Gavi and the Global Fund

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Monica Harding]

I absolutely agree, and I was about to come on to the economic benefits of Gavi and the Global Fund. There are economic benefits: a study of Gavi-supported countries showed that, through healthcare savings alone, each dollar spent returns $21. When wider social benefits are considered, that rises to $54. Accounting for trade opportunities, healthcare savings and other economic boosts for Britain, both Gavi and the Global Alliance have generated value equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars. So we are talking about neither a charity nor a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but instead, a deposit account for the security, health and soft power of our nation.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the point about soft power, China tends to deploy its vaccines in accordance with its regional influence and global standing, rather than on the basis of where there is the greatest need. Does she share my concern that the withdrawal of western funding from vaccine alliances could clear the way for China to engage in further vaccine diplomacy?

[Monica Harding]

I thank my hon. Friend for a well-made point. I have consistently said that cuts to our international aid and development spend create the space for rogue actors to move in, including China and Russia. I know that the Government like polling, so I am happy to share that the British people understand the value of spending on vaccination. Recent Adelphi polling found that 70% of our people believe that supporting global vaccine access benefits Britain.

This is about not only British funding, but British leadership. Our expertise and convening power have been continuous assets for Gavi and the Global Fund. I fear that the Government’s aid cuts have put that leadership at risk, so they must work to reverse that trend. This year, Britain will, along with South Africa, host the Global Fund’s replenishment efforts. As host nation, other countries and non-governmental organisations will look to us for leadership in making a significant pledge. I hope we will step up.

In closing, I want to say a little more about what Britain’s support means to others. I recently met Botswana’s Health Minister and the special ambassador of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance. They shared with me their pride on the progress made on AIDS—with related maternal mortality falling by 80%—and on how malaria is now on the threshold of elimination. They told me that Britain’s work in this success is “always felt very warmly,” that it “ties” the two peoples, and that it is ultimately an expression of “humanity.” They told me that the collaboration fuels trade and partnership. The Minister and the ambassador worry that so much progress and so much investment risks going into reverse in the wake of the global aid retrenchment, including by Britain. They do not expect global support to last forever, but wrenching it away before countries have fully built up their own capacity is a destructive mistake that they, and we, will pay for.

From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I encourage the Government to reaffirm our commitment and pledge generously to Gavi and the Global Fund. I encourage the Government to reaffirm our commitment and leadership in aid, and to reverse the savage cuts to our aid budget. This still-new Government must decide the Britain they want to deliver. Our wish is to bestride the world stage as a development superpower, consolidating our massive progress and gains, affirming our friendship, acting with compassion while delivering for our own people, providing security from conflict and disease, and controlling upstream migration to these shores. The space for leadership is now vacant, and I urge the Government to fill it.

Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Richard Foord, a member of the Select Committee.

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

The G7 oil price cap prevents us from selling shipping and insurance services to companies carrying Russian oil when it is sold above $60 per barrel. I appreciate that the Minister might say that he cannot preannounce future sanctions—I think we all understand that—but has the UK advocated with G7 allies for reducing that price cap further, given that in recent weeks, the price of crude oil has dropped below $60 per barrel?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. I will not comment on future actions, but since the introduction of the oil price cap, data from the Russian Ministry of Finance showed a 30% reduction in tax revenues from oil in 2023, compared with the year before. The price it has received for flagship Urals-grade crude has continued to sit below global levels, and our work—particularly on the shadow fleet—has significantly disrupted and impacted the revenues that Putin is able to get from oil to fuel his war in Ukraine. We will consider all possible lawful measures to further strengthen our efforts in that regard, but the best way to do so is by working with our international partners. We are engaged in daily conversations on these matters, but of course, I will not comment on future specific actions.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has done much work over the years on questions of peacebuilding. We, too, are committed to playing our part in trying to build up the connections between the two societies that could allow for the kind of moderate leadership at the most local level that is so necessary for making peace—we saw that in our own experience of Northern Ireland. Many in this Chamber have rightly pressed us on the proposals from the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and we look forward in the coming period to setting out what we will do to support peacebuilding efforts. I watch with dismay, as does the Foreign Secretary, the many civilians asking for peace on both sides; the many civilians protesting both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for a return to a ceasefire. That is what we want to see.

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

We have heard Ministers refer many times to the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. On the one occasion, on 17 March, when the Foreign Secretary admitted that withholding aid to Gaza was

“a breach of international law”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.],

he had to retract the admission and refer again to a risk of breaches. If the recent attacks on aid workers constitute a further risk of breaches, will the Minister outline what would constitute an actual breach?

[Mr Falconer]

The Foreign Secretary has clarified his comments on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and he will know well from his own background that a long-standing policy of Governments of all kinds is that it is not for Ministers to act as courts. There are competent international courts that make such determinations.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and I pay tribute to him for his work. He and I travelled together on a number of visits to the region—including to Bosnia and Kosovo—so I am well aware of his interest and engagement there. There are many opportunities for increased economic linkage and trade with all the countries in the region, and we continue to promote those. Indeed, I discussed them on my recent visits to Serbia and Montenegro.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that this is fundamentally about leadership in the region. As I said, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building inclusive futures, rather than exacerbating tensions as we are seeing with President Dodik in Republika Srpska, because that does not serve the people of Republika Srpska.

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

The Minister has acknowledged that the secessionist moves in Republika Srpska could have ramifications for the western Balkans more broadly. One part of that is the north of Kosovo, where there is a Kosovo Serb minority. While the UK does not contribute to EUFOR and Operation Althea, we do contribute to KFOR in Kosovo. What contingency plans exist for British troops to reinforce KFOR through a strategic reserve, as happened in 2023?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I am not going to get into operational details, but he can be sure that we prepare for all scenarios across the region. That is why we have welcomed the steps that EUFOR has taken in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The hon. Member is right to highlight the role that we play in KFOR. Indeed, I also visited KFOR with the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and saw the important work that it does in line with its mandate. It is important that everybody takes steps to de-escalate tensions and deal with issues that have not been dealt with. I have raised the Banjska incident a number of times, including with Serbia, and it is important that those responsible are held accountable.

UK-China Relations

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

As I said, I am not advocating for China; I am saying that, as the third-largest trading partner with Hong Kong, we cannot pretend that it does not exist. We cannot pretend that there is no role for building dialogue and engagement. The reality is that, given the way the tectonic plates of global affairs are moving, it is in China’s interests to have a stable Europe. Who else will buy its electric cars, for example? There is an evolution in the way we should look at these things, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point.

Over the last 14 years, British foreign policy towards China resembled a rollercoaster. We had the golden era under the Cameron Government, when President Xi enjoyed a state visit and, as the Foreign Secretary recently reminded us, had a beer in a pub with the Prime Minister. We had the May Government’s justified scepticism about China General Nuclear Power Corporation’s involvement in Hinkley, and then the Johnson Government’s confused China policy, culminating in Liz Truss’s cold war 2.0-style policy. No serious nation should aim to have a bilateral relationship with the world’s second-largest economy that resembles a fairground ride. The Chancellor’s trip to China for the economic and financial dialogue in January, concluding agreements of up to £1 billion for the UK economy over five years, is an example of how taking a grown-up relationship to China is in our national interest.

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

The Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on China in 2023. The public version said that it is China’s

“ambition at a global level—to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant—that poses a national security threat to the UK.”

How does the hon. Gentleman see it?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree that a national security-first approach to China must be the position. As I understand it, that is the position of the Government. That is why the position taken on the embassy is a national security issue; I know that there has been some debate about that, but I am not in a position to second-guess MI6, MI5 and the security services, and that has to be the lens through which we look at these issues.

I have referred to the EFD outcomes. Critics of engagement overlook the fact that some nations who took a robust approach to China were still engaging in the background. If we step back while competitors—including the United States, which has also taken a robust approach to China—are engaging, we are missing a trick. The UK had not sent a Prime Minister to China in many years. I am pleased that the Government aim to have a relationship with China based on what I understand to be a national security approach, while also co-operating with, competing with and challenging China where appropriate. Engaging with does not, of course, meaning agreeing with.

G7

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend put his remarks incredibly well. May I associate myself with his remarks about that appalling atrocity? I make it crystal clear that it is hugely important that the United Kingdom, as a P-5 member, continues to support our armed services and hard power, but our soft power, our diplomatic efforts and our development spend—we will still be the sixth biggest development spender in the world—are hugely important.

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

Last spring, the UK joined the United States in conducting five combined joint naval and airstrikes against the Houthis. This weekend, the US conducted airstrikes without participation from the RAF except routine refuelling support. Why the change? What does that signal about British foreign policy? Does the Foreign Secretary consider that getting US involvement in a backstop in Ukraine is more challenging when the US has to operate alone against the Houthis?

[Mr Lammy]

The United Kingdom was involved to the extent of supporting US efforts on refuelling. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the detail of any military exercise, but I reassure the hon. Member that we continue to work closely with our friends in the United States. As he would expect, I was briefed on these issues alongside the Prime Minister and others.

Syria

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is right that actions, not words, must be the yardstick by which we judge the interim authorities, including the interim President. Following the violence, they have made some important commitments about holding the perpetrators to justice, being clear that this is not state-ordered. We need now to see the consequences of those words in those coastal communities in Syria. We will be watching very carefully.

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

The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week about the importance of ensuring accountability for crimes committed under the Assad regime. Today’s statement in the wake of the violence over the weekend calls on the interim authorities in Syria to set out a path to transitional justice. Has the UK’s position on accountability for war crimes under Assad changed in the wake of that sectarian violence?

[Mr Falconer]

No, it has not. We announced a further £240,000 to ensure that vital evidence in relation to the Assad regime can be secured and preserved so that there can be accountability. Our attitude towards the Assad regime has not shifted in the light of the events over the weekend.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I support the Government’s increase in defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP. I would like to see them go further, and for it to rise to 3% as soon as possible. There is an urgency to increase defence spending, and it would have been wrong to wait until the spending review later this year, yet the reduction in development assistance is the wrong place to look for the money. It is not only devastating for humanitarian projects and development assistance; it has significant geopolitical consequences.

For years Britain has led the way in providing development assistance to countries in desperate need, helping them to develop while also strengthening our global influence. However, with both the US and the UK now cutting back on aid, we risk creating a vacuum that will be filled by authoritarian actors. Countries that were previously aligned with the west will have little choice but to shift fully towards countries that are hostile to the UK. This is not speculation, because I make my observation based on historical precedents.

In 2021, France suspended €10 million in aid and halted military co-operation with the Government of the Central African Republic. The Central African Republic sought alternative partners, including for security, and went to Russia’s Wagner Group. Wagner deployed mercenaries to support Government forces in their fight against rebels, solidifying Russia’s role in the Central African Republic. Russia then secured economic resources and mineral resources, such as gold and diamonds, from the Central African Republic.

When Russia expanded its foothold in Africa, it gained both economic leverage and political influence, and the political shift is apparent in the Central African Republic’s voting record at the United Nations. Historically, the Central African Republic aligned with the west in supporting key resolutions, such as on the continuation of the UN Observer Mission in Georgia. More recently, on critical UN votes—for example, the votes on Ukraine at the General Assembly—the Central African Republic has either abstained or voted against resolutions condemning Russia.

We are also seeing that elsewhere—for example, with China’s belt and road initiative. It is well known that China has deepened its ties with both Tanzania and Zambia by investing in roads, ports and energy projects. Meanwhile, western influence in those countries has waned, with China emerging as their primary partner. We have seen senior Zambian Government officials, including Ministers and permanent secretaries, participating in training programmes focusing on governance in Beijing every year, thus pushing China’s authoritarian ideology and influence across Zambia. Historically, when the west withdraws, China and Russia step in, and that is exactly what will happen with the cuts to the FCDO budget, particularly the cut in development aid to 0.3% of GDP.

To conclude, let us not erode democratic values across the globe or weaken our ability to advocate for a fairer and more democratic world, because that is also in British interests.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. We are at a pivotal moment in history. The international rule of law, established and affirmed after world war two, is on the brink of being disregarded by some of the very states that created it. The International Court of Justice, established in 1945, has a critical role in promoting peace and resolving disputes between states. Since its inception, it has seen approximately 90% of its rulings implemented. It is literally the world court, and the suggestion that its authority somehow is not recognised and respected because it does not apply to one single state cannot abide.

Last year, the ICJ ruling declared Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories unlawful. Although the ruling is legally binding in its principles, it is advisory in nature and its implementation will depend on the political will of states in the international community. The horrific attacks carried out by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 were appalling, and they too must not go unpunished, but Israel’s response to that atrocity has failed to distinguish in every case between terrorists and innocent civilians in Gaza. Will we continue to uphold a world order based on law, or will we allow power politics and strategic alliances to dictate when international law applies and when it does not?

Just last week, the US President sanctioned officials of the ICC for daring to investigate potential war crimes committed by Israeli forces. That was another dangerous precedent that undermines international justice. We cannot abide this: we must stand by international law and we must respect the ruling of the ICJ.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

That was a very good question. I reassure my hon. Friend that the subject remains under active discussion with our colleagues, particularly in Europe. We have made progress in relation to interest. We recognise that more funds need to be found to keep Ukraine in the fight. There are differences of opinion about the lawfulness and legality of doing this, and the implication for the markets particularly at this time. Those discussions are live and active, and I was with the Weimar group of not just Foreign Ministers, because Prime Minister Meloni and Chancellor Scholz were there as well, discussing these very issues just before the Christmas break.

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

It is welcome to hear that this partnership agreement is a binding treaty. As such, it contrasts with the Budapest memorandum, which was non-binding and not worth the paper it was written on. There is a lot of talk about how Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, but it will be difficult to get a consensus for that anytime soon among the 32 NATO members. In lieu of NATO membership, what security guarantees might the UK seek to develop for Ukraine with European allies?

[Mr Lammy]

This is a very live issue. As I said in my statement, we do not see Putin ready to halt his aggression and come to the table for serious negotiations, but just as this country has stood by Ukraine throughout, and provided very important intelligence in the run-up to this war, we will recognise our part in working with others on security guarantees.