China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. We are 100% committed to AUKUS, and the development of pillar 2 particularly.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As I believe the Foreign Secretary is an honest man, I am perfectly prepared to accept that he raised these matters of human rights as forcefully as he says he did, so there must be something wrong with the Foreign Office’s reporting, because that forcefulness does not find its way into its account of the visit. Is one reason why his officials are reluctant to relay what really happened the fact that we are overdependent on China, and has he made an assessment of what would happen in terms of our dependence on China were, heaven forbid, a conflict to break out over Taiwan?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise dependency. One thing that the China audit will look at is that very issue, and the assessment that he refers to is being made not just by us, but by our closest allies.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

There is a lot that we are doing and trying to do to alleviate the humanitarian suffering. We provided additional funding for UK-Med, which I did within the first weeks in office. We match funded the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—that is £10 million to date. We are supporting Jordan, which wants to do airdrops, with its planning. We are doing everything we can to alleviate the suffering, but as my hon. Friend knows, the trucks are backed up. There is food sitting on the border that comes from the British taxpayer. It is that that is unacceptable. It is that that I raised again with Foreign Minister Katz and that we will continue to press on. The aid needs to get in now. He reassured me this weekend that it will. That was his reassurance. As we head into winter and the Knesset voting today on UNRWA, the urgency of the debate we are having in this House could not be more necessary.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office share my view that none of this dreadful cycle, which began on 7 October, would have happened but for Iran’s determination to derail the prospect of peace and recognition between Saudi Arabia and Israel? What assessment has the Department made of the possibility that one day the Iranian people will be able to free themselves of the terrible regime under which they suffer?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: this story began on 7 October, and it is important for us to keep it in mind that Hamas is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, that Hezbollah is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, and that the Houthis, who are currently causing huge disruption in the Red sea, are also funded and supported by Iran. We should also keep it in mind that Iran is a regime that perpetrates all sort of atrocities on its own people. It suppresses freedom of speech, it suppresses women—the list goes on. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to place Iran at the centre, as the major threat to the region.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow such a splendid maiden speech by the new hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). As a third-generation immigrant myself, whose family lived in the city of Swansea for more or less exactly 100 years, I know precisely how he feels in his gratitude to the place in a new country that gave him every opportunity to develop his talents and abilities to the point at which he deservedly finds himself in this place. I am sure he will make maximum use of that opportunity. I particularly welcome his warm reference to his predecessor, Mike Gapes, who served in this House for no fewer than 27 years and was the epitome of moderate, patriotic Labour. He won respect on the Conservative side of the House as well as on his own side, and it was sad that a point came when he felt he could no longer remain a member of the Labour party, although I am glad to see from his Wikipedia entry that he is back in the fold today.

This uncontroversial Bill seeks to change the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to convert each of them into what is known as a body corporate. These are sensible proposals, which I broadly support. However, as stated during the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on the rising of the House on 12 September, there is one other organisation, with which I am rather familiar, that requires the same change in status as the CPA and the ICRC, to make it into a body corporate too. That organisation is the office that supports the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and this Bill presents us with the timeliest opportunity to achieve that necessary change. Indeed, it is a perfect fit, so I trust that the House will bear with me while I explain the serious conflict of interest that has arisen, why that conflict matters to Parliament and how it can easily be rectified with a simple addition to the Bill before the House today.

For the benefit of newer Members in the Chamber, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute in 1994. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC was given the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament, yet Parliament’s intent, as expressed in that Act, is currently being undermined. Right hon. and hon. Members might be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office, with a very small number of staff, belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing certain sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest, which is why, when the Justice and Security Act was passed, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive that the Committee is charged with scrutinising and holding to account on behalf of Parliament.

The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on Parliament’s behalf by exerting control over the ISC’s small staff team to prevent them from doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can—and does—starve the team of resources so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That completely contravenes and disregards a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the recent general election about vital extra resources for the ISC staff.

Control by the Cabinet Office also means that it can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, blaming them for the Committee’s robust scrutiny, with damaging consequences for their future careers in the civil service. Such deplorable behaviour has included repeatedly downgrading highly positive assessments, submitted by me as ISC Chairman at the time, of staff performance in recent years. In reality, the members of the ISC in the last Parliament valued the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, as I believe all members have since the Committee was first established 30 years ago. We certainly found the arrangements that I have described totally unacceptable.

The ISC therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the Committee, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system for the Committee’s office to move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, from the Cabinet Office—and instead to be established as an independent body corporate with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it.

That constitutional change, which the Cabinet Office has predictably attempted to ignore, is essential to protect the separation of powers. It is also extremely easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish the office as a body corporate to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and safeguard the independence of the Committee itself.

I had hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence since Parliament was dissolved for the general election, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, that is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office.

The Bill, in seeking to change the constitutional status of the CPA and the ICRC and allow better provision for their staffing arrangements, is the ideal vehicle through which to achieve the same for the ISC’s beleaguered office. It is the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s staff organisation too. We must not pass up this opportunity: parliamentary time is precious, and there may not be another suitable vehicle during this Parliament.

As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that the amendment should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not yet happened. I intend to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill with an amendment, and I trust, for the reasons I have set out, that the House will support it.

Having chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past four years, and having also served on it throughout the 2010-15 Parliament, I reiterate what I said in 2019 after more than four years as Chairman of the Defence Committee: it is better to stop while people wish you to carry on, than to carry on until people wish you to stop—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to have that endorsement. Hopefully, I can still be a friend of both Committees on the Floor of this Chamber, while giving support to my successors in office.

It was as extraordinary as it was shameful that no Prime Minister saw fit to meet with the Intelligence and Security Committee during the entirety of the last Parliament, although to her credit, during her short time at No. 10, Liz Truss did offer to do so. Perhaps the latest occupant of Downing Street will show greater respect towards a body that has consistently undertaken sensitive inquiries, and produced reports of the highest quality and the soundest judgment over the past 30 years, largely because of the calibre and integrity of its professional director and her dedicated staff. Let us now do the right thing by them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

With the leave of the House, let me first say that it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think for the first time since I have been in the Chamber. We have been opponents at some times and allies at others, but it is a pleasure to see you, and I welcome you to your place. I thank Members from both sides of the House for their insightful and valuable contributions. It is clear that the work and values of both organisations are highly regarded by all Members and that the legislation has support—I hope; I do not want to prejudge a possible vote.

As I noted earlier, this is not the first time that the House has considered forms of this legislation, and we are all pleased to see it back again. On Second Reading in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman said that she thought the Bill was the first to receive a Second Reading in this Parliament under the new Government; I think it is now the first Bill to receive a Second Reading in both Houses. Could it be the first to gain His Majesty’s signature? I wonder. I certainly hope that before the conference I can provide the answers the shadow Minister was looking for.

I thank the shadow Minister for her kind words. I welcome her and the Opposition’s warm support as well as her tribute to the past proponents of the Bill. I agreed with her comments about the Commonwealth, particularly when she spoke about the friendships and the best practice that we can share, and with her tribute to His Majesty the King. A number of Members referenced Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her decades of service; her particular engagement with the Commonwealth is recognised by all sides. The shadow Minister also paid tribute to the work of the ICRC and its staff, particularly on Nagorno-Karabakh.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I will try to answer. If I do not get them all, I will be happy to write to her. She asked specifically about the funding to the ICRC. His Majesty’s Government provide £48 million each year as core unrestricted funding and are on track to provide at least an additional £80 million this year in direct contributions to the ICRC’s work around the world. She and other right hon. and hon. Members raised the importance of the FCDO’s working with the CPA. I certainly hope that all our high commissions and embassies will provide a warm welcome to delegations and support the work; the points about the benefits in soft power and about representing this place in its broadest sense, with all our expertise and traditions, are well made.

Like other right hon. and hon. Members, the hon. Lady made much wider points about the Commonwealth. We attach great importance to our membership of the Commonwealth, which is a vibrant network of 2.5 billion people united in the pursuit of freedom, peace and prosperity. We fundamentally believe that a modern, cohesive and effective Commonwealth can play an important role in delivering progress on UK priorities across the globe—whether in the sphere of democracy, common values, defending the rights of women, girls and minority communities, dealing with climate change and the energy transition, or the particular challenges faced by small island states. We will work on all those key issues together. There is also the issue of growth and economic development; the Commonwealth’s 56 members include some of the world’s fastest growing economies and it is vital that we partner with them for their and our global benefit. Importantly, those issues, among many others, will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa.

I also pay tribute to my good friend the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She paid particular tribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross; I particularly recognise what she said about the loss of its workers in current conflicts as well as many others in the past. All of us across the House salute the resilience and bravery of those who work in such trying circumstances.

I welcome the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) to her place and thank her for her party’s support for the Bill. She rightly pointed to the example of other countries and why we need to follow suit. I assure her of the new Government’s commitments to international law, the multilateral system, humanitarian principles and the sustainable development goals; my noble Friend Lord Collins and others will be speaking about those matters in due course. The hon. Lady also rightly referenced the recent speech made by the Minister for Development.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on his election and all those elected to the CPA executive. I thank him for his work and support for the Bill. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) has had to attend the important CPA event; she rightly paid tribute to Maria Miller and Ian Liddell-Grainger and highlighted the important work on modern slavery. I wish her well on her panel today. Like me, she is passionate about the personal relationships that we can develop.

The right hon. Lady and others mentioned the importance of the CPA in relation to devolved Administrations. Ironically, the first CPA conference that I attended was in the Senedd, in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and brought together representatives of devolved Administrations along with UK and other Members of Parliament—as well as representatives of the overseas territories, for which I now have responsibility. That learning, sharing, friendship and understanding of our different ways of working as well as our common challenges was hugely important.

We have heard some fantastic maiden speeches today. First, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) a passionate account of his journey from Punjab to Ilford, which he described as a place of promise. He spoke of the community and the home that he had found and contributed to, and the passion that he clearly felt for his diverse and dynamic community, which has many similarities to my own, was very inspiring. I also noted his pledges on health and the Government’s commitments on NHS reforms, and his campaign for King George hospital. I thank him for that excellent maiden speech.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) always makes important points. I heard very clearly what he had to say, but, as I take a key interest in these matters as well, I would gently stress the point that, as he knows, the Clerks have particularly strong rules relating to the scope of Bills, and the amendment that he suggested may not be in the scope of this Bill. Obviously, it is for the Clerks to opine on the matter. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and will certainly take them away, but there is clearly a stark difference between the Intelligence and Security Committee situation that he described and the position of the CPA and the ICRC.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

May I urge the Minister, when the Government are considering the political dimension of what is being proposed, to engage in consultations with Lord West of Spithead, his own party’s representative on the previous ISC, and also with the new Lord Beamish, formerly Kevan Jones of this parish, who likewise was firmly committed to the sort of measure that I am proposing?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned some well-respected people—my noble Friends —and I will ensure that colleagues across Government hear what he has said, and also his request for the ISC to meet the Prime Minister, although, as he will know, the Prime Minister’s diary is incredibly stretched.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) took the opportunity to make a lengthy speech. The Whips will probably teach him not to do that too often, but he made a fantastic contribution including some thoughtful insights on the importance of the Commonwealth and its future, particularly in a world where we are contesting with autocratic and repressive states that seek a very different future for the world. I believe that the Commonwealth provides a set of values and principles on which we can all unite. He spoke of his own family history, and also noted the Commonwealth contribution in the two world wars, which we need to remember regularly, especially as we approach the season of remembrance.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) made another excellent maiden speech. Like many other Members, I know his constituency well—I have sung at Royal Holloway’s Windsor building, I have visited the fields at Runnymede, and I recently attended a conference on Ukraine in Windsor Castle itself—and I know that it is home to many and varied activities from the cultural to the historic. He spoke of his passion for physics. I wanted to be a physicist myself until my English teacher told me to go into politics, and the contribution that science and mathematics can make to the House is key. The royal history of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is, of course, well known. I welcome him to the House, and thank him for an excellent speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) paid a heartfelt tribute to the family, friends and campaigners who brought her to this place, along with her own clear commitments to public service. She also paid warm tributes to her predecessors, including Clarice Shaw and Cathy Jamieson. I got to know Cathy Jamieson well when I first came to this place 12 years ago. She ensured that I was given a tour around “Killie” football club at one point when I was in her constituency. My hon. Friend may not know this, but there is a direct connection between her constituency and mine: Loudoun Square is at the heart of Butetown. The name denotes the strong links between the coal and shipping industries of Cardiff and the west coast of Scotland. That connection is deep and abiding. My hon. Friend spoke with passion about the huge community assets in her constituency and the strength of that community, and I wish her well in this place.

Last but not least, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made some very important remarks and some kind remarks about me, and I congratulate him on his election to the CPA’s executive committee. The significance of this change is understood by the Government, which is why we want to get the Bill through. I am glad that he highlighted some of the challenges we see around the Commonwealth, particularly those facing the LGBT+ community. He knows that I take those issues very seriously, and I have taken advantage of my time with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to raise such concerns in the past. These are issues that I and other Ministers take very seriously.

I will conclude by saying that I am well aware not only of the excellent work that the ICRC does, but of its importance to the Commonwealth. My own constituency has people from Cyprus, Malta, south Asia and Africa. It is vital that we continue those links at the parliamentary level and work together, and we Ministers are committed to doing so. I thank everybody for their contributions today. I look forward to seeing this Bill progress—rapidly, I hope—and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [LORDS] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 13 November 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [LORDS] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any amount refunded in respect of any tax or duty in accordance with arrangements made under the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely confirm that that is the case. We are committed to resetting our relationship and to delivering outcomes in practice. As I mentioned, I attended the Moldova partnership platform in Chisinău last month. It is particularly important that we work alongside our EU partners when it comes to the attacks on Moldova’s democratic future by Putin’s Russia. We also had important discussions about the western Balkans in Berlin last week. I was there with the President of the European Commission and Chancellor Scholz, and it is absolutely important that we work together on these critical challenges.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

While we hope that it never happens, if a future American President wished to withdraw support from Ukraine, will the Government assure us that that would be a prominent item on the agenda in their conversations with EU leaders?

[Stephen Doughty]

Obviously, decisions in America are for the American people, but the special relationship endures, regardless of the Administration or who is in the White House, and it is deep and enduring, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well from his important former roles. We absolutely need to co-operate with our EU partners on support for Ukraine, and that is why today it is so fantastic to hear the news that we have agreed, as promised, with the G7 and with our European and indeed our American partners, the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme that will deliver new money to Ukraine now.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have set out, we inherited a mess, quite frankly, on some of these issues and we are taking the pragmatic, practical steps to ensure that we have agreements that meet the needs going forward.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I accept what the Minister says—that there have been no immigration arrivals since 2022—but does he accept in turn that there is a danger of creating a pull factor? If that happens, and a much larger number arrive than expected, will he put a cap on the number that can be transferred to St Helena?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is exactly why we have concluded these agreements with Mauritius and St Helena. BIOT is not a suitable place for migrants to be present; there is no permanent population and there are no suitable facilities. We are taking these steps to close down that route and ensure that people do not make that dangerous journey.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his service and the seriousness with which he puts his remarks. I can give him that unequivocal assurance for the Falklands, for Gibraltar, for Cyprus and the rights that exist. The situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory is completely different and not comparable, and I regret that in a way this decision has been made against the backdrop of a Conservative leadership contest, and that colleagues who know a lot better have sought to make partisan points with something so important.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?

[Mr Lammy]

This deal secures the future of the base beyond the lifetime of anyone currently in this Parliament, and it can be extended. That is why the US Secretary of Defence has welcomed it. I would have thought that a former head of NATO of course welcomes this deal, because it secures the base and our national security, and the national security of the global community.

Middle East Update

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are keeping this issue under review. We are in dialogue with our closest allies on this issue, and we will not flinch from dealing with the issues at hand if we need to.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that what appears to be a carefully calibrated response to a dreadful situation will not in any way impair the valuable co-operation between Israel and the United Kingdom where the sharing of intelligence about international terrorist activity is concerned?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is among the very few in this House who understand the breadth, depth, and importance for our own national security of that relationship. We have a very important people-to-people relationship with Israel—250,000 Jewish people in this country—and a very important trading relationship with Israel, but our intelligence, military and security co-operation is essential, not just to our national interest but to the security of much of the world.

As such, I have made this decision with regret. It is in sorrow, not in anger, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that other Governments—Conservative Governments —have gone for a full arms embargo. We have not done that today, because we recognise that with Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas, it is right that Israel has the means to defend itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the work of our armed services and all of our veterans; I thank him for doing that in the House today. We have undertaken a strategic defence review and we will ensure at an appropriate fiscal event in the coming months that we set out a timetable to get to that 2.5% of GDP.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the dominant strand in the US Republican party is, at the moment, falling into the trap of renewed isolationism? What can we do to try to impress on our American allies that if they turn away from NATO they will only postpone a conflict that could otherwise be avoided completely?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman speaks from immense experience on these matters. He will recognise that there are range of opinions on these issues within both political parties in the United States. I was very pleased that Donald Trump spoke recently to President Zelensky and that a supplemental $61 billion of aid to Ukraine was found recently.

International Immunities and Privileges

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the shadow Defence team with the remarks from the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition about the terrible attack on a British solider in Kent? Our thoughts are with his family.

I can confirm that we support the measures before us and recognise that they are necessary to deliver into law the administrative governance of the global combat air programme. Although this is a Foreign Office measure, the statutory instrument was prepared with strong input from the Ministry of Defence—it certainly crossed my desk when I was Minister for Defence Procurement. May I put on the record that it was a great honour to serve in that role—with significant responsibility in relation to GCAP—alongside the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps.

It was a privilege to engage with our international GCAP partners from Italy and Japan, whom I had the pleasure of hosting last September in Lancaster House for trilateral discussions. This is not just about delivering UK military capability in the crucial area of combat air, but about doing so to the benefit of two great partners, and, in the case of Japan, one that faces the threat of China and Russia right on its doorstep. Since that trilateral, the project has achieved significant goals, not least the signing of the international treaty last December that we are legislating for today. The treaty establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international organisation, the GIGO. I am delighted that we are able to agree that the international HQ of the GIGO will be in the UK, but that, in keeping with the spirit of equal partnership that underpins GCAP, the first chief executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy and Japan. As such, the SI before us effectively enables this international treaty to enter into effect, with further important measures on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the effective operation of the GIGO.

All that said, although the SI is necessary to deliver GCAP’s governance arrangements, it will not directly deliver a single aircraft. Alongside this SI, we need the Government to back the GCAP programme wholeheartedly by ensuring that it has the funding necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability. Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary for the Government to ask us as a House to approve the regulations if they were at the same time seriously contemplating scrapping UK involvement in GCAP. Yet that prospect has figured prominently in the press in recent days. While the best of British defence aviation has been gathered at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough, incredibly the Government have not been able to repeat the wholehearted backing of GCAP that they gave prior to the general election.

In responding to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps on 18 December last year, when he confirmed the trilateral agreement for the GCAP treaty, the now Defence Secretary said:

“Developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology.”

I totally agree with his remarks. Yet fast-forward to the present, and, as we have just heard at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister is only able to say that the programme is “important.” Meanwhile, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is on the Front Bench and for whom I have great personal respect, said:

“It's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the defence review”.

He thus implied that the defence review might not continue the UK’s commitment to GCAP. We now need clarity from the Government for Parliament, industry and our international partners. We are being asked to approve this SI to deliver a key stepping-stone to the GCAP project, so are the Government still committed to it?

This is my guess about what is currently happening. I would be truly staggered if the Government were to withdraw from a programme that they have previously given such full support—not because theirs is a party that does not know a good U-turn, but because it would bring international ramifications that do not bear thinking about either for the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence. Rather, in my view, we need to have in mind another Department—one that I have also had the pleasure of serving in—the Treasury. I suspect that the overall question of whether the Government are committed to GCAP is a red herring. What really matters is whether they are committed to funding it this year, with important spending decisions to be made right now. They will be in the inbox of the Secretary of State, under “Funding decisions on GCAP.” We want the Government to continue that funding in the years beyond, and we want to know whether they are using the review as a chance to shift spending decisions to the right.

It is not unprecedented in the history of the Treasury for it to work in that way under successive Governments, probably. It might offer illusory short-term savings, but it would cause immediate and lasting pain to the most important conventional defence programme of our time. To be clear—and I mean this—I have the greatest respect for the way the Treasury has to balance the books and be responsible for the nation’s finances. I was delighted that the previous Government proposed moving to 2.5% once it was affordable—we were prepared to make difficult decisions to fund that 2.5% by reducing the size of the civil service to pre-pandemic levels—and once it was sustainable. Far from this Government inheriting what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has described as the “worst economic inheritance” since world war two, we did what we promised and moved to 2.5% only once the economic conditions allowed—namely, when inflation was back to target, with healthy economic growth and a deficit heading towards a little over 1% over the forecast period. That is our clear pathway to 2.5% versus Labour’s uncertainty and delay, which makes the real difference.

To understand the direct short-term importance of 2.5% and its relevance to GCAP and this statutory instrument, we need only go back to what the Secretary of State said the response to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps in December. He said:

“This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 1137.]

It is not so much that we lost control of the defence budget; rather, Putin invaded Ukraine and sent inflation soaring all around the world. In a world that was then in a rush to rearm, that context caused an inevitable hit to the costs of major defence projects and matériel. I have never pretended otherwise.

Bearing in mind that the equipment plan—the MOD’s forward inventory—accounts for over 10 years, the NAO’s assessment of a black hole did not take account of one thing: moving to 2.5% by 2030. As I said in my wind up to the Thursday’s debate on the Gracious Speech, by setting out a fully costed and clearly timetabled pathway to 2.5%, we were able to deal with those funding pressures head on, and ensure that our largest two programmes—the nuclear deterrent and GCAP—would be stabilised, and, as a result, properly funded into the future. I asked the Foreign Office Minister who responded to my to confirm that the Government’s timetable would not put funding of either programme at risk. There was no answer, and we have had no answer today, either. That is the problem. The Government can afford to bring forward this SI and to continue building the administrative apparatus for GCAP, but we fear that they cannot afford to approve the funding requirements for the next stage of building the actual aircraft, because of their vacillation on reaching 2.5%.

We Conservatives are clear that we support the SI on the basis that we are also supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That is a key point: for all three nations, GCAP is all about pace and timetable. For the UK and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040; for Japan, with equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F-2. That is why any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear timetable to 2.5% or otherwise, is so important and critical.

Overall, it is my view that withdrawing from GCAP now would be the equivalent of scrapping the Spitfire programme in the 1930s. It is that serious. However, if such an outcome is seriously under consideration—and we know that there are those in government who are hugely sceptical—I will explain why we are ultimately supporting this SI. It is because we on the Conservative Benches believe that GCAP is a military necessity that will bring enormous economic and strategic benefits to the United Kingdom.

To start with the military capability argument, if there is one key lesson from Ukraine, it is that in the absence of air superiority we face the prospect of terrible attritional warfare with huge casualties, reminiscent of the worst battles of world war two.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I know it is thinking very far into the future, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons from the Ukraine conflict, where we have had to give indirect support, is the importance of maintaining aircraft that we have withdrawn from service—in mothballs, if necessary—so that they can be made available to allies, should they ever face a crisis such as this one? When the happy day comes that we have these great sixth-generation aircraft, can we be certain that we have not unduly disposed of their predecessors, in case someone else needs them in future?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend’s question is an interesting one. Whenever I was in front of the Select Committee—it was always a great joy and privilege to be cross-examined, particularly by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches—there was always a debate about when we withdraw platforms and when we bring in their replacements. That will never go away, and I wish the Armed Forces Minister well when he has the unique privilege and experience of going in front of the Committee. What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that we have to accept that, as a matter of avionic reality, the Typhoon will reach the end of its service life, and we as a country have to replace it. GCAP is key to that, with the construction of the new core platform.

While investing in the best combat air capability does not guarantee air superiority in the future, it offers us the chance to deny adversaries such potentially deadly freedom of operation by maintaining technological competitiveness. However, there are those who ask, “Why don’t we simply go off-the-shelf and buy more F-35s?” I noticed similar views being expressed in The Daily Telegraph this very day, and there is even a rumour that some Government Departments, such as those I mentioned earlier, may take a view along those lines. We must be clear that the F-35, while a brilliant and highly capable aircraft, is a fifth-generation platform, not a sixth-generation one. It is not optimised for the battle space that is likely to pertain by the late 2030s, and the United States—which, after all, possesses and manufactures the F-35—is itself investing in a sixth-generation programme, as are our adversaries.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has delivered an excellent maiden speech, and it is an example to every new, and old, Member of this House that he should set out his love and affection for the place where he lives and where he has clearly spent many happy years. It is obviously a custom in this House to use the term “honourable and gallant” for somebody who has served, but in the case of the hon. Member it has particular resonance, because he received an MBE a decade ago in recognition of meritorious, gallant, and distinguished services. He made a tremendous speech, and the whole House will have heard him talk about the importance of a new hospital to his constituency, and about the scourge of knife crime, and his own personal reflections on why young people carry knives. We will all reflect on his thoughts and comments as he makes them in the months and years to come.

I welcome the Minister of State to her place, and congratulate her on her new role at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Given that she shadowed that role for some time, I feel hopeful that she has a good understanding of our partnerships not just in Europe but in east and south-east Asia, and that they are safe with her.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I welcome the Government’s announcement that they remain committed to the global combat air programme. I also welcome the presence in the King’s Speech of the strategic defence review. Reflecting on the speech that we have just heard, it is essential that we go through a strategic defence review every time we have a serious change of Government, as we have had after 14 years. It was encouraging to hear that the review will be published soon, within the first half of next year.

Professor Michael Clarke points out that this is the 12th defence review to have taken place since the end of the cold war, and that most have “not been very strategic”. He says that most reviews have been cost-cutting exercises, and that only a couple of them could be described as genuinely strategic. He goes on:

“I think this one has an ambition to be more genuinely strategic.”

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of past strategic defence reviews, and I particularly remember the 1998 SDR, which was after a Labour landslide. It was strategic and outlined concepts that stood the test of time. One reason for that was that it gave other people the opportunity to contribute to the review. I am hoping that Labour Ministers might pay a little attention to the idea that if they want their strategic defence and security review to do well, they should open up the process so that people on a non-partisan basis can have serious input to it—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see my friend the Minister for the Armed Forces nodding his agreement.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention, and so far I gather that the Government are prepared to listen to external expertise. I was encouraged to hear that Fiona Hill will be very much at the pinnacle of this review, and I know as an example that she has a great deal of insight into matters Europe, and in particular in relation to Russia. The defence review will need to look not only at means, which is what we are discussing today, but at ends and ways, so that it comes to thinking about means only after thinking about ends and ways. The problem with pre-empting a review and leaping straight into talking about particular procurement programmes is that it only serves, at this stage at least, to start to raise questions about what programmes have not been confirmed so far.

In this, the week of the Farnborough airshow, lots of questions have been raised about GCAP, or “Tempest” as the fighter aircraft will be known in the UK. On Saturday, one headline warned:

“RAF jet may never get off the ground”

and on Monday a subheading read

“questions are being asked about whether it should be scrapped to save money.”

On Tuesday an opinion column warned:

“The Government’s silence over the future of the Tempest fighter is deeply concerning.”

Sometimes the question is not as simple as whether to spend, but whether to spend in the near term or the long term, or on procuring equipment today or in the future. There is a trade-off in combat power between the near term and the long term.

I appreciate that the Government will be seeking to confirm to our allies that GCAP will proceed, and they will want to reassure Italy and Japan, as well as offer reassurance to commercial partners. Those of us from the west country need look no further than Yeovil to see what a success Leonardo has been for industry in our region. Defence exports from Yeovil amounted to £1.6 billion in 18 months. This issue clearly does matter a great deal to UK industry, but we must think about what else is happening in the commercial space.

We have heard about the European future combat air system—SCAF—consortium made up of France, Germany and Spain, which is developing a fighter jet in parallel. I urge the Government to consider whether the two systems can be as interoperable as possible. The pyramid open systems architecture that we anticipate will be part of GCAP would do well to be able to speak with whatever the SCAF comes up with.

Aside from GCAP, the strategic defence review should consider the UK’s existing capabilities, and existing combat air in particular. Twenty-six tranche 1 Typhoon fighter aircraft are due to be retired from service at the end of next March. The option remains for those tranche 1 aircraft to be brought up to the standard of tranche 2 or tranche 3. BAE systems provided the previous Government with the structural and avionic modifications that would be required, but they chose not to take that up. Instead, they intended to put the 26 tranche 1 aircraft on to a so-called reduce to produce programme to strip them of usable parts for the Typhoon fleet’s inventory of spares. I wonder whether consideration also could be given to whether they could become tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft instead.

An initial order of 150 F-35 Lightning aircraft has already been scaled back to 138, in part to release funding to GCAP. We can see that there is always a trade-off between thinking about future combat air in 2035 versus what we might need today. Upgrading the 26 tranche 1 fighter aircraft would grow the UK’s Typhoon fleet from 107 to 133. Of course, they will not have the latest air-to-ground capabilities of the F-35, and they certainly will not have the range, payload or stealth capabilities that we will expect of GCAP and Tempest, but they would be available soon. In recent months we have seen Typhoon intercept Russian long-range maritime patrol bombers north of the Shetland islands within NATO’s northern air policing area. Now does not seem to be the time to cannibalise Typhoon tranche 1 for spare parts.

I recall from my own service the phrase used in the armed forces that we should “deal with the crocodile nearest the boat.” In announcing that GCAP will go ahead, I trust that the defence review will also appraise those near-term risks in our near abroad rather than simply carrying on with existing programmes because they are already in train.

In closing, I will pose three questions to the ministerial team. First, is GCAP still too linked to the assumptions about geopolitics from the 2021 integrated review? Is it taking into full account the integrated review refresh of 2023, and particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, if there is to be a parallel development of GCAP and SCAF by other European allies, will the Government reassure us that consideration is being given to interoperability such as in relation to open systems architecture? Thirdly, if there is not enough money in the pot to upgrade Typhoon tranche 1, buy more F-35s and develop GCAP, which of those three initiatives is the UK unlikely to do?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your election and welcoming you to the Chair? I am sure that you will chair our proceedings excellently. We wish you all good luck.

May I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for a fine, fluent and—if I may say so—at times poignant maiden speech? He spoke well on behalf of his constituents. I have it on good authority that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was the procurement Minister, the hon. Member took him on a tour of Brize Norton and helped to brief him on the A400M. My hon. Friend has asked me to pass on his thanks. As a former Army officer, may I say to a former RAF officer what a great pleasure it is to see the RAF turn up on time? There is indeed a first time for everything. [Laughter.]

The purpose of the order is laid out clearly in paragraph 4.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that it

“gives effect to the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United Kingdom…establishing the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation signed on 14 December 2023”.

It points out that

“The Convention was negotiated by the Ministry of Defence.”

My third welcome is to the Minister; it is good to see her in her place. However, as the convention was nominated by the Ministry of Defence, could she explain for clarity why the FCDO and not the MOD is handling this statutory instrument?

The Minister kindly nominated me for a place on the House of Commons Defence Committee. As today appears to be a day for people taking up nominations, I will gladly accept that and announce that I am going to run—for that Committee.

I also point out that in the explanatory memorandum the policy context for the order—this is important—is described as follows:

“In December 2022, the Prime Ministers of UK, Japan and Italy launched GCAP to deliver a next generation aircraft by 2035. The signing of the GCAP Convention between the partners took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the respective Defence Secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in the GCAP.”

So far, so good. The debate takes on some additional resonance, however, because we now have a defence review, which some people have interpreted as a sword of Damocles hanging over this important programme. My fourth welcome is to the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who represents a military constituency; it is good to see him in his place, too.

A few minutes ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister described GCAP as a “really important programme”. It is. It is good that he was able to go to Farnborough, see the mock-up of the aircraft for himself and receive a briefing.

When I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, in March 2024 we travelled to Japan to examine the programme as best we could from the Japanese perspective. We spoke to politicians, civil servants, industrialists and the Japanese air self-defence force—its military. We were going to write what I believe would have been a very positive report, and then someone went and called a general election. We cannot blame the Minister for that, but she and some of her colleagues did somehow appear to benefit from it.

I would like to stress three themes from that trip, which came out strongly. The first was the absolute unanimity of purpose among the Japanese to deliver the programme. As one politician put it to us,

“We live in a tough neighbourhood, including three autocracies with nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen our defences, and this programme is fundamental to that.”

I think that is a very good summary of the Japanese perspective.

Secondly, we were struck by the willingness of the Japanese to consider third party exports of GCAP to make the aircraft affordable by increasing its production run. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was always hot on that when he was the procurement Minister. For various historical reasons, I do not think that the Japanese would necessarily have taken that view even a few years ago; that is important.

Thirdly, the Japanese have an absolute determination to achieve the in-service date of 2035, which is referred to directly in the memorandum. The Japanese air self-defence force uses a mixture of F-15J Eagle aircraft and the F-2, which is sort of a souped-up version of the American F-16. They are both good and capable aircraft, but they are getting rather long in the tooth. The Japanese have to plan forward against a threat from the Chinese J-20 or the Russian Su-57. The risk is that by the mid-2030s those aircraft will be outmatched by those two powerful new combat aircraft.

Reference has been made to the F-35. It is a fine aircraft, but it is expensive to buy and very expensive to run. The Americans have found that to their cost—the F-35 was nicknamed by the American media

“the plane that ate the Pentagon”.

It might not necessarily be the answer to the Treasury’s dream. Moreover, for the record, deliveries of the F-35 to the United States forces were suspended for nearly a year—they have only just been resumed—because of problems in upgrading the computers and the software. If we are to talk about the realities, the F-35 has been quite a troubled programme and, to some extent, continues to be so.

What would be the implications of cancellation of GCAP? This is an international agreement and, as it says in paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum:

“No external consultation was undertaken as the instrument implements provisions of an international agreement to which the United Kingdom will be obliged to give effect as a matter of international law once it enters into force.”

The first implication were we to cancel it is that it would put back Anglo-Japanese relations and Anglo-Italian relations, arguably for decades. I would not want to be the CEO of a British company trying to sell something to the Japanese Government in the aftermath of the cancellation of GCAP. Secondly, given the scale and the prominence of the programme, there would be a serious risk that we in the United Kingdom would achieve a reputation as an unreliable partner in major military collaborative programmes—everything from AUKUS through to collaboration in space. In an era when things such as a sixth-generation combat aircraft are so expensive that, as I intimated earlier, even the Americans are struggling to afford one on their own, the reality for us as a medium power is that we need to collaborate. We would find it very difficult to find future partners if we suddenly cancelled such an important and sizeable programme for financial reasons.

Thirdly, it would make a nonsense of the UK’s so-called tilt to the Pacific, which was inherent to the so-called integrated review and was reinforced when the review was refreshed before the general election. How can we tilt to the Pacific if we then cancel a major collaborative programme with a critical Pacific partner, which faces challenges from Russia and China even more immediately than we do? Bluntly, our name would be mud in that theatre of operations if we were to do that.

Fourthly, there is what one might call the prosperity agenda. As they said in the King’s Speech, the Government are very committed to growth—let us not debate building and the green belt now, but focus on this issue. In the last few years, about 80% of the UK’s defence exports have come from combat air—mainly sales of Typhoon or our 15% workshare on the F-35. That has averaged roughly £6 billion a year. Again, what would be the threat to our exports and our reputation as a reliable supplier if we were to cancel the programme?

What should we do? The GIGO, which this memorandum establishes, will incorporate prominent representatives from all three countries—the UK, Japan and Italy—and it will be headquartered here. If the programme is to survive, which I strongly believe it should, the GIGO has a vital role to play as the management organisation. It will have to be leaner and less bureaucratic than its predecessor organisations, which oversaw the Tornado and Typhoon programmes—two wonderful aircraft with a proud heritage in the Royal Air Force. I think everyone in the industry would admit that those organisations were a bit too bureaucratic.

The GIGO will have to be a lot leaner and meaner to get the job done. The principal industrial partners—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo, among others—will have a real challenge. Historically, the answer to such a dilemma might have been, “Look, it’s a very complicated programme. It will take years to achieve, and it all depends on how many countries join, how many aircraft they buy and what configuration they go for. Will the Saudis participate? Will they want it built in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if they do participate? There are lots of imponderables, so we will come back to you in about five years’ time with a unit price.” That will not wash. I would submit that one of the first tasks of the GIGO, working with those industrial partners and the three Governments, is to come up with at least a realistic pricing envelope for the programme, which the Treasury can look at and, hopefully, take a positive view on. If they do not do that, there can be no blank cheque, even for this.

To conclude, there is no such thing as an uncancellable defence programme—although I still hope for Ajax—but this comes close. To cancel this programme for short-term financial reasons would be a disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically and industrially. If it comes down to GCAP, AUKUS or Ajax, for me, Ajax has to go, and I say that as a former soldier. We need to understand how extremely serious the implications are of cancelling this programme.

I was a soldier, but the Royal Air Force has a proud tradition in the defence of this country and its interests, going back to the Battle of Britain and the first world war—when it grew out of the Army, I hasten to say.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

And the Navy.

[Mr Francois]

And the Navy, in which my father served, for completeness. The Royal Air Force needs this aircraft. We need it. The Japanese, the Italians and the west need it. By all means, let us control the costs, but let us keep it. We are not going to scrap the Spitfire of the future.

Israel and Gaza

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The position in respect of the ICC is simply not as the hon. Gentleman set out. The ICC has not done what he suggested; it has done nothing of the sort. He suggested that it had already found the answer to these allegations, but the truth is that the pre-trial chamber needs to consider the evidence, and to then reach a judgment. Let us not jump through all these hoops at once when they are simply not there to be jumped through.

Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are playing fast and loose with the rule of law. We are certainly not, and I hope that he will attend the main debate today, when he will see exactly what the Government think about the rule of law in all cases. Just because someone supports the role of the ICC, it does not mean that they have to be devoid of a view on what it is saying, and the Government are giving their view. As I said, we do not believe that seeking warrants will get the hostages out, get aid in or deliver a sustainable ceasefire, which remains the UK’s priority.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I ask this question in my personal capacity, not as Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In general, I am a strong supporter of the work of the ICC. The terrorist attack was undoubtedly designed to provoke an overreaction by the Israelis and to polarise societies, and it has succeeded in both those aims. May I ask the Minister to encourage the House to read the ICC’s statement in full? Helpfully, it is available online. May I urge people with a partisan view on either side of this atrocious issue to seriously take on board what the ICC is saying about the activities of the side they support, as well as those of the side they oppose?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that the debate is informed by facts, not rhetoric.