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.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

All across the House condemned Putin’s invasion in 2022. The whole House has supported Britain’s actions to back Ukraine and galvanise the international community. Today, I hope the whole House echoes the words of the Prime Minister as he pledged £3 billion in military aid for Ukraine every year until 2030, and beyond if necessary. He said that

“Ukraine is not alone, and Ukraine will never be alone.”

The war has entered its third year. In the last few months, Russia has been eking out small territorial gains in the Donbas. Now, the Kremlin is probing Ukrainian defences north of Kharkiv. It is unlikely to take Ukraine’s second largest city anytime soon, but in recent days it has taken a dozen villages, so we are at a difficult moment, which underlines the critical importance of accelerating the delivery of vital military support to Ukraine.

Across the country, Russian missiles are raining down on Ukrainian power plants and the electricity grid. Ukraine continues to strike back, including with clear success in degrading Russia’s Black sea fleet and taking out military targets inside Russia. Increases in American, UK and European military aid are now arriving at the frontline, and the costs for Russia remain extraordinarily high. Some 465,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded since February 2022, with thousands of conscripts having their lives tossed away for the sake of only modest tactical advances. Meanwhile, Russia’s military now sucks up over 40% of Government spending, over half of Russia’s national wealth fund is gone, and Gazprom has posted its first annual loss in 20 years, to the tune of $7 billion. Every rouble that the Kremlin spends on a dodgy North Korean missile or Iranian drone is money that it is not spending on improving the lives of Russian citizens, on teachers, on pensions or on medicine.

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

I have always been sceptical about the impact of sanctions when real warfighting breaks out, and that scepticism has recently been increased by the knowledge that so much Russian oil has been going to India to be refined there and then to be bought up by western countries that are sanctioning Russian oil. Can the Deputy Foreign Minister throw any light on this and on what we propose to do about it?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend speaks with knowledge and authority on this matter. He will know that the imposition of sanctions is a complex matter, that we have to continually ensure that those who break them are held to account, and that that is an iterative process—I believe that is the correct jargon. I can tell him that we have sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities, and that without sanctions Russia would have an extra £400 billion with which to prosecute the war.

Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and a true honour to be part of this debate, which I have a feeling is going to be this place at its best. It is at its best when it speaks for those who cannot yet be heard, and when it confronts difficult truths in our society and makes a plan to act. I suspect that the Minister shares our concern on this matter and so we are pushing at an open door, because, sadly, this is something we have seen for many years.

Let me start by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) in honouring Baroness Helic and her work on this matter, as well as thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She made such a powerful opening speech, and I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has just blown us all apart with her powerful call to action.

International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict is 19 June, so the Minister has a mere couple of weeks to agree and put in place what we shall decide today should happen in this House. But that should be a very easy task, because the asks are very simple. We must act, because we know that this is getting worse. I am not going to join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in suggesting that we are in the end of days just yet, although I respect that as part of his faith, but I recognise that we live in a very uncertain world. Six out of seven worldwide are plagued by a feeling of insecurity. We are facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the second world war, and 2 billion people —a quarter of all humanity—are therefore in places affected by those conflicts.

The challenge that we face here today is that, too often, sexual violence is seen as an inevitable consequence of such conflict—as day follows night, so women will be violated. That is not the case. Women are not mere collateral damage to conflict. The first thing that we must do in this House is to challenge that notion—that complacency—that it is part of the process so our challenge is to find a way just to stop it. No; we need to prevent it, and we prevent it by, first of all, recognising that it does not need to happen. It is chilling to me that many non-governmental organisations talk about how, for those who fight wars, sexual assault is seen as more destructive than using fire to damage a community, because the resulting damage lasts for generations.

We should recognise that, across the world, there are 15 conflict-related settings where there are active concerns that sexual-based violence is taking place—Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. There are also three post-conflict settings where we are, again, concerned that this is a very live issue—the western Balkans, Nepal and Sri Lanka. And there are three situations of concern where the UN thinks that further sexual violence may be taking place—Ethiopia, Haiti and Nigeria.

It is little wonder that more than 3,500 verified cases of sexual violence were reported last year alone—a 50% increase in this reporting cycle. The highest numbers are being reported in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I suggest that that is because those conflicts have been going on the longest, and therefore the capacity to record is the greatest. We should recognise the evidence, speak out for the victims across the world, and stand with them in the way that, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd has rightly said, we stand with those women in Israel and Gaza.

In Sri Lanka, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recognised that, during the conflict with the Tamil Tigers, there has been a horrific level of violation and abuse, including indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings and the use of torture and sexual violence. While it is difficult to get accurate numbers, we know that at least half a million women were raped during the Rwandan genocide, and 50,000 in the war in Bosnia.

We know that rape and sexual violence are the hallmarks of the military genocide for the Rohingya women. The Women’s League of Burma documented more than 100 cases of conflict-related sexual or gender-based violence during the coup. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, we also know that there is a growing but emerging evidence base from Ukraine that, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, since the start of 2014, Ukrainians—especially but not exclusively women and girls—are victims of rape, gang rape and forced nudity perpetrated by Russian military troops.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd is right; so often in these cases there is denial and dismissal, and we are seeing that in Israel right now—and actually we are seeing it in Gaza too, because there have been very credible reports. In this country, those of us who want to tackle violence against women start from a position where we believe, because we know how hard it is to come forward and report in the first place. So we believe until the evidence proves otherwise, but the evidence basis that we have got is very clear. I want to mention this because I know that there will be people watching this, and I have seen myself the querying, the questioning and the double-bluffing about whether or not sexual violence is taking place. The evidence basis of the special representative of the Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict included interviews with 34 individuals —survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders, and health and service providers. Some 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of footage of the attacks were also reviewed. These are not in-passing recollections; it has been a systematic approach to identifying what has happened.

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

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) have stressed the organised nature of what happened on 7 October, but no one has yet said what the reason was for that. The principal reason, as far as I can see, was to try to goad the Israelis into precisely the sort of overreaction—thus alienating world opinion from their cause—as that on which they have subsequently embarked. So, if it can be proven that the mass rape and other sexual abuse was planned by the organisers of Hamas, does it not follow from that, that they, as well as the actual perpetrators of these attacks, must face retribution in the international courts eventually?

[Stella Creasy]

Many of us have consistently called for all allegations of war crime—and the use of sexual violence in war is a war crime: we should be absolutely clear about that—to be investigated. I want to go on to develop an argument around that. I would just say that it is really important, today of all days and in this debate of all debates, that we centre our thoughts on the victims of sexual violence, and do not go down some of the rabbit holes about whether this is a strategy in war. Because those who study these situations point out that sexual violence is not inevitable; it is not an inevitable tactic. There are decisions being made. By switching our focus, we deny the women the right to have their voices heard—women who require accountability and justice. If sexual violence is something that happens as a matter of course in a war, when you end the war you end the problem: job done. But as I said at the start, the challenge is not just to stop sexual violence but to prevent it, and to take it out of this arena altogether. So I hope the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will understand if I am very firmly focused on the evidence of sexual violence and assault in war and the challenge that we face from the work that the UN has done.

The UN has also recognised concerns in Palestine. The special rapporteur also went to Ramallah and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, she highlighted instances of sexual violence in the context of detention, particularly invasive body searches, beatings, including in the genital areas, and the threats of rape against women and family members.

My point is that none of this is inevitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear before you once again, Sir Charles.

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who represents an area where I first stood for Parliament 41 years ago, for securing this debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. She made an excellent speech. I will not only try to respond to much of what she said but look at all the ideas she put forward and write to her afterwards about any that I do not cover. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions of all Members and will try to respond to the points raised. This has been an outstanding debate and I feel privileged to try to respond to it for the Government.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings so much to these debates, said that he has never known so much violence and misery in the world as he sees today. The fact that there is so much violence and misery is one of the reasons why Britain has put aside £1 billion this year to meet humanitarian need, and I am grateful to him for recognising that the UK is a global leader in that respect.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made an outstanding speech. She spoke up about the horrendous events of 7 October and about the lack of response by parts of the international community. She called for the immediate release of the hostages and spoke with great feeling when she said that the phrase “Me too, unless you’re a Jew” has resonated with parts of the community. She also spoke with great eloquence about Ukraine and Sudan. The House will be grateful for what she said and I hope that many people who are not able to be here will read her powerful contribution.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the importance of the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, which is 19 June. She also talked about the importance of focusing directly on the victims of this dreadful violence and made the point, which the whole House will echo, that there can be no impunity.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former leader of the Labour party, spoke about the DRC, Goma and the terrible humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded for years in the Kivus, an area I have visited on a number of occasions in the last 20 years, as has he. The Government urge all the military forces there to lay down their arms and support the various different political processes, particularly in Nairobi and Rwanda, to try to ensure that there is a political track to end the terrible violence. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what more can be done on minerals. He will know of the work of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Government want more effort to be made in that respect to follow and track minerals.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that this is a difficult subject to talk about, but then did so very well. Again, she spoke about there being no tolerance of impunity, and about the terrible legacy of the teenagers and young women who were taken by Boko Haram. She also talked about the role of women, including the voice of women in conflict resolution, the work to end GBV and—again—the importance of ensuring that there is accountability.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke for the Opposition about the whole of this subject, but in particular about Sudan and the terrible events there, including the particular role Britain has through the troika and through holding the pen on Sudan at the UN. She also talked about Darfur and the dreadful situation in al-Fashir, about which the Government have spoken up, and the clear evidence of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. The demands of the international community are that the troops should return to barracks and enable the humanitarians to operate in those dreadful circumstances, and to open up a political track as soon as possible. Britain is supporting the collection of evidence through open-source means, and we will make sure that that evidence is retained for future use.

The hon. Lady also talked about the situation in Ethiopia. Britain supports the Pretoria agreement and we have done a lot of work to help to head off famine conditions, including in Geneva just a few weeks ago, where we supported a replenishment at a conference that I co-chaired with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, and which raised $610 million. The hon. Lady also talked about the harrowing evidence and work of NGOs such as Save the Children.

I am sure the entire House agrees that conflict-related sexual violence, or CRSV, is not an inevitable consequence of war. It is morally abhorrent and illegal and does not discriminate. It affects women and girls, and men and boys too, as we have heard, and has devastating consequences, yet it continues to take place in conflicts around the world and is often used as a deliberate tactic to terrorise entire communities. We are witnessing its horrific impacts in Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to name just a few.

The whole House was particularly horrified by the reports, which have been mentioned today, of sexual violence on and since 7 October. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West spoke eloquently about that in her opening remarks, as did the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and about the appalling violence perpetrated by Hamas on that day.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am afraid not because of the time, but if I have a second at the end, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will give way.

We have clearly and unequivocally condemned all allegations of reports of CRSV in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and led calls for a UN Security Council debate on that specific issue. We continue to call for thorough investigations, for hostages to be released immediately and for detainees to be treated with dignity and in line with international law. We have also, on a number of occasions, including at the UN Security Council, offered PSVI expertise and tools to help to ensure that victims and survivors of CRSV receive the support they need.

It is 12 years since the launch of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. For their tireless efforts I pay tribute to Lord Ahmad, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict; Lord Hague, who started the UK’s exceptional focus on the issue; and Baroness Helic. The UK is at the forefront of the fight to end this heinous crime, and I will briefly highlight five steps to demonstrate the impact of our work.

First, since 2012 we have used our influence and convening power to draw global attention to the issue. For example, at the PSVI conference that we hosted in London two years ago we brought together over 1,000 delegates, including survivors, experts, states and multilateral organisations. I personally led several sessions at that meeting and collectively we succeeded in getting 54 countries to sign an ambitious political declaration to deliver change.

At the conference we also announced the international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Lord Ahmad launched the alliance last year, and it brings together a range of global actors to prevent and respond to CRSV. Its membership continues to grow and it now has 26 members, including Governments, multilateral organisations, civil society and survivors. We are working closely with the current chair, Colombia, to drive action through the alliance. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, backed by £12.5 million, with four clear objectives: to strengthen global response, prevent sexual violence in conflict, promote justice and support survivors.

Secondly, we are coming up with creative solutions to prevent these crimes. For example, Britain’s flagship What Works: Impact at Scale programme is encouraging and supporting innovative ideas. We have invested £67.5 million into the second phase of the programme. That is the biggest global commitment by any Government to prevent gender-based violence.

Thirdly, we are setting a global benchmark by giving survivors a say in the decisions that affect them. Britain has appointed two PSVI survivor champions, Kolbassia Haoussou and Nadine Tunasi, and established a survivor advisory group to put survivors’ voices at the heart of policy proposals. Since 2018 we have committed almost £8 million to the global survivors fund to provide psychosocial and educational support for survivors. We know how important it is to ensure that we gather information from survivors safely, which is why two years ago we launched the Murad code with the Yazidi human rights activist and Nobel prize winner Nadia Murad, to collect information responsibly and ethically.

Fourthly, we are working to make these crimes punishable by law. Impunity may be the global norm, but that is unacceptable. The UK is taking steps to change that, and we have made some progress. We sanctioned 14 perpetrators over the last two years and we are boosting the capacity of countries to investigate and prosecute these crimes. In Ukraine, for example, we are supporting the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the crimes effectively.

We are also backing the draft UN crimes against humanity convention to make the global legal framework stronger and more effective, and we are working with the International Criminal Court to help survivors to engage with courts using technology. I am grateful to Baroness Helic, who is helping us to find new, innovative solutions to tackle impunity, but I agree that we still have a long way to go.

I want to share two examples of the tangible impact we have had on the ground. Since 2012, we have deployed our PSVI team of experts times across the world over 90. These highly trained independent individuals provide direct support to national and international bodies. They have helped to plan missions, convened workshops and supported Governments to execute their projects. UK programmes have also contributed to vital recent legislative changes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The changes will advance the rights of survivors and children born of CRSV—for example, by enabling them to access finance for higher education.

To conclude, the five steps that I have highlighted show that we have come a long way and that our work matters, but there can be no doubt, particularly given what we have heard today, that we need to go further still and ensure that our efforts are bearing fruit. We are making progress, and the UK will continue to drive sustained, united and innovative action globally. That is the only way we can consign conflict-related sexual violence to the history books.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that the mass rapes on 7 October were not a biproduct of the attack but an integral part of the plan to provoke Israel? If that is proven, does it not mean the people who planned the attacks, as well as the perpetrators themselves, must be held to account in the international courts?

[Mr Mitchell]

I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend says about accountability. On 7 October there was the greatest murder of Jewish people at any time in one day since the holocaust and the end of the second world war. The impact of that, which we have heard about so graphically today, underlines why it is so important that we continue this work. We are making progress, above all because we have unity, drive and support in all parts of the House. That gives Britain a particular locus and focus internationally to make sure that this work is effectively pursued.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

What the hon. Gentleman says—the way he reflects on what the ICJ said—is not accurate. The ICJ called for hostage release, for more aid into Gaza and for Israel not to commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. The Government agree with those three points.

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

Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the message back to his boss that the insertion of British troops on the ground in Gaza will simply play into the hands of those who wish to divert attention further away from the existential conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Does he share my sadness that there is not a single mention of Ukraine in any of the questions on today’s Order Paper?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to help Ukraine. He will have seen the Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the increase in defence spending, and where that announcement was made.

I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not draw any conclusions from today’s Order Paper, but note specifically this Government’s driving ambition to ensure that Ukraine is successful in beating back the Russians.

Sudan: Government Response

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

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

Do the Government have any evidence that they can share with this House of the involvement of major foreign powers in what is happening in this terrible conflict in Sudan?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the open-source reporting of various outlets. The point the British Government make on all occasions is that any arms supply into Sudan merely prolongs this conflict, and we urge anyone who is thinking of supplying either side or supplying either side to think very carefully and to desist.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. I agree entirely with what he said about article 23. He chides me for not saying more on the issue of sanctions. The point I was making—I hope that he will accept that this is common to both parties when in government—is that we do not discuss our application or consideration of sanctions, or sanctions policy, on the Floor of the House, but when we feel it is necessary to act, we certainly do.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of the Foreign Secretary, given his long career and understanding of China from his time as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary has spoken out very clearly on the change that has taken place since he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the legislation is a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration; as I have said, we decided in 2021 that China was in ongoing breach of that. On the issue of whether it is a breach of international law, the Bill specifically says that it will be compliant with international law. I suspect that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

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

The shadow Foreign Secretary slightly stole my script about the “golden era” of Sino-British relations trumpeted by then Prime Minister Cameron. While the Minister says that things have changed since then, one thing has not changed: communist China was a totalitarian state then, and it is a totalitarian state now. Is it not about time that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learned that lesson?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with him about the nature of China. The question was whether China would respect the Sino-British joint declaration and recognise the uniquely brilliant features of Hong Kong as an international trading city. It is a matter of great regret that politics have trumped economics in that respect, as perhaps it always will in the case of China.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Negotiations

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The point I made about practical and technical options is in relation to facilitating flights between Gibraltar and the EU more widely. The UK will only agree to terms that the Government of Gibraltar are content with and will not agree to anything that compromises Gibraltar’s sovereignty.

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

Can the Minister explain to us his assessment of the attitude of the European Union towards the continuing sovereignty of Gibraltar, bearing in mind Spain’s long-standing ambition to infringe that sovereignty?

[David Rutley]

Our negotiations are with the EU. We continue to take those negotiations forward and will do, as I have said repeatedly, with the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar at the front of our minds.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

I think the very first sentence that I said was that we utterly condemn the Hamas attack and we implore them to release the hostages, but there has to be a pathway to reaching that.

When the shadow Foreign Secretary said that the vote today would not bring about a ceasefire, he was right, but to try to downplay the importance of the motion does not serve him well. I suspect that, as these moments do not come around very often, he understands only too well the importance of tonight’s vote. It is moments like these that shape the ethical identity of a country. It is the decisions that we take now that will reverberate down the decades, and they will define who we are and what we stand for. That is why we are calling so clearly and unambiguously for an immediate ceasefire. Anything else pre-supposes that there can be a military solution to this conflict. Any other form of words threatens to give credence to the idea that Israel’s deploying its massive military capacity in Gaza will somehow be enough to destroy Hamas. In reality, as everyone knows and as history tells us, the only possible solution to this crisis is a political solution.

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

I could understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument better if he were talking about what the Americans seem to call a temporary ceasefire to see whether more hostages could be released, but he appears to be calling for an unconditional ceasefire—I see people nodding—which would leave all the hostages at the mercy of Hamas. Does that not put Israel in the position where previously it has had to release 1,000 people who had been criminally convicted in order to get one soldier back? Indeed, one of the people Israel released was the person who organised the Hamas atrocities on 7 October.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I am absolutely clear that there has to be a roadway—a path—towards peace, and that has to start with an immediate ceasefire. If it does not, there is no pathway. I will address directly the issue of humanitarian pauses in a moment.

When the SNP last called for a vote on the ceasefire on 15 November, the death toll in Gaza stood at 11,320—already a heartbreaking number of people killed. Just yesterday, John Hopkins University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine released their analysis, which showed that if this conflict continues on the same trajectory there will be between 58,000 and 75,000 additional civilian Palestinian deaths in the next six months, so we know categorically what the consequences of inaction will be. No one can claim in the future that they did not know, or that they did not understand the consequences of what they were doing tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel no fatigue when it comes to our Ukraine policy. We have exceeded last year’s commitment in terms of lethal aid, and we will be contributing a huge amount of other aid and economic support. Since 2022, our total humanitarian, economic and military support has risen to more than £12 billion, which I think demonstrates that our resolve is unflagging.

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

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about the attitude towards the Ukraine fight, and indeed towards NATO, of certain elements on the American political scene. Will our Foreign Office team do everything in their power to impress on our American allies that the peace of Europe depends on unquestionable American support for the NATO alliance in the future, just as it did in the past?

[Leo Docherty]

We continue to make that point to all our interlocutors. I should also say that we continue to make the point to all NATO member states that investing 2% of GDP in defence expenditure is a condition of membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for that question on an important subject close to the heart of several people in the Chamber. I assure her that there is ongoing engagement with, of course, President Ali in Guyana, but also all the regional players. I have personally had conversations with Brazil, Colombia, the Commonwealth and the United States to keep the focus on that area, and Maduro’s plans at bay.

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

What assessment have the Government made of the threat to the future of the Baltic states if Putin is seen to succeed in seizing territory permanently from Ukraine?

[Leo Docherty]

The Baltic states are on the frontline, and we therefore take great pride in the enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states, which includes our magnificent men and women in Tapa. That is part of our enduring physical presence to ensure that NATO has security on the ground. The matter is sharply in focus.