World AIDS Day 2017

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World AIDS Day 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to see by Members from across the House in attendance. I am thankful for the fact that this important debate has been granted because, as we all know, on Friday—1 December—it was World AIDS Day. This World AIDS Day was particularly important to me because it was my first as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS. I personally thank, on behalf of the all-party group officers, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who unfortunately cannot be with us today, for all his hard work while he was chair of the group. I also thank those officers who have been able to join us today, and I draw attention to our relevant declarations in the APPG register.

This World AIDS Day was one of many anniversaries. It was the anniversary of Positively UK and the 30th anniversary of the National AIDS Trust. It also marked 30 years since the first UK Government public health campaign on HIV—“Don’t Die of Ignorance”—the famous tombstones adverts for which we must pay credit to the Lords Speaker. He has made an enormous contribution to the HIV cause, both then and over the years since. It was a delight to join him and the Commons Speaker in Westminster Hall last week at the exhibition of the iconic AIDS memorial quilts, which have been placed out for the 30th anniversary. The AIDS Memorial Quilt Conservation Partnership organised the exhibition, and I am sure that many Members have seen it. It was moving to see such a visual display of a deep and personal part of our social history and to meet family and friends who lost loved ones to AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s. It was also a reminder of how far we have come in tackling the HIV epidemic, in the UK and abroad, but, perhaps more importantly, it highlighted that there is still so much further to go. Given that it is a Department for International Development Minister who is responding to the debate, I will focus the majority of my remarks on the international aspect, but I will also touch on a number of issues to do with the UK domestic situation.

Last week, as well as joining with the Terrence Higgins Trust, Positively UK and the memorial quilts organisation, I met some absolutely incredible young people—Davi, Horcelie and Masedi—at the incredibly powerful and personal World AIDS Day event that Youth Stop AIDS held in Parliament. The young people spoke about their experiences in Indonesia, the Congo and southern Africa, and the challenges so many people around the world still face. Hearing their personal stories of how HIV and AIDS have affected their lives and those of their families was very moving and, I am sure Members will agree, it is important for us as parliamentarians to understand how our international policies can directly affect people’s lives. We are truly grateful for their courage to speak out about their status and their experiences.

Before we begin to look at the areas in which more work must be done, I want to highlight some of the excellent progress that has been made to date. Here in the UK, as Public Health England data have shown, this year marks the first time since the epidemic began that new HIV diagnoses have decreased among men who have sex with men—by 18%. That is a real achievement and is testimony to the hard work of Governments of many different types over the years, the HIV sector—including non-governmental organisations and all those who work in our health service—and many other stakeholders who have dedicated their expertise to improving HIV prevention and treatment. Clearly, something is working.

Internationally, huge strides have been made since the beginning of the epidemic, with a 48% decline in deaths from AIDS-related causes, from a peak of 1.9 million in 2005 to 1 million in 2016, thanks largely to the global scale-up of antiretroviral therapy. Having worked with a number of NGOs that work on the epidemic, including World Vision—which the Minister knows well—and Oxfam, and latterly in my time at the Department for International Development and then with Oxfam International, I have seen the epidemic and some of the efforts around it changing over the years, along with some very positive impacts. However, there are still 36.7 million people worldwide living with HIV, 14.5 million of whom do not know their HIV status.

Stigma is still a major barrier to accessing treatment. Even here in the UK, the Terrence Higgins Trust is working hard to get the message through that undetectable equals untransmittable—the U=U campaign—and that is also vital globally. Later in the debate we will talk a little about pre-exposure prophylaxis. PrEP is a game-changing drug that could reverse aspects of the epidemic, but access is a problem, particularly in low and middle-income countries—we have only just seen major trials and major availability in this country. Some 17 million people, or 46% of people living with HIV, are now on antiretroviral treatment and 38% of people are virally suppressed. That means that we are therefore still a long way from reaching the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets, which are that, by 2020, 90% of all people living with HIV will know their HIV status, 90% of all people with diagnosed HIV infection will receive sustained antiretroviral therapy, and 90% of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy will have viral suppression. UNAIDS has reported that progress on the decline in new infections has, unfortunately, slowed down and that we are now off track for achieving those internationally agreed targets. In 2016, there were 1.8 million new infections worldwide; the target is to reach just 500,000 by 2020.

Although overall new infections among adults have declined since 2010, progress has varied according to region. For example, in eastern and central Europe new infection rates have increased by an alarming 60%, and we have heard very worrying news from Russia this week, where there have been soaring infection and death rates from HIV/AIDS in recent years, as the epidemic has spread from intravenous drug users to the broader population. Russian and global health experts say that that is the result of the authorities’ long-running refusal first to acknowledge the problem and then to back internationally recognised policies to combat it, such as health education, drug substitution programmes and large-scale antiretroviral treatment programmes. That is alongside the suppression we see of the LGBT+ community in Russia and many parts of the former Soviet Union. Figures are merely statistics, however, and unless we look more closely at what they mean for people living in the poorest countries, and some middle-income countries, we do not see the real impact on lives and the devastating effect that HIV and AIDS can still have.

Although here in the UK AIDS-related deaths have been significantly reduced since the terrible days of the 1980s and early-1990s, worldwide, millions of people are still dying from AIDS-related causes. I would like to praise the leadership that DFID has shown on HIV over many years, under many Governments, particularly its recent contribution to the global fund. I was delighted to meet the fund’s interim executive director a few weeks ago here in Parliament, with members of relevant APPGs, and I congratulate Peter Sands on his recent appointment to that role.

HIV is treatable and should not result in death, but there are a number of reasons why it still does, and I will try to cover them. HIV is still the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age. According to UNAIDS data, young women aged between 15 and 24 are at particularly high risk of HIV infection, accounting for 20% of new HIV infections among adults globally in 2015. Although the UK Government are clearly committed to improving women’s rights and opportunities there is some concern that HIV is being overlooked in that area, given that there is, for example, no mention of HIV in the recent update of the strategic vision for girls and women. Will the Minister comment on that, and agree that, given the importance of HIV as the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age, he will consider adding in a specific reference to HIV when the strategy is next updated?

The all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS is currently conducting an inquiry into the withdrawal of aid from middle-income countries and its impact on women and girls living with HIV, which we hope will shine some light on this crucial issue. Multilateral aid, such as that given through the global fund, is vital, but it is not the only answer. The UK has shown a very significant presence, both in its personnel and its ministerial involvement at international conferences and, crucially, at country level. A presence on the ground through bilateral aid is also crucial, and that is something we have recently discussed with the global fund and other organisations. Those bodies require partners on the ground with whom they can work, and we have a proud track record on that, which we do not want to see decline.

Young people are also particularly vulnerable, because they are often denied the information and freedom to make decisions about their sexual health and do not know how to protect themselves from HIV. Therefore, along with women we need to ensure that young people are at the heart of the UK Government’s HIV prevention and treatment strategies globally. Will the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that young people are at the heart of the agenda? Will he look at DFID’s youth agenda and include specific reference to young people living with HIV and AIDS?

I mentioned earlier that there has been an alarming increase in new HIV infections in eastern and central Europe. One of the key problems—aside from those issues I mentioned about stigma and the lack of commitment to education and treatment—is that some of the middle-income countries, particularly in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, are falling through funding gaps. As international aid is pulled out, their Governments are unable or unwilling to provide funding for HIV prevention and treatment services.

DFID’s support of the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund is crucial in providing the necessary funding for civil society groups in those harder-to-reach places with harder-to-reach populations. We heard about the importance of the work funded by that network in the event with STOPAIDS last week. UNAIDS’s latest report, which was released on World AIDS Day, highlights that outside of eastern and southern Africa, HIV prevalence is highest among men, particularly within key populations, and that they are the least likely to seek treatment. UNAIDS warns that that is a blind spot within the current HIV response. DFID has given £5 million over the past three years to the RCNF. Will the Minister tell the House whether his Department plans to increase that amount to make further progress towards the 90-90-90 target?

While we have seen a significant increase for multilateral funding and the global fund, others are not doing their bit. What discussions has the Minister had with other donors about their responsibilities and their funding for the global fund and bilateral funding? STOPAIDS released an important report looking at UK bilateral funding, which had some worrying statistics. While I absolutely welcome the funding we have seen for the global fund, the RCNF and other things, we have worries in the sector that some of our bilateral funding is perhaps not what it should be. Will the Minister say a little about that and the steps we can take to increase the transparency of DFID’s funding in this area?

DFID is currently using a policy marker to estimate its HIV spend, which essentially means that a programme identified as having a significant HIV outcome is able to automatically attribute 50% of its budget to HIV tracking. The problem with that is that it risks overestimating our contribution in those areas. That might seem like a technical issue, but I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to know how our money is getting results and where it is being used. Currently, there is no way of accurately telling. Will he look at that issue and how we can improve our transparency on that spending?

Another crucial area is access to medicines. In our 2014 report, we highlighted some of the barriers to accessing HIV medicines. Sadly, three years later we are still grappling with some of the same concerns. While the cost of first-line treatment has come down from a high of £7,500 to £75 a person a year, thanks to generic competition and huge civil society pressure, third-line treatment remains prohibitively expensive for people living in low and middle-income countries, and there are still too few paediatric formulations available. Unfortunately, that is one of the downsides of the current system. We have close, frank and regular dialogue with those in the pharmaceutical industry, but we have to find ways of working with the sector to improve access issues.

While many great initiatives already exist—the International Partnership for Microbicides, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and various other public-private partnerships, the Medicines Patent Pool, multilaterals such as Unitaid and the Clinton Health Access Initiative and others—there is still more we could be doing to improve the situation. For example, we should ensure that where public funds are used, there are sufficient conditions in place to safeguard public return on research and development investment. Will the Minister say a little about the work his Department is doing to ensure that we have access to medicines for all those who need it? It is important that we continue to invest in vaccines. We need to invest in the prevention technologies that will ultimately be the way to secure a sustainable end to the epidemic.

Those are some of the challenges we face with HIV internationally, but before I conclude I want to reflect briefly on some of the domestic issues. The issues of stigma, discrimination and access to treatment for vulnerable groups apply across the board. I was astounded to read the other day that a YouGov survey found that one in five Britons would be uncomfortable wearing the red ribbon for World AIDS Day because people might think that they have HIV. There should be absolutely no stigma surrounding HIV status. We all need to do our part to ensure that we stamp out that stigma for once and all. I publicly had an HIV test at the Terrence Higgins Trust centre in Cardiff last week. I was proud to share that on social media and encourage others to take a test during national testing week. I thank all Members, including those here today, who have worn their ribbons in the past few weeks and who have been along to take tests.

I pay particular tribute to His Royal Highness Prince Harry and his new fiancée Meghan Markle for the part they have played by making one of their first public engagements going along to a THT centre. His Royal Highness took a test last year, and I understand that that increased testing rates significantly. As an all-party group, we were delighted to meet him recently and discuss his passion for and commitment to the cause. I am sure we all applaud that work.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend finishes his excellent and timely speech, I commend him on securing the debate and apologise that I am not wearing my red ribbon, although I am wearing my sustainable development goal badge. “It ain’t over”—those are the words of the pledge we have all made to recommit our energies to ending AIDS/HIV by 2030, but we will not achieve that goal unless we are committed politically and financially to ensuring that it becomes a reality.

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. “It ain’t over” was the central message from STOPAIDS when we met last week. We need to get that message out there loud and clear. The challenge has not gone away, although we have seen much progress.

On the domestic front, I want to mention two issues. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on them and perhaps discussed them with his colleagues in the Department of Health. First, we have seen the fragmentation of services. The all-party group published a report last year called “The HIV Puzzle”. It looked at some of the fragmentation of services in England since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and some of the resulting challenges for people in accessing treatment and prevention services locally. Some worrying statistics are coming out about treatment availability in some areas. Secondly, while we welcome the trial of pre-exposure prophylaxis in England and the announcement in Wales and Scotland, in England PrEP will be available to only 10,000 people over three years. What will happen when we reach 10,000? Will we suddenly stop making PrEP available? Surely that cannot be the case. The many organisations that campaign for PrEP want to see it available to all those who need it.

I conclude by thanking all the Members who have come here today to support the debate on World AIDS Day 2017. We will never forget the millions of lives lost to AIDS, and we will continue to fight in their name for HIV and AIDS to become a thing of the past.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

This is an hour-long debate that will finish at 5.30 pm. Six Members are seeking to speak. I am obliged to call the first of the Front-Bench spokesmen at seven minutes past 5. There are guideline limits of five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, with three minutes for Mr Doughty to sum up the debate at the end. [Interruption.] Mr Doughty is generously declining to have the full three minutes, but he will perhaps take a minute or so. I am afraid there will have to be a time limit of three minutes so that everyone has a chance to contribute. The next speaker will be Ross Thomson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I do. The hon. Gentleman’s connections with Churches and Church movements not only in this country but worldwide are well known. Absolutely, that is an important point to put on the record because to some extent it sets the record straight about the commitment of the Church and Christian communities to this particular sort of work, which is important. In some parts of the world, only the Church network is there to provide social care across the board. We would all be the poorer without being able to support that.

Mention was made of the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund, of which we are proud to be a founding member. I cannot give a further commitment at this stage—we are yet to announce it—but I recognise the issue and we will come back to say what the future funding position will be in due course. I have noted what colleagues have said.

There is also greater shared responsibility from low and middle-income countries. Domestic resources constituted 57% of the total resources for HIV in low and middle-income countries, which is a step in the right direction, but more needs to happen to build a sustained response. As good as that is, as all colleagues have said, there is much more to do, so let me deal with some of the questions I was asked.

In terms of the broad strategy, the UK’s ongoing HIV commitment is that we want to see AIDS ended as a public health threat by 2030. That is an important priority for us. We are proud to be the second-largest international funder of HIV prevention, treatment and care, as I have said, and as a leading donor we will use our influence to ensure that we collectively deliver on the global commitment—to end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030—and that no one is left behind.

In relation to the gag, we will continue to show global health leadership by promoting and supporting comprehensive, evidence-based sexual and reproductive health and rights. We are the second largest donor for family planning assistance and we are the largest donor to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, so we will skirt around issues raised by the gag.

On a new HIV strategy, the note I have states that the 2013 review of the UK position paper on zero infections identified the integration of HIV as the key strategic priority. We intend to continue that approach, rather than to develop a stand-alone strategy or conduct a further review. However, I have heard what the House has said, so let me reflect a little on that, as I will on the Youth Agenda point—whether HIV is included. It is not currently. Clearly, the Youth Agenda is a very important part of our strategy and we recognise, as all in the Chamber do, the significance of adolescent girls in particular and the related issues. Again, let me have a look at that to see whether we can say anything further about it. I will come back to colleagues in due course.

For women and girls generally, it was right to recognise the heightened risk. Empowerment of women and girls lies at the heart of our development agenda. DFID is supporting the generation of new evidence to improve outcomes for women and girls, including the development of female-initiated HIV prevention technologies, research into how gender inequality drives epidemics, and a particular focus on improving what works for adolescent girls in southern Africa.

The UK is also working with the global fund to increase its focus on girls and women, which I think is in accordance with the House’s wishes. Giving greater attention to women and girls is a shared priority for us and the global fund. With UK support, the global fund has embraced gender equality as being central to accomplishing its mission of ending the three diseases as epidemics, including it as one of its four strategic objectives in the 2017 to 2022 strategy. Between 55% and 60% of global fund spending directly benefits women and girls. That includes programmes to prevent gender-based violence and to provide post-violence services. The number of HIV-positive women since 2002 who have received services to prevent transmission of HIV to unborn children has reached 3.6 million, and we will continue to press on that.

[Stephen Doughty]

I welcome what the Minister has said about looking again at the issue of a strategy and, in particular, the situation with young people and women and girls. We have obviously got the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here next year. I suggest gently to the Minister that it would be very helpful to have a strong statement setting out the UK’s views on HIV and AIDS in those communities while we have the Commonwealth Heads in this country.

[Alistair Burt]

It is a competitive field to get things on the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. I know that health will play a leading part, but the details have not yet been sorted. As would be expected, concerns about HIV/AIDS are certainly well up there and an announcement will be made in due course.

The UK Government will, however, be represented at the international AIDS conference in Amsterdam in July. Precise attendance is still to be finalised, but that depends on my diary and whether we can fit it in. I would really like to go because I think that is what colleagues would wish.

Turning to finance—on which I will write further—there are two issues. On the STOPAIDS suggestion of a 22% cut, our response is that the report gives a snapshot of the figures in a given year and does not always reflect everything that is going on as programmes come to an end and others start. It also does not reflect our huge multi-year global fund contribution. The timing of disbursements partly accounts for the difference in spend between years, but committing £2.4 billion since 2010 to multilateral funds is substantial.

The other issue was integrating the funds and the tracking. DFID uses an HIV policy objective marker to track spending on HIV within broader programming. The system ensures that programmes address a range of developmental priorities, such as health-systems strengthening, governance, social protection and sexual, reproductive and health rights. I take the point that it is difficult to track, but it is important that we put the funds into integrated services, as well as spending them directly.

There are the technical challenges of tracking, so let me take that away as well—not necessarily to change it, but to see what might be done better to give more transparency. We will keep the process of integrating the funds going. It is right and proper to do so, along with the other commitments that we make. With that, let me sit down to allow the hon. Member for Cardiff South a couple of minutes to sum up.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank all the Members who have taken part today, and in particular the Minister for his encouraging response on a series of issues. I am delighted to hear that he is thinking of attending the international AIDS conference in Amsterdam. The signal sent out by ministerial and official attendance at such forums is crucial, particularly given the very strong leadership role that the UK has played over many years. When people do not see us at those conferences and events, they wonder what is going on, so what the Minister said is really heartening.

I also welcome the Minister’s willingness to go away and look at some of the issues we have raised on strategy and on funding and its tracking. I know that those things are sometimes not easy, but given the nature of HIV and AIDS, and other issues such as TB, for example, it is important to understand what funding is going towards those epidemics and how it is being spent, so that we can all hold the Government to account. In some cases, it is also important for the Government to show how they are providing leadership to other countries and international organisations.

Clearly, there is much unity across the House on the importance of keeping this issue on the agenda and of us all continuing to play our part in ensuring that we tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic in this country and globally. The message is very clear that this is not over. We need to keep the issue on the agenda, and we will all our play our part in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered World AIDS Day 2017.

Yemen

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) not only on securing this debate but on his powerful speech. I associate myself with his remarks. I shall resist the temptation to address some of the broader political questions that have come up during the debate so far and focus on the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis, and particularly the impact of the blockade. I join the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers, including the Minister, in paying tribute to all those who are working on the ground to try to make a difference in this terrible situation, including the United Nations, aid agencies, the Department for International Development and, above all of course, the long-suffering people of Yemen.

The scale of the crisis is enormous. As we have heard, Yemen could be just weeks away from a once-in-a-generation famine. The UN estimates that 85% of Yemen’s population is in immediate need of humanitarian assistance. That has increased over just the past 12 months by 2 million people. Some 10 million people are at immediate risk of death, and our own Department for International Development says that they

“may not survive if they do not receive humanitarian assistance”

in some form or another.

It is difficult to get fully accurate figures from sources on the ground, or elsewhere, of the precise human cost of this tragic conflict. It would be very useful if the Minister was able to give us an estimate of how many civilian lives have already been lost since the conflict in Yemen began. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us, Yemen has long been reliant on imports for its food. Even before the war, nearly 90% of Yemen’s food was imported. Yemen requires monthly food imports of 350,000 metric tonnes, of which 80% comes through the two ports of Hodeidah and Saleef. While the ports were fully blockaded, no goods were coming in at all, leaving a dangerous and deadly backlog.

Since the full blockade began three weeks ago, the situation has got even worse. Cholera is widespread, with a suspected 1 million cases and at least 2,000 deaths. As well as having one of the largest recorded cholera outbreaks since records began, Yemen is facing the threat of diphtheria, an extremely contagious and deadly disease the symptoms of which include high temperatures, difficulty breathing and a sore throat. Around one in 10 adults who contract diphtheria will die; for children, the proportion is closer to one in five.

In this country, we have almost eradicated diphtheria. Since 2010, the UK has recorded 20 cases, with one tragic recorded fatality. That is in the past seven years; in the past two months, Yemen has reported 120 cases, with 14 fatalities, and the numbers are rising. Given how contagious the disease is, it is surely only a matter of time, unless something changes dramatically, before hundreds, if not thousands, of Yemeni people contract diphtheria, with devastating consequences for that country.

The life-saving medication and humanitarian aid that is used to treat these diseases has been withheld from innocent civilians as a direct consequence of the Saudi blockade. Even with the modest easing over the past week, about which we heard from the Minister, lives remain at risk. As has been said, before the blockade, 17 million Yemenis—more than 60% of the population—were food insecure, with an estimated 7 million at immediate risk of famine. That represents a 20% increase over the last year. Half a million children were suffering from severe, acute malnutrition. Last week, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network released an alert saying that

“famine is likely in Yemen if key ports remain closed.”

That is why this issue of the blockade is so important. The report went on to say that

“if the ports remain closed or if the ports are unable to handle large quantities of food, famine is likely with thousands of deaths each day due to lack of food and the outbreak of disease.”

Four governorates in Yemen have malnutrition rates above the emergency threshold and seven others exceed the threshold of “serious”.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is passionately outlining the current humanitarian crisis and the need to remove the Saudi blockade. I absolutely agree. Does he not also agree that the problem with Yemen is that it was already the poorest country in the middle east and that it attracted far too little attention from the international community? The UK had always been generous through the Department for International Development, but it was, none the less, one of the poorest countries, and this conflict and this crisis have come on top of already shocking statistics.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend has been a consistent and powerful advocate on behalf of the Yemeni people, including the diaspora living in his own constituency. I absolutely agree with him and take the opportunity of his intervention to pay tribute to DFID, both for its longer-term involvement in Yemen, which pre-dates the conflict, and for the work that it has sought to do during the current crisis.

As of Monday, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 29 vessels carrying food and fuel had been denied entry. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, over the weekend, the Saudi coalition did allow a single ship into the port of Hodeidah. That ship was carrying 6,000 tonnes of flour, which roughly equates to 10 million loaves of bread for the nearly 21 million people on the brink of starvation. Clearly, it is not enough, and the people who are being punished are the innocent civilians of Yemen.

A number of ships are now in the holding area off the Red sea ports, carrying crucial supplies, including ships with nearly 170,000 metric tonnes of desperately needed food. Last night, a vessel carrying 30,000 metric tonnes of wheat was able to berth. However, four vessels carrying fuel and three carrying food are still waiting for permission to dock. I urge the Government to use their good offices to ensure that those vessels carrying desperately needed supplies are able to berth in Hodeidah as soon as possible.

As others have said during the debate, fuel remains at the centre of the ongoing crisis in Yemen. Only two of the ships currently off Yemen are carrying petrol. Farmers in Yemen are reporting that they simply do not have enough fuel to run the agricultural equipment, which further compounds the risk of famine. What little fuel is left in Yemen is being sold at extortionate prices. Humanitarian organisations carried out an assessment, which suggested that a minimum of l million litres of fuel are needed for non-governmental organisations to operate at their pre-blockade level.

The two ships with fuel have enough petrol to last just 16 days. Estimates from Sana’a suggest that, unless something changes, petrol will run out in six days and diesel in 17 days. If that happens, the people will suffer even more, with hospitals and waste treatment facilities not being able to function properly. Without fuel, many of the humanitarian supplies waiting off Yemen will not have the opportunity, even if they can dock, to be moved around the country.

It is estimated that, within days, 8 million people will be without running water as the fuel required to pump the water runs out. Safe water and sanitation are vital to combating the outbreaks of cholera and diphtheria. Yemen’s three largest cities have had to shut down their water and sewage treatment facilities and a further five cities will do so within days. In Hodeidah, untreated water and sewage has been washing up into the streets for several days now.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said in her excellent speech, the International Committee of the Red Cross took the very unusual step this week of buying fuel stocks to help to restart the water and sewage treatment facilities in Yemen’s second and third largest cities—Hodeidah and Taiz. However, given the extortionate price of fuel, they were able to buy only enough supplies to last a month. May I praise the ICRC for doing that? It acknowledges that it was an unusual but necessary step to help the people of Yemen. I now implore the Government to do all they can to work with NGOs and others on the ground to ensure that much-needed fuel gets into and around Yemen as soon as possible.

As we have heard, health facilities have been destroyed during the conflict: one in six has been completely destroyed and barely half are functional at all. Many have had to close because of the lack of access to clean water. Only 30% of the required medical supplies are getting into Yemen. As a result, many diseases go untreated, compounding an already horrific situation. Although vaccines are slowly making their way back into Yemen through aid flights, much, much more needs to be done to ensure that the entire population is protected against diseases that are both preventable and curable.

On Saturday, I will be taking part in a vigil for Yemen in Liverpool. I am delighted that my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), is here, and I know that he will be joining that vigil with members of the Yemeni diaspora in Liverpool. It is so important that we send a clear message that this conflict is not forgotten. When I speak to the Yemeni diaspora in Liverpool, it is clear that the one thing that they want is peace in Yemen. They recognise that that will be achieved through diplomatic means.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is in the region. It is vital that she presses loudly and clearly for the full lifting of this blockade. This debate today is timely and important. The message is clear that the blockade must be lifted immediately, but we recognise that even the lifting of the blockade, vital as that is, is far from sufficient. We need to keep coming back in this House to the issue of Yemen until we see a ceasefire, a political solution and an end to the bloodshed.

Yemen

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I will talk with the Department and the House authorities about what the best way to do that would be. I quite understand my hon. Friend’s point. If there is a way to make sure that adequate information from Government and the other agencies involved is made available rapidly and effectively, of course I will try to do that.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many others, I utterly condemn the missile attack on Riyadh. I would argue that arms should not be supplied by anyone to any of the sides in the conflict, given the humanitarian catastrophe, but may I press the Minister on access to the airport and to Hodeidah? In discussions with the Crown Prince, did the right hon. Gentleman get any idea of timescale, or have the UK Government expressed any idea of timescale? Is there any reason why Sana’a airport should not be reopened to UN and humanitarian flights within the next 24 hours, for example?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his condemnation of the missile attack, echoing his Front- Bench spokesman. On the timescale, we have asked for the restrictions to be lifted immediately. No, I cannot speak for the coalition regarding its timescale, beyond the fact that it wants to be assured that the ports are adequately protected against the sort of attack that was carried out. That is why we are urging that the UN has access to the ports and works with the coalition authorities, with neither side demanding that the other side moves first, to make sure that there is an opportunity to secure the ports against weapons being smuggled in and at the same time immediately to improve access.

Hurricane Irma

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I like to think that being short and precise is my hallmark.

Across many of DFID’s programmes around the world—for example, ones in Bangladesh, which suffers from flooding—building in resilience is a crucial part of its entire philosophy. In as much as that can also be incorporated into a country’s planning, it must be both welcomed and encouraged. I must point out to the House that we do not govern those countries, but we can encourage them to govern themselves in a way that introduces exactly the sort of standards that my hon. Friend has described.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been shocked to see the absolute devastation in places that I have personally visited. Having been through a hurricane and a tornado myself, I know just what a frightening and unpleasant experience it can be. It is absolutely shocking, and our thoughts and prayers are with all those people. I welcome very much what the Minister has had to say, particularly about RFA Mounts Bay and the facilities that it can provide. Will he look at the possibility of a second RFA vessel going into the region one or two weeks later with necessary infrastructure supplies and relief efforts, particularly if there is further devastation in the Turks and Caicos? Are our search and rescue personnel on standby to provide assistance? They do an excellent job in these crises. Have they been used yet?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

On search and rescue, the answer is, yes, those personnel will be deployed. The Cobra meeting at 2 o’clock this afternoon will discuss all those options. Sitting in the crisis centre this morning, looking at the auxiliary vessel going, I can say that one of its great advantages is that it has a helicopter. One issue that we are looking at very urgently is trying to get a second helicopter. Then we will consider supplementary relief flights and possibly a second naval vessel—I am not committing to that now. In the hope that we might be able to do that when we look at the disaster and assess it, then, hopefully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be yes. We must appreciate that this is a massive, perhaps unprecedented, natural disaster. We have not seen a hurricane on this scale in our lifetime, so we will have to assess the damage and respond as best we possibly can, knowing that this is—as I would put it—a whopper.

Korean Peninsula

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I absolutely accept that point; the alternative is deeply undesirable, and not one that I think would commend itself to anybody in this House.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear not only that North Korea has developed much of its missile and nuclear capacity domestically, but that the country has received both physical and intellectual external assistance for its missile and nuclear programmes. Is the Foreign Secretary convinced that we have done all we can to intercept such help and to prevent North Korea from receiving further assistance?

[Boris Johnson]

We need to enforce the existing sanctions, as well as put new pressure on North Korea. There is currently an investigation into exactly how the country has managed to make this leap in technological ability. We are looking at the possible role that may have been played, inadvertently or otherwise, by some current and former nuclear states.

Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the political and humanitarian situation in Yemen.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today for this important debate, Mrs Moon.

I am delighted to speak on this issue today and to have been granted this debate so early in the new Parliament, particularly given the pressing nature of the humanitarian crisis in recent weeks, not least as regards cholera, as we will all have seen on our television screens.

As many Members will be aware, this is, sadly, one of many debates that we have secured on Yemen in the past year, including in the last Parliament. I must start by expressing my deep sadness, regret and, quite frankly, abject frustration that we have seen so little progress, so much further decline into misery and chaos, and such a failure to grasp the nettle by the international community, the UK Government—I am sorry to say—and the parties to this conflict, who must ultimately bear full responsibility for the shocking scenes that we have seen in recent weeks of emaciated bodies wracked by the preventable, treatable disease of cholera, along with the further needless civilian deaths from bombing, blockades and siege tactics.

This House is already significantly occupied by Brexit, and vast parts of our diplomatic and civil service apparatus have been turned to its machinations, but I fear that it will only exacerbate our apparent lack of focus on Yemen and so many other humanitarian crises around the world.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate so early in the new Parliament? It is true that the Foreign Office may be concerned with Brexit, but at the United Nations we hold the pen as far as Yemen is concerned and it is not preoccupied by Brexit. What we need is a UN resolution adopted as quickly as possible—immediately, in fact—to deal with the crisis that he is talking about and has raised so many times in the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments and agree with him. Indeed, I welcome the steps that the UK has taken in securing a recent presidential statement on Yemen, but frankly at this stage words are now simply not good enough. I fear that the lack of progress we have seen is not only morally lacking, but fundamentally not in Britain’s national or security interests. We know all too well the consequences of leaving vast ungoverned spaces, from Libya to the deserts of Helmand, to descend into poverty, misery and death, and those who would exploit such spaces.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

May I very strongly endorse what the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said? The Minister, who has great experience of these issues, is here from the Foreign Office. If Britain is able to take action at the United Nations, not only will that hopefully avert the catastrophe of a famine in this day and age, but it will get the Saudi Arabian kingdom off a terrible hook. It is not going to win this war; it will be humiliated in the longer term. For a cessation of violence, led by the British at the United Nations, to take place now would be advantageous on many different levels.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks with great eloquence and passion on an issue that I know he has spent much time engaging on personally, both in government and subsequently.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To add to the points that have already been made, does he agree that one thing the UK Government and others could do is urge all sides to allow unimpeded humanitarian access, which would clearly assist with the situation?

[Stephen Doughty]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that message has been made clear to me in my conversations with organisations such as Oxfam, Save the Children, Médecins sans Frontières and many others in recent weeks and the past few days.

Unfortunately the crisis in the country is now even worse than we could have imagined a few months ago, with the disastrous failure in governance and the decimation of the Yemeni economy. The United Nations has estimated that it is only a matter of months before Yemen faces total and utter collapse. The sheer scale of the devastation is astounding. At least 18.8 million people, almost two thirds of the population, are in need of some kind of humanitarian aid or protection. Close to one third of the population are in acute need of assistance—that is 10.3 million people. Some 7 million people do not know where their next meal will come from or are at risk of famine. One child under five in Yemen dies every 10 minutes. Cholera has now spread to every part of the country, with more than 200,000 suspected cases and 1,300 deaths, according to Oxfam and other agencies.

The United Nations’ humanitarian chief, Sir Stephen O’Brien—a former Member of this House, known to many of us—described the situation in Yemen as a “man-made catastrophe”. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I would go further. I am sorry to say that on the one hand the UK has delivered lifesaving aid through the Department for International Development, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) rightly praised in the last Parliament for its work in Yemen on the humanitarian crisis, but on the other hand the UK is responsible for a clear failure in our foreign policy and the moral approach we have taken to our arms export policy. No humanitarian response can adequately meet the increasing needs that the ongoing conflict is causing, and there needs to be an immediate cessation of hostilities by all sides.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the issue of responsibility, yes of course the UK, the European Union and other countries in the UN should be pushing for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen as soon as possible. But does he agree that the Americans have a lead role as far as the World Food Programme is concerned, in particular in addressing the famine in Yemen, and that this is not the time for the American Administration to be cutting the budget of the World Food Programme?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with those comments. I am deeply worried by the comments made by President Trump about wider US aid policy, and the way in which the US appears to be increasingly engaged actively in the conflict, with recent attacks that have led to civilian deaths.

We need to look at the causes of the humanitarian situation. More than half the health facilities that were open pre-conflict have either closed or are now only partially functioning, leaving 40 million people without basic healthcare. A similar number are also facing a daily struggle to access clean water and adequate sanitation facilities, both of which continue to pose significant risks to public health and are contributing to the cholera outbreak. The naval blockade that has been imposed by the Saudi-led coalition is having an impact on food and humanitarian supplies reaching those who need them. Save the Children told me just this week of three ships containing its supplies that were turned around, delays in secondary screening and 17,000 medical items that had to be re-routed.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on Yemen in this Parliament, and in others before it, along with many right hon. and hon. Members across the House. He mentioned the port situation. There must be a solution to try to get Hodeidah port open again, so that these lifesaving medical supplies are not turned away or taken to other ports where they are unnecessary or unused.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions Hodeidah. The fear is that a future battle over that port might lead to a full-blown famine, as nearly all Yemen’s food is imported through it. There is also the crucial issue of wages. According to UNICEF and the World Health Organisation wages have not been paid to health and public services staff for nine to 10 months in many areas, meaning a complete collapse in waste collections and water and sanitation facilities, let alone health facilities. That, of course, leads directly to the crisis we see with cholera, which has now surpassed 200,000 cases with the number growing by 5,000 a day. Cholera is a disease that is entirely preventable and easily treatable with the proper resources. It is a symptom of a totally failing state and of the parlous situation that Yemen finds itself in. It is also due in part to the direct bombing of water supplies in the country and the hits on those who aim to help. Shockingly, Oxfam has told me that its own water and sanitation warehouse facilities were hit by bombing, and the Houthis have precipitated a further humanitarian crisis in Taiz by siege and blockade tactics that have left some people, it has been alleged this week, with only leaves to eat.

UNHCR field teams have observed a huge spike in humanitarian needs, with displaced people now living on the streets and many of them seeking shelter on the pavement. Some of the most vulnerable people, including women and children, are turning to approaches such as begging and child labour, which is now rampant across Yemen. The situation on the humanitarian front is utterly disastrous and we all need to step up as an international community to play our part.

As I have said in the past, I accept the serious concerns that have been raised about the wider regional nature of the conflict, and indeed the wider power plays that are going on out there, and I will make it absolutely clear that I have no agenda against Saudi Arabia or a legitimate defence industry in this country that adheres to the rule of law. However, I have great concerns about UK policy continuing in this area. We have heard about the atrocities committed by the Houthis and I will be absolutely clear that I utterly condemn them. We have heard stories about child soldiers, the blockading of humanitarian access, siege tactics, the use of landmines and other indiscriminate weapons, and appalling and indiscriminate artillery attacks that kill civilians. However, we are not selling arms to the Houthis and we are selling arms to the Saudi-led coalition, and the UN estimates that more than 60% of civilian casualties are the result of attacks by the Saudi-led coalition.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend on a speech that I pretty much agree with; it is welcome that he has brought this debate to Westminster Hall. However, does he understand or recognise that part of the problem that the UN has recognised is the amount of arms that are entering Yemen, and that one reason for the blockade—the UN supports it to a degree, but does not support attempts to stop aid getting in—is to stop the arms getting in to the Houthis? That is one reason for the blockade, as the Houthis control 90% of the population and are getting these arms from places such as Oman and Iran. Of course the blockade has an adverse effect, but does he understand and respect that the issue is that there are too many arms in Yemen right now, and they are not just coming from Saudi Arabia?

[Stephen Doughty]

There are too many arms in Yemen; I completely agree with that. Indeed, as I have said, all parties to the conflict must bear full responsibility for what is going on. However, we are selling arms to one side in that conflict, which is Saudi Arabia, and we have heard many times in this House of the allegations of Saudi Arabia’s violations of international humanitarian law during its operations in Yemen. Hundreds of attacks have been documented and raised on many occasions in this Chamber and in the main Chamber. The Saudi-led coalition has failed to provide answers about those attacks and the investigations into them. Indeed, we have had hardly any reports of investigations by the Joint Incident Assessment Team and certainly not reports of an independent investigation.

As a result, I and many others have repeatedly called in this House for a suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, pending a full independent investigation. That call was repeated in the joint report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the International Development Committee in the last Parliament, and I am delighted to have had strong support from my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the hard work that he has put in on this issue in particular. Does he agree that it is very important in this Parliament that we set up the Committees on Arms Export Controls as soon as possible, and that we do not have the delay in setting them up that we had in the last Parliament, when it took about six months and a lot of pressure from some of my hon. Friends around the table to get those Committees set up? It would be very regrettable if those Committees did not reconvene.

[Stephen Doughty]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I wholeheartedly agree with her comments, and I hope that all aspiring Chairs to the relevant Committees would perhaps make a public commitment that they are willing to set up the Committees on Arms Export Controls as soon as possible, as part of their internal election manifestos.

As you will be aware, Mrs Moon, UK arms exports are bound by the obligations within the arms trade treaty, the EU common position on arms exports and the consolidated EU and UK arms licensing criteria; I make particular reference to criterion 2(c) of the EU common position. All of them refer to the recipient country’s respect for international law and require that export licences are not granted where there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Mrs Moon, you will also be aware of the judgment that is expected any day now in the judicial review into whether Ministers have properly adhered to criterion 2(c) of the EU common position. I am conscious that these matters are potentially sub judice, but it is clear that some Ministers recognise that they have been treading on very thin ice with regard to UK compliance with the law in this matter. I draw the House’s attention to a partially redacted letter that was recently released due to the proceedings. It was sent by the Secretary of State for International Trade to the Foreign Secretary on 2 February 2017. It states:

“I am concerned that the issue of export licensing to Saudi Arabia continues to be finely balanced...To this end I ask that you commission a further detailed assessment of Criterion 2c and send me updated advice...In the event that your assessment of the Criterion 2c threshold remains the same, I ask that you seek advice from”

senior Government lawyers, whose names have been redacted,

“before making your recommendation.”

I will be frank—this looks like an exercise in covering one’s own actions by the International Trade Secretary, who could ultimately bear responsibility for the authorisation of licences.

Licences have continued to be authorised in huge quantities. New statistics show that new licences under category M4 from October to December 2016 to Saudi Arabia totalled a staggering £1.2 billion. So, can the Minister tell us categorically today whether the assessment requested by the International Trade Secretary was produced, and whether all Ministers have continued to be satisfied at all times that we are adhering to the law? Have any permanent civil service officials issued accounting officer advice or any other warnings to Ministers at any point in the last 12 months on this specific issue? And can he tell us what contingency plans have been prepared in the event of an unfavourable outcome for the Government in the judicial review?

In spite of the grave humanitarian situation in Yemen and our obligations under these treaties, the UK have supplied arms worth a total of £3.4 billion to the Saudi Arabian military during this conflict. Moreover, British companies, contractors and citizens are at the heart of what is happening. I draw the House’s attention to a recent advert that shows just how deeply we are involved in this conflict. BAE Systems recently advertised for “Weapons Load Technicians” at a salary of £38,119, located in Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, with a job purpose

“to accomplish safe reliable loading of munitions to Tornado aircraft”.

The arms trade treaty, which I was proud to work on, forbids the authorisation of the supply of arms where there is an overriding risk of a violation of international humanitarian law. We have signed up to such commitments, so we need to adhere to them. They are the basis on which a legitimate, responsible defence industry in this country is based, but I have deep concerns that we have not been adhering to them in this case. Indeed, that is the view of others globally. The European Parliament and individual EU member states are also taking steps against arms exports. For example, in March the Dutch Parliament voted to deny arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

This conflict in Yemen has profound consequences for the entire balance of power in the middle east. Despite its superior firepower, the Saudi-led coalition has not been able to achieve much progress in recent months and the military situation can at best be described as a hot stalemate. The coalition has air superiority but it does not have the ground troops to drive the Houthi-Saleh side out of the territory that it holds, and some observers are rightly worried that Yemen might become, or is already, a destination for Daesh fighters or others associated with Daesh who have been expelled from other locations around the middle east.

I will draw people’s attention to another worrying development. Reprieve has been working closely with colleagues on the ground to document the impact of recent US military action in Yemen, which has taken an approach under President Trump that is distinctly different from the one taken under President Obama, both in the approval of and the legal guidance around strike targets, and there have been unprecedented assaults on villages full of civilians. Of course, the UK plays a role in providing extensive operational and intelligence assistance for US strikes, including the location of UK military personnel in US air bases in places such as Nevada. Recent US drone strikes have killed and wounded civilians in Yemen, and they have been followed up by Navy Seal operations into a number of locations, including Yakla and Al-Juba, which have resulted in the deaths of significant numbers of civilians.

I can understand it when operations are being conducted against legitimate and tightly defined targets, including those potentially linked to al-Qaeda, Daesh and others, but I cannot understand how these operations, which seem to have had widely loosened rules of engagement, can be conducted in a place that is already enduring significant civilian casualties and significant disruption.

I will just quote a grandfather from the village of Yakla, where the first US military operation in Yemen took place in January. He said:

“In the…morning, after the operation ended, I went to the scene and saw the volume of destruction. I saw…dead bodies everywhere. While I was searching among the bodies, I found my daughter Fateem lying dead in the street with her child in her arms. She was covered with blood. I did not imagine this could happen. I cannot forget those painful moments…The child was slightly injured in the hand by a bullet that hit and left his mother’s body. Such a scene no one could imagine nor comprehend—this level of criminality and killing.”

The war in Yemen has destroyed the institutions that keep society running, such as utilities, banks, food systems, hospitals and, most importantly, water and sanitation supplies. We are failing the people of Yemen more than ever. Time and time again, research has shown that it is not only violence and bombings that are the killer of civilians in conflict, but the illness, hunger and poverty that come after that. Yemen is a case in point. The deliberate targeting of humanitarian assistance, warehousing facilities and humanitarian operatives, and the blockades are all violations of international humanitarian law and are, in my view, tantamount to war crimes.

Those of us who have influence over the parties to the conflict have a particular responsibility to act now, both at the international level—we have heard about the discussions at the UN—and, in particular, in our relationship with the Saudi Arabians. We have mentioned the situation in Hodeidah. Whatever happens in terms of any military conflict there, we cannot allow a blockade that results in a famine in the country. The international community is not doing enough to provide resources. I hope the Minister will tell us of the efforts he is making to get other countries to pay their fair share to the appeals, which are significantly underfunded. Only a third are funded overall, and only a third in the water and sanitation cluster are funded.

Although I welcome the UK Government’s efforts to secure the presidential statement, which we mentioned, it was quite frankly extraordinary to read the read-out of the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson’s call this week with Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, which made absolutely no mention of Yemen. I find that particularly extraordinary, given that he led the coalition activities in his previous role, which I described earlier, and given the horrific worsening of the situation in recent weeks. Does the Minister have an explanation for that, or is Yemen simply not important enough for the Prime Minister to mention? Or is it, as I have been told in private on a number of occasions over recent weeks, that the Government are admitting their failure to influence Saudi Arabia on this issue?

Despite all the claims of a special relationship, the facts are stark: no further reports issued by the Joint Incident Assessment Team on any of the hundreds of allegations; continued civilian deaths due to the bombings; a growing humanitarian catastrophe; and a worrying escalation of US direct involvement, resulting in the deaths of civilians, possibly with UK involvement. What is the vision? What is the plan? Where is the coherence across Government policy? Or is this all just too difficult?

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

I have been notified of only two other speakers. I therefore call Keith Vaz, who is the next speaker. If others expect or would like to be called, bear in mind that I intend to call the spokesman for the Scottish National party at 5.10 pm, so we need speeches to be short and punchy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate, Mrs Moon. I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on a powerful speech setting out the pace and scale of the challenge of the humanitarian and the political crisis in Yemen today. He and I served together on the International Development Committee in the previous Parliament and he has been an important voice on these issues, as have my two friends from the all-party parliamentary group, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).

There is a paradox at the heart of UK policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth highlighted. When the International Development Committee looked at the issue in the previous Parliament, our starting point was the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but taking evidence on that took us inescapably to the United Kingdom’s role, including the issue of arms sales.

I very much endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said about the importance of re-establishing the Committees on Arms Export Controls as early as possible. Certainly, if I am re-elected as Chair of the International Development Committee, I will support that, and I hope that Chairs from other relevant Committees from all parties will feel able to do so, because our ability as a country to say that we have the most robust system of arms control in the world is undermined if we as parliamentarians fail to establish the bodies to ensure that accountability.

The voices of the Yemeni diaspora in this country are an important part of this debate. I have been pleased to work with the Yemeni community in Liverpool and I am delighted to see the new Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), in the Chamber. The Liverpool Friends of Yemen have sought to highlight the crisis. On Saturday at Liverpool University, a group of young people from the Yemeni community in Liverpool produced a film called “Aden Narratives”, in which they interviewed British service personnel who had served in Yemen in the 1950s and 1960s. It was a great example of community cohesion and the breaking down of barriers, both of ethnicity and of age.

I want to make two comments relevant to the debate. First, I very much support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said about the urgent need for a political solution—not only urgent but overriding. We want to see that solution. The United Kingdom has a crucial role to play at the United Nations in bringing about a ceasefire and a political solution.

Peace is the top priority, but with peace must come justice and accountability. That is why I want to finish on the crucial issue of an independent, United Nations-led inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law by all sides in the conflict, whether by the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis or others in the country.

In particular, I want to ask the Minister about the implementation of last September’s resolution of the UN Human Rights Council that mandated additional human rights experts to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Yemen to investigate violations of international law. What progress has been made? The Council resolution did not go as far as I would like—I would like to see a fully independent UN inquiry—but will the Minister update us on progress, and on the Government’s view of when we may be able to move British policy to the support of a fully independent investigation? There have been appalling allegations of violations of international humanitarian law by both the Houthi-Saleh forces and the Saudi-led forces. Accountability is vital.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that, over many months, he, I, many other Members and indeed Ministers have expressed our concerns directly to the Saudi Government—with Ministers who have come here to speak to us and with the ambassador—but we are still to see reports on the allegations, even from JIAT?

[Stephen Twigg]

I absolutely share that sense of frustration described by my hon. Friend. I am hopeful that we will hear of some progress from the Minister. I am keen to sit down now in case the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) wishes to catch your eye, Mrs Moon—but he does not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

That is a challenge for me, and I would love to take it on. Let me try to touch on some things in the remaining five minutes. The one thing that I unfortunately cannot touch on—the elephant in the room—is arms sales. There is a serious legal proceeding looking exactly at the question that has been posed by everybody here: whether the UK Government were, as we believe, in compliance with our international humanitarian obligations. A judge and some expert lawyers will very soon be able to resolve whether Philippe Sands is correct or we as the British Government are correct.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister rightly states that he cannot do that, and I do not disagree with his wider analysis of the roots of this conflict and the wider dynamics in the region. However, can he explain why we are not using the full width of our diplomatic apparatus to put pressure on the Saudis and other parties in the conflict? Why did the Prime Minister not raise it in her call with the new Crown Prince, and why have we not called Saudi Arabia out on its repeated failure to give answers to the investigations into the allegations that have been made? The Minister said that they were running out of time and that we are getting frustrated, but we have not called them out on it.

[Rory Stewart]

The Prime Minister raised it directly on her April visit to Saudi Arabia, Ministers have raised it repeatedly and we have had senior military staff on the ground.

The overall picture, which I will try to touch on, is how we combine those political levers and our influence on Saudi Arabia with the influence that can be exercised by others. What influence could we exercise on, for example, the United Arab Emirates, in order to influence Saudi Arabia? What influence can we exercise on the United States? The hon. Member for Glasgow Central raised the issue of the Hodeidah port. One of the most important things that happened in changing our fears around that port was General Mattis’s intervention on the question of a military intervention there, which made a huge difference.

It is really important to understand that, along with those political and diplomatic approaches, we have to combine our humanitarian approach, which I do not think we have talked about enough, and we have to think about a long-term political solution. In terms of that humanitarian approach, we are doing an enormous amount. We are putting in people to focus on cholera and we have a huge focus on food delivery and shelter.

We are also doing an enormous number of smaller things, for which we are not getting credit. We are working with the UN specifically on the crane issue, on funding UN Humanitarian Air Service flights and on specifically funding the office of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who is the UN envoy to Yemen. Those are smaller, million-pound projects that are all trying to identify weaknesses in the system that we can then plug. We are also working on financial flows and on trying to make sure that wheat gets in.

However, the overall solution to this situation has to be political. That is where we need to get to—but what does it look like? It is fine for me to stand up here and spout jargon. In theory, that political solution involves a genuinely inclusive answer. It has to include not only the regional powers but, above all, without fear or favour —as identified by Simon Shercliff, our really good ambassador to Yemen—all the warring parties. It cannot be a military solution, and it must include other people.

The solution must include people in Hadramaut, who have not been included in conversations to date, and it must also really think about how we include women. That is not a trivial point. One of the real strengths of what happened in 2013-14 was the genuine inclusion of Yemeni civil society. That made a huge difference, because although Yemen is now being presented to us as though it is nothing but some medieval tribal cockpit of violence, it is in fact a highly sophisticated society with a very active civil society, and the inclusion of women in civil society groups will be central to getting a lasting solution. It will also mean that we, the British Government, will have to be honest with Parliament about the real problems that we face.

There is a huge emphasis on the security side, huge diplomatic pressure and a lot of humanitarian spending. However, above all, these are the questions I will pose to finish on: first, where is the UN going to go on this? One problem is that it will be extremely difficult, in the current context, to get a new UN Security Council resolution through, because some members of the Security Council will oppose it. Secondly, what is the current relationship between Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed and the Houthi? He was shot at when he last went into Sana’a. Thirdly, what is the UAE’s position? Fourthly, how will it be possible to integrate other groups? Finally, what is the long-term position of President Hadi? Those critical, detailed questions will determine our success or failure.

Persecution and Detention of LGBT Citizens: Chechnya

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on allegations of persecution and detention of LGBT citizens in Chechnya, Russia, and on what discussions the Government have had with their counterparts on the issue.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of over 100 men in Chechnya because of their sexual orientation is of deep concern to the UK. Credible reports suggesting that at least four people have been killed and many have been tortured are particularly shocking. Statements by the regional Government in Chechnya that appear to condone and incite violence against LGBT people are despicable.

We condemn any and all persecution, and call on the authorities promptly to investigate and ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice. That would be in accordance with international human rights commitments adopted by the Russian Government to respect the human rights of all individuals.

The Minister of State, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns, released a statement on 7 April outlining the Government’s concern at the reports and called upon the Russian authorities promptly to investigate and ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses are indeed brought to justice.

The Foreign Secretary has expressed his serious concerns through social media. Officials from the British embassy in Moscow reiterated those concerns directly to the Russian Government on 13 April, and we are working with international partners in Russia as part of wider lobbying efforts. The EU made a statement on behalf of member states at the Permanent Council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on 6 April, and the UK permanent representative to the Council of Europe delivered a statement on behalf of the UK in the Committee of Ministers on 19 April.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you for granting this urgent question this morning, Mr Speaker.

I praise the Minister for his sincerity on this issue, which he takes very seriously, and for his comments. This is truly a shocking anti-gay campaign, involving over 100, and possibly several hundred, men. I praise the non-governmental organisations and journalists in Russia, the UK and elsewhere who have brought this issue to public attention. We are talking about detention, beatings, abuse and electric shock treatments, and—I do not say this lightly—some have talked about gay concentration camps. We have also heard of at least four killings.

The LGBT community in Cardiff South and Penarth has repeatedly raised this issue with me, and PinkNews tells me that its petition on it is its most signed ever. LGBT Labour wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue last week; sadly, it did not get a reply, and the matter was just passed on to the Foreign Office. There have also been representations from MEPs from all parties.

President Putin already has a record of persecuting the LGBT community. He also takes a keen interest in Chechnya, so is he turning a blind eye, or is he complicit in the actions of President Kadyrov? Let us remember that President Kadyrov’s spokesman said that you cannot detain people who simply do not exist.

Shaun Walker of The Guardian expressed the horrors we are seeing. He described the situation of an individual who, at least once a day, had metal clamps attached to him that

“sent powerful electric shocks through his body. If he managed not to scream, others would join in, beating him with wooden sticks or metal rods”

and demanding

“to know the names of other gay men he knew in Chechnya.”

If we had any doubts about the brutality of this regime towards the LGBT community, we need not have them any longer.

I praise the Minister’s sincerity on this issue, but I have to ask why it has taken the Foreign Secretary so long to speak out—a tweet simply is not enough. We have also not heard clear condemnation from the Prime Minister. Has she or the Foreign Secretary spoken directly to the Russian or Chechen Governments? Have they called in the Russian ambassador? Does the Foreign Secretary now regret his cancelled trip to Moscow, where he could have raised these atrocities in Chechnya, not to mention those in Syria? Was the issue raised in the G7 discussion about sanctions on Russia? Will the Minister say more about what is being done to co-ordinate with EU colleagues and the United States on this issue?

The Foreign Secretary tweeted that the situation was outrageous, but the Foreign Office has referred questions on whether we will provide refuge to people fleeing this horrendous persecution in Chechnya to the Home Office. As yet, there is no clarity, and I hope the Minister can provide some.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Let me say at the outset that I applaud the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic, and I hope it is one around which the House can unite without any party politics, because the strong, united message he is calling for is exactly the one we should be sending.

The actions in these reports are utterly barbaric. One of the most disgusting things I have seen is a Chechen security source stating that these arrests are part of what he called a preventative clean-up. That followed a request by an LGBT group called Gay Russia simply for licences for gay pride parades in the North Caucasus—the group had not yet even applied for a permit in Chechnya.

Human rights groups report that these anti-gay campaigns and killings are orchestrated by the head of the Chechen republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. He has carried out other violent campaigns in the past, and this time he is directing his efforts at the LGBT community. Sources have said that he wants the community eliminated by the start of Ramadan. Such comments, attitudes and actions are absolutely beyond contemptible.

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government fully condemn this action. We do use all engagement with Russia to make our voice clear, and I did so, personally, with the deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Vladimir Titov. I met him two or three weeks ago, and we spoke about general human rights matters, but also about Chechnya. I hope the House will be fully united in giving the strongest possible siren message to Russia, and to Chechnya in particular, that this kind of activity is beyond contempt and not acceptable in the world in which we live.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I had an opportunity to visit South Sudan at the end of last year. We are now deploying 400 British troops in one of our largest peacekeeping operations in the world. This is a complex conflict: not only is there conflict between the two major tribes, but numerous sub-conflicts are taking place throughout the country. It is important that we are able to support the work of the Church that is trying to reconcile local differences, which will then allow non-governmental organisations to get in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I add my sincere tribute to those given to the right hon. Gentleman for his actions last week?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of allegations that both Salva Kiir and Riek Machar are currently using British passports to travel around Africa and elsewhere? Given that the terrible situation in South Sudan—both the famine and the security situation—is in significant part man-made, does he think that is appropriate, if it is true?

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

I will certainly look into this question. Both Salva Kiir and Riek Machar have huge responsibility for what is actually a man-made conflict—let us not mince our words. South Sudan, a mineral-rich country, could be one of the richest in Africa, but it needs to reconcile its differences. It is the youngest country on the planet, yet its first few footsteps have been absolutely dire because of poor leadership, mostly by these two individuals.

Yemen

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the worsening humanitarian crisis in Yemen; and calls upon the Government to take a lead in passing a resolution at the UN Security Council that would give effect to an immediate ceasefire in Yemen.

I am most grateful to all members of the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital debate. I also thank my fellow officers of the all-party group on Yemen, the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for leading this debate with me. I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for the work he has undertaken on Yemen. He demonstrated to all of us last week what a brave, honourable and decent man he is. I am also pleased to see the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and the shadow International Development Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), in their places.

We meet today at a time when Yemen, one of the poorest countries on earth, stands on the precipice of an unprecedented tragedy. Two years ago this week, a Saudi-led coalition launched an intervention after the legitimately elected Government of the President of Yemen, Mansur Hadi, had been ousted in a coup by Houthi rebels. We welcomed the action of the coalition, which was mandated by the Security Council in resolution 2216. Earlier today in another part of this House, and thanks to the chairing of the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), we heard from Major General Asiri, the spokesman for the Saudi coalition, on the coalition action so far and its aspirations for the future. The meeting was extremely useful.

This afternoon, we stand in a very different world from the one of two years ago. The latest figures from the humanitarian crisis in Yemen are unbelievable: 10,000 people have died; more than 1,500 of the dead were children; 47,000 people have been injured, many crippled for life; and 7 million are at immediate risk of starvation, including 2 million children. The United Nations has just announced that Yemen is only one step away from outright famine. In total, 21.2 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance—80% of the country’s population. We have become frighteningly numb to the figures. It should shock us to our very core: 21 million people is more than double the entire population of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a strong and appropriate speech, setting out the scale of the tragedy that Yemen is experiencing and what it potentially faces. Does he share my great concern that both sides in the conflict continue to frustrate humanitarian access? For example, at the port of Hudaydah, cranes that were supposed to unload crucial medical and humanitarian cargoes are not yet in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), with his customary eloquence, has put the case extremely well. The last time the House debated Yemen, I was in Yemen, visiting Sana’a and Sa’dah, so I have an opportunity to update the House on what is happening there. I pay tribute to the extraordinary work that the United Nations and its leader there, Jamie McGoldrick, are doing in Yemen, and to Oxfam, which, in the highest traditions of British international non-governmental organisations, is performing extraordinarily well and doing magnificent work.

It is good to see the Minister in his place. My submission to him is that the Government’s policy needs tweaking. We are supporting a coalition that is not going to succeed. We need to move towards neutrality, we need to try to engineer a ceasefire and we need to update UN resolution 2216. Because of the deep respect with which Britain is held in that part of the world, and particularly in Yemen, the adversaries, and particularly the Houthis, would be willing to accept British mediation. In my view, it is essential that we engage with all parties inside the structure of the United Nations to secure the ceasefire and Yemeni-Saudi Arabian talks.

The British Government’s policy needs tweaking because it is internally inconsistent. One part of the British Government is seeking to get development aid and vital supplies in through the port of Hudaydah, while another part is supporting the coalition that has been bombing the port. The coalition has put the cranes out of action when they are vital for unloading the ships that one part of the British Government is trying to get into the port.

Britain is seeking to help to de-mine ordnance—the British de-mining group up in Sa’dah, which has been heavily bombed, is led by a former British Army officer. We can see the inconsistencies in our position. Britain is supporting a malnutrition ward in a major hospital, from which Médecins sans Frontières has withdrawn, in Sa’dah, yet it is seen as part of the coalition that is causing the problems.

[Stephen Doughty]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great eloquence and is informed on these matters. Does he agree that, in that inconsistency, there is a particular issue: the continued use of cluster munitions by the coalition? Human Rights Watch reports of an incident just this month. He mentioned landmines. These are instruments of war that predominantly kill civilians and leave problems for many months and years after conflicts have ended.

[Mr Mitchell]

The Minister will perhaps make this clear, but my understanding is that the Saudis have agreed not to use any of the cluster munitions that were sold by Britain to Saudi Arabia in 1986.

Another inconsistency is that, recently, we have heard that the Americans launched a bombing attack on al-Qaeda in Yemen, but al-Qaeda is fighting on the same side as us against the Houthis. The internal inconsistencies in the policy very much need to be addressed.

We know that the world faces four famines. Many of us had believed that, in the year 2017, it would be inconceivable that that awful biblical experience could be revisited on people, yet four famines are pending—in northern Nigeria, Somalia, southern Sudan and Yemen. However, the Yemenis are not starving: they are being starved by a blockade in which we are complicit. Although Britain has led the way in tackling those four famines, and although the Department for International Development is doing its best to ensure that steps are taken in Yemen to stop that starvation, the people of Yemen are being starved. The UN has made it absolutely clear from first-hand evidence on the ground what that means for the future of children in the country.

In my view, the Government must do everything they can to ensure that the ceasefire takes place, and that British policy is tweaked, using all the many instruments at our disposal, which the Minister knows so well, through the United Nations and elsewhere. We should try to make certain that the blockade is lifted, that the ceasefire takes place, and that there are Saudi-Yemeni talks. We then need the Yemeni-Yemeni talks, for which there is a basis—it has to be from the bottom up through all the different parties, governorates, tribes and so forth in Yemen. Britain has an important role to play in that.

We should bear it in mind that Yemen imports 90% of what it eats, and 80% through the port of Hudaydah. One effect of the blockade and the failure of the banking system is that the four major wheat importers cannot get the credits to put that right. Britain should help to lead in stopping that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I agree absolutely, and let us all hope for progress as a consequence of the United Nations Security Council discussions tomorrow.

The scale of this crisis has been documented by the previous speakers and in previous debates. UNICEF tells us that more than 1,500 children have been killed since the fighting began, with a similar number being recruited to fight by both sides of the conflict. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, the conflict has claimed the lives of at least 10,000 people, and some have put the level of civilian deaths alone as high as 5,000.

The United Nations has given the crisis level 3 status, putting it on a par with similar crises in Syria, Iraq and South Sudan. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that the intensity and severity of the fighting have left Yemen looking like Syria did after five years of conflict. Some 19 million people are in need of immediate humanitarian assistance—that is 80%, or four in five, of the population. Half a million children are suffering from severe malnutrition. Saleh Saeed, the chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee, who is originally from Yemen, has said that families are having to make the “unbearable” decision between buying medicine or food. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend mentioned medicine. Does he agree that there is a crucial crisis in the health sector? The health Ministry’s workers have not been paid since August last year. There is a lack of medicines in many areas. Despite the amazing work of organisations such as MSF, many people cannot access the help they need.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He anticipates the next paragraph of my speech, where I point out that there are 15 million people with no access to healthcare. Of course, 70 health centres have been destroyed as part of the conflict.

Today, the International Development Committee publishes its report on UK aid and the allocation of resources. The work DFID is doing in Yemen is a fine example of why the Prime Minister was right yesterday to say that UK aid is a badge of hope. This morning, the Committee took evidence on education, and we heard about the latest plans from DFID, working with other donors, to ensure that children affected by the conflict do not become a lost generation and that there is investment in the capacity of the Government and local communities in Yemen to ensure that children do not lose out on their education.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about what many have described as the paradox of aid—the positive record we as a country have on aid, but the fact that our involvement is aligned with one side of the conflict. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to try to get the port at Hudaydah reopened. That issue has been raised by a number of colleagues during the debate.

Those of us on the International Development Committee have said consistently that there should be an independent UN-led inquiry into all alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. However, let us unite behind the motion. This important motion marks the third anniversary, but it also says, ahead of tomorrow, that we want to see a ceasefire, peace and justice, and that we commit to rebuilding Yemen once peace comes.

President Trump: State Visit

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for opening the debate on the two petitions. I am absolutely delighted that nearly 4,000 of my constituents signed the petition that argued that Donald Trump should not be given a state visit. They are a part of the 1.8 million who signed across the country. It tallies with the concerns raised with me in person in recent weeks. I have had people contact me directly about the matter. Ultimately, I speak for my constituents and I know where they firmly stand.

I love America and Americans. I have travelled to 25 of the 50 states. My grandfather was an American GI who came here in 1944 to help us fight the Nazis. We do not know much about him, but he came over here. I have walked with Government Members on the beaches of Normandy and along Omaha beach and other places where many Americans sacrificed their lives in the service of the freedoms of Europe and our country.

We should have contact with any American Administration. Much as I disagreed fundamentally with the policies and actions of President George W. Bush, I was deeply disappointed that that turned for many into a wider strand of anti-Americanism and anger towards America and Americans. In fact, America at its greatest is a place that espouses the very best of liberty and equality. At its best it has an optimistic Government that allows all people to have freedom. It allows freedom in the press and in the courts, and allows the exercise of democracy at state, local and federal level. It is for that reason that I feel deeply concerned and frightened when I see the very principles on which the founding fathers developed the constitution being called into question by a President. Indeed, he has done so in recent days with attacks on the press, the judiciary, religious freedoms and other parts of the Government that disagree with him. That is what I am most worried and fearful about, and I think we are right to be so.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is as much about our Prime Minister as about the American President, and that this apparent cosying-up to people with questionable values or records—not only Trump but Erdogan the day after and Netanyahu recently—has compromised our ability to be a critical friend?

[Stephen Doughty]

It is not an easy job to be Prime Minister and to deal with Governments. The nature and difficulties of diplomacy mean that we often have to have contact, for wider national and global interests, with people with whom we fundamentally disagree, but herein lies the fundamental point. This is not about whether Donald Trump should be banned from coming to this country or whether our Government should have contact with him—indeed, it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister meets the President to discuss matters of mutual interest. We choose whom we honour, the way in which we honour them and the way in which we negotiate. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): we choose how we engage. Prime Minister Trudeau has shown a very different way of dealing with President Trump and has maintained his integrity while retaining contact.

The fundamental issue is that we have rushed into offering the Palace, the Mall, the razzmatazz, the champagne and the red carpet. Even if one were the ultimate pragmatist for whom the matters of equality or of standing against torture, racism and sexism do not matter, giving it all up in week 1 on a plate with no questions asked would not be a sensible negotiating strategy. How can that make sense to anybody—even those who argue that we should have a strong relationship with the United States?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Obama was invited here—people should not forget that he was the first Afro-American President—but he stood for something totally different. Donald Trump so far does not seem to share our values, so we should have waited at least two years to see how his presidency pans out before we came to a judgment.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. That is why I have spoken out so strongly on using the Palace of Westminster, and particularly Westminster Hall, given that that is where President Mandela and President Obama addressed us, where Pope Benedict came and where Churchill lay in state. It is a rare and special honour, and I am absolutely delighted that this is the most signed petition of this Session and that it has support from all parts of the House.

We need to look at the issue of state visits again. Many people have rightly pointed out whom we have offered state visits to in the past and asked whether that was right. There were protests when President Xi was here, and I strongly disagree with much of the way we have fawned over some of the monarchies in the Gulf. That does not mean we should not have diplomatic relations and strong relationships with them, but I am concerned about the way we seem to have turned a blind eye to a whole series of issues. We need to look very carefully at how we choose to use what ultimately is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and at the categories and types of visits we offer and how we offer them. Many of us question whether Aung San Suu Kyi should have addressed us, given some of the concerns we have about the Burmese Government’s policies at present. We can have great hindsight, but just because we have got things wrong in the past does not mean we should not get things right in the future.

We have a special responsibility when it comes to the special relationship with our greatest ally and friend. We cannot accept the denigration of the free press, the judiciary, women and religious minorities, the banning of refugees and the advocacy of torture as the new normal. It would not be acceptable from any country, and it is certainly not acceptable from our greatest ally and one of the countries that has frequently stood up for the values of liberty, equality, democracy and the rights and equality of all before the law. That is why we have a special responsibility in this House to speak out.

Ultimately, I have great faith in the way the American constitution was set up. In 1788, James Madison said:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one…in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

We, too, should check and balance our ally, but offering up a state visit and all these honours in week 1 of Donald Trump’s already turbulent presidency is not the way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on bringing it to us this afternoon and, in particular, I congratulate all those who set up and signed the petitions. For them to see the direct influence of that political activism on the business of this House has to be a good and positive development.

The argument advanced by those who support the extension of an invitation of this sort to President Trump, which was most thoughtfully expressed by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), is that essentially this is the spending of a measure of political capital, on which there will be a return. As the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee put it, the Prime Minister won an important reaffirmation of the special relationship. I have to say to all those who have advanced that argument: where is the evidence that that is in fact the case? I ask that because having offered President Trump a state visit, and the offer having been accepted, we have since seen a very different range of views coming from him that are not particularly helpful, particularly in relation to America’s future engagement through NATO—the relationship with Russia, for example.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Does he recall another British Prime Minister, one who did many good things but, I think, was deeply naive about the ability he thought he had to influence an American President, and where that led us?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, and I had cause to reflect this weekend on that former Prime Minister.

My other concern is that we may have spent that capital in this way and it may or may not ultimately be effective, but this is week one of a four-year term. Having offered a state visit this time, what will we offer the next time we want to get a favourable response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I am going to make progress.

In an uncertain and increasingly dangerous world, the ability to work closely with key countries is critical. Strong alliances and close relationships are a central stabilising pillar for world security. This is an increasingly unstable world, but throughout modern history, the United States and the United Kingdom have worked together side by side to bring peace and security during times of danger and uncertainty. Put simply, a state visit matters so much because diplomacy matters, especially with the world as it is today.

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is built around a common language, the common principles of freedom and democracy, and common interests in so many other areas. Our relationship is undoubtedly special. On security, defence, trade, investment and all such issues, the United Kingdom and the United States are and will remain the closest of partners. The United States is the world’s greatest power. In the light of America’s pivotal role, it is entirely right that we should use all the tools at our disposal to build common ground with President Trump.

As the baton of office passed seamlessly and constitutionally from one President to another, we were already well placed to have a productive and meaningful engagement with the new Administration. The British embassy in Washington has been working with key figures in the US Administration over many months. British Secretaries of State have built relationships with their opposite numbers after their congressional confirmation. The Prime Minister’s visit last month was of enormous significance. Only last week, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary met their opposite numbers. On Friday, I met the US Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly.

The Government place our national interest at the heart of our decision making, and the special relationship is a central part of that national interest.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I am going to keep going.

The special relationship transcends political parties on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is bigger than individual personalities. It is about the security and prosperity of our two nations. The Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump in Washington last month identified many areas of common interest on which we will work with the new Administration. A state visit will provide the opportunity to further advance those common interests.

Hon. Members have mentioned timing. State visits are not necessarily the sole preserve of long-serving heads of state. In the past, a state visit has been extended to the Presidents of South Africa, France, South Korea, Finland and Poland, among others, each within their first year of office.