of the Israeli authorities, which injured hundreds, has ignited a tinderbox. Hamas then retaliated, and those strikes must be condemned too, because violence only begets more violence. The UN special envoy last night warned that the situation is

“escalating towards a full-scale war.”

The Minister will know that he does not say such words lightly, and he refers to not just Israel-Palestine but the entire region.

My questions to the Minister are these. Will the UK back Security Council resolutions condemning these attacks, regardless of what the US does? Should that fail, will the Minister work with international partners such as the European Union to issue a statement on de-escalation in the strongest possible terms today? What steps is the UK taking to stop the attempted illegal evictions in Sheikh Jarrah? Will the Government commit to supporting a new round of peace negotiations and, indeed, new elections in Palestine?

Finally, if this is not the time to recognise the state of Palestine, then when is? The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility to the people of Palestine and a fundamental obligation to uphold international law. The two-state solution promised to the likes of my family is as elusive as ever. It is time for the Government to not just say but do.

[James Cleverly]

I recognise the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks and her personal connection to both Jerusalem and the region. I can assure her that the United Kingdom will work with international partners, both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions, to encourage an end to the violence and conflict, which does nobody any good.

We all mourn; we all feel the deepest sympathy and condolences for those who have lost children and loved ones, whether they be in Gaza or in Israel. It is in everybody’s interests to de-escalate, and we will work with our regional partners, as well as the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Israel, towards de-escalation. The rocket attacks coming from Gaza cannot be justified, and we call for them to cease immediately as part of that de-escalation.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Over the past week, Hamas is alleged to have fired over 1,000 rockets at indiscriminate targets inside Israel. By the same token, Israeli aggression has also escalated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must press in this place for both sides to return to direct peace talks and that the targeting of civilians, against international law, is abhorrent?

[James Cleverly]

We have spoken with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work with them to de-escalate and bring about peace. My hon. Friend mentions the avoidance of civilian casualties, and we press for that as a priority in all instances. We will continue to work with parties both in the region and in multilateral forums—with the United States and the European Union perhaps most closely—to push for peace so that we do not have to hear of any more fatalities in either Gaza or Israel.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]]

Like everyone else in this House, I have been appalled by what we have seen in Jerusalem, Gaza and Israel. The loss of life has been terrible, and my heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones. The Labour party strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of over 1,000 rockets by Hamas, and I also strongly condemn the Israeli actions that have killed Palestinian civilians. Israel and the Palestinians generally must do everything possible to de-escalate the situation, and I would urge the Government to do all they can to prevent further conflict. The violence must stop now. Once this terrible violence has ended, we must ensure that the root causes of the violence are recognised and addressed. The eviction of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem must end. International law must be upheld, and all religious sites must be respected. At the same time, Britain and the international community must recognise the commitment to a two-state solution. Will the Government commit to doing this?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a number of areas where the UK’s policy is long-standing, particularly with regard to settlements and evictions, and I have discussed those issues a number of times from this Dispatch Box. The UK Government will continue to work towards peace—in the immediate instance to bring about the end to this particular violence, but in the longer term to secure meaningful, peaceful and prosperous two states. That remains the UK’s policy, and we will continue to work to bring that about.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Minister will know how deeply shocked many of my constituents in Gloucester and across the land are by the extraordinary images this week, during Ramadan, of the Israeli defence force effectively attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, the centre of Islamic worship in Jerusalem for hundreds of years. Although the rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza are completely indefensible, it is clear that a major cause of the increased discontent is the number of illegal evictions from Sheikh Jarrah. Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that the Government will ask Israel to cease immediately any further illegal evictions from East Jerusalem and to respect the sanctity of mosques, for without both of these steps surely an already fragile situation can only deteriorate further?

[James Cleverly]

On the holy sites in Jerusalem, which is the home of some of the holiest sites for all three Abrahamic religions, our position is that the status quo must be maintained and those religious sites must be respected. Obviously, many people have been very distressed by the images we have seen from the region. We will continue to speak directly with our contacts in the Israeli Government about evictions and settlements. As I say, our position on that has been long-standing, and I have spoken about that issue from the Dispatch Box. We call upon Hamas to immediately cease its indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel, and we call upon all actors in this to bring about peace so that we do not see any more fatalities and casualties.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on bringing this very urgent issue to the House. The SNP condemns all violence whoever perpetrates it and whoever it is perpetrated against. We send our deepest condolences to the innocents who have been caught up in this dreadful conflict. We are a friend of Palestine, we are a friend of Israel also, but above all else we stand four-square behind international law, and it is through that prism that we need to look at this latest flashover of a long-simmering injustice.

I have two points for the Minister. I agree with much of the tone and sentiment of his statement—it is worth stressing the House’s unity in this—but surely now is the time to recognise Palestine. That would give an impetus to the two-state solution. Secondly, settler goods by their very definition are illegal. The UK should not be trading in them, and if we will not ban them from our presence, can we not at least label them as such so that consumers can make a choice?

We do have influence within the state of Israel, which is a deeply complex place. The Israeli Government are not entirely in charge of events, and we do have influence. Warm words, however sincere, will not cut it. Now is the time for action.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the tone of this debate and I agree with him on that. I understand his point on the timing of recognition and the long-standing conversations about goods coming from Israel. While those issues are well worthy of debate, our priority at the moment is to bring about peace. We are focused relentlessly on that. That will be the UK Government’s priority, working with international partners to bring about a resolution to the current conflict. I am sure we will have the opportunity to debate wider issues in this place and others in future.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Many in Dudley South are shocked at the scenes from the al-Aqsa mosque and a police response that does not appear to be proportionate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lasting two-state solution requires both sides to feel secure, and that means a stop to the stream of rocket attacks from Hamas, restraint from Israeli forces and the wider population, and a reconsideration of the evictions and settlements policy by the Israeli Government and courts?

[James Cleverly]

The policing of Jerusalem and the holy sites within Jerusalem is always a sensitive issue, particularly during religious festivals such as Ramadan, and we have called and will continue to call for restraint in the policing of those areas. As I have said, our position on settlements and evictions is of long standing, but ultimately I agree with my hon. Friend that a two-state solution offers the best chance for sustainable peace in the region, and we will continue to work towards that.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]]

My constituents have watched with growing anxiety, anger and, frankly, horror the spiralling events in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The threat of forcible evictions and demolitions, restrictions on Palestinians entering the city of Jerusalem, and violence against worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque have all inflamed tensions, and we now see a terrifying escalation, with Hamas rocket attacks and Israeli airstrikes killing and injuring innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Both are unacceptable and both must end, but does the Minister agree that, if proper accountability and the rule of law had been followed in the past, we might not be where we are today, and what steps will he take now to ensure that the Israeli Government adhere to international law, end the evictions, end the discriminatory planning laws and end the construction of illegal settlements?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, the UK’s position on settlements and evictions is of long standing. We have communicated that both from the Dispatch Box and directly with our interlocutors in the Israeli Government, but ultimately our priority at the moment is to do everything we can, both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions, to bring about an end to this conflict so that the terrible and distressing images that the hon. Member and others in this Chamber have spoken about come to an end, and then we can work on a long-term, sustainable, peaceful solution for the region.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

If my right hon. Friend examines his statements today and compares them with those made by the Foreign Office 25 years ago in respect of illegal settlements at Har Homa, he will find a remarkable similarity. What has changed is the end of any hope for the Oslo peace process, built out of existence by illegal settlements, and the dominance of factions in both communities of those least committed to justice, security and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. When will the United Kingdom work to achieve real accountability for those breaching international and humanitarian law, including those indiscriminately mortaring the innocent, the disproportionate response by the occupiers to violence by the occupied, and decades of the violation of the fourth Geneva convention that has made a practical mockery of the British policy commitment to a two-state solution?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, the UK’s position on settlements is of long standing, it is clear and has been communicated here and elsewhere. There is no justification for the violence that we are seeing coming out of Gaza and the targeting of civilians. As I have said, Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself. We call on it to act with caution and care in discharging that defence, but ultimately, we are seeking to bring about a speedy conclusion to the current violence that we are seeing, and then we will continue to work—I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that this has been a long-standing aim, and it has been a long-standing aim of this and other Governments—to bring about a peaceful two-state solution so that we have a sustainable, peaceful resolution in this region.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

On behalf of the many constituents of Newport East who have been in touch with me over the last couple of days expressing their horror at events and calling for an end to the violence, may I join others here in asking the Minister to use the considerable diplomacy of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis? The murder and maiming of children and civilians cannot be the solution to the ongoing tragedy of this conflict.

[James Cleverly]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we will use our considerable diplomatic might to work both with the Government in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories through the Palestinian Authority, and with regional partners and through multilateral forums, to bring about a speedy resolution to this terrible conflict, which does no good for anyone.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:

“Our commitment to Israeli security is unwavering”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 172.]

Of the thousand rockets that have been fired towards Israel, many have fallen short and caused damage and death in Gaza. Will the Minister confirm that we are doing everything possible to support our close ally against what amount to nothing more than terrorist groups out to seek Israel’s destruction?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; the rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza do harm, not only indirectly but directly, to the Palestinian people. We call on them to cease immediately. As I have said, Israel does have the right to defend itself. We urge it, in doing so, to act with caution and to do everything in its power to minimise civilian casualties.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]]

The covid-19 pandemic has hit Palestinian communities disproportionately hard, but despite Israel’s having the world’s highest covid-19 vaccination rate, it remains the case that fewer than 150,000 Palestinians have been vaccinated in the occupied west bank and Gaza. What are FCDO Ministers and their representatives there doing to rectify that injustice?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, our main priority at the moment is the cessation of the violence that we have all seen. The hon. Lady will know that the UK has been one of the most generous donors to the COVAX vaccination programme, which has helped communities across the globe have a route out of this pandemic through the vaccination process. We are incredibly proud of the £548 million that we have contributed to that as well as our technical expertise, and that will be to the benefit of the Palestinian people and others around the world.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]]

Like all Members of Parliament, I condemn all acts of violence and the loss of innocent lives. The focus of my question is freedom of religion or belief for all. Does the Minister agree that the force used against the worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque on the 27th of Ramadan, the night of Laylat al-Qadr, one of the most important nights in the Islamic calendar, was completely and utterly unacceptable? In the light of the United Kingdom’s commitment to human rights and freedom of religion or belief for all, I know that the Minister has raised these matters with the Israeli authorities, but can he assure the House that he will continue to do so, to ensure that all individuals can practise their faith freely and openly in the holy city of Jerusalem? With that, will he ensure that freedom of religion or belief and human rights are put on the G7 presidency agenda later this year?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work he has done on freedom of religion or belief. He is right that violence against worshippers of whatever faith is unacceptable. As I have said, it is important that policing is particularly sensitive around religious holy sites in Jerusalem, and particularly so during religious festivals like the holy month of Ramadan. We have made that position clear with the Israeli authorities, and we will continue to make that argument in our bilateral conversations with them.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

After years of persecution and oppression, indiscriminate attacks, a brutal siege of Gaza, the expansion of illegal settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes, unfair trials, arbitrary detention and restrictions on the freedom of movement, and now the attack on worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque, tensions in the region are the highest they have ever been. I join others in condemning the escalation of violence and the loss of life, yet the silence of the international community is deafening, even as the Palestinians scream out for help. I have to ask the Minister: how many times will we come back to this House to debate the persecution of the Palestinians, and when will the international community finally wake up?

[James Cleverly]

I do not recognise at all the scenario the hon. Gentleman paints. This is an issue that I have spoken about from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has made a statement on this issue. The Foreign Secretary has made a statement on this issue. We are speaking with the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations regularly makes statements on this issue. This is a terrible situation, no doubt. We are working to bring it to a conclusion and we will continue to work to bring about a peaceful two-state solution, so the Israelis and the Palestinians can live and work side by side in peace. That should be, I am sure, the goal of everyone in this House and in the wider international community.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

It is clear from voices across the House and internationally that everyone is incredibly disappointed to see that violence has broken out in the region once again after the Palestinian Authority recently resumed co-operation with Israel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that continuing down the path of normalisation, rather than that of violence and escalation as we have seen recently, is the only way to secure long-term peace for the region? Will the UK Government continue to support that end?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The UK Government, at both ministerial and official level, encourage greater co-operation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. I spoke to representatives of both yesterday. I am sure I will have further such conversations in the future. We will always support closer working between the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel as part of their route towards a sustainable two-state solution.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

If the Foreign Secretary will take action on ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, why not in Sheikh Jarrah? If the UK Government will impose sanctions for the occupation of Crimea, why do they allow trade with illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? The Minister rightly condemns the killing of children in Gaza and Israel. Does he recognise that these war crimes spring from an unlawful occupation, and will he now give his full support to the investigation of the International Criminal Court?

[James Cleverly]

I do not think it is at all helpful to try to imply there is a commonality between the examples he gave and the situation we see in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The hon. Gentleman will know that where we have criticism of the Israeli Government, we have a strong enough relationship that we are able to air those criticisms, whether from the Dispatch Box here or in our bilateral conversations. We will continue to work towards a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. That remains the UK Government’s goal and that will be our focus once we have helped to bring this current conflict to a conclusion.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

In the last few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are concerned by the proposed evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, the activities outside the al-Aqsa mosque and the events that we have seen in the last 36 hours. Will the Minister reassure them, me and the whole House that the Government will use the full power of their diplomatic network to de-escalate the immediate issue and then bring both sides back to peace talks, because that is the only way that we can prevent events like this happening again?

[James Cleverly]

The al-Aqsa mosque is one of the most holy sites in Islam, and Jerusalem has the privilege of being the home of a number of the holiest sites in the Abrahamic religions. Therefore, the policing of Jerusalem needs at all times to be sensitive, as I say, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan. I assure my hon. Friend and others that the UK Government will work tirelessly to bring about a conclusion to this, so that we no longer have to see the distressing images that we have seen in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel, and that we no longer have to hear about fatalities.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Like other, I condemn the violence, wherever it comes from, and feel very strongly that those responsible for that violence should be held to account. The Minister spoke about bringing an end to hostilities. There have been four wars in Gaza since 2000 and no one has been held to account from any side, so bringing an end to the current hostilities is not enough. The underlying problem of nobody being held to account, the demolition orders in Sheikh Jarrah—these are only the tip of the iceberg. The status quo is not really the status quo. According to the UN, a third of Palestinian homes are probably under threat of demolition orders in the Jerusalem area. These issues need addressing before we can move to a two-state solution. Does the Minister agree that those engaged in violence from any side should know that there will be a day of reckoning and consequences for their actions? What will the British Government do, in line with the international community, to ensure that this happens?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is right that we should focus on bringing about a speedy resolution to the conflict. As I said, the rocket attacks from Gaza are unacceptable, unjustified and completely illegitimate. Israel does have a right to defend itself and we have made it clear that, in doing so, it must abide by international humanitarian law and make every effort to minimise civilian casualties. Ultimately, the two-state solution is, in our assessment, the best way of bringing about lasting peace for the people of the region, and that will continue to be a priority area for UK foreign policy in the region.

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

It is deeply upsetting that we are again witnessing such violence and division, especially when the Abraham accords signed between Israel and gulf partners last year showed that peace is achievable. What discussions have my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli and Gulf counterparts on how the current tensions can be de-escalated?

[James Cleverly]

As I say, the Foreign Secretary has spoken with his Israeli counterpart and will shortly be speaking with the Palestinian Prime Minister, among other calls that Ministers and senior officials have been making and will continue to make. We will use our significant diplomatic strength to be a passionate and powerful voice for de-escalation and peace, and I am sure that many others in the international community will join us in doing so.

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

The human misery on display in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Israeli cities is on show for the entire international community to bear witness to as the violence escalates. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in condemning the violence on both sides. Sometimes the most difficult conversations are required with our allies, so what is the British Government’s position on forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem, and has the position been relayed to the Israeli Government? Does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s Government are sincerely committed to a viable, two-state solution, given the plan previously cooked up with President Biden’s predecessor?

[James Cleverly]

The UK Government’s position on settlements and evictions is long-standing and has been communicated a number of times at the Dispatch Box, both today and on previous occasions. We do, of course, outline directly to the Israeli Government our position on such matters, and also do so from the Dispatch Box. We will work with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and their regional friends and neighbours, to work towards a sustainable two-state solution, which remains a priority UK foreign policy.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]]

Many of my constituents have contacted me about the recent reports from Jerusalem, and I share their concerns about the ongoing violence and unrest. I therefore welcome the Government’s strong call for calm and de-escalation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this violence is completely unacceptable and that all sides must now come together to de-escalate tensions and achieve a peaceful resolution?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ultimately, peace has to be something that is delivered by both sides, and we call upon everybody to step back from the situation and not allow it to escalate further, and indeed to de-escalate so that we can see an end to this conflict. We will work tirelessly to achieve that, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Government’s response to this and every other episode in Palestine is completely inadequate. The Palestinians have lived under brutal oppression and apartheid from Israel with the tacit consent of the west for too long, and we have heard the “plague on both your houses” song too many times. Of course we must condemn all violence on both sides, so in that spirit can the Minister tell me whether he thinks it appropriate that the UK grants arms licences that see UK weapons being used in these indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians, including children?

[James Cleverly]

The Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously, and we aim to operate one of the most robust arms export licences in the world. We consider all our export applications against a strict risk assessment framework and keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

While there is never any excuse for firing rockets on civilians, would not the Israelis sleep more soundly at night if access to all the holy sites was maintained as agreed in 1967, if free Palestinian elections were allowed in East Jerusalem, and if Palestinians were not being evicted from their homes in Jerusalem?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, the UK’s position on evictions is well known. It is incredibly important that worshippers have access to those very holy sites in Jerusalem. We have been supportive of Palestinian Authority elections and we pushed for them to go ahead, including in East Jerusalem.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

What we are seeing in the news is absolutely horrific. Many constituents have contacted me in the last few days about the violence against worshippers during Ramadan, as well as about the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah. Airstrikes on both sides must absolutely end, and I condemn this violence. As the occupying power, the Israeli Government have legal obligations that they are not meeting. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel adheres to international law?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is right to say that violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable, and as I have said, we condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza. We will continue to be a voice for calm and peace in the region and to work with international partners. At times, that includes having difficult conversations with some of our friends in the region, but we are unafraid of doing so when necessary.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The violence and the loss of life is tragic, and it needs to stop, but is it not the case that, right under the noses of the international community, Hamas has been allowed to build a terrorist city state in Gaza? It has diverted humanitarian resources into stockpiling missiles behind civilian buildings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to draw some kind of phoney equivalence between the actions and the aggression of terrorists and the sovereign right of a legitimate democratic Government to defend their citizens? I would not expect the Minister at the Dispatch Box, or anybody else in our Government, to do anything other than what the Israeli Government are doing to defend their citizens.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The military wing of Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and we have a policy of no contact with Hamas in its entirety. We completely condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, and they are the actions of a terrorist organisation. As I said, Israel has the right to defend itself, but we have said—I have said this at the Dispatch Box and directly to representatives of the Israeli Government—that, in doing so, it must abide by international humanitarian law and must do everything it can to minimise civilian casualties.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

The extent of the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem, the forced eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, the brutality against worshippers at the third most holy site in Islam and during Ramadan—this is not a clash between two equal sides. Until we discuss the root issue, we will miss the entire context and fail to recognise that one side is an occupier and the other side is occupied.

Will the Minister demand that the Israelis end all the discriminatory and illegal practices that have actually provoked these current tensions? What specifically will he do to ensure accountability for violations of international law, which have been going on for the past 50 years?

[James Cleverly]

As I say, the UK’s position on the settlements and evictions is clear. I have spoken about it from this Dispatch Box today and in the past, and we have also had that conversation directly with the Israeli Government. However, there is no legitimacy and no justification for indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Members of the Muslim community in Aylesbury are extremely distressed by recent events in East Jerusalem, describing this as a moment of deep anguish and sorrow. They want an immediate end to the eviction of Palestinians from their homes, as well as immediate and concrete progress towards a two-state solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is, in fact, the only way to deliver Palestinian self-determination, to permanently end the Arab-Israeli conflict and to preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity and, therefore, that his Department remains committed to achieving a solution based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps?

[James Cleverly]

I think that Members in every part of this House, and our constituents, will have been deeply distressed by the images we have seen from some of the most holy sites not only in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism. It is in everybody’s interest to de-escalate, to bring this current period of violence to a conclusion and, as my hon. Friend says, to work towards the long-standing UK Government position of a peaceful, two-state solution based on the lines, with agreed land swaps, through a political process.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]]

Given how hard and fast this conflict has escalated, and as we approach Eid, what will the Government do specifically to encourage Israel to guarantee freedom of worship for Muslims at the al-Aqsa mosque?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the importance, during this holy month of Ramadan, of worshippers having access to one of the most holy sites in Islam, which is something we have communicated to the Israeli Government. We will continue to work towards de-escalation, particularly at this most sensitive and religious time, and it is a conversation we have had recently, and we will continue to have, both at ministerial level and at senior official level.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In 2018, I stood in Mefalsim, in the Southern District of Israel, just on the edge of the Gaza strip, and held in my hands the remains of a Hamas-engineered rocket that had been fired into a playground of schoolchildren with one intention only: to murder mothers and children who were doing what we have the freedom in this nation to do, which is raise our kids in peace.

No right-thinking person could not be heartbroken by the horror in the holy land they see on our television screens. However, is it not the case that Hamas will not negotiate with Israel because it wants to murder Israelis and to obliterate the state of Israel off the map of the world? That is Hamas’s stated objective and position. The Palestinian people need to free themselves from being used as human shields by a terrorist and political organisation that wishes to continue to launch rocket attacks into Israel. I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to persuade the Palestinian people to free themselves from the grip of Hamas.

[James Cleverly]

The rocket attacks by Hamas, whose military wing has, as I say, been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK Government, are completely counterproductive to the effort for peace and do harm to the Palestinian people. On behalf of moves towards peace, we urge Hamas to cease these actions, because they are completely counterproductive to peace and completely against the interests of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and elsewhere.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

I am deeply concerned by the escalating tension between Israel and Palestine, and we all here condemn the violence against civilians, on both sides, be that the murderous missile attacks or the misguided attempted eviction of Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah.

Given that the missile technology employed in attacking Israeli heartlands could have come only from Iran, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is not the time to do a deal with Iran that rewards it for instigating further instability in the region, as well as violating the JCPOA—joint comprehensive plan of action—nuclear commitments and its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? Is this not another reminder, were one needed, that we must not appease this dangerous regime?

[James Cleverly]

I am not able to speak on the point my hon. Friend has made about the potential relationship between Iran and Hamas at this point. As I have said, we are working to de-escalate the situation and bring about peace. More broadly, we are seeking to bring greater stability to the region and to dissuade Iran from its destabilising actions within the region. That will continue to be a priority piece of work for Her Majesty’s Government.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

The events in Jerusalem have triggered emotive responses here in the UK, and we need only look at the protests last night to see that. My constituents and others have seen in the past that, when conflict erupts in the middle east, the UK Jewish community is targeted by those wishing to import this complex situation on to our streets and university campuses, and online. What does my right hon. Friend say to those who seek divisions between communities here in the UK? Will he join me in thanking the Community Security Trust for all the work it is doing to keep the Jewish community safe?

[James Cleverly]

Antisemitic acts and violence against the Jewish community, wherever they may be, are unacceptable. I pay tribute to the CST and others who seek to keep communities safe. In the UK we enjoy, for the most part, very good community relations. We should be proud of that and seek to reinforce it. It is important for us to demonstrate that we are good friends with Israel and with the Palestinian people, and that we are seeking a peaceful two-state solution that can see people of all faiths enjoying the peace and security they deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

Iran’s decision to sentence Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on further charges is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified. This Government remain committed to doing all that we can to secure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s return home to the United Kingdom so that she can be reunited with her daughter, Gabriella, and her husband, Richard. It is indefensible and unacceptable that Iran has chosen to continue this wholly arbitrary court case against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Iranian Government have deliberately put her through a cruel and inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to end her suffering and allow her to return home.

Since her arrest in April 2016, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has faced terrible hardship and appalling treatment. This Government have relentlessly lobbied for an improvement to both the conditions endured by Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe while she was in prison and those conditions still experienced by others, including Morad Tahbaz and Anoosheh Ashoori, who are still incarcerated. Although Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and therefore views Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe as only an Iranian citizen, that has not stopped this Government from lobbying at every opportunity for their release, and her return home to the UK. We have never been granted sight of the judicial process, or consular access to our dual British nationals detained in Iran; however, that has not stopped our ambassador in Tehran consistently pressing for her full and permanent release with senior Iranian interlocutors, most recently today, 27 April.

Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, the Foreign Secretary and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have been in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. Our ambassador in Tehran has visited Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe at her parents’ home in Tehran to reiterate the Government’s commitment to do all that we can to secure her return to the UK. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with both Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband to underline the fact that the UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything that we can to achieve that.

Since Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s arrest in 2016, we have raised the case regularly at the highest levels of Government. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Rouhani, most recently on 10 March, and the Foreign Secretary’s personal ongoing engagement with Foreign Minister Zarif continues, with their most recent call being on 3 April. That lobbying of Iranian interlocutors at every opportunity has helped to secure the release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in March 2020 and the removal of her ankle tag on 7 March this year.

As I have said, however, what we ultimately seek to achieve, and what we are ultimately working towards, is the release of all British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention in Iran, and their ability to return home. The UK continues to take concrete steps to hold Iran to account for its poor human rights record. At the Human Rights Council in March 2021, we strongly supported the renewal mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and we made clear to Iran that its repeated violations of human rights, including those of foreign and dual nationals, are completely unacceptable. The UK Government also joined the Canadian initiative against arbitrary detention on 15 February. We continue to work with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.

I assure the House that the safety and the treatment of dual British national detainees in Iran remains a top priority for the UK Government. Iran is the one responsible for putting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe through this cruel and inhumane ordeal over the last five years, and it remains on them to release her to be reunited with her family, and to release the others. We continue to stress that these second charges are baseless. She must not be returned to prison.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The whole House will be aware that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, my constituent, has been in prison in Iran for five years now; from last March, she has been under house arrest. The Iranian authorities dangled the possibility of freedom in front of her by removing her ankle tag, but then, yesterday, announced that she had one more year in prison and another year of a travel ban—effectively, a two-year sentence.

As the news unfolded yesterday, I watched with great interest as the Prime Minister talked about redoubling his efforts to get Nazanin home and how he was working as hard as he possibly could to secure her release. If the Prime Minister is watching now, I would like to ask him what efforts he has put into trying to release Nazanin in the first place, because from where I am standing I have seen no evidence on the part of the Prime Minister so far.

At the heart of this tragic case is the Prime Minister’s dismal failure to release my constituent and to stand up for her, and his devastating blunder in 2017, as Foreign Secretary, when he exposed his complete ignorance of this tragic case and put more harm in Nazanin’s way. The Prime Minister did not even arrange for UK officials to attend Nazanin’s recent court hearing, which might have ensured that she got a free and fair trial. He still has not got his Government to pay the £400 million debt that we as a country owe Iran. We MPs might be many things, but we are not naive. We cannot deny the fact that Nazanin was handed a fresh new sentence a week after the International Military Services debt court hearing was delayed. Bearing that in mind, I have a few questions to ask the Minister. I would really appreciate some proper answers from him.

Will he acknowledge that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran and is a victim of torture? In light of the recent adjournment of the IMS debt hearing scheduled for last week, what are the Government doing to ensure the debt is paid promptly? The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was working with our American friends on this issue. Can the Minister please explain what that involves and why the US has had more success in securing the release of dual nationals than we have? Tomorrow, another British-Iranian dual national, Mehran Raoof, is on trial in Iran. What link does the Minister see between development in that and Nazanin’s case and upcoming talks on the Iran nuclear deal?

The Prime Minister and other Ministers might not listen to me, but perhaps they will listen to someone from their own Benches. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said today that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran. Please, Minister—please, everyone on the Government Benches—get Nazanin released, stand up to Iran and bring my constituent home.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks and I can hear the anger and frustration in her voice. However, her anger and frustration are misdirected, because Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention are being held by Iran—it is on them. The situation with regard to the charges that have recently been brought against other British dual nationals, and indeed the sentence that has been handed down for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, is because of Iran, and it should be towards Iran that we direct our attention.

With regard to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s treatment, our priority has always been her full release and her ability to return home to the UK. The UK does not and will never accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. We recognise that her treatment has been completely unacceptable. It is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified, and we call upon Iran to allow Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe to return home to the UK and to release from detention all British dual nationals that are being held.

The hon. Lady speaks about international co-operation. Of course we co-operate with our international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran, including the United States of America and the E3, and, as I have already said, we are working with Canada on the work that it is doing on the initiative against arbitrary detention. We will continue to focus our efforts on getting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe home to the UK and the other dual nationals in detention fully released.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to the request from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for an urgent question. It is absolutely essential that we keep a focus on this cruel and inhumane treatment of a mother being held captive as a hostage and a pawn in order to get ransom money out of others and to extract diplomatic leverage. Let us keep that focus where it really belongs: on the brutal, tyrannical regime in Tehran that treats its own people as hostages and pawns. As we focus on that, can we please focus on why the regime is doing that? It is doing it for personal profit, to sow violence in the region, and in order to mask its crimes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what sanctions are going to be brought against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has so profited from this violent regime, and, now that corruption is permitted as a reason to use the Magnitsky sanctions, how that is going to be used to ensure that the regime’s pockets are emptied and not filled.

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to say that the blame lies with the Iranian regime—not even with the Iranian people but with the Iranian regime. He will understand that I am not willing to discuss sanctions designations for fear that that might be prejudicial to any future success. We do, of course, recognise that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable in a number of ways, not just on the detention of British dual nationals, but with regard to its international and regional actions, and we call on Iran to step away from the dangerous and self-destructive route that it has taken and to rejoin the international community and be a regional partner that behaves in accordance with international rules and norms.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]]

After having completed a five-year sentence, for Nazanin to be given a further one-year sentence and a travel ban is truly appalling. Let us be clear: Nazanin was put on trial on a trumped-up charge of promoting “propaganda against the system” and found guilty after a sham trial. Sadly, we are seeing a sustained failure of British diplomacy. Now the Government must demand Nazanin’s immediate and unconditional release in the strongest possible terms, so that she can return to Britain and be with her family. As the UN special rapporteur has said, it is totally unacceptable that Iran is imprisoning UK nationals, Nazanin and others, in an attempt to exert diplomatic leverage. Let us not forget that other British nationals are also being unfairly imprisoned in Iran. Anoosheh Ashoori has been held for three and a half years and says that the UK Government are not doing enough to secure his release. My question to the Minister is this: clearly the Government’s approach to date has not worked, so what are they now doing to secure the release of Nazanin and the others so that they can all come home?

[James Cleverly]

The Government work on behalf of all the British dual nationals, whether they be held in detention, open prison or elsewhere, and indeed of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe so that she can come home. The UK has had some positive impact. For example, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release on furlough and the removal of her ankle tag were in response to lobbying by this Government. We want to do more. We want to ensure that the people who are held in detention are released and are all able to return home to their families. We will continue to work hard at every level of Government to ensure that that happens.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this urgent question and on ensuring that the family of Nazanin and the imprisonment of Nazanin herself are at the forefront of our minds in this House. Iran has a dreadful human rights record, with the largest number of executions anywhere in the world and the oppression of its native people. Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic then that the United Nations Economic and Social Council elected Iran for a full four-year term to the Commission on the Status of Women? Will he therefore take that up at the United Nations to say that it is totally unacceptable for a country that suppresses women and imprisons them without proper process even to be considered to represent human rights across the world?

[James Cleverly]

The UK Government take the rights of women very seriously, and, indeed, one of the priorities as set out for our official development assistance expenditure is girls’ education. The election of countries to various roles in the United Nations is ultimately a decision for that multilateral forum, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised about Iran’s treatment of women. We call upon Iran to do the right thing, and we will continue to lobby for the release and return of British dual nationals and also on a whole range of other issues where we believe that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Chris Law.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

The SNP’s condemnation of the Iranian Government for the painfully outrageous detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is unequivocal. Iran has never followed the rule of law in Nazanin’s case and she has never received a fair trial. Its cruelty, it seems, is boundless. The precise nature of the charges and evidence in the second case remain unclear and indistinct from the first case. What confirmation have the UK Government sought on the detail of these charges and whether Nazanin will be returned to prison, or put under house arrest, as a result of this new sentence? Furthermore, it is easy to forget that Nazanin’s case is yet another matter that the Prime Minister has blundered into and made much worse with his grossly incompetent mishandling while Foreign Secretary. He cannot continue to wash his hands of this case. Will the Prime Minister be making an apology on record to Nazanin and her family, and will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office now do all that it can with the utmost urgency to undo the damage that the Prime Minister has done to secure Nazanin’s release?

[James Cleverly]

What we have seen in recent days is the completely arbitrary nature of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and of other British dual nationals in Iran. This is the action of the Iranian regime and we should not let them off the hook by attempting to divert attention elsewhere. It is down to the Iranian regime. We will continue to work to secure the release of those incarcerated and the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We are seeking detail, because the detail was quite sparse initially, on what exactly this means and we will be lobbying in the first instance to say that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not returned to prison. We will continue to push for her return home to the UK and for the full and permanent release of the others who are detained.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Iran has proudly announced that it is now enriching uranium to 60% purity, a move that puts the country perilously near the threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Given this latest provocative nuclear action, Tehran’s ongoing support for terror proxies and its detention of British citizens, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, does the Minister share my view that it would be dangerous to ease sanctions on Iran?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about Iran’s broader destabilising actions. I will not speculate as to future decisions about sanctions, for the reason that I gave to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we are very conscious that Iran’s behaviour on a number of fronts is unacceptable. It should return to compliance with the JCPOA, and that is what we are calling on it to do.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

Liberal Democrats join colleagues across the House in their condemnation of the Iranian regime’s actions. Our hearts have to go out to Richard, Gabriella and the whole family. This must feel like one step forward, two steps back. I sincerely hope that the Government are considering Magnitsky sanctions, which are surely the next step.

I am concerned about Nazanin’s current state. Redress says that Nazanin

“has already suffered severe physical and psychological impacts from the torture and ill-treatment”

and that if she is subjected to more, it could cause “irreparable damage” to her. What immediate attention have our Government directed to the Iranian regime to ensure that Nazanin’s medical needs are met in full?

[James Cleverly]

We are very conscious of the health of all those detained, particularly in the light of the covid situation. We lobby the Iranian Government hard and regularly to ensure that British dual nationals held in detention have adequate medical treatment, and we will continue to push for the thing that we are all ultimately trying to achieve, which is their full release and their ability to return to the UK.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this question and for her tenacious campaigning for Nazanin. I also thank the Minister for mentioning Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, the other dual nationals, because they, too, have families who are desperately upset by the incarceration of their loved ones.

What will the consequences be for Iran of this hostage diplomacy, other than words? We know that it does not fundamentally care what we think or say, and it has to know that there will be consequences. We have to do our part by settling the IMS issue, which, however unjustified, is being linked to Nazanin’s incarceration, and that is taking a very long time. Ultimately, what will the consequences be for Iran of continuing with hostage diplomacy? Otherwise, it is all bark and no bite.

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that, as well as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, there are other British dual nationals incarcerated. The UK Government work tirelessly to secure the release of all those people. Some of them are household names and others are less well known, but we work on behalf of all of them. I assure him that we will continue to lobby to try to secure the release of them all and that we will investigate the full range of options, but, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate at the Dispatch Box as to what those might be.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her tireless work on behalf of her constituent and other dual nationals held in Iran. It is disgraceful that they are still held. It is disgraceful that Nazanin has had another sentence imposed on her, and she ought to be released. In the many negotiations that are no doubt taking place with the Iranian Government, what other issues are raised by Iran? Is the issue of financial dealings between Britain and Iran in the past raised? What other discussions does the Minister propose to have with Iran in order to secure the early release of all the dual nationals?

[James Cleverly]

The UK does not and will never accept dual nationals being used for political leverage, so I am not going to amplify whatever claims the Iranian regime have made about them. Our message and the message that I hope the right hon. Gentleman and every other Member of the House would echo is that the Iranian regime must release our people.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2019, the Foreign Secretary visited Iran, where he raised the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe with Foreign Minister Zarif. Since then, what other discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Minister to try to resolve this and is any progress being made in each of these communications?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, we engage regularly at the most senior levels with the Iranian Government. We had diplomatic engagement to secure Nazanin’s initial furlough and the removal of the ankle tag. Our ambassador visited Nazanin at her home last week. We raise the case regularly; the Prime Minister raised it in his recent call with President Rouhani and the Foreign Secretary did so in his call to Foreign Minister Zarif. The British ambassador to Tehran has formally protested Nazanin’s continued confinement. We will raise this on every occasion where we have an opportunity to speak with the Iranian regime. We will continue to push this until all our British dual nationals are released and allowed to return home.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Last year, Nazanin’s husband Richard Ratcliffe said he feared that, if she was not home for Christmas, there is

“every chance this could run for years.”

Was he right, Minister?

[James Cleverly]

I sincerely hope that he is not right. We will continue to work to bring Nazanin home and for the release of all British dual nationals. Their incarceration is unacceptable, unjustified and arbitrary, and it must stop.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

We are strongest when we work together with our international partners. I understand that several western countries have citizens who are dual nationals and suffering a similar dreadful fate to Nazanin. Will my right hon. Friend update the House as to what discussions he has had with our western allies about how we can work together for the release of our citizens?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for the points she raises about the international nature of this situation. Of course, we work closely with our international partners —as I have said, with the E3 and the United States of America—in particular with regard to our policy towards Iran. We will work with any and all international friends and partners to bring pressure to bear for the release of their and our dual nationals in detention. The challenge is that Iran does not recognise dual national status and therefore denies us a number of the consular access opportunities we would normally have. We will continue to work to secure the release of our British nationals in Iran.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her urgent question, and all that she does to champion Nazanin’s case and get her home to her family. It is a shame that the Foreign Secretary is not here today to answer the questions himself. In Newport West, the case is personal because Richard Ratcliffe’s sister is a constituent of mine, so I was determined to speak today. The United Nations has previously ruled that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s imprisonment is unlawful and ordered Iran to release her, so what are this Government doing to work through the international community to put pressure on Iran to follow their international obligations?

[James Cleverly]

As I said in response to the previous question, we work with and will continue to work with our international friends and partners on a range of issues with regard to Iran and its destabilising behaviour, both globally and in the region.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government—or, indeed, of any previous Government—that we do, or do not owe any money to Iran?

[James Cleverly]

The legal situation with the IMS debt has been settled. It is a multi-decade-long problem, and we are investigating ways by which this can be resolved.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

My constituent Sarah McCullough is one of many who have been in touch over the years to express their concerns and solidarity with Nazanin and her family. Nazanin’s continued detention is a mark of failure of this Government, this Minister and his predecessors. What confidence can British citizens have in the ability of this UK Government to protect them abroad?

[James Cleverly]

The situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in detention is the fault of the Iranian regime. We must never lose sight of that. It has the power to release them, it should release them, and we regularly call on it to do so and allow them to return to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom gives travel advice to help to inform British travellers when they go overseas, and we have an extensive network to give support to British travellers. We absolutely do everything we can to protect our British nationals when they are overseas and when they find themselves in a situation such as the British dual nationals in Iran have found themselves in. We work tirelessly in all respects, in all cases, to support them.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) looks forward to the day she does not have to bring this case to the House, and we are with her on that. Nazanin has an extra year in prison and another year of not being able to be at home with her family. As the Minister says, this is both inhumane and unjustified, and it is squarely at the feet of the Iranian regime. Was he as surprised as I was when the United Nations, in its wisdom, elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women? That shows a couple of things, not just about the United Nations but also the fact that Iran wants to have credibility on the international stage. So will the Minister impress on the United Nations that one way for Iran to hold its position is to allow Nazanin and other dual nationals home?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend—my dear hon. Friend—makes an incredibly important point. If Iran wants to be taken seriously and to speak with authority on the international stage, it must change its behaviours on a whole range of issues, but most notably with regard to the release of the British dual nationals held in incarceration and their ability to return home to the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his update. We all share the same frustration and that goes without saying. To say that the situation is distressing is a gross understatement. While I understand the issues highlighted, it is my opinion that something must be done to reunite this mother with her child, husband and family. Is there nothing that can legally be done by the UK Government in conjunction with other Governments, such as those of the USA and the EU, and with the UN to stop the persecution of this British citizen and the desecration of this British family?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this whole House shares the frustration at the situation that these people find themselves in, through no fault of their own. We will, as I say, continue to work with international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran. We will continue to lobby Iran to change its behaviours and to come back into the international fold. One of the most high-profile and perhaps one of the easiest things that it could do is to release these people and allow them to return home.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to grant Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection to help her to resolve her case. This is the first time that this tool has been used in recent memory. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what further steps the UK is taking to help to secure Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point about the granting of diplomatic status. That sends a signal to Iran of how seriously we take the issue of our British dual nationals. This Government remain committed to doing everything we can to secure the full, permanent release of all dual nationals, including the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We constantly review what further steps we might take—as I said, that is not something I am willing to speculate about at the Dispatch Box—to secure the release of all our British dual nationals and allow them to return home.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Like many other Brits abroad, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been completely let down by this Government through a litany of errors, including the Prime Minister’s gaffe. Nazanin and her family will doubtless be experiencing serious mental health pressures and anguish at this point in time. Indeed, her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, has previously stated that the Government’s inability to secure his wife’s return is a “failure of diplomacy”. Would not the Minister agree that this further sentence proves that he is right?

[James Cleverly]

Sadly, what this sentence proves is that Iran is willing to do anything to attempt to apply diplomatic leverage, using British dual nationals as the tool. We will never accept that. We will continue to lobby for the release of all the British dual nationals. As I say, the fault sits wholly, squarely with Iran.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I join colleagues from across this House in our condemnation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s further imprisonment. Could I press my right hon. Friend a little further on Iran’s election to the Commission on the Status of Women? This is not just an empty title; it confers status and suggests a commitment to gender equality that Iran does not have. Could we not use our position on the UN Security Council, in conjunction with allies, to consider our own participation with the commission for as long as Iran remains a member?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The various functions within the United Nations are separate from each other. However, she does raise a broader point about the treatment and status of women in Iran. This is something we take incredibly seriously. We will continue to lobby for improvements for the status of women, both in Iran and globally, as part of our force for good agenda.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

The news that Nazanin will be forced to spend another two years in Iran, far from her family, is completely devastating. Anousheh Ashoori, who is also being held in Tehran in prison as a hostage, is dearly missed by his family in my constituency of Lewisham East. Over the past few days, his family have been concerned that he is showing severe signs of coronavirus. What urgent action will the Foreign Secretary take this week to ensure Anousheh gets the medical furlough he desperately needs?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she has raised and the work that I know she has done in support of her constituent. We are aware—we have been in contact, and we are aware—of the concerns about the medical situation in the prison, and we have pushed the Iranian regime to allow access of medical professionals for, as I say, Mr Ashoori. We will continue to push for the better treatment of our British joint nationals while they are incarcerated, but ultimately for their release and ability to return home.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

ODA Budget

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on reductions in the overseas development assistance budget.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The pandemic has resulted in the biggest drop in UK economic output in 300 years, and it has had a major impact on public finances; the deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. That is why we had to take the tough—but, I assure him, temporary—decision at the end of last year to reduce the official development assistance target from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%.

In spite of that, the UK will spend £10 billion on aid in 2021, making us the third largest donor in the G7 as a percentage of our gross national income. Not only that, but we will be the third largest bilateral humanitarian donor, spending at least £906 million this year, and we will invest at least £400 million bilaterally on girls’ education in over 25 countries. We will deliver £534 million of bilateral spend on climate and biodiversity, a doubling of the average spend between 2016 and 2020. We have committed £548 million to COVAX to provide vaccines for poorer countries, and we are multiplying our impact by integrating our aid spend with our diplomatic network, our science and technology expertise and our economic partnerships.

This Government’s commitment to the UK’s being a leader in development has not changed. The integrated review reaffirmed our pledge to fight against global poverty and to achieve the UN sustainable development goals by 2030, and we reiterate our commitment to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. This week’s new allocations show that we are following through with the vision that the Prime Minister set out in the integrated review. The way the UK applies our world-leading investment and our expertise must be strategic, in line with the approach defined by the integrated review, it must represent best value for taxpayers’ money, and it must deliver results by tackling poverty and improving people’s lives around the world.

To achieve this, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has conducted a thorough review of aid spending to ensure that we target every penny at the highest-priority global challenges. The Foreign Secretary’s written statement to the House last week set out how this sharpened focus of the FCDO’s aid portfolio lies behind seven strategic priorities for poverty reduction. These are: climate and biodiversity, covid-19 and global health security, girls’ education, humanitarian preparedness and response, science and technology, open societies and conflict resolution, and economic development and trade. We believe that this plan will deliver the greatest impact where it matters most.

[Mr Mitchell]

When Germany will now exceed the 0.7% target, France is now pledged to hit it and the US is increasing aid spending by $15 billion, why is Britain, chair of the G7, breaking its promises to the poorest and the election manifesto commitment on which we were all elected, and which this country previously has so proudly upheld? Do the Government understand that the aid cut to Syria undermines our key ally in the middle east, Jordan, and will increase the flow of refugees into Europe? Do the Government realise that sending 300 troops to Mali while cutting humanitarian aid to the Sahel is a failure of understanding that puts our troops at greater risk? Why are the Government derailing our Prime Minister’s pledge on girls’ education with cuts that will result in 4 million fewer girls going to school while Britain is simultaneously hosting an international replenishment conference asking others to fund this key British objective?

The 0.7% is not just a commitment to the world’s poorest enshrined in law by this House; it is a reflection of the kind of country we aspire to be and the values that we uphold. Ninety-five per cent. of red wall voters approve of life-saving humanitarian aid, but that is exactly what the Treasury is cutting in their name. We are cutting £500 million in humanitarian aid. This will mean that 3 million women and children will not now receive life-saving support. Is it not clear that the original estimate of 100,000 souls who will die as a result is now a tragic understatement? This dreadful political—not economic—decision shames our country and our Government. It should shame us all.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the passion with which my right hon. Friend speaks, but the simple truth is that the UK economy is 11.3% smaller than it was last year and is undergoing the worst economic contraction for 300 years. The coronavirus has put in place a unique set of circumstances to which we are forced to respond. Yet despite these difficulties—despite this economic impact—the UK will remain in both absolute terms and percentage terms one of the largest ODA donor countries in the world, and will remain the third largest ODA donor in the G7.

My right hon. Friend speaks of the areas where the UK wishes to be a force for good in the world. We are still absolutely committed to making sure that we use our ODA spend in areas such as girls’ education, the environment and climate and others, but with our diplomatic efforts as part of the joint Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as a force multiplier to ensure that the money we spend is amplified by our diplomatic efforts both bilaterally and on the world stage. I remind him that when the fiscal circumstances allow, we are committed to returning to the 0.7% of GNI which he, others and indeed this Government are so rightly proud of.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Last week the Foreign Secretary exposed his fear of scrutiny by trying to sneak out a written statement on his callous aid cuts. Today, having been forced to come to face up to his decisions by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), he has once again evaded scrutiny and hidden behind one of his Ministers instead.

Make no mistake, slashing humanitarian support in the middle of a global pandemic is callous and incredibly short-sighted. People will lose their lives as a result of the cuts, and we will all be less safe. As the only G7 nation to cut aid, it is a retreat from our moral duty and will weaken our position on the world stage.

The statement published last week was light on detail, so will the Minister tell us whether ambassadors have been informed of their allocated budgets and the date when all FCDO country office budgets for 2021 will be made public? Will impact assessments be conducted for each country? When will they be forthcoming? Will he explain the Foreign Secretary’s comment:

“Nobody is going hungry because we have not signed cheques”?

Sixteen million Yemenis and 12 million Syrian people are on the brink of famine. How does the Minister think the respective 60% and 30% cuts in aid will impact people in those countries?

The impact of the cuts on the Government’s own stated priorities are stark—from education, which has been cut by 40%, to health programmes such as the International Rescue Committee’s Saving Lives in Sierra Leone, which has helped more than 3 million people and has now been cut by 60%. In a year when Britain will be hosting the G7 and COP26, the cuts are a shameful act and part of a pattern of retreat from the world stage by this Conservative Government. Rather than continuing to treat Parliament with contempt, will the Minister commit to putting the cuts to a vote at the earliest opportunity?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady speaks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attempting to avoid scrutiny; that would carry a bit more credibility had it not been for the fact that he specifically put the written ministerial statement in the public domain ahead of his appearance at the International Development Committee so that the Committee could grill him on that statement.

The hon. Lady made a point about our commitment to overseas development and assistance; I remind her of the answer that I gave a few minutes ago: we are facing an unprecedented set of circumstances. I also remind the hon. Lady that this is one of, if not the, most difficult economic years that the country has faced in a number of centuries. Even against that backdrop, we are committed to 2.5% of GNI—a proportion that previous Labour Governments managed to hit only a couple of times in the most benign economic circumstances. I am proud of the fact that this Government remain committed to being one of the most generous aid donors in the world and, as I say, to linking our diplomatic efforts with our development efforts to maximise the force for good in the world that we can bring about.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The British Government first committed to the 0.7% target in the year I first stood for Parliament. They would reach the target when they could; it took 39 years. The Minister’s prepared statement said that the Government intend to get back to 0.7% when circumstances allow. If they said that would be next year, the House would partly understand, but as the Minister has not, we have to assume that it will be more than a year.

A previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), said:

“The UK aid strategy sits firmly in our security and defence strategy. The 0.7% spent on international aid and the 2% commitment to NATO are the 2.7% that we spend, in our international interests, on securing a safer, more stable and more prosperous world.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2016; Vol. 611, c. 297WH.]

Will the Minister say how much would be saved by the reduction in the economy—the 11.2% to which he referred? That would be a big cut, but it is provided for in the legislation. Will he kindly read out the words that the current Prime Minister reinforced in our 2019 manifesto, when he added the word “proudly” to the commitment that repeated what was said by two previous Conservative Prime Ministers?

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. No one could have predicted the once-in-a-generation health and economic event that was covid-19 and we have had to take unprecedented action to respond to that. I can personally attest to the passion of both my right hon. Friends—the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—for the priorities that we have set out in response to the urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The reason why we have not set a specific date in respect of the point at which we will get back up to 0.7% is that none of us can predict that—this is a genuinely unprecedented set of circumstances. The quicker we can get the British economy back into shape, the quicker we can get back to committing to development expenditure at the level that we would all want it to be at.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

Last week, the Secretary of State admitted not only that 60% cuts would fall on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, but that no impact assessment had been undertaken. He shamefully hid behind the pitiful excuse of needing to make difficult decisions. Was it a difficult decision to use the money to deliver a windfall for the defence budget and increase spending on nuclear weapons, or was it simply an ideological decision that everyone can see through clearly? The global covid pandemic should not be used as an excuse to cut aid. Indeed, it is our essential duty to increase support to the world’s most vulnerable during this crisis.

While this Government are intent on breaking their manifesto commitment to maintaining the 0.7% target, the SNP has pledged to increase the Scottish Government’s aid budget by 50% if re-elected next week. Indeed, the rest of the G7 have increased their aid spending as a result of covid, and over 200 non-governmental organisations have accused this Government of delivering a “tragic blow” to the world’s poorest people. Does the Minister believe that the G7 and all these NGOs are wrong and that the UK Government are right? Is this not further proof that the reality of global Britain is, indeed, rather little Britain?

[James Cleverly]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the UK remains, in both absolute terms and percentage of GNI terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world. He mentions the impact of coronavirus. The UK has donated over half a billion pounds to support COVAX to help to vaccinate the poorest countries in the world. In addition to that, we have commitments both for science and technology and for health preparedness as priorities. The UK Government have had to make—

[Chris Law]

indicated dissent.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but the simple fact is that the UK Government have had to deal with an unprecedented, once-in-300-year economic as well as health event, and we have to respond, but we do so in a way that maintains our commitment to the poorest in the world.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

The integrated review identifies the United Kingdom as a “soft power superpower”, citing as one of the reasons our contribution to international development. Exactly how is that position going to be enhanced by the action of cutting aid to the world’s poorest, including those in slavery? I note that slavery was not even referred to in the written statement issued by the Foreign Secretary last week.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK is viewed globally as a soft power superpower. The conversations I have had since the announcements have been made demonstrate that the international community still very much sees the UK as a soft power superpower. Our development expenditure is an important part of that, and that is why we are committed to getting back to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. We will continue to work with partners, and to lobby, co-ordinate and convene our international friends and partners to support the poorest in the world. We will not step back from that just because of the temporary financial situation we find ourselves in. I can assure her that she and I and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are as one, in that we aspire to be a global leader in soft power and in development, and we will recover back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

Over the last 12 months, this Government have asset-stripped our foreign aid programme, and along with it done serious damage to the UK’s global standing, security and soft power. All this was done without consultation or scrutiny by this House or the aid sector. To be quite honest, I am staggered that the Secretary of State tries to justify there being scrutiny of this House by sneaking out a statement last Wednesday before my Committee met the following morning. Can the Minister please tell us the date when this House will be told the funding allocation for aid projects by countries, and when will he publish the impact assessment that should have been done alongside the decision?

[James Cleverly]

The written ministerial statement was put out so that the hon. Lady’s Committee would be able to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary. It is unusual, perhaps even unprecedented, to set out thematic allocations at the beginning of the financial year, as the Foreign Secretary has done via his written ministerial statement last week and in his IDC evidence. Detailed information about how we will spend ODA is usually set out in the “Statistics on International Development” process in the year following the spend, and programme-by-programme information is also published on the Development Tracker. We have tried to be as open and as transparent as we are able to be. Clearly we are still in the process of making detailed decisions. We have informed the House and her Committee of as much detail as we are able to at this point. As we go through country by country and theme by theme, more details will be forthcoming.

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

I am intrigued to hear the comment that it is a challenge that we will return to the 0.7% as soon as possible, because the Minister realises, like everybody else in this House, that the rest of the world is not standing still. Others are filling the gaps that we leave, and votes in the United Nations and different support elements are going according to those power dynamics.

Can the Minister assure me that the decisions being taken will be in keeping with the other decisions that the Foreign Office is taking in reinforcing our bilateral interests, defending British people abroad and making sure that things such as covid do not have pools of disease around the world in which they can develop further? Of course, aid spending is not actually about foreigners; it is about us and supporting the world we live in and making sure we are able to communicate, to travel and to operate around the world. Will he assure me that that in that integration, although we are committed legally to multilaterals we will not forget the bilateral commitments we have made, which are so much more easily dropped?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The UK is proud of the role it plays in multilateral forums around the world, and we are a leading player in many of them, but we are very conscious that we have incredibly important long-standing bilateral relationships around the world. I am very proud of the fact that we have maintained not only our commitments to multilaterals, but, through ODA and our diplomatic channels, our very strong set of bilateral relationships. He is right to highlight that both matter. Both are incredibly important to our partners around the world, and also, as he says, to the interests of people here in the UK.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

Announcing these deep, potentially unlawful aid cuts through a written statement was cowardly, but in the context of coronavirus, the cuts are also incredibly short-sighted. Chile, Brazil, India, here—we have seen what happens when new variants emerge and countries become overwhelmed. Every time it happens, the virus then mutates even faster.

Last week, the all-party group on coronavirus heard that the cuts are likely to result in hurting scientists’ ability to catch the new variants abroad—variants that may well threaten our own recovery here. Although £1.3 billion has been allocated to coronavirus and global health, there has been no detail on the country-specific allocations. Can the Minister provide that clarity now? Can he assure the House that he understands that no one is safe until everyone is safe?

[James Cleverly]

The UK has been a leading country in funding COVAX to ensure that poorer countries in the world have vaccinations as part of their arsenal to defend against coronavirus. We have a globally enviable ability to analyse and sequence mutations—information that we share with the world. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that no one is safe until everyone is safe, and that is why we are so very proud of the research that has happened here in the UK, which is being shared globally through the COVAX and Gavi processes. We are also proud that we are committing to a significant investment in science and technology and research as part of our ODA expenditure, for the very reasons that she outlines.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Could I just put the Minister right? The Foreign Secretary put out the statement at gone 5 o’clock the night before we met at 9 o’clock the following morning, so he did not give much time for anybody to digest what was in it and there was not much in it to start with.

I am deeply saddened and very upset that we are going to be balancing the books in this country on the backs of the poorest in the world. When are the Government going to come clean and be honest about where these cuts to lifesaving humanitarian aid will fall? How many women and children will die as a result? Is it more or is it fewer than the 100,000 estimated by the leading think-tanks and NGOs?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Just before the Minister answers the question, I must make a plea. It would be good if I could manage to call everyone who is on the call list for this statement, but I cannot allow it to go on for more than an hour because we have several other pieces of business. It might be helpful for Members to know that, as things stand at the moment, the calculation is that the House will sit till about 1 am or 2 am tomorrow morning. I realise that that will not matter to the people who are sitting comfortably at home, but it does matter to the people who keep this Chamber and this building running. I am not criticising the Minister, who has been giving thorough answers—that is what the Chamber is looking for—but now that he has given thorough answers, perhaps he might be inclined to give shorter ones.

[James Cleverly]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There is always a balance between the earliest points at which information, and the detail of that information, can be shared. We are not yet in a position where we can share the granularity of either thematic programmes or country programmes. We did not want to delay giving any information to the House in order to do that. That process is going forward, but at the moment it is not possible for either the Government or anyone else to predict with any accuracy the impact that global situations have. However, we are absolutely committed to being and remaining one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be in no doubt whatever where I and others stand on this issue. Indeed, in my own debate at the end of March I flagged the dreadful decision to cut our aid. Will he outline to me and others in this House how we can possibly fulfil our moral obligation to nations who rely on our support, in particular those in the Commonwealth, at a time of the greatest insecurity since the war years? Will he and the Department not rethink this decision, which is tantamount to a death sentence to so many people?

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the passion with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. He speaks on international affairs issues with great authority and passion. I remind him that while of course the totality of ODA expenditure matters, this is one of the most difficult economic circumstances that this country has faced in many centuries. Yet even in these circumstances, I assure him that we are still committed to more than has been the historic norm for this country under Governments of other political persuasions. I also assure him that as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will be returning to 0.7%.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The awful scenes we are seeing in India are obviously having a deeply personal and human impact there, but they are for many here too. People are dying right now and, as we know from our experience, rising case numbers can mean only one thing. They cannot breathe. The UK may have committed £330 million per year to Gavi through to 2025, which is good, but it is a drop in the ocean. What more can we do, through the Minister’s good offices, to export our vaccine miracle to our historical good friends in India who really need us right now?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. India remains a long-standing and close friend of the United Kingdom. It has come to our aid in times of difficulty and it is absolutely right that we reciprocate that now. I am very proud of the fact that the UK Government have moved quickly to help to supply oxygen-related technologies. We are also committed to ensuring that the scientific breakthroughs that the teams at Oxford University have created, alongside AstraZeneca, will be shared globally around the world. We are assessing what more we can do to support one of our very longstanding friends around the world.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

The Minister says that Britain has a huge commitment to the poorest around the world. If we do, this is a strange way of showing it: we are cutting aid budgets while at the same time increasing arms expenditure. More than 2 billion people around the world have no access to safe, clean water. Many more have even less access to sewerage or any other kind of facilities. For many around the world, security is something to eat, clean water, a health service and the ability to have their children educated. What kind of message to the world is it that we cut aid expenditure while at the same time we increase the defence budget by £24 billion and massively increase the number of nuclear warheads? Instead, should we not give a message to the covid-dominated world that we are committed to bringing good, decent water and healthcare around the world as our absolute priority to bring about security for the whole planet?

[James Cleverly]

More often than not, security and the alleviation of pain and suffering go hand in hand. All around the world, the prevention and resolution of conflict is the most significant positive move that could be taken to alleviate pain and suffering. That is exactly why the integrated review looks across the gamut of international affairs, including defence and security, as well as diplomacy and development. It is right that we think of these things hand in hand.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

Is the UK now stopping making overseas aid payments through the EU, given the way it has been spending money on a country such as China, which has $3.2 trillion in reserves? Is this not an opportunity for the UK to express its own moral priorities, and secure better value for money by making more of its own direct choices and payments? Can that include being very generous in response to the current Indian crisis?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes the important point that, having left the European Union, the United Kingdom can now make its own decisions. In many instances—not in all cases—the positions that we take now are similar to those that we took as members of the European Union. He will note that we have significantly—almost completely—reduced our aid support to China; the only expenditure now is in support of human rights and open societies. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will be focused very much on how we can support our friends around the world in their times of need.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I have great regard for the Minister. I think he is an honourable man. But I am sorry, the Prime Minister who he has been defending today is a moral vacuum—a “vacuum of integrity”, as one of his colleagues said today. We have a Prime Minister who does not believe at all in international aid. That is the fact of the matter. Friends of mine are working on the frontline in Delhi, in India, and it is a tragedy. It is a tsunami. We should have been at the front with a massive aid package. Please can we have a vote in the House because this was not in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election and I do not think this aid cut would carry a majority?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure the House that the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to supporting the poor and suffering people around the world. Through the priorities that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined, including climate change, biodiversity and girls’ education—something the Prime Minister is particularly focused on—we have seen that we are absolutely committed to these things. I will say again: the circumstances in which we find ourselves are unique; they are unprecedented: the biggest economic contraction this country has seen in 300 years. It is right that the Government respond to that, but I remind the House that, even in the midst of this response, in percentage and absolute terms, we remain one of the most generous aid donor countries in the world.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the economy will return to pre-pandemic levels of activity in quarter 2 of next year, so why do the Government not commit to returning to 0.7% at that point? It is the fact that they will not do that that makes people worry that this is a conscious political choice, not force of circumstance caused by the pandemic. According to Save the Children, 400,000 children in Yemen will not be fed because of this cut in British aid. I know that the Minister has to defend decisions that he has not personally made, but is this not defending the indefensible?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend knows that we make decisions collectively in Government. I defend the decisions that I am part of making and I am not going to imply that I am passing the buck to anyone else. These are difficult decisions that we had to make. He has sat in that seat and knows how difficult decisions are made—how difficult decisions can be. We all hope that the UK economy will recover as quickly and completely as he suggests. If that is the case, it may well be that we are able to return to 0.7% sooner rather than later, but it would be wrong and foolhardy of me or indeed anyone else at the Dispatch Box to give a date when the circumstances are still so unknown and unpredictable. I can assure him, however, that, as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will return to 0.7%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

Yemen, we believe, will suffer some 60% cuts in our development assistance, yet it is a country where the world’s failure to stop a brutal war means that children are dying of preventable disease and now of starvation. Would the Minister seriously say to a mother or father nursing a dying child that this is all about the economy and the economic recovery of this country?

[James Cleverly]

The UK remains one of the largest aid donors to Yemen. But alongside that, we are also giving support to Martin Griffiths, the United Nations envoy. We are liaising directly with the Houthis, the Government of Yemen and other parties in the region to try to bring about a resolution to that conflict. The best gift we can give to the people of Yemen is peace and that is what we are pursuing. While pursuing that, we are also maintaining our commitment to support people, feed people and try to keep them alive until peace comes to that country.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]]

Instability in Afghanistan and the growing confidence of the Taliban are a threat to international security and will impact us here in the UK. Can the Minister give me some assurance that an assessment has been made of withdrawing support to Afghanistan, especially the impact that will have on Afghan women and girls who rely on us for education and basic healthcare?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we think carefully about the implications of all the decisions we make and indeed the decisions made by other countries around the world. We remain committed to women, peace and security as an agenda and the education of women and girls in particular. We will absolutely continue to pursue both those agendas.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]]

We have heard a succession of senior Conservatives condemn this decision as “shameful”. As well as the humanitarian costs, the ODA cuts have a direct impact on UK research and development. The Royal Society tells us that its programmes are being cut by around 70%. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government were aware of those consequences when the decision was made and whether he has seen or carried out any impact assessment?

[James Cleverly]

It is the normal process of this Department and its predecessor Department to speak regularly with our delivery partners and opinion formers in the sectors with which we work. The decisions we made are difficult, and they are driven by the economic circumstances. As I have said a number of times, we will get back up to the 0.7% to reinforce the sectors that the hon. Member speaks about as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]]

Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the pivot away from UK taxpayers’ money being used in aid to totalitarian countries such as China towards more open and democratic parts of the world?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The UK is committed to supporting democracy and political stability around the world. He will have seen in the written ministerial statement the commitment that the Foreign Secretary made to reducing our ODA expenditure in China and focusing it exclusively on human rights and open societies.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

To paraphrase the journalist Ben Taub, radicalisation lies in a shallow grave. Can the Minister advise the House how reducing refugee support in Syria from the £137 million pledged last year to £45 million this year will not play a part in resurrecting radicalisation in Syria and the wider middle east?

[James Cleverly]

We completely understand that instability and failed economies are drivers of terrorism and radicalisation. That is why the UK remains committed to supporting Governments around the world in both maintaining their economic stability and alleviating the suffering of displaced people, and we will continue to do so.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

From covid to Ebola to malaria, we have all seen how important international scientific research is, and we are proud to be a world leader in this. If we are to continue that progress, it does not make sense to cut those international budgets just when their importance is so clear. Will the Minister meet with scientists and find a way to ensure that these vital research programmes can continue uninterrupted?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The FCDO has committed £253 million on R&D this year across the seven themes. Of course, we are always keen to hear from expert voices. I cannot make a commitment that we can necessarily respond in the way that they would want us to, because of the fiscal situation that I have discussed, but we absolutely recognise that science and technology in so many areas—for example, in covid—is the key that unlocks many of the world’s challenges.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

The Government’s reductions in the overseas development aid budget, FCDO research spending cuts and now other departmental cuts, according to the research profession, amount to more than half a billion pounds lost to research. Does the Minister agree that, while we battle a once-in-a-generation pandemic, the effects of which across the world we see every night on our TV screens, science is at the heart of many of the solutions we desperately need and that the Government need to continue to invest in and grow science talent and champions of evidence around the globe, not step back in this way?

[James Cleverly]

The work that the science community around the world has done in bringing vaccines to bear as quickly as it has is a testament to how important this sector is. The UK absolutely remains committed to being a global leader in science, technology and research, and we will do that both domestically in the UK and internationally through our ODA expenditure.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am no pinko leftie and I sometimes pointed out distortions caused by the 0.7% commitment at the end of the financial year, but I am completely mystified from a public accounts point of view about what is going on here. Is it not a fact that, because of the contraction of the economy, the aid budget would have declined by some £2.9 billion anyway? The Minister is now imposing another £4 billion cut on that. We are causing complete chaos, with international development staff all running around trying to cut the budget. Now, by the Minister’s own logic, he is going to revert to 0.7%. We know the economy is going to bounce back, so having cut all this money, they are going to have to put it all back again. What is the logic from a public accounts perspective in what we are doing? Why are we causing such incompetence and chaos in the Department?

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the economic situation has been forced on us by coronavirus. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend has misrepresented the situation in the FCDO in terms of the actions our officials have taken? I have been deeply impressed by the professionalism and the speed with which FCDO officials have responded to this once-in-a-generation—once-in-a-lifetime—situation. We are keen to get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. Our officials will look very carefully at what programmes we are not able to continue with and what programmes we will be able, or would choose, to either restart or start anew once the financial situation improves.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

In 2019, the UK pledged £400 million to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative between 2020 and 2023—£100 million per year. Last week, it was confirmed that the UK will contribute only £5 million to GPEI this year—a 95% cut. Will the Minister explain how his Government will make up for 2021’s shortfall in a subsequent year, and deliver on the £400 million commitment by 2023?

[James Cleverly]

I am not able to make commitments for future years. The economic situation is probably more unpredictable now than it has been in our lifetimes. What I can say is that we will seek to get the UK’s ODA target back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for asking this urgent question. The Government have claimed that improving the education of girls globally is their priority, but Save the Children estimates that the Foreign Secretary’s decision will result in a 25% cut in spending on girls’ education worldwide. The funding slash is detrimental to girls in developing countries. In the light of the cuts, does the FCDO expect to fulfil the Government’s manifesto promise?

[James Cleverly]

The economic situation we find ourselves in is unprecedented and not one that any of us could have predicted when generating the manifesto. The hon. Lady will have heard our commitment to get back up 0.7%. Girls’ education remains a priority for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) to be his special envoy for girls’ education, and I have seen the energy that she has already applied, with alacrity, to that incredibly important work.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The original 1958 aid target was 1% and covered public and private aid flows. In 2013, the OECD said that we were getting 1.21% in total. Will the Minister make sure that in the future private as well as public aid flows are recorded, so that we have an up-to-date picture of total aid spending?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for private donations from the United Kingdom, but I think we all know not only that, through the UK Government, we remain one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, but that the British people are incredibly generous. We can all be proud of the way the British people step up whenever there are international challenges. My hon. Friend is completely right that Government ODA spending is incredibly important, but so is the huge amount of money donated by private individuals in the UK.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

The Indian community in my constituency is traumatised by the scenes that we are seeing of the covid crisis in India. I welcome the UK’s emergency package of ventilators and oxygen concentrators, but the Minister earlier acknowledged that no country is safe until the virus is under control in every country. Is this therefore not the worst year to cut the aid budget, because by doing so he is endangering lives not only overseas but here in the UK too?

[James Cleverly]

I have already said how proud we all should be of our support to India. This is part of a long-standing bilateral relationship, perhaps one of the strongest in our history. All I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s broader question about ODA is that it is driven by circumstances and that we will get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

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

Will my right hon. Friend explain—if not now, perhaps in writing—why the Government seek to change the 0.7% target set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, rather than to utilise the provisions of the Act to explain why they are unable to meet it at this time? If indeed the Government are seeking to change the target and believe that they may do so without further legislation or parliamentary sanction, what does he believe that the 2015 Act was intended to do, if not to stop Governments doing exactly that?

[James Cleverly]

The 2015 Act envisaged that there might be circumstances in which a Government would be unable to meet the 0.7% target. As I said, this is a truly unique and unprecedented set of economic circumstances. We will look to get back up to 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. We will look at the situation with regard to legislation.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will the Minister confirm—he has yet to do so—whether any impact assessment was made of the cuts, in particular to Yemen of 60%, Syria two thirds, Libya 63% and South Sudan 40%? Does he not recognise that the feeling of the House is such that those serious measures, those damaging cuts, should go to a vote of the whole House?

[James Cleverly]

Of course the whole process that we are going through is to balance the decisions that have been forced on us by economic circumstances and the impact that they would have. The whole job of the Department is to make those incredibly difficult decisions. That is the job that we do each and every year. Those decisions have perhaps come into sharper focus this year because the economic situation has forced the reduction in our ODA expenditure, but this is what the Department does: it balances the expenditure that we have at our disposal and assesses the best way in which we can maximise the positive impact of that money.

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

I ask the Minister a simple question: does he think that the world will be safer or more dangerous over the next five to 10 years? We know the answer to that: authoritarianism is on the rise, power bases are shifting, and international institutions are struggling as we enter a profound and dangerous era of change. Our soft power counts, and reducing our support will leave vacuums to be filled either by countries such as Russia and China pursuing a very different agenda, or by extremism, taking advantage of poor governance and insecurity. I ask the Government not to jeopardise our seat on the UN Security Council by cutting our soft power in this way.

[James Cleverly]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the work of his Committee. He and I have discussed the integrated review, and the unpredictability and potential dangers that the future might have in store for us. That is why the integrated review is such an important document to assess our development expenditure. I absolutely hear the point that he makes about how such expenditure has an influence on our soft power standing, but he will also recognise that integrating our defence, security and diplomatic efforts is incredibly important. We enjoy a huge amount of soft power, notwithstanding this temporary reduction in our ODA expenditure. I have no doubt that once we can get back up to 0.7%, we will be able to reinforce further still the important work that we do on the international stage.

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

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I am deeply disturbed that 60 African researchers on the Royal Society’s future leaders programme have been left without funding without warning because of these cuts. As MP for Newcastle University, I am deeply disturbed that funding for its global challenges hub has been cut by 70% without warning, making researchers redundant unless the university steps in. Will the Minister at least agree to remove the cap on carrying over previous years’ underspends on UK Research and Innovation ODA-funded research to help save research and jobs in Africa and the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The Government absolutely recognise the importance of Africa, in terms of the challenges it faces and the opportunities that it presents itself with. We will spend around 50% of our bilateral ODA in Africa. I am not able to give commitments on the granularity of how programmes will be funded or, indeed, with regard to carry-overs, but as I have already said, we absolutely recognise the importance of research and development as a theme and Africa as a continent.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was absolutely correct in pointing out that this represents a double cut: it is a cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but it is also, of course, 0.5% of a lower figure, because gross national income has fallen. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what effect that is going to have on the Ascend programme, what effect it will have on research into the treatment and prevention of malaria, and how many young women around the world will not receive education as a result of what I am afraid I have to regard as a breach of faith?

[James Cleverly]

I am not able to provide my right hon. Friend with the level of detail that he has asked for at this stage. The thematic programmes that were set out in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s written ministerial statement will now be worked out in more detail, and we will provide detail to our delivery partners as soon as we are able to, but I am not able to furnish the House with those figures at the moment.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The rate of HIV infection remains stubbornly high—1.7 million people acquired HIV in 2019—and AIDS remains the leading killer of women of reproductive age. These are all preventable deaths. The UK’s most recent pledge to the Global Fund, in 2019, saved 2 million lives. The proposed cut to global health spending is 40%; if passed on to HIV funding, that is 800,000 lives. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no cuts to the Robert Carr Fund, the Global Fund, UNAIDS or HIV research—including on a vaccine, which we are now very close to—and that we will renew and fully meet, without delay, all those pledges that we have made to save those lives?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that while the attention of the world is rightly focused on coronavirus, that is not the only significant health issue facing the world. Unfortunately, as I said in my previous answer, I am not able to give assurances on individual programmes at this stage. The detail that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his written ministerial statement is available to Members online, and we will be providing further details as our teams, both in country and thematically, work through the next stages of the programme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We have almost run out of time, but I will try to get in the six people who are left. Can we please have really short questions and really short answers? I think the Minister has answered every conceivable question.

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

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent work undertaken by arm’s length bodies such as the British Council in fostering better understanding and relations with other countries. We are indeed a soft power superpower. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that these ODA reductions do not lead to decisions that will damage those bodies’ long-term effectiveness?

[James Cleverly]

We are conscious of the potential long-term impacts of what we believe to be a one-off and hopefully short-term situation with regard to the economic impact of coronavirus. We will look carefully at the best use of taxpayers’ money to ensure that important delivery mechanisms can continue into the future.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

The pandemic has set back progress in healthcare and education for many years, at a time when the Government are cutting aid for reasons that, again, have not been justified. The medical supplies that the UK is sending to India are welcome and vital, but the evidence is clear: long-term strategic support is key to building resilience and capacity, and to preventing future problems from doing the type of harm that we are now witnessing in India. Does the Minister recognise that aid cuts now—even if restored at some point in the future—are, at best, penny wise and pound foolish?

[James Cleverly]

I have answered the broader question about our budget situation a number of times. The hon. Member is right that the resilience of our partner countries is an important factor, which we consider when we make the decisions that we have made.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]]

I know, through my work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Angola and Zambia, of the excellent work of TradeMark East Africa in upgrading borders so that trade can take place more easily, thereby helping developing countries to move from aid to trade much more quickly. Will the Government therefore protect the budget of TradeMark East Africa for this excellent work?

[James Cleverly]

Although I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about helping countries move to economic self-sufficiency, I cannot give assurances for individual projects at this time.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

UNICEF says that we are facing a children’s rights crisis, so will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that children are protected from the impact of these cuts and that the UK continues to support children who find themselves living in desperate situations?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

As I have said before, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole take the plight of children around the world incredibly seriously. That is why we are so committed to education, particularly of girls, which has been prioritised in our planning of this process.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]]

I have visited many successful UK aid-funded programmes, so I am disappointed by the proposed cuts to our aid budget. The Minister has confirmed that economic development is a priority for the Foreign Secretary, so does he agree that in order to help countries trade out of poverty and to deliver a truly global Britain, we must continue to fund aid for trade ODA programmes that help the poorest people in the world and enhance our mutual prosperity.

[James Cleverly]

Although humanitarian issues will always remain a priority, the Government have ensured that we still spend some ODA money on the resilience and strengthening of the underlying economies of a number of countries around the world, addressing the very point that my hon. Friend makes.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party has committed to increase aid spending by 50% next year if back in government, despite the constraints imposed by Westminster. With the worldwide pandemic, COP26 to come and loss and damage to be discussed, it is ridiculous that the UK Government are cutting aid. Did the Minister fight his corner to protect the ODA budget, or does he not care enough about the poorest and most vulnerable?

[James Cleverly]

I, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, every Minister in this Government, and, I have no doubt, every Conservative Member, are absolutely passionate about support for the poorest people in the world. I am glad that the hon. Member’s party has chosen to be so generous. It is Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland working together—as a globally renowned Union—that enables his Government to be generous overseas. I am proud of the fact that our strong Union relationship allows them to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will now briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.

Religious Minorities: Land Rights

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to his considerable efforts and his tirelessness, not just as a member of the APPG on the Baha’i faith but as chair of the APPG on freedom of religion and belief.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who was right to say that the world, including Iran, should take note of the fact that from every corner of the United Kingdom and every political corner of the House there is unanimity of voice on the importance of the issue. I am glad that he made that point at the conclusion of his speech, enabling me to echo it at the start of mine.

The issue of inequality in land rights affects millions of people around the world, and it is of particular concern, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, to the most vulnerable and minority groups, including religious minorities.

The UK Government support good land governance as a key pillar of inclusive and sustainable economic development around the world. Securing land and property rights is necessary to release other human rights: the right to food, the right to water and the right to housing, to name just a few. The UK Government fund development efforts to support effective protections against forcible evictions and to facilitate responsible investment in land, which we believe are integral to economic growth, rural livelihoods, conflict prevention, environmental sustainability and fundamental human rights.

The House is well aware that we monitor human rights in Iran very closely. The recent deterioration in the land rights of religious minorities in Iran is deeply troubling. Our bleak assessment is that Iran continues to violate human rights across the board, including, sadly, the right to freedom of religion or belief. While some faiths in Iran, most notably Christianity and Judaism, benefit from constitutional protection, in truth, there is widespread discrimination against all religious minorities, but it is markedly worse for unrecognised faiths, including the Baha’i.

The Baha’i community in Iran faces systematic discrimination, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined. They face harassment and targeting. Baha’i-owned shops and businesses have been forced to close across the country by the Iranian authorities, and the state’s efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’i people show little sign of abating. Those patterns of repression extend beyond property rights. We have seen Baha’i students, as the hon. Gentleman said, pressured to convert to Islam or be denied an education altogether.

The Government share the view of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. Discrimination against the Baha’i community is legally sanctioned by a lack of constitutional recognition in Iranian law and by the absence of other meaningful legal protections. Alarmingly, our assessment suggests that there has been a rapid and severe decline in the rights to freedom of religion or belief in Iran over the last year, particularly for the Baha’i community. Arrests of Baha’i followers have increased. The sentences handed out have been arbitrary and disproportionately lengthy. Meanwhile, the Iranian authorities at local and national level have appeared to intensify plans to suppress religious minorities.

In late 2020, we understand several court judgments in Iran ordered the seizure of farmland from Baha’i communities in the village of Ivel in Mazandaran province. These lands have been farmed by Baha’i families for more than 150 years. While the Iranian Government have reportedly been attempting to expel the farmers since the 1980s, the recent court ruling against the legitimacy of Baha’i ownership of land has had a profoundly negative impact. It presents serious wider implications for the property rights of other unrecognised religious minorities.

Members will be aware that the UK is committed to defend the freedoms of religion or belief for all and to promote respect between different religions and non-religious communities. We have concerns, and when we have such concerns we raise them directly with Governments, including at ministerial level. We do not shy away from challenging those who we believe are not meeting their obligations, whether publicly or in private. We remain deeply concerned about the violations of the freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, including in Iran. Where this right is under attack, other human rights are almost always under threat as well.

In response to the reports of persecution of the Baha’i, the Government have taken the following steps in recent months. At the Human Rights Council, the UK called on Iran to end the discrimination and persecution of religious minorities, which continue to persist, particularly towards the Baha’i and Christian converts. On 12 February, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon issued a statement expressing deep concern about reports of expropriation and repossession of land owned by Baha’i communities in Ivel. The UK continues to co-sponsor the UN Third Committee resolution on the situation of human rights in Iraq. The resolution expressed serious concerns about Iran’s violations committed against unrecognised religious minorities, including the Baha’is. Our efforts ensure there remains widespread global support to highlight and call out these issues.

In October 2020, we made a national statement at the UN Third Committee, focusing particularly on our concerns about the lack of freedom of religion or belief in Iran, and the treatment of religious minorities. The Government have consistently made clear to the Iranians our concerns at persistent violations of freedom of religion or belief, and many other human rights. Iran must comply with its treaty obligations to uphold human rights of believers of formally protected religions and of unrecognised ones.

We will continue to hold Iran to account on a wide range of human rights issues, including land rights, both through bilateral contacts directly with the Iranian Government and on the international stage, including using our membership of the Human Rights Council and at the United Nations, alongside like-minded partners.

On our broader action to support freedom of religion or belief, on 20 December 2020, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as his special envoy. Mrs Bruce works with Ministers, officials and other parties to deliver the Government’s aim of seeing everyone, everywhere able to have and practice a faith or belief, or to have no religious belief at all, in accordance with their own conscience. In fact, her first joint external meeting, alongside Lord Ahmad, was with representatives of the Baha’is.

The Government have excellent links with the Baha’i community in London and more widely, and we continue to work with faith leaders to advocate for the rights of their communities in Iran and elsewhere. In November 2020, the Minister responsible for human rights, my noble friend Lord Ahmad, further underlined the UK’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief for all at a number of international meetings. These included speaking at the ministerial meeting to advance freedom of religion or belief and at the Ministers’ forum of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. I hope the House is reassured that we will continue to call out such violations for as long as Iran continues to commit them.

While we rightly discuss Iran’s violations towards religious minorities and its citizens, in response to a number of points raised by hon. Members I would like to take this opportunity to set out our wider engagement with Iran. The Government have been consistently clear that we want to put the relationship between the UK and Iran on a better footing, as we continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights record, including on the freedom of religion or belief.

We strongly believe that maintaining diplomatic relations will help to achieve our vision for a non-nuclear Iran—an Iran that acts as a responsible regional power and an Iran that does not pose a threat to UK and the UK’s interests. We maintain that that diplomacy is also the best way to secure the release of all arbitrarily detained dual British nationals. The Government will work with all international partners to deliver those shared goals and to keep our diplomatic door open for discussion on a wide range of UK interests.

Let me end by reassuring the House that our commitment to defend freedom of religion or belief for all and to promote respect between religious and non-religious communities endures. Let me also assure hon. Members that we will continue to monitor and assess the threats to the Baha’is and other minorities, including through violations of their land rights. We believe that one of the most effective ways to tackle injustices is to encourage states to uphold their human rights obligations. I assure the House that the Government remain committed to encouraging Iran to respect human rights, and calling it out on the international stage when it fails to do so. We will continue to make representations on those issues at every level, at every opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

What diplomatic steps he is taking to support peace between Israel and the Palestinians. [R]

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

The UK is actively encouraging the parties back to dialogue. We support the decision of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel to resume co-operation. We are now pushing for deeper co-operation on health and economic issues, including the re-establishment of the joint economic committee, to rebuild trust and move towards a lasting solution. We support the objectives of the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace and will continue to engage with the Alliance for Middle East Peace and President Biden’s Administration to identify further opportunities for collaboration. We are working with regional partners and the United States Administration to seize on the positive momentum of normalisation, alongside improving Israeli-Palestinian co-operation, to advance the prospects of a two-state solution.

[Andrew Selous [V]]

I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree, though, that a just and lasting peace must be built on the rule of law, with severe consequences for systematic breaches whoever commits them, and that all Palestinians, including those in East Jerusalem, must have the right to vote on 22 May?

[James Cleverly]

We regularly call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law, and we have regular conversations on this issue. We also encourage the Palestinian leadership to work towards democratic institutions based on the rule of law, and we welcome President Abbas’s announcement of dates for elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and will work closely with the Palestinian Authority to support that. We have called for elections in East Jerusalem; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done so, and I did so with the Israeli ambassador in a meeting that we had just yesterday.

[Nicola Richards]

Despite assurances that, after countless delays, the EU review of Palestinian textbooks would be published in March, there is still no sign of the report. UK taxpayers’ money pays the salaries of Palestinian teachers who use material inciting violence against Israel and Jews, making peace harder to achieve. What more will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that UK aid does not prolong the conflict?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I remind the House that the UK does not fund the textbooks used in Palestinian schools. We understand that the EU review is in its final stages. We are not able to comment on the content of that report until it is released. We regularly engage with the EU at senior level to push for timely publication, and we regularly liaise with the Palestinian Authority to try to bring about the improvements that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

[Rosie Cooper [V]]

It is now five months since the US Congress passed a $250 million Act to create the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, the largest ever investment in peace building. In November, our Ministers promised to examine the feasibility of the UK taking up one of the international seats on the fund’s board. Will the Minister tell us the results of that assessment and confirm that the UK will use the G7 summit to step up and help to lead this exciting new project with the United States?

[James Cleverly]

We always engage positively with any steps that push towards greater peace and reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and we have engaged with this process. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are currently going through a programme of work assessing what we will do with our overseas development aid, but we will continue to engage with the Biden Administration, the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to pursue what has been the long-standing UK goal: a peaceful, prosperous, meaningful two-state solution.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray [V]]

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been to Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel.

With the G7 coming to Cornwall, we should underline our commitment to international institutions and multilateral co-operation. We welcomed the US middle east partnership for peace Act in December, but does the Minister agree that it is now time for the UK to take a board seat on the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which I partially answered in my prior response to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). We have no current plans, but we always take a keen interest in any initiatives that encourage peace and co-operation between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, and indeed, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. We will continue to work along- side Governments in the region and the US Administration in pursuit of that objective.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]]

The International Criminal Court has decided to conduct an investigation into alleged war crimes by Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces in the occupied territories. The FCDO has stated that the UK respects the independence of the ICC. However, the Prime Minister said that the investigation is a “prejudicial attack”, so does the Minister believe that the court is independent or not?

[James Cleverly]

We absolutely respect the independence of the International Criminal Court. We do expect it to comply with its own mandate. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the ICC.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with his G7 counterparts on global flows of official development assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

What assessment he has made of the potential effect of reductions in the UK aid budget on the UK’s humanitarian work overseas.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

Since 2015, the UK has provided £11 billion in humanitarian funding. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), has just stated, despite this unprecedented economic contraction, we are still proud of our contribution. We remain, in both absolute terms and percentage terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world.

[Steven Bonnar]

I thank the Minister for that answer. While every other G7 member state has responded to the pandemic by increasing aid, the UK Government are out there alone in choosing to cut it by approximately £4 billion this year, after a cut of £2.9 billion last year. The pandemic should have been a rallying cry to this Government, encouraging more robust and urgent investment and prioritisation action to meet sustainable development goals. Instead, this Government chose a path of staggering and shocking betrayal, turning their back on the world’s poorest. Have any impact assessments been carried out on how these cuts will affect those in conflict zones? If not, how long will we have to wait for this Government to show a shred of compassion?

[James Cleverly]

I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the UK remains one of the largest donating countries in the G7 and indeed the world. Our commitment to that is undiminished, which is why I am very pleased that we have been able to strengthen our commitments to our headquarters in East Kilbride, in Abercrombie House. We are proud that, despite the fact that we have this economic contraction, we are still donating £10 billion in ODA.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of using sanctions as part of the diplomatic response to the military coup in Myanmar.

Women Peace and Security: Annual Report 2020

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, are today publishing the 2020 annual report on progress against the UK’s fourth National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security.

Published on 18 January 2018, the National Action Plan (NAP) sets out the Government’s objectives on the Women, Peace and Security agenda for the period 2018-2022. This is the UK Government strategy for how we will meet our Women, Peace and Security commitments under UN Security Council Resolution 1325 to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution and in building peace and security.

The report published today outlines our progress against the National Action Plan over the last 12 months, including our work in our nine focus countries of Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia and Syria, and Yemen as a priority country. It is centred around seven strategic outcomes where we expect to see progress over the five year duration of the NAP.

The progress report will be published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS920]

Global Human Security

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and also for the contributions made by Members across the House. I will try and cover a number of the points raised. Even though we have a fair amount of time, because the contributions have been wide ranging, I am not necessarily going to be able to give all elements the justice that they deserve.

As a number of contributors have mentioned, we live in an increasingly competitive, dangerous and, as the hon. Lady said, complex world. The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy highlighted three broad and significant challenges including, first, the challenge from autocratic regimes that seek to undermine human rights and open societies; secondly, the challenge of rapidly developing technologies which, while often bringing huge benefits, also bring new dangers from states, from terrorists, from criminal groups and individuals who would do us harm; and thirdly, the challenge of existential threats, such as pandemics and climate change, both of which have been discussed significantly this morning.

In response to this challenging context, the integrated review sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for a stronger, more prosperous Union in 2030. It has, at its heart, the protection of the interests of the British people, our sovereignty, our security, our health and our prosperity. It sets out a comprehensive and holistic approach to our security. We should not forget, however, that the threats from terrorism and conflict remain. That is why a hard-edged security and intelligence capability is a recurrent thread in the integrated review, which we have underpinned with our increased investment in defence to 2.2% of GDP and our cherished security and intelligence agencies, particularly our work with NATO and Five Eyes.

A number of Members have mentioned our Official Development Assistance commitment. I remind them that despite the unique and extreme financial pressures imposed on us by coronavirus, the UK remains, in both percentage and absolute terms, one of the world’s most generous aid donors. The world is changing and we need to adapt to it. We must ensure that we have the capabilities and systems, not only to respond to today’s threats but to anticipate and respond to the threats of tomorrow. Our integrated review commits us to work to solve global challenges, to invest in science and technology, to act as a force for good, championing free trade, individual freedoms, global prosperity, and to take a more robust approach to security and deterrents.

[Wera Hobhouse]

After all the Minister has heard this morning—we could only touch on so many of the issues—does he not agree that the balance we have to strike about global security has to shift away from just arming ourselves again as a country, as if it were about the national threat, and looking at how we can work together globally and internationally? The signals we have been setting out in the past year or so about our strength and using international aid for our advantage as a country are going in the wrong direction. Does he not agree?

[James Cleverly]

I will address the points that the hon. Lady has raised in my speech, if she will bear with me. On the point about how she frames our use of international aid for the UK’s advantage, it is completely wrong. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, in fact, the whole of Government have made it very clear that we are committed and determined to be a force for good in the world and to work with partners to address global challenges. Our foreign policy is on behalf of the British people, but our development work is to be a force for good in the world, not for narrow self-interest.

[Jim Shannon]

We had a debate in Westminster Hall before the recess to do with non-governmental organisations and faith groups. There is a role for Government to partner with faith groups, Churches and those who want to help, and perhaps fill the gap or shortfalls between the moneys that the United Kingdom gave in the past and what it gives now. Will the Minister indicate, either now or by sending all of us details, how faith groups can partner Government to help, and how they can engage and achieve a better result for all of us?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of formal and informal faith groups, and the huge role that they play around the world in alleviating poverty and addressing difficulties and harm. The Government absolutely recognise the important role that they play. We work through a number of partners around the world, some faith-based, others secular, to try and deliver on that “force for good” agenda. He is absolutely right: faith organisations play a huge and important role in delivering humanitarian policy.

To help us deliver the agenda that we set out in the integrated review, we have brought together our diplomatic network of 281 posts in 178 countries with our aid budget and development policy to create the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That joined-up approach is helping to build partnerships and secure the opportunities that we need to tackle global challenges as part of the global community. We are making good progress against many of these challenges. The UK has been at the forefront of the international response to covid: helping to protect others and, in doing so, helping to protect ourselves. UK scientists developed the first effective and widely affordable vaccine. Our Prime Minister, Ministers and diplomats have consistently pushed for equitable global access to vaccines and therapeutics, and we have pledged £548 million of our aid budget to help to distribute 1 billion doses of coronavirus vaccine to 92 developing countries. To support the fastest route to national and global recovery, we have committed £1.3 billion of UK aid to help cushion the health and economic impacts of the pandemic around the world. We must learn the lessons of covid-19. Last year, the Prime Minister outlined his five-point plan for preventing future pandemics.

[Jamie Stone]

The Minister is absolutely correct that the roll-out of the vaccines is good news and is a success story. As I said in my contribution, our armed forces played a role in that. The point I want to make is a money point: the help with testing and vaccination provided by our armed forces takes the pressure off health professionals. It means that the money spent on the armed forces actually helps to relieve a budget in other parts of Government. I intend to explore that argument in the future, with regard to my unhappiness about the number of armed forces personnel being cut. If they are maintained and deployed properly on other things, that can help other budgets.

[James Cleverly]

I hear and understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. While it goes beyond the remit of this speech, I draw his attention to the Defence paper that was published and its focus on the greater agility, adaptability and deployability of the armed forces that we have. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing the concerns that he has expressed.

In March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined leaders from more than 20 countries who, alongside the World Health Organisation, called for a treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. That would be an important step towards increasing global co-operation and strengthening global health security. We will use our G7 presidency to work with other Governments, with industry and with international organisations to cut the target for developing and deploying new vaccines to just 100 days, addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Bath about working in co-operation, not in competition, with other countries.

I would also like to address the claim that the hon. Lady made about short-termism, which I have to reject. Climate change is a much longer-established existential threat than the pandemic to which we are currently responding. I remind her that in 1990, at the second world climate conference, Margaret Thatcher said:

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.”

I remind the hon. Lady that the Conservatives have a multi-decade track record of thinking about future generations. We are using our presidency—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Cleverly]

I will make more progress. We are using our presidency of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow later this year to get countries to commit to credible plans that will enable them to meet the commitments that they made under the Paris accord. We are also using the summit to boost co-operation and climate finance so that countries can adapt and build resilience to the evolving climate threat. The UK has pledged £11.6 billion of international climate finance over the next five years, and we will spend a significant proportion of that on building resilience in vulnerable countries. In January, the Prime Minister launched the adaptation action coalition to galvanise momentum on climate adaptation ahead of COP26 and beyond it.

We have also worked to secure more international attention on the overlap between climate change and security threats. In February, the Prime Minister chaired the UN Security Council open debate, which was the first-ever leader-level discussion on climate change in the Security Council. We are also addressing the interlinked climate and security challenges through NATO.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the issue of cyber. Unlike pandemics and climate change, advanced technologies bring with them significant benefit, but they also have embedded in them significant risks. Artificial intelligence, for example, has the potential to help to tackle global challenges but, as AI technologies such as facial recognition continue to develop in sophistication, we need to ensure that such technologies are not used as a tool of repression. The UK Government believe in responsible technological innovation that benefits everyone, but this is a fast evolving area, with a dearth of international agreement. That is why we are working with industry and like-minded countries to enhance responsible development of AI and to ensure that the use of data is safe, fair, legal and ethical. The UK Government will soon launch a national AI strategy, which will help to make the UK a global centre for the development and adoption of responsible AI.

The UK is also at the forefront of demonstrating that there are meaningful consequences for malicious cyber-activity. Last year, working with the EU—this is another example of the international co-operation that we engage in—we imposed cyber sanctions on 12 entities and individuals from China, Russia and North Korea through the EU cyber sanctions regime. We will continue to work closely with international partners to impose sanctions through our own autonomous cyber sanctions regime. The National Cyber Security Centre has played a pivotal role in responding to cyber-incidents and is acknowledged as a global centre of excellence. The resilience of our allies is also critical, which is why, since 2012, we have invested up to £39 million in international cyber-security programmes and projects, working with more than 100 countries to build their cyber resilience.

The integrated review is a blueprint for navigating this more competitive and dangerous age. It identified the need to build our resilience, which we will address in greater detail in the new UK resilience strategy to be developed this year, looking at domestic and international challenges.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The Minister talks about the integrated review providing a blueprint for a long-term strategy to deal with the conflicts and crises of the world. Will he tell us how he thinks cutting the 0.7% aid budget fulfils that long-term strategy, or that commitment to the world’s poorest, or that commitment to some of the most challenging regions in the world?

[James Cleverly]

The integrated review makes a specific commitment to get back to the 0.7% as quickly as possible. The Conservative Government are immensely proud that we were committed to that 0.7%. I remind my hon. Friend and others that even 0.5% makes us one of the most generous aid donors in the world and is higher than in almost all years under the previous Labour Government. The most important way to get the UK back to the position where we can be as generous as we would naturally wish to be is to ensure that the UK economy recovers quickly. The faster the economy can recover, the more quickly we can get back to 0.7% and, in absolute terms, the larger that 0.7% will be.

[Anthony Mangnall]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

Let me conclude by making a pledge on behalf of the UK Government to continue to defend and promote the interests and wellbeing of the British people. The integrated review provides a framework to address the manifold threats that imperil our nation and our national security. While the challenges are significant, the UK is playing a leading role in finding global solutions. The diversity of our economy, the depth and breadth of British expertise, our targeted investment and the reach of our international networks mean that we are well placed to adapt and respond to the challenges ahead. As the host of G7 and the COP climate summit later this year, with our international allies on our side and the blueprint provided by the integrated review in hand, we are well placed to help the world to build back better from coronavirus and create a greener, fairer, more prosperous and more secure future for us all.

Conflict in Tigray Region of Ethiopia

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate this evening. Normally, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) would have responded, but, unfortunately, he is travelling. I know that he takes the issues that she has raised very seriously, and I shall run through some of the points that he would have made had he been able to be here.

The crisis in Tigray is of grave concern both to Her Majesty’s Government and, indeed, to Members of this House. More than four months on from the start of the conflict, much of Tigray remains incredibly dangerous both for the people who live there and for the humanitarian workers trying to deliver badly needed support, and, as the hon. Lady set out in her speech, the impact on civilians is devastating. Sadly, we are aware that at least five workers—Ethiopian staff working for UK-funded non-governmental organisations—have tragically been killed in this conflict. I pay tribute to them here today for their courage, for their service and, ultimately, for their sacrifice. The targeting of humanitarians is utterly unacceptable.

The conflict has caused the collapse of essential and basic services: health, nutrition, water and sanitation. Life-saving maternal healthcare services and vaccines cannot be delivered, thereby endangering the lives of newborn children and their mothers. Huge numbers of people, likely more than half a million, are in areas beyond the reach of aid agencies. Across the region, as the hon. Lady said, 4.5 million people are now in need of life-saving humanitarian aid. The United Nations assesses that the overall humanitarian response remains “deeply inadequate” compared with the needs that have been assessed on the ground, and the situation is indeed grave.

We have received ongoing reports of egregious human rights violations since the conflict started and, as has been outlined, we are seeing and hearing increasingly harrowing stories, on an almost daily basis, of widespread murder and rape. Armed actors are subjecting civilians to appalling abuses and systematic campaigns of looting, largely with impunity. Eritrea’s role in this conflict is particularly concerning. As such, the UK has called on it to leave Ethiopia immediately. There are numerous reports of atrocities involving Eritrean forces, and their presence is fuelling insecurity.

Since the start of the conflict in November, the UK has consistently called for unhindered and comprehensive access for relief agencies and journalists. One of the greatest defences against the impunity that the hon. Lady has highlighted is the work of the media. We have been clear that the protection of civilians must be a priority, and we have pressed for investigations into the human rights abuses that have been highlighted, as well as for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces. There can be no military solution to the problems in Tigray, and we have urged all parties to seek an inclusive political settlement and to restore security and stability.

In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Ethiopia and visited a humanitarian logistics hub in Gondar, run by the World Food Programme. He heard first hand from our agency partners about the difficulties faced in delivering life-saving assistance. He also met Prime Minister Abiy, the President and the Deputy Prime Minister. He emphasised to them the need for immediate humanitarian access, and made clear the UK’s serious concerns about human rights violations, media freedom and political freedom.

The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa have also raised the situation with their counterparts across the continent and internationally. As the hon. Lady suggested, that includes recent conversations with the United States Secretary of State Blinken. I have raised these issues with my counterparts in the Gulf, and the UK has been active in discussions at the United Nations Security Council. Most recently, on 11 March, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth called again for urgent action to be taken to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, during a discussion on food insecurity and conflict in the other place.

The UK has been a generous supporter of humanitarian activities. On top of more than £100 million of humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia this financial year, an additional £15.4 million has been provided specifically for this crisis response. Our embassy in Addis Ababa has been working tirelessly and in challenging circumstances to secure humanitarian access, and to press for investigations into the human rights abuses and violations that the hon. Lady outlined in her speech.

A team of UK officials from the embassy travelled to Mekelle, Tigray’s principal city, on 4 and 5 March. United Nations and NGO staff were open about the complexities of operating in this environment and the extent of civilian suffering. At a site for displaced persons, our staff heard harrowing accounts of truly horrendous abuses. They saw a relief effort hamstrung by confused Government systems struggling to keep pace with the needs of the people. It is clear that obstacles to access have weakened the overall response to this devastating situation.

One positive development has been the recent announcement from the Government of Ethiopia on access and their commitment to move to a system of access notification. Under that approach, responding organisations no longer have to wait for approval from Ethiopian authorities to enter Tigray. The UK is working with the United Nations and others to assess whether changes introduced by the authorities result in a demonstrable and positive improvement on the ground. We can also cautiously welcome the improved access for the media in Tigray.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will be interested to know, as he has raised this privately with me, that we also support the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Its work is important, and we are glad to see that those staff are planning a joint mission with the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.

However, it is clear that media workers remain persecuted and at risk of detention. We are also concerned that the proposed joint human rights investigation will not be seen as impartial by the victims of the conflict. The crisis in Tigray comes as Ethiopia already faces huge humanitarian, economic and political pressures. In 2021, relief agencies will assist nearly 18 million people across the country. Covid-19, climate events and devastating locust invasions have already put paid to prosperity in the region. Ethnic violence has increased in many regions and may rise further ahead of the planned elections in June this year. The stakes are very high, and this coming year will need concerted action by the international system and a strong and well co-ordinated United Nations.

Let me conclude by reassuring the House that the United Kingdom will continue to engage comprehensively with Ethiopia and to lead co-ordination with international partners in pressing for a political solution to this conflict that brings about an end to the violence. We will also ensure that investigations into atrocities are robust, unbiased, credible and trusted by the people of Tigray themselves, so that those committing abuses do not evade justice. In the meantime, it is our absolute priority to make sure that humanitarian support continues to reach those in desperate need.

Question put and agreed to.

Report on Victim Compensation for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

In March 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) appointed Mr William Shawcross as his special representative on UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross was commissioned to write an internal scoping report on the subject of compensation for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross submitted his report in March 2020.

The Government thank Mr Shawcross for his report. Since it was commissioned as an internal scoping report, to provide internal advice to Ministers, and draws on private and confidential conversations held by Mr Shawcross, the Government will not be publishing the report.

These important issues have needed careful and thorough consideration across Government given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues raised.

The UK Government reiterate their profound sympathy for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism and indeed for all victims of the Troubles. We recognise the pain and suffering of victims of violent crime, including terrorism, and provide publicly funded support and compensation schemes for those affected.

The UK Government are clear that the primary responsibility for the actions of the IRA lies with the IRA. Nevertheless, the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA was extensive. It is widely documented in the public domain. It involved money, weapons, explosives and training from the 1970s onwards. It helped fuel the Troubles in Northern Ireland and enhanced the IRA’s ability to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime lies with the Libyan state. The Government have therefore repeatedly urged the Libyan authorities, including at the highest levels of the Libyan Government, to engage with UK victims and their representatives, and to address their claims for compensation.

However, there are clear practical difficulties in obtaining compensation from Libya for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. The conflict, political instability and economic instability that have prevailed in Libya for most of the last 10 years since the fall of the Gaddafi regime present particular challenges.

Mr Shawcross has considered these issues, including the difficulties of defining UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism given the extensive nature of Libyan support for the IRA, and the range of proposals for providing compensation to victims. The Government have reflected fully on these issues. The Government’s considered view is that an additional, UK-funded mechanism for providing compensation to victims of the Troubles would not provide accountability for the specific role of the Gaddafi regime in supporting the IRA.

Mr Shawcross also considered whether compensation for UK victims should be funded from Libyan frozen assets in the UK. Under international law, when assets are frozen, they continue to belong to the designated individual or entity. Frozen assets may not be seized by the UK Government.

In implementing financial sanctions, the UK is obliged to comply with the relevant United Nations obligations. UN Security Council resolution 2009 (2011) states that the aim of the Libya financial sanctions regime is

“to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) shall as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of Libya”.

There is also no legal basis for the UK to refuse the release of frozen assets once conditions for delisting or unfreezing those assets set out in UN Security Council resolution 2009 of 2011 are met.

Therefore, regrettably, the UK has no legal basis to seize frozen Libyan assets or to refuse the release of frozen assets. The Government cannot lawfully use Libyan assets frozen in the UK to provide compensation to victims.

The UK Government have also considered whether they should provide compensation to victims from public funds, which it may subsequently recoup from Libya. The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime is the direct responsibility of the Libyan state. It is not therefore for the UK Government to divert UK public funds specifically for this particular purpose.

Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, occurring in Great Britain can access the criminal injuries compensation scheme, funded by the UK Government, subject to eligibility criteria and time limits. Bereaved family members can access bereavement and funeral payments. In Northern Ireland, victims have access to the Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Troubles permanent disablement scheme, to be delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive, will provide acknowledgement payments to people living with permanent physical or psychological disablement resulting from being injured in Troubles-related incidents. Details of when the scheme will be open for applications, and how people can apply, will be published by the Northern Ireland Executive.

The UK will continue to press the Libyan authorities to address the Libyan state’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA.

[HCWS874]

UN Human Rights Council: UK Voting Record on Israel

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for securing this debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not just for the words that he has spoken in this debate, but for the hard work that I know he does outside this Chamber to fight against antisemitism. I have listened to, and am grateful for, the contributions and interventions made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and I will try to cover as many points as possible.

First, let me state on the record that the UK is a proud friend of Israel. I think it is fair also to say on the record that prior to my ministerial appointment I was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. My personal feelings aside, the UK Government’s position is that we are both happy and proud to stand up when we feel that Israel faces bias and unreasonable criticism from international institutions, or indeed from anywhere else. We agree with my hon. Friend that item 7 is an example of that bias. As he said, item 7 is unique; it is the only item on the council’s agenda that singles out an individual country for scrutiny. For many of the reasons that he mentions, we feel that this is wrong; furthermore, we believe it hinders the work of the human rights agenda that the UN seeks to pursue and actually disincentivises full co-operation in pursuit of that agenda. Rather than encouraging Israel to engage with the mechanisms and expertise that the Human Rights Council has to offer, we believe that item 7 alienates Israel.

This is an issue that has been brought up with me directly, and it is clearly one on which a number of Members of the House of Commons agree. We want Israel to engage fully with the human rights machinery. We feel that item 7 dissuades it from doing so. Item 7 damages the efforts to advance dialogue, increase stability, and build mutual trust and understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian people, and therefore damages the prospect of a sustainable, meaningful and peaceful two-state solution. That is why, at the 40th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2019, the UK adopted a principled approach in which we voted against all resolutions tabled under item 7.

Our vote sent a clear signal that the UK stands against the implicit supposition that Israel’s conduct deserves a unique focus and greater scrutiny than that of any other country in the world. The UK will continue to push for the abolition of agenda item 7. Let me make it clear that we will continue to support the scrutiny of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Human Rights Council, as long as that scrutiny is justified, fair and proportionate and is not proposed under agenda item 7, which is why, by definition, agenda item 7 should be abolished.

My hon. Friend spoke about issues moved from agenda item 7 to other agenda items. I touch on that because it is an important distinction. It goes to the point that the UK is happy to support the scrutiny of countries, including Israel, if it is done fairly and proportionately. That is why that when the Palestinian Authority made the decision in 2019 to move resolution items from item 7 to item 2—bearing in mind that item 2 looks at a range of actions of a range of states—the UK engaged with that resolution in good faith and closely with our international partners. We ultimately chose to abstain, in keeping with the position we took in 2018 when we abstained on a resolution to create a commission of inquiry into Gaza protests. In that instance, we could not and did not support an investigation into violence that refused to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas—a point that my hon. Friend made. Our expectation is that accountability must be pursued impartially, fairly and in an even-handed manner.

This Government have also chosen not to support resolutions at the Human Rights Council that include provisions that go beyond our broad policies. In 2016 and 2017, alongside other European states, we abstained on a Human Rights Council resolution that called for the creation of databases of companies involved in settlement activities in the Palestinian territories. As we said in our explanation of votes at the time, we did not believe that establishing such a database was a helpful measure or consider it appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council to take on this role. The UK has not co-operated with the process of compiling this database, nor have we encouraged UK companies to do so.

As my hon. Friend says, the 46th session of the Human Rights Council is ongoing. The Government will continue to vote against all resolutions under item 7. The Palestinian delegation has listened to our concerns and has moved some resolutions from item 7 to item 2, meaning there will now be two Palestinian-tabled resolutions under item 7, rather than the four that were under item 7 back in 2018. The Palestinians have also merged or consolidated the two items, reducing the overall number of resolutions focused on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Negotiations on the resolutions are ongoing. As I said, we have committed to enter in good faith into negotiations on the text of such resolutions. Our blanket opposition is to resolutions under item 7, rather than more broadly to resolutions on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will therefore decide how we vote based purely on the merits of the resolution and on the final text that is put before the council.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am sorry to cut in just as the Minister is making a very important point, but I want to get some clarity. I understand the argument that he is making about engaging with the text that has moved from a permanent item 7 agenda into item 2, but if we voted against text that singles out Israel for criticism without mentioning Hamas or Islamic Jihad when it appears in item 7, surely it is morally right and logically consistent to vote against it when it appears under item 2 or anywhere else. Will he commit to vote against text exactly like that when it appears under item 2?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that we have about three minutes left.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which it is worth exploring. The UK Government have a principled opposition to agenda item 7 and have therefore voted against it because of its nature. We recognise that moving away from agenda item 7 is a positive step, so our commitment is to engage with the specific text. It may well be the case that the UK Government find the final text unacceptable, but the decision will be based on the specific text rather than our principled opposition to item 7 as a tool of specific and unfair criticism of Israel. Those negotiations are ongoing, so I am not in a position to provide my right hon. Friend with the reassurances he seeks.

It should be recognised that the close and strong bilateral relationship between the UK Government and Israel gives us the opportunity to speak out when we feel that Israel’s actions warrant it, as we have done on our concerns about annexation and the demolition of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, it is also the Government’s position that we will continue to support and advocate balanced resolutions in UN bodies. We are committed to making progress toward a two-state solution.

Resolutions that politicise UN bodies or that risk hardening the position of either side do little to advance peace or mutual understanding. We believe that negotiations will succeed only when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians and supported by the international community, and we will continue to work with international bodies, regional bodies, European partners and the United States, and of course with Israel and the Palestinian leadership, to advance dialogue, to encourage joint working and to find a permanent peaceful solution to this conflict, which has gone on for too long.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your forbearance during the Division Bells.

Question put and agreed to.