Ambassador to the United States

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the appointment process and the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson.

Sometimes exquisite coincidences happen in this place. We have just seen a Bill presented on the topic of public office accountability by the immediate past Foreign Secretary, the now Justice Secretary. I will just read to the House the first line of its description:

“a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness”.

I think I might return to those issues in the course of what I have to say.

As I have said, this is a matter of utmost concern across the House. It is an issue that does not just concern the Conservative party, the Scottish National party or the DUP; Members from all parts of the House are worried about it, as we have seen in the newspapers. The Government have key questions to answer, and as I said yesterday, the central question is: who knew what, and when? Let us be clear, though. There are many questions on many levels in this matter, and the Government must answer them all; so far, they have singularly failed to do so.

The questions fall naturally into four categories. First, was Peter Mandelson ever an appropriate character to appoint as our ambassador? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Well, we will get to that later. Secondly, what was the procedure for vetting, was it properly followed, and why has it gone so horribly wrong? Thirdly, what has happened in the last couple of weeks to lead to the demise of the former ambassador—who made the critical decisions and why? Fourthly, what do we do now? How do we make this Government tell the House and the nation the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—which in itself would be a novelty for Lord Mandelson?

Let us begin with whether Lord Mandelson was ever an appropriate selection. As I said yesterday, our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of our most important bilateral relationship. For those who have not served in government, it is the one bilateral relationship run by No. 10, not the Foreign Office. That is because it is so important, and it is a role of exceptional sensitivity. More classified information crosses the ambassador’s desk than gets to most Cabinet Ministers. Indeed, in British embassies, the agencies report to the ambassador. It is not the same in American embassies, where the CIA does what it wants. Our agencies report to the ambassador, so it is a sensitive post.

Today, Peter Kyle—I have forgotten his new post—said that global circumstances dictate that the position of this particular ambassador is more important than it has ever been, and it could easily go terribly wrong. The failure to appoint the right person has already had a serious and deleterious impact on the national interest.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister staked his special relationship with the US President on the diplomatic skills of an ambassador who had a special relationship with the world’s most notorious child sex offender. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Prime Minister’s judgment and the UK’s presence on the world stage have been diminished by this affair.

[David Davis]

There is no doubt that the right hon. Lady is correct. Frankly, I am going to try not to make this ad hominem about the Ministers who made decisions; we need to make that decision later, as it were. She is right that it has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that. Although we are the Opposition, I want this Government to succeed in the national interest, and this is doing the opposite of that. The ambassador’s conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of integrity—that is fundamental, and it is true for any ambassador.

International Day of Democracy

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate. Today is Owain Glyndŵr Day, which celebrates Wales’s first Parliament in Machynlleth and in Harlech 620-odd years ago.

This past weekend Elon Musk addressed those gathered in London. He spoke about freedom of speech, about knowing what is real and defending Britain’s future and democracy. That is what he said, but at the heart of his remarks was an explicit justification for division and violence. That should concern us all because it is fundamentally at odds with the values of democracy. Mr Musk has already contributed to destabilising political life in the United States. His decision to intervene in our debates makes it clear that we are not immune, so parliamentarians—I think this will be a common theme across the Chamber today—must choose how to act to counter the rising tide of authoritarianism.

Silence is a dangerous form of consent that leaves the space open for others to harness people’s unhappiness to their own political ambitions when, in reality, much of that unhappiness is a direct result of decisions taken by those in power and the very wealthy—decisions that benefit themselves and, at the same time, impoverish whole communities.

Too many people have no secure roof over their heads. Too many of our public spaces, sources of community pride—our parks, libraries, schools, hospitals and even our roads—are left to decay. Public services are hanging on a thread, and the quality of day-to-day life is evidently declining. Years of austerity and poor policy decisions have very real consequences for people’s lives. We need to recognise that, because people are rightly angry.

Into that void of anger rushes misinformation, disinformation and lies straddling the no man’s land between empirical facts and tub-thumping opinion. Social media moguls play on our basic needs for belonging, affirmation and friends in an atomised age of lonely screens. They monetise us and our very actions in a cynical mockery of community. The rise of artificial intelligence exacerbates and accelerates that, creating new ways to generate and spread falsehoods. That is why institutions that strengthen democracy are so important, now more than ever.

I will speak first of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which supported more than 44,000 people last year in 64 locally led programmes in 58 countries and territories across the world. It is primarily funded by the Foreign Office, and I am glad that the Minister is here to speak for that Department. Those programmes give communities the tools to hold power to account and to build resilience against those who seek to undermine democracy. I am proud to be the small parties governor on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

On one Westminster Foundation trip, I learned how Finland, Europe’s most literate country, has made media literacy a key part of the education curriculum, so that even six-year-olds are equipped with the skills to spot fake news and online manipulation.

I have also met Joe Brinker, the policy fellow for democratic resilience at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. NATO’s article 2 states that member countries will work towards “strengthening their free institutions” and promote social “stability and well-being.” The Parliamentary Assembly has called for a centre for democratic resilience at NATO headquarters to counter the threats posed by authoritarian regimes and give strength to NATO’s commitment to democracy. That aspect of NATO’s work is critical, and we should be pushing for more attention to it and raise our expectations of what it does.

In closing, I hope other Members will join in referring to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy at a time of worldwide uncertainty. I also hope to secure a meeting for other governors with the Minister to ensure there is sufficient funding and reach for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to continue to function so effectively. Our values include democracy at their heart, and they cannot be defended by words alone. We should be willing to pay for what we want to keep.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.

What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We all agree that the murder of Charlie Kirk was horrific—it was abhorrent. That is the only response to it. I am sure that we also feel that it is the duty of Governments, following these terrible actions, to ensure that community safety is a priority. There is always a tension in allowing and enabling voices from across a whole spectrum, while at the same time maintaining that safety. That is one of the not irreconcilable tensions of a democracy, and it is something we must face every time we are challenged in this way.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:

“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.

Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.

Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, particularly as board member for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

The UN has titled this International Day of Democracy “From Voice to Action”, which is a fitting message, because we need those who support democracy and freedom now more than ever. We are at a crucial moment. As a liberal and a democrat, I was horrified by events last week. The murder of Charlie Kirk in the US has captured the world’s attention, and rightly so. No one in this room will be surprised to learn that I disagreed with the opinions and thoughts that Mr Kirk pushed through his social media channels and debating tours, but as a liberal I believe it is my job to challenge such opinions through debate and argument.

People should not die for holding opposing views, and it is vital that liberals stand up against violence and bloodshed because, tragically, we have experienced such events too. The horrendous murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess are proof that we in this country are not immune to attacks on our democratic way of life. We should never take our freedoms for granted.

Research published last week showed that global freedom levels have declined for the 20th consecutive year. The UN Secretary-General said that the very rule of law, and justice and democracy are

“under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

A threat to democracy globally is a threat to our democracy here, and democracies across the globe are declining and suffering. Cuts to the aid budget are driving the downward spiral. I heard first hand from the Red Cross that next year it will have to reduce its operations by 18%, despite there being a 25% rise in global conflict.

Respect for international humanitarian law has also waned. We have seen the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers, with hundreds dying and many more injured or being held captive.

There are also threats to our democratic way of life here in the UK. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate has reported that the platform X has not followed its own rules on preventing the amplification of serious political violence. We know that the spread of misinformation and the incitement of violence go hand in hand. Last summer’s violent riots, fuelled by misinformation, almost spread to my Cheadle constituency. I was proud that communities and faith groups from all over the constituency came together to show solidarity.

The threats posed by the growth of social media and the small handful of media barons who control the platforms need to be addressed. We cannot allow this pattern of misinformation and disruption to our way of life continue as it is.

Despite the worrying developments, we must reflect on and embrace the existing strength of UK democracy. I am very proud to represent the Cheadle constituency, a place with a profound sense of identity and strong community cohesion. It is driven by community groups who bring voice to action. Whether by standing up for nature, tackling flooding or fighting to get better access to transport, community groups are, as the UN Secretary General said,

“shaping their societies through dialogue, participation, and trust.”

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that, with the United States withdrawing from grant in aid, there is the potential for the role of the United Kingdom and its presence on the world stage to be considerably enhanced by the actions we take to support democracy both at home and abroad.

[Mr Morrison]

I absolutely agree. The Government must invest more in our democracy at home to ensure that the country stays on the right path, with sustained economic growth, thriving global partnerships and a place on the world stage that is as influential as it is admired.

The Government must increase the aid budget, as it is not only a lifeline for millions but a strategic priority that strengthens our democratic allies and makes future allies around the globe. We cannot and must not ignore this soft power. I am proud to sit on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which, for more than 30 years, has worked tirelessly on programmes that have supported so many democratic nations to grow and prosper. These are huge success stories for our nation. These are huge moments that place us as a key player on the world stage, and we should not take them for granted.

I will conclude by returning to my opening remarks. We are at a crucial moment both at home and abroad, with the rise of extremism, the polarisation of debate and misinformation being fuelled by the growing influence of social media. We, as liberals and democrats, must take a stand. If we do not, I truly worry what will happen next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately.

It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy.

The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom.

Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy.

I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent.

In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time.

Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad.

We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms?

Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right?

In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today:

“When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We utterly condemn the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, as the House heard from the Prime Minister this morning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) set out, the international legal tests are to do with imminence and self-defence. There will be a session of the UN Security Council, and it will be for Israel to demonstrate how its actions are consistent with those tests.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Today of all days, after an illegal attack on peace brokers Qatar, it is shocking to see the UK roll out the red carpet for President Herzog, who has dehumanised suffering Palestinians and incited violence against civilians. The Minister’s Government are being seen to pander to politicians who flout international law. He rightly calls for a ceasefire; when will he call what is happening in Gaza a genocide?

[Mr Falconer]

President Herzog is in the UK on a private visit, so I would not characterise the visit as one for which the red carpet has been rolled out. I reiterate that so many colleagues on the Government Benches, and I am sure colleagues on the Opposition Benches as well, are rightly very conscious of the urgency of helping people out of Gaza, ensuring that aid gets in, and ensuring that there is a ceasefire. President Herzog is the Head of State; he is not a functional part of the Government. He is an important conduit for raising those concerns. This morning, among other things, the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure greater support from the Israeli Government for getting children with injuries, and students, out of Gaza. These are difficult, practical matters on which we are focused. I understand that some Opposition Members would perhaps prefer that we did not conduct such talks, but the Government and I are focused on the practical problems of helping people in Gaza, and the Foreign Secretary has already raised them with the President this morning.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I will do all that I can.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It was reported that the Israeli Government planned to kill the leader of Iran over the weekend. As history shows, attempts to collapse a regime with nothing to put in its place risk creating a power vacuum and state collapse. They also risk creating further waves of refugees and instability in the energy market. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports and the wider implications that such a strategy would have on the UK?

[Mr Lammy]

I remain hugely concerned about the appalling human rights record of the Iranian regime, but who runs Iran must, quite properly, be a matter for the people of Iran.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It was really interesting how the debate was conducted on Second Reading and in Committee, and how we were meant to be having that respectful debate, and it is disappointing to hear comments from opponents already.

Amendment 4 seeks a simple yet crucial change to extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions, from six months to 12 months, something that is already reflected in legislation in five of six Australian states. My amendment mirrors the wording used in that legislation, and it is based not on conjecture but on medical reality, international precedent and, most importantly, the lived experiences of those facing some of the most harrowing diseases imaginable.

Amendment 4 would not expand the Bill’s reach beyond terminal conditions; it simply acknowledges that for people with conditions such as MND and other neurodegenerative diseases, the current six-month prognosis requirement creates a cruel and unnecessary barrier.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure that the House will be interested to note that the jurisdiction of Scotland, as well as the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and Jersey, have variations that are different from what has been discussed. Will the hon. Member join me in commiserating with the family of Iola Dorkins, a campaigner I mentioned back in November? She died of motor neurone disease on her birthday last week. Let us remember that we are doing this for real people who are undergoing real suffering at the end of life.

[Tom Gordon]

The right hon. Member makes a pertinent point about other jurisdictions and the different Bills and conversations around them that they have. I tabled my amendment in order to ensure that we have that debate in this place. I extend my condolences to the family.

These are progressive, irreversible diseases; their trajectory is well understood; and their toll is devastating. People with MND, for instance, often face a relentless loss of muscle function, leaving them unable to move, speak or even swallow. Before they reach the six-month prognosis threshold, they may already be enduring intolerable suffering. Crucially, many will lose the capacity necessary to make an application before they ever qualify.

The Bill already contains the most robust protections of any assisted dying Bill in the world, with mandatory capacity assessments, a multi-step approval process and a clear requirement for terminal illness. We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I will not speculate about further actions, but I recognise, as I did in my previous answer, how welcome it is that my hon. Friend has travelled to the region. Egypt is an important partner for the UK on this question. I saw the vital role that it is playing in supporting healthcare for injured Palestinian children. I saw injured Palestinian children myself in al-Arish hospital, and I was pleased while I was there to announce a £1 million UK contribution to ensure that Palestinian civilians displaced into Egypt get the help and healthcare that they need.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The UN says that Israel’s denial of aid is evidence of

“the systematic dismantling of Palestinian life”.

There is therefore a risk that we are witnesses to genocide. The Minister’s Government can reinstate airlifts of aid along the lines of those arranged last year, which would send a powerful message. Will the Minister act now and enable aid airlifts?

[Mr Falconer]

We have supported airlifts in the past, as I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, and we were glad to work with our Jordanian partners on that question. I have to be straightforward with the House: given the scale of need in Gaza, we should not be displaced from the central question, which is ensuring that the road crossings open. That is the only way to get aid in at the scale required.

Middle East

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am conscious of how many Members are on their feet. I will attempt to go a little quicker.

The Palestinian cause is a just cause. A two-state solution is where we have to be. A political process is necessary. I will play my full part, and I reassured President Abbas that we will do that over the coming days and weeks.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We live in hope of a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. However, we cannot forget everything that has come before: the mass atrocities on 7 October were followed by 15 months of destruction waged against Gaza’s civilians by the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary mentioned how we eradicate extremism. Extremism is also eradicated by justice. Only justice can redress crime. What steps is he taking to support the International Court of Justice and the ICC to hold all perpetrators of war crimes to account? Will he publish the full record of the UK’s political and military involvement in the conflict so far?

[Mr Lammy]

We have always been clear about the importance of international humanitarian law, and we have always been clear about the importance of its being determined by international courts. Let me be crystal clear: many men and women from this country died in the second world war to achieve the settlement that gave us international humanitarian law and the architecture on which we all rely. It is for that reason that the Labour party will never renege on our responsibilities in relation to international humanitarian law.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I want to reassure the House about how focused the Government are on the question of aid access into Gaza. As I say, I have travelled to the region and raised these issues repeatedly with all parties, including the Israeli Government. We need to see a flood of aid into Gaza. That has been the commitment of the Israeli Government, and I regret that we have not yet seen a flood of aid and that Palestinians are suffering as a consequence. Winter is coming, and Palestinians in Gaza are extremely vulnerable. We will continue to press the Israeli Government to do everything that they can to ensure that more aid reaches Gaza and, indeed, all parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories that require it. I made these points forcefully this morning, and I will continue to do so.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The ICC has issued arrest warrants for crimes including direct attacks on civilians. Open-source information shows that, on average, Royal Air Force reconnaissance flights are going over Gaza nearly four times a day. Although we all seek the information necessary to gain the release of the hostages, how confident is the Minister that the information gathered from those flights and shared with Israel has not been used to facilitate any attacks on civilians?

[Hamish Falconer]

I will not go into operational details, but I can assure the House that the surveillance aircraft are unarmed and do not have a combat role. They are tasked solely with locating hostages, including a British national, and they will continue to do so.

War in Gaza

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that although the Government do not publish the legal advice that they receive, they always act in accordance with it.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My constituent Emily Fares has family in Gaza. Here is her message:

“We heard from our family yesterday, half of them have now fled Rafah after threatening evacuation orders fell from the sky. When we spoke to them they did not know where they were going—they mentioned al-Mawasi, but there is no building for them to stay, it is not safe there. There are no food provisions there. There is nowhere to go to the toilet, nowhere to wash. They are now utterly destitute.”

Forced displacement is a war crime. The Minister’s Government have it in their power to set up a scheme for people desperate to join family in the UK. If not now, when?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady sets out the heart-rending reports that she has received. That is why the Government, with as much vigour and co-operation with our allies as possible, are trying to do the things that I have set out.

Israel and Gaza

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

As I have set out, a ceasefire that collapses back into fighting within weeks is not in anyone’s interest. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government are a spectator, but nothing could be further from the truth. If he looks at what the Foreign Secretary has been doing, at the way Britain’s humanitarian representative in the Gulf has been acting, and at all the discussions that have been going on in the region and at the UN, he will see that Britain is at the forefront of trying to achieve a humanitarian pause, leading to a sustainable ceasefire, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Foreign Secretary has called for a stop to the fighting now, but the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with arms manufacturer Elbit Systems on 17 January. That company reportedly supplies up to 85% of Israel’s drones and land-based military equipment. The Minister called for advice in looking at how arms are exported. Does he not agree that in light of that, the UK’s approach appears to be deeply hypocritical? What advice does he need to stop the sales of arms?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not agree with that, for reasons that I hope I have set out clearly to the House.