Situation in the Red Sea

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Government for granting the debate, and to the Defence Secretary for setting out at the beginning of the debate the reasons for British military action in the Red sea region. He is right that this action was indeed limited, necessary and proportionate; in self-defence; using minimal necessary force; and for the freedom of navigation. I agree with all that, and it is good that it was set out in that way. Where I take issue with the Defence Secretary is that there is no vote associated with the debate. I know that a couple other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the business of whether there should be prerogative powers or parliamentary approval for military action, and that is what I want to make the focus of my contribution.

I think it was the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) who talked about how only twice in 200 years has Parliament had a say before military action took place. I am not advocating for military action to take place following a vote. I recognise that there are plenty of occasions when parliamentary approval needs to happen retrospectively, after the event. Those scenarios include reasons of operational security and the deployment of special forces, which are definitely within the domain of the Executive and not necessarily the business of the legislature, and our international treaty obligations, as he said.

We can think of many scenarios and emergencies where there needs to be a decision by the Executive and the Government need to say what is going to happen, without consultation in advance. In those scenarios, however, there is no reason why we cannot then come back to the House and have a retrospective vote on that action. If that were happening today, I would very happily vote in support of the military action that has now taken place twice in the Red sea.

[James Gray]

There are two problems with retrospective votes. The first is that the action would already have happened, so if the House has voted against it, what would we do about it? The second is that they emasculate this House, because if we voted for military action, how could we then criticise it? Only if we do not vote for it can we do what we are doing today and scrutinise what the Government are doing.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I intend to set out in my contributions the answers to both, so I hope he will listen out for them. He is very welcome to intervene at the end if he does not feel that I have answered them sufficiently.

If the Government are confident in their case, what is there to fear? Why can we not have a vote on military action if the Government are confident in their case and make that case in front of Parliament?

My particular concern is that this action sets a precedent for the future. We have gone over many times in this debate why it is the bread and butter of the Royal Navy. Freedom of navigation is something we can be very proud that the Royal Navy has secured for us for hundreds of years, but this could set a precedent for future military action where there is no prior vote or indeed retrospective vote.

I think that can be explained in part by the Foreign Secretary’s experience, which others have talked about, of seeking parliamentary support for military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria but failing to get it. I think the opposition of some MPs in 2013 was reflective of the concerns of their constituents, who at the time felt a reticence due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We could see the 2013 vote as an overreaction or perhaps over-reticence.

Under this Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, we now risk overreacting in the other direction, by looking back at that 2013 vote and deciding that we are not going to have retrospective approval at all. Surely the lesson from the 2013 vote is that Governments must do better at explaining the necessity of military action, not only to MPs, many of whom are not experts in this area and would rather defer to people with more expertise, but, crucially, to their constituents. We need to convince the British public that military action is necessary. That is particularly the case after the debacle of 2003 and Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

I appreciate that there are situations, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire spoke about, in which we do not have sight of secret intelligence and therefore the Executive need to make a decision without consultation. I appreciate that, but I think there is still a scepticism amongst the British public about the notion of secret intelligence and saying, “You can’t know; you need to trust us.” Again, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has created a very cynical public on that subject.

The counter-insurgencies of the early part of this century have damaged trust. To restore that trust, we need this House to be able to vote retrospectively on military action.

[James Gray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Foord]

I will give way at the end, if I may.

What sets the UK and our western allies apart is that we practice democratic control of our armed forces. This is all about setting us apart from our adversaries, but we also need to demonstrate to our own service personnel not just that they can be assured of the support of their Prime Minister and their Executive, but that they have the British public behind them. It is not just about support for the troops—we all support the troops—but about support for the cause, which is so important too.

We need to guard against a future scenario—one that Members might be able to imagine—in which the Prime Minister is threatened by dissent on his own Back Benches. Imagine a future Prime Minister who seeks to distract from domestic challenges by exercising military force abroad. We might call it “domestic distraction”. I have no confidence that every Prime Minister will operate with the foresight to anticipate what escalation British military action might trigger.

As Clausewitz said, war is a dialectic. In 21st century terms, the enemy gets a vote. This is not just about the Houthi militia; it is about the Iranian sponsors of the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, and about Iran’s partner and customer, Russia. We must be cognisant of all that context when we take military action. For that reason, we must return to the House and get parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

[James Gray]

Let us imagine that the strikes have happened—as they did last week and earlier this week—and that the House had a vote on the matter today and voted against them. What would then happen?

[Richard Foord]

The point of a retrospective vote is that it gives guidance to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on what action the British people think should be taken in future. That is very relevant in this case because, as we have already heard, these two occasions of military strikes are not likely to be isolated, and we are likely to see future British military action in the Red sea.

When we talk about future British military action, the Defence Secretary needs to think carefully about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. At this stage, as we have heard from Conservative Members, he risks having armed forces that are too small, and misplacing the stick and shouting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I am concerned that not everybody who has contributed to the debate is here for the wind-ups. It is important that contributors do the House the courtesy of returning to hear the responses, because that is what they are: responses to the debate and the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made. I hope that that will be fed back, yet again. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend has a detailed answer on where we stand on both those issues.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke movingly and compellingly on the importance, as I think the whole House agrees, of a two-state solution being in the interests not just of Israelis and Palestinians, but of the wider region and all of us here in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) gave powerful warnings about the dangers of starvation in Yemen; that point was echoed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) supported working more closely with the region and mentioned the importance of tackling wider examples of instability. The whole House will have been grateful for his remarks, and in particular for the wise words he spoke about Ukraine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) talked about the impact and the effect of Iran’s proxies. He spoke with both experience and knowledge about the risks of warfare and the need for a greater sense of strategy, looking in particular at the work of the National Security Council. Some of us were involved with that when it was set up. I took a careful note of what he said.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned that he thought he was joining a debate with defence nerds. I want to assure him of a warm welcome to our number. He, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), spoke about the importance of having a vote. The Government have made it clear that it is neither practical nor sensible to publicise such an action in advance as that could both undermine the effectiveness of the action and potentially risk the lives of armed forces personnel involved. My view is that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire had the better of their interesting inner debate.

[Richard Foord]

What about the situation of retrospective approval?

[Mr Mitchell]

I think that was the point he raised, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire answered with great eloquence.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) spoke using his detailed military knowledge to the advantage of the House, with considerable historical analogy. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) warned the House about the importance of defending international maritime law.

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I shall put forward a few random and hopefully connected thoughts that have occurred to me in the course of the contributions we have heard so far. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate, and I commiserate with him on the fact that he paid a high political price in losing the chairmanship of the Defence Committee, which I know he valued greatly, as a result of speaking out on this subject.

I can go part of the way with my right hon. Friend in support of his thesis about engagement, by saying this: no matter how much we detest a particular regime, a time always comes when, if in reality it has established full control over a country, it gets international recognition. That was true for the Bolsheviks, for example: Britain intervened in the Russian civil war in an attempt to prevent the Bolsheviks from establishing communist control in what became the USSR, but we failed, and, after a few years, that regime had eventually to be recognised. Where I find it hard to go further with my right hon Friend is in the belief that we can somehow manipulate the system to make significant improvements or avert significant threats from an Afghanistan run by the militant Taliban, even if he detects—rightly, I am sure—significant factions within the Taliban spectrum, such as it is.

As too many past speeches will attest, I came to the conclusion over a decade ago that the whole concept of the west trying to engage in nation building from the ground up in countries such as Afghanistan was largely futile, because—and I quote my right hon. Friend, who referred to this country’s democratic journey across the centuries—it often takes centuries for democracy to evolve in a society.

We have no reason per se to feel superiority over countries that we regard as undemocratic today, because we had so much longer than they have had so far to evolve the institutions, values and tolerances in which we have reason to be proud. The fact is that, if we were to go back 400 or 500 years into the history of our own country, we would find religious fanaticism that is not all that dissimilar to what pertains in countries that are subject to what has today been termed radical political Islam. If we then frame the proposition that some completely different society, seeking to impose their more modern values on the England of 500 years ago, could have managed to inculcate those values into a society with a belief that God Almighty was telling them to do one thing and to disregard all alternatives as infidel structures that must be destroyed, we can see that it is pretty unrealistic to think that societies could be transformed with that degree of rapidity.

I have therefore felt, and argued for over a decade, that what we needed with a country such as Afghanistan was not an approach whereby we would be able rapidly to bring it into the modern world, but that we should be able to contain the threats that it posed to us—for a very long period, if necessary—until, by its own evolution, it came to develop the sorts of values that would result in those threats ceasing to exist. That option has now been taken away from us by President Biden’s catastrophic decision to abandon everything and effectively betray all the people in Afghanistan who had put their trust in the NATO countries that had tried, over-ambitiously, to develop Afghan society.

What I feel very strongly, which came out so well in the remarks that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made about Afghan women, is that we may have pursued an unrealistic and utopian policy towards Afghanistan, but, in doing that, we created obligations to those Afghans who sought to travel along the route with us. We must not abandon them.

When I hear about the idea of our having a strategy towards the country, I think of our options as extremely limited. The strategy that we ought to have had is one of containment, whereby we would make it perfectly clear that we had intervened militarily once and would not get sucked in, but that, if there were to be any sign of further terrorist activity aimed at us or our allies, we would not hesitate to intervene militarily again. In that case, we would again make it clear that we would not get sucked in, but would continually keep the threat of counter-action available while avoiding seeking to transform the society in a way that was wholly impractical.

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

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. He is talking about a situation in which a terrorist threat may emerge in the future. At the height of the UK’s presence in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister of the UK talked about Afghanistan and Pakistan in the same breath and had an AfPak strategy. That was because there was a fear of Islamist intent coming together with the weapons of mass destruction capability in Pakistan. Does the right hon. Member think that those threats have completely dissipated, or would he still regard the federally administered tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province as a threat?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I absolutely am concerned about the attitude of Pakistan and about the potential for Pakistani nuclear weapons to one day pass under the control of more radical elements than are currently running that country. What should particularly worry us—this is what I think David Cameron had in mind when, as Prime Minister, he talked about Pakistan facing both ways on the question of radical Islam—is the fact that there has been a wish in Pakistan Government circles to see the triumph of the Taliban. The reasons for that are probably more related to Pakistan’s relations with countries such as India, and have too little regard to the other effects that bringing in a regime such as the Taliban’s might have on the stability and security of the international system and the rules-based international order—about which we hear so much although we often wonder whether it exists.

I share the continuing concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I am far from satisfied that we are in a secure situation. On the contrary, I feel that the withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan have given a huge boost to those who say that the western system of society is degenerate and enfeebled, and will surely fail in the face of a radical Islamic alternative.

What do we do about this now? What I think we can do can be summed up in the following way. We will, indeed, have to recognise that the Taliban are in control. Therefore, just as we have a sort of relationship, however adversarial, with obnoxious and hostile regimes in other countries, so we will have to do that with the Taliban. We must not fool ourselves that having a relationship with them will result in any real reduction in the threat that they and their of way life poses, particularly when they have adherents within our own societies. We saw for many years how much damage people who owed a form of allegiance to the Soviet Union could cause, through their fifth columnists in democratic societies. There is an equivalent danger from radical political Islam, too.

Let us by all means face reality, but let us reassert that we know that this combination of politics, regime and religious extremist ideology is a total threat to us. We will do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Any aid and support that we give to the Afghan Government, as we will eventually have to call it, must be contingent on something in return at every stage. That will probably be in relation to the saving of groups, whether they be women’s groups or former military personnel to whom we owe obligations. That is the saving of people whose lives were changed by our intervention, and who have a right to look to us to help to protect them against the ghastliness of the regime that has sadly re-emerged and taken control of their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has secured this afternoon’s debate, because it has given us all the opportunity to raise our concerns about the ongoing situation in Afghanistan. He mentioned his comments of last year. I do not doubt that he has reflected carefully upon that, but I want him to know that many of my constituents and Afghan friends in Glasgow were deeply hurt by the comments he made. They felt that it was very hurtful and upsetting, particularly from somebody in a position of power, such as he held at that time. They felt that very deeply indeed, and wished me to pass that on, now that I have the opportunity.

[Richard Foord]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees with what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said about the importance of political curiosity, and sometimes saying things that might not be the convention.

[Alison Thewliss]

I do, and I understand where that comes from. I also understand that we can say or do things that we later come to reflect and change our mind on and regret. In politics, we should be allowed to say we have made a mistake or changed our mind. There should be space for that, but I had comments at the time from my constituents about this, and they felt it very deeply indeed. It is important that the views of my constituents and friends are reflected in this place.

I also want to use this opportunity to talk about the paucity of response from the Home Office. I appreciate that the Minister here is not a Home Office Minister, but I still have constituents coming to me every single week who are experiencing severe delays and difficulties with family reunion visas, for example because their family member has moved out of Afghanistan and is in Pakistan or Iran or somewhere else and is waiting for the paperwork to be completed. They are extremely disturbed and upset when they come to see me because of the inexcusable delays these people face in coming to safety and being reunited with, often, the only family they have left. The ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement schemes are failing to do what the Government had asked them to do. That is very much reflected in the many Afghans coming over in small boats, because they see no other alternative to get to the UK. The schemes that they were promised would help to get them to safety have failed repeatedly to do so.

A constituent of mine, Mr d’Angelo, has repeatedly raised the case of somebody he worked with in Afghanistan who has been trying to get over on the schemes now for the best part of two years. I wrote to the Veterans Minister, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), a month ago, and I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement of that letter. This is somebody who is fearful for their own survival in Afghanistan. I urge the Minister to put more pressure on ARAP and on ACRS to ensure that people who need that safety can get here.

I remind Members that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that the UK has taken only 0.2% of the total of Afghan refugees. More than 6 million fled Afghanistan, but only 0.2% have actually made it here to the UK, so there is certainly a lot more that we could and should be doing. Those left behind include those who worked for the British Council as teachers, those who worked in the armed forces for the Triples, and those who provided various services to British forces in Afghanistan. I spoke to scores of constituents at the fall of Afghanistan—people whose family members had done something as simple as supply goods and services to the British armed forces. The Taliban saw no distinction between somebody who served in an active frontline role and somebody who supplied plates. All those people were tarnished by their association with the British forces. There is an awful lot more that could and should be done to ensure that those people who put their faith and trust in us see it returned.

Like the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), I will briefly mention the 20 female Afghan medical students whom the Linda Norgrove Foundation wishes to bring to safety in Scotland. There is no excuse for them still to be waiting. The foundation was told that these women would be entitled to resettlement under ACRS in January last year. It has been waiting a full year. It was told that the women would be brought to the UK in August, but they are still waiting now, so I ask the Minister to get personally involved in this case. The women should be allowed to come to Scotland to complete their important studies and become the medical professionals they wish to be, because it is not something that will ever be possible for them in Afghanistan in the short or even medium term. They will be welcome, and we have the places. All they need is permission from the Government to come and start their studies, so I urge the Minister to make some progress on that.

Finally, will the Minister provide us with an update on the prospects for people who are stuck in Pakistan and whom the Pakistani Government wish to remove and send back to Afghanistan? Many of the folk who have been in touch with me are waiting for the British Government to process the paperwork. I have had cases where the visa centre in Islamabad had processed all but one of a family’s applications and the family did not want to leave that one member behind. I do not know whether that was deliberate or due to incompetence, or what it was that went wrong with the paperwork, but I am aware of so many cases where people are stuck waiting in Pakistan for the Government to have the processed paperwork, so that they can come to safety. It serves nobody well that they are still waiting, two years after the fall of Afghanistan.

Israel and Palestine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. There is a huge danger that, as a result of insufficient food, appalling sanitation and inadequate shelter—made worse by the winter rains—these conditions will persist, and that is why we are intent on trying to get the number of trucks that get into Gaza up to 500 a day. It is also why we have deployed this medical team, working with others, to see what can be done immediately on the ground.

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

The Israel Defence Forces chief spokesperson reflected on Saturday on the destruction of Hamas in the north of Gaza, before the IDF starts to tackle Hamas more seriously in the centre and the south. He said:

“We will do this differently…based on the lessons we have learned from the fighting so far.”

What confidence does the Minister have that Israel will conduct its counter-insurgency operations in such a way as to abide by international humanitarian law?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is not for me to second-guess the military tactics of what is going on in Gaza, but all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is to repeat the point I have made before: all parties must ensure that their actions are proportionate, necessary and minimise harm to civilians.

Israel and Gaza

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Because the two situations are not analogous.

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

I quote from a newspaper opinion column:

“Even if Israel manages to destroy Hamas, a similar movement will undoubtedly emerge from the destitution and despair of the Gaza Strip.”

That was written by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in August 2014. What are the British Government doing to prevent the recurrence of the terrible violence we are seeing in another decade?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Member is right to point to the fact that this dispute has continued down the years. He will also have noticed that it was after the crisis of the Yom Kippur war that progress was made politically, and then again after the first intifada. We must all hope that after this dreadful situation moves into a sustainable ceasefire, the political track is once again able to grip these issues and ensure that a brighter future awaits. It is an issue that has poisoned the well of international opinion in the middle east and deserves resolution so that the children of those involved today can enjoy a better life than their parents.

Israel and Palestine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Sir Mark. From the outset, I am aware that this is a very sensitive issue and that we are talking of the loss of life, which is awful. At the beginning, I have to make a declaration so that it is very clear where I stand: I am a friend of Israel, and I have been all my life. I was a member of the Friends of Israel when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, and I am a friend of Israel speaking in Westminster Hall today. I recognise that many people around me may have a different opinion. I respect their point of view; I hope that Members will also respect my point of view when I put it over.

We are talking about the lives of women and children, and the loss not simply of their daily life but of their home and even their education. This affects communities on both sides of Israel’s border. Communities on the border of Israel have been displaced and homes have been destroyed, as well as in Gaza. This premise must underline everything that is said today: war is terrible, and the end of war is what any right-thinking person is hoping for. For those who are in a position to do so, it is what they are working for, I believe.

I am certain that, regardless of the result of this debate, Hamas terrorists—that is what they are—will continue this attack. Rockets will continue to fly from Hamas positions towards Israel’s positions—not military positions, but civilian positions; the murder of civilians is their intention—and the Israelis will continue their counter-attack and opposition. Over the past days, the war against Hamas has continued to focus on southern areas of the Gaza strip, and the Israel Defence Forces have sadly confirmed the deaths of a further seven Israeli soldiers since last Monday, who were defending and protecting their people.

The horror of Hamas and of their intention on 7 October has been outlined by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke very graphically of it. I am aware of some of the videos. I have to say honestly that I could not watch them, because they were so horrible: the beheading of men, the rape of women, the murders of children. They are depraved people who carry that out. Hamas terrorists must be destroyed. They must be dismantled. They must find themselves in a position where they can no longer have any influence whatever in the middle east. That is exactly what I believe.

The bombs continue to rain down on Israel. Indeed, the IDF confirmed that an Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, we are on a very strict time limit of five minutes. Everybody has to get in, and there are many other speakers.

The Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah in northern Israel, prompting Israeli responses against terror targets in southern Lebanon. This is an important consideration in this debate: the fact is that there are still numerous and sustained rockets being fired at Israel daily. In the time in which this debate has taken place, there have been more attacks on Israeli civilian places as well. People talk about the Iron Dome, but it must be remembered that it is not a power-up in a computer game—it is more than that. When the launcher is called into action, it saves lives, and that is very important.

The Iron Dome air defence system intercepts at least nine in every 10 munitions fired into Israel by Hamas terrorists. That means that rockets do land and do cause damage; again, we must recognise that. Israel has 11 Iron Dome batteries, and with the threat of a war breaking out on the northern border with Hezbollah, the US has reportedly pledged two more. I would very much like to see that happen. US help for Israel can and will make a difference, and it will save lives.

Brigadier General Doron Gavish, a former commander of Israel’s aerial defence force who worked on the Iron Dome when it became fully operational in 2011, has said:

“Unfortunately, Hamas is not shooting for the military installations, it’s directing all its rockets towards the cities and civilians. It is a system that is really designed to save people.”

As we sit in this warm building today, comfortable as we are, calling for a ceasefire, we must be certain about calling for the right thing. We must be helping to put in place sustainable solutions—long-term solutions. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe that when the war is over and Hamas are destroyed and dismantled, we can then have a peace that can last. Long-term solutions will allow hospitals and schools to be built in Gaza and people to return home to Israel and to health and safety. That is what this House should be calling for, should work for and should wave our unified flag for.

While Israel is suffering attacks, and while it continues to root out terrorists who are aiming at civilians in Israel, there are steps to be taken. Am I calling for a ceasefire? Yes, I am calling for a bilateral ceasefire. For those who do not understand that, it is very simple. Once Hamas are destroyed, they can no longer have an attitude towards Israel that means the destruction, annihilation and murder of all Israelis. That is what I am looking for, but under circumstances, when it comes to a ceasefire, that do not see more terrorism and a worse position in 10 days’ time yet again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Blackburn is in the top 10 for the number of signatories to two of the three petitions that we are debating this afternoon. In the short time available to me, I will speak to the core concern of the three petitions.

First, on the question of the UK’s neutrality, international law states that nations have the right to self-defence, but it also dictates that this right must be exercised proportionately. I am sure that future investigations will determine whether that is what is happening in Gaza today.

On 7 October, it was a dark day and I absolutely condemn the horrific terror attack carried out by Hamas. It left 1,200 Israeli people dead, and they were killed in such an horrendous manner, as has been described by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in his place. However, please remember that Hamas are not the Palestinian people; Hamas are not the innocent women and children who are suffering today.

[Richard Foord]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Kate Hollern]

I will make a bit of progress first.

The terrible crime does not justify the collective punishment of millions. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, around 18,000 Palestinians have now been killed. It is estimated that about 70% of them are women and children. While such deaths are occurring on a daily basis, the UK Government abstained in the votes on last week’s United Nations resolutions, which called for a ceasefire. They claim it will not happen: “Why call for it? It won’t happen.” Doing difficult things is what this Government should do. They say that it is too difficult to do things; they are taking the easy option. But we cannot stand by and watch the horrors we are witnessing every day.

Thousands of people have been left without sufficient food and water, and hospitals are on the verge of total shutdown as fuel runs out. Patients are undergoing surgery with no pain relief. Aid agencies continue to warn that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is worsening by the minute. Some 2.3 million people are homeless and trapped in a tiny, embattled enclave with little food, water or medical attention.

Finally, on the ceasefire, I believe that the only way forward is an immediate ceasefire that is binding on all sides. It is for that reason that I voted for amendment (h) to the King’s Speech: I could not, in good conscience, have done anything else.

[Kate Hollern]

I agree entirely. We must remember that this situation did not start on 7 October.

International calls for a ceasefire are numerous; they are coming from all over the world, apart from the US and the UK, and they will continue to grow. Yesterday, the World Health Organisation executive board adopted a resolution aimed at addressing the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and again called for a ceasefire. Some 76% of the UK public support a ceasefire. Why are this Government not listening?

We have now had some humanitarian pauses, which were welcome, but a brief respite and the release of more than 100 hostages and 240 Palestinians in detention are insufficient. It is regrettable that world leaders failed to use the time to broker a permanent ceasefire. The only solution is a diplomatically negotiated one: a two-state solution that comprises a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine is the only way to secure lasting peace.

[Richard Foord]

I echo the hon. Member’s calls for a two-state solution. Does she agree that it is outrageous for a senior Israeli official to reckon that one third of those killed so far in the war were combatants, because by deduction that would mean that two thirds of those killed—more than 10,000 people—must be civilians, and that we cannot dismiss those civilian deaths as mere collateral damage?

[Kate Hollern]

Absolutely. As I said earlier, I am quite sure that a future investigation will expose some of the information being released.

I appreciate that a negotiated ceasefire that is binding on all sides—that is the important part—will be difficult and a huge diplomatic task, but sitting on our hands will not achieve anything. The situation is growing worse by the day, and as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said earlier, we have a breeding ground for the future of Hamas unless we do something. We start by talking, we start by listening, and we start by putting pressure on people to stop bombing innocent women and children.

Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the reasons why the Government, and indeed the Opposition Front Bench, are unable to call for a ceasefire are very clear.

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

At the end of last week the US vetoed a Security Council resolution brought about by the UN Secretary-General triggering article 99. What are the Government doing to encourage our friends in Washington to support, or at least abstain on, a resolution that does refer to Hamas and that is acceptable to other permanent members of the Security Council?

[Mr Mitchell]

The team in our mission at the UN in New York works night and day to try and get progress on the terrible events taking place in the middle east and it will be encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s words that more can and should be done.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think the hon. Gentleman confuses the role of the British Government, which has been set out clearly by the Prime Minister and by me in the House. He will also know that when it comes to the use of intelligence assets and so forth, we do not discuss those matters across the Floor of the House.

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

It was welcome this weekend to see the release of Israeli child hostages. It was also welcome a moment ago to hear the Minister talk about a possible two-day extension to the pause in fighting. We heard two weeks ago from the Israeli Foreign Minister, who said:

“Israel has some two or three weeks until international pressure seriously begins to increase”.

He said that the pressure was “not particularly high” but was increasing. Given that the Israeli Government were not feeling pressured internationally a fortnight ago, how can the Minister be sure that the pressure from the UK Government is being felt now, so that the rules of engagement of the Israel Defence Forces will distinguish between terrorists and civilians?

[Mr Mitchell]

The people who serve in the Israel Defence Forces are taught, as part of their basic training, the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law. I would contrast the Israel Defence Forces, who seek to defend Israeli citizens, with Hamas, who seek to use their citizens to defend Hamas.

International Development White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The former Foreign Secretary unveiled Britain’s new women and girls strategy in Sierra Leone this year. It is a very good read—if I may add it to the hon. Member’s reading on international development. I was not an unalloyed fan of the merger, as he knows, but when I got back into the Government I saw that the Foreign Office had completely internalised the importance of putting girls and women right at the centre of everything we do in this area, and it is to be commended for that.

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

The Minister is exactly right to say that little development happens in the absence of security. Speaking in 2014, before he joined the Government and during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, he said that a ceasefire in Gaza should be made permanent before talks move on to addressing wider issues in the middle east peace process. Does he now agree that talks addressing the underlying grievances of the moderates would be part of a successful counter-insurgency campaign, part of bringing about greater security, and hence would foster international development in the middle east?

[Mr Mitchell]

The quote that the hon. Gentleman found from 2014 was made in very different circumstances, but he is right to say that development will almost always fail where there is no security. Indeed, as Sir Paul Collier memorably said, conflict is “development in reverse”. On the middle east and Gaza—that is not, of course, the subject of the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the sooner we can move to a political track in the region, at the United Nations and in the international Assemblies, and start working on what a future two-state solution would look like, with a state for both Israel and Palestine, the better.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the faith communities. We often talk about the Jewish faith and Islam but when it comes to this region, the Christian churches play an incredibly important role, and I pay tribute to them. I have heard his point, and I will continue to speak about the avoidance of civilian casualties, particularly in places of safe haven such as churches.

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

When seeking to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan over a decade ago, General McChrystal adopted a new concept for NATO soldiers: courageous restraint. This was to separate the insurgents from the civilians among whom they lived. Can the Foreign Secretary inform the House how courageous restraint can be urged on all combatants, including through the full resumption of the water supply to Gaza?

[James Cleverly]

Courageous restraint, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted, is now a well-embedded concept in professional military forces. I have discussed with representatives of the IDF my admiration for its professionalism and my expectation that it will maintain that professionalism through any military operations. Courageous restraint is not a concept in the heart of Hamas terrorists. We must be realistic about that. Therefore, we will work with Israel and other countries in the region to try to bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we maintain our support of Israel’s self-defence and we highlight the fact that Hamas are just as willing to see Palestinians killed as they are to see Israelis killed, to pursue their political aims.

Hong Kong National Security Law Anniversary

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I stand corrected. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is 11, which makes it even worse. Foremost among them is the Catholic entrepreneur and—most importantly—journalist Jimmy Lai, who languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge. I will come back to that point, because I have further questions to ask the UK Government, but I hope that the Minister has taken note of my hon. Friend’s comments about the actions of the United States. Our words about the transgressions have remained words; they have not given rise to actions that I would have expected from the UK Government. I am sorry to say that. They are a Government I support, but a Government who at the moment I have to say are in deficit in this area. I want to point out a few more areas where I find our Government in deficit.

What assessment have the Government made of all those figures we have been chucking out, as young political prisoners, three quarters of whom are aged 30 or under, bear the brunt of this oppressive regime? It is deeply troubling that minors face the longest sentences of all, averaging something like 27 months, further exacerbating their plight. What also bothers me is that the Government, having not gone to Hong Kong officially, suddenly sent a Government Minister there a few weeks ago. As I understand it, now that his visits and meetings have been published, Lord Johnson met no democracy campaigners, said nothing officially or publicly about the Sino-British agreement, said nothing at all about the breach of human rights, said nothing at all about those sanctioned, and, to my knowledge, said nothing at all about the plight of the British citizen Jimmy Lai.

I want to stay on that point because, of all the things the Minister could have said, he could have said something about the bad behaviour with regard to a British passport holder and citizen. I want to say it again: Jimmy Lai is a British passport holder and citizen. As much as every one of us sitting in this room today, he has rights. At the front of the passport, it states “without let or hindrance”. What is the worth of the passport that I and everybody else in this room carry, if my Government will not call him a British citizen with rights under international law for consular access? America refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. The European Union refers to him as a British citizen and passport holder. What country does not refer to him as a British citizen and passport holder publicly? Sadly, that would be my Government—our Government. For some reason, the British Government take it upon themselves to know, beyond any other family member or Jimmy Lai himself, what is good for him. What is good for him is what he wants.

Jimmy Lai did not flee Hong Kong after the trashing of the Sino-British agreement. Why? Because he is a brave man who believed that as long as he stayed, he could be the guarantor of some of the rights that might disappear. He wanted to be the icon who believed in democracy and human rights, so that those who were fearful and fleeing, and worried for their lives and the lives of their family, would look to him and see a brave man standing on the hill saying, “I’m not going anywhere. This is my home.”

A British citizen, a brave man, now languishes in prison on a trumped-up charge that has nothing to do with reality. He faces a second court case later this year, where he will almost certainly be charged under the new security laws for sedition. Jimmy Lai knows, and his family know, that it is unlikely he will ever see the light of day outside that prison. He knew that from the very word go; he made his choices on the basis that he knew that from the very word go. He did not flee.

Surely Jimmy Lai wants us to say that he is a proud British citizen and passport holder. He is not a dual national, by the way. I wish the British Government would stop referring to him as a dual national: it plays into the Chinese Government’s hands, because they declare that they do not recognise dual nationals. He is not a dual national; he is a British passport holder. I want that to be very clear. His family, who I have spoken to and who had to flee to Taiwan, say he wants to be pronounced a British citizen and passport holder. All I ask is that at the end of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister gets up and says, “He is a British citizen and passport holder, and we intend to pursue the Chinese Government publicly for consular rights. He is a political prisoner, and there is no question beyond that.”

I congratulate and applaud my Government on the generous BNO scheme and on extending it. To give credit where credit is due, the Government have done well on that. The trouble is that after everything that has been going on and the failure to recognise even a British passport holder, many BNO passport holders in the UK are now fearful about their own status. We know that many of them have been hunted down in the UK by those terrible Chinese police stations, which are quite illegal but have existed in the UK for an unnecessarily long time. We know that they have been threatened and bullied about their status. They worry about their protections under a BNO scheme, which are far fewer than those of having a British passport and being a British citizen. I would like the Government to consider that our failure to act in that way for Jimmy Lai has consequences for those we would wish to protect in a wider scheme. One need only talk to them to understand their concerns. We need to make those changes and announcements.

On the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, when will the UK Government put Hong Kong officials, who were responsible in the first place for many of those human rights abuses, under notice that they will be sanctioned? They should have been sanctioned by now. Is there a chance that the British Government are reviewing it? I know what the British Government and the Minister will say: “We never discuss sanctions.” I wish he would say at least that he will take note of what we have said.

For Hongkongers facing the plight of having to risk entering the Chinese consulate for the renewal of their Hong Kong passports, this policy places them in a vulnerable position. They are worried. What alternative procedures will the Government pursue to give those people a greater sense of certainty, such as by providing other things like travel documents or establishing a successful and secure passport renewal process that does not necessitate entering the grounds of a Chinese consulate? I remind everybody that the last person I knew of who entered a Chinese consulate’s grounds was dragged there by the consul general, was beaten up and had his hair torn out. I met him afterwards, and he was traumatised. The Chinese Government did not do anything, and the British Government talked about the law, but he quietly disappeared later on and no apology was made. It was a terrible act. I understand why BNO passport holders here are fearful of what will happen to them if they enter the consulate. The big concern and fear is about whether they will come out again. Will the Government look for other ways for them to establish their legitimacy, other than being forced into this damaging process?

The visit of Liu Jianchao last week also sent a signal to many people who are here under the BNO scheme. It is deeply regrettable that the Government chose, for some reason, to host him. This is a man deeply involved in China’s controversial fox hunt operations, which hunt down Chinese dissidents around the world and seek to get them back to China using techniques that include threatening their families, televising that threat, and eventual torture and arrest on re-arrival. It is an example of China’s disregard for international norms and human rights that it behaves in that way so publicly. By welcoming this individual—there is a photograph of a Minister sitting next to him; given the abuse of international norms and human rights, I am astonished that we would allow a Government Minister to meet him and sit with him—are we not sending a chilling message to everybody else that we place that relationship on a higher plane than people’s human rights and liberties?

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

On the point about the Hong Kong national security law having extraterritorial reach, some in the People’s Republic refer to centuries of humiliation, when their forebears made concessions to other imperial powers. Does the right hon. Member think that since the crackdown in 2020 against students in Hong Kong who were simply singing songs and waving flags, it is reasonable to say that the People’s Republic is behaving in a repressive fashion that was typically associated with 19th-century imperial powers?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

These are abuses of human rights and democracy. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is an appalling return to a time we thought had long passed. We now respect people’s human rights, but that is not the case in China, and it is now not the case in Hong Kong. The worst part about the situation in Hong Kong, which he is right to raise, is that we were one of the guarantors, but we seem to be shuffling away from that guarantee. Where other countries have acted on the abuse, we seem to be stepping back. I am concerned about that. I would love to know more about it from the Minister.