Israel and Gaza

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The House will not recognise all of the things that the hon. Gentleman has just said. Let me make it absolutely clear once again: Israel does have the right of self-defence, but she must abide by international humanitarian law.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a testament to how polarised and contested our world has become that the custodians of international security took six months to agree UN Security Council resolution 2728, which calls for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and access for aid. Does the deputy Foreign Secretary agree that it is concerning that vital UK aid has to be airdropped into Gaza by the Royal Air Force, effectively bypassing Israel? Should the new port being built off Gaza to operate the new maritime corridor become a permanent operation with inspections, allowing the international community to ensure that the scale of aid required gets into Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to the former Chair of the Defence Committee for what he says. He is right that the best way to get aid into Gaza is by truck—by road—and that is what Britain has consistently pressed for. We know that there were 500 trucks a day before the catastrophe of 7 October. There has been an increase in March, but we are now looking at something like 150 a day. We are doing everything we can to try to ensure that we get aid into Gaza in the easiest way possible, but as my right hon. Friend said, we are also looking at all other options, including the airdrop that took place yesterday on 25 March in which the Royal Air Force dropped 10 tonnes of food. We anticipate that further airdrops will be necessary because of the situation he has outlined.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her comments. As she knows, we created the British national overseas route in 2020, which creates a pathway to permanent citizenship for British national overseas passport holders. It is working extremely well. Of course, we always keep it under review, but we have no current plans to change it.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It was supposed to be “one country, two systems”, but that has clearly disappeared. The bigger picture is that it is increasingly clear that China is openly pursuing a competing interpretation of the international rules-based order. Nowhere is that more evident than in Hong Kong. The independence of the judiciary has disappeared, along with freedom of speech and of the press. Hong Kong’s own democratic structures have been severely challenged and eroded. The new national security legislation will see the introduction of closed-door trials, detention for up to 16 days without charge, and the lowering of the bar of when life sentences can be imposed. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister has business experience in Hong Kong, so what impact does he think these new draconian measures will have on the international community doing business with Hong Kong in the future?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the former Chair of the Defence Committee for his question. During my business career, I was in and out of Hong Kong very regularly. It is quite extraordinary how Hong Kong’s brilliant pre-eminence in business is being undermined by this legislation and, indeed, by much other legislation and acts by the Chinese Government. Hong Kong was built on independent institutions, a high degree of autonomy and openness to the world. All those things help to increase the economic activity, the living standards and the wealth of a country or a city, and it is deeply regrettable that this does not appear to be recognised by the Government of China.

Israel and Gaza

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The position that the Minister set out in Westminster Hall was absolutely correct. The Government take legal advice on this matter, the arms export Committee does its work effectively, and we will continue to act on the advice that we are given when we are given it.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

As I said last week, a ceasefire is a contract between two sides that is overseen by a third party. Neither side is agreeing to a ceasefire right now, nor is there a third party in place to oversee it. I am happy to say today that I want a ceasefire and the steps to get us there, and I also want Parliament to speak with a single voice, which is so much more powerful than our tabling motions that we then divide the House on. Speaking with one voice will require consensus and compromise, so before we risk repeating last week’s fiasco that saw tensions rise, I invite the Minister—as he has alluded to in his remarks—to quietly bring together the Opposition parties at No. 10 to see whether a consensus line can be agreed to avoid this House returning to the circus we saw last week.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the former Chairman of the Defence Committee for his wise and sensible approach. As I said earlier to both the shadow Foreign Secretary and the SNP spokesman, if we study carefully the Government amendment that was tabled in the SNP debate last week, we see a very substantial degree of agreement. We must try very hard to build on that so that the House speaks with one voice, as my right hon. Friend says.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I very much welcome this debate on supporting a ceasefire in Gaza and the steps required to get us there, but let me be clear: as the nation and, indeed, those beyond look on, this is a very sad day for Parliament. Rather than our offering clarity on Parliament’s position, speaking with one voice as we seek to end the fighting, there are not one but three separate texts as this debate turns into a political football. Shame on us for failing to find common ground. What a wasted opportunity this is to exhibit UK leadership and resolve in seeking to get closer to the very objective that we came here to debate.

It is a reflection on how fragmented and polarised our world has become that no single power, or alliance of states, or indeed international organisation such as the United Nations is in control of the events that are now unfolding in the middle east, with all its troubled history—a region on the junction not just of three continents, but of three great Abrahamic religions.

From the start, I supported Israel’s right to defend itself after those terrible 7 October attacks, but I was the only voice here in Parliament, when we reconvened, to warn Prime Minister Netanyahu, before he sent in the tanks, not to invade until there was a clear governance and security plan which any military operation could work towards; and that still eludes us today.

Away from Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel is an important UK ally, a rare democratic state in a troubled part of the world. It deserves our support, but also our frankness. The scale of the collateral damage is shocking—indeed, that phrase seems inappropriate given the loss of life— but there is nothing simple about urban warfare, and future military strategists at Sandhurst and West Point are likely to use the Israeli military invasion as an example of how not to do it, and of how tactics without strategy fail.

On the other side, we look for voices in the middle east condemning Hamas, but they are not there. Bahrain was the only country to say that it condemned what Hamas had done. Are we expecting the Palestinian Authority to step in? It is having its own problems in its own neck of the woods. As I have said previously, before the Israeli tanks rolled in I was the only one to suggest the formation of a temporary technical council by those who had signed the Abraham accords to take responsibility once those guns fell silent.

There is no mention of any of this in the motion or the amendments. Are we suggesting that we should empower Hamas to stay, as they remain committed to destroying Israel? It is in their covenant to do exactly that. Shouting “Ceasefire, ceasefire” alone and unconditionally, will not, I am afraid, change anything; and I say that as someone who has been involved in a few conflicts as a soldier. Perhaps it is symbolic. Surely with our statecraft, our influence and our convening power, we should be doing so much more. A ceasefire is a contract agreed between two sides, and it requires a third party to step forward to ensure that they can control what goes on. It begins with a cessation of hostilities that allows space for other activities to take place, and allows plans to advance. Neither Israel nor Hamas are in that place yet. The alternative is a larger third force, mobilised to enforce a ceasefire, but I suspect that no one here today is advocating that.

A ceasefire calls for timeframes, no-fly zones, buffer zones, emergency procedures to quash any breaches, agreed incentives in relation to, for example, hostage release and humanitarian support, and, of course, international monitoring teams in which the UK could play a part. I do not hear any of that being discussed today; I hear only the clarion call “Let’s have a ceasefire.” This is a detail that we need to discuss before we demand from afar something that will perhaps make us feel better. I simply make the case that, from here, it is easy to shout those words “Let’s have a ceasefire”, but it is harder to implement that in practice.

Britain has a role to play: it has an important, persuasive and active role to play on the international stage. What we have done today is illustrate how much more we need to learn, and how we need to elevate the calibre of our debate in order to deal with these international matters. I will be supporting the Government today, but I recommend that all three parties get together, so that we can come back to the House and agree a unified statement on taking this forward, and how a ceasefire might proceed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Death of Alexei Navalny

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We should have confidence that the economic impact of sanctions has been very significant. Putin has been denied hundreds of billions of dollars because of the collective action of the G7 nations. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Are we looking at ways of making it more effective? Yes, we are. Will we keep the House updated? Of course.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Yulia Navalnaya’s speech at the Munich security conference changed the tone of that entire summit. She called for the west to act. Does the Minister agree with me that Alexei Navalny’s death underlines Putin’s determination to emulate Stalin in quashing free speech in Russia and extending Russia’s influence beyond its borders? When we speak of sanctions, might we also consider pressing the Americans to expedite the $60 billion that Ukraine needs? One way we can honour Navalny’s life is by making sure Ukraine wins and Russia loses. To that extent, can I also suggest that while diplomatic back channels need to remain open, maybe it is time to dismiss the Russian ambassador?

[Leo Docherty]

We will continue to lead by example in terms of our provision of lethal aid and humanitarian aid, and we hope and expect that our closest allies will do the same. The impact of our provision has been very, very significant. My right hon. Friend made a good point about Putin’s leadership. What this event actually shows is the fact that Putin is fearful: fearful of those, like Mr Navalny, who have the courage to challenge him and speak truth to power. That is the most potent action in the face of a cruel, repressive tyrannical regime like Mr Putin’s, which ultimately is quite brittle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

Both sides of the House agree that this is an important issue, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working very hard. I have raised the importance of critical minerals on my visits to all those countries, and not least on my recent visit to Bolivia.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

T6.   By any measure our world is becoming more dangerous, not less. I very much welcome Britain’s leadership and rekindled engagement on the international stage, not least in Ukraine and the middle east. Does the Minister agree that our foreign policy, our economy and, indeed, our security are interdependently related? Given the deteriorating threat picture, would he like to see an increase in our defence posture?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend, the former Chairman of the Defence Committee, is absolutely right to focus on these threats. The Foreign Secretary recently said that all the lights on the global dashboard are flashing red. The Government know that the first duty of the state is to defend and protect its citizens from external aggression, and my right hon. Friend may rest assured that that will continue to be our highest priority.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

For many years, the hon. Lady and I have shared a deep concern about the question of aid getting through. I can tell her that while we are temporarily pausing any future funding of UNRWA while we review these appalling allegations, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza for the people who need it so desperately. We do, of course, work with other organisations: the British Red Cross, UNICEF and the World Food Programme, which has been essential in bringing vital supplies from Jordan into Gaza. However, as I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the infrastructure that UNRWA has inside Gaza will always be fundamental to getting humanitarian relief to the people who need it.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I very much welcome the five-point plan, the call for an immediate pause in fighting and the contact group bringing together stakeholders. The allegations directed at UNRWA are indeed serious, and we should all welcome the investigation ordered by the UN chief António Guterres. I understand why countries including the UK have paused funding, but given that UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, does the Minister agree that holding back funds for too long could see the humanitarian situation degrade further and lead to more Gazans joining the ranks of Hamas?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend, the former Chair of the Defence Committee, is right to focus on that issue. I also spoke this morning to Sigrid Kaag, the humanitarian reconstruction co-ordinator for Gaza, and she made it clear to me that while we have zero tolerance of these dreadful things that are alleged to have been done, we cannot operate at zero risks. The politics of logistics and distribution are a nightmare in Gaza, as my right hon. Friend knows. We will look carefully at these reports, and we will suspend any future funding until we have them, but we recognise that the UNRWA assets are essential to delivering in Gaza.

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on Afghanistan.

It is a real pleasure to be opening this debate on the important subject of Afghanistan. I am grateful to see the Minister, whom I know is familiar with the country, having visited there many times, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I have much to cover, so to ensure that others have time to contribute, I make it clear that I will not take any interventions, because doing so would delay my speech.

After dominating our headlines for decades, Afghanistan is now the forgotten country and rarely features in our news or, indeed, parliamentary debates, and a population of 40 million people, not least women and girls, understandably feel abandoned. As I found out on my visit last summer, Afghanistan remains a very raw subject.

I spent some time at the British cemetery in Kabul, which was established in the 19th century to honour some of the dead from the previous British incursions into Afghanistan—the battle between the Oxus and Indus rivers, and the “great game” between Russia and Britain. In that cemetery, there are a dozen or so plaques marking the names, in date order, of the 455 UK personnel—including 54 from my regiment, the Rifles—who lost their lives in the latest war. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and the hundreds who returned with life-changing injuries. Whatever the operational outcome, we must never neglect our duty of care to our brave veterans.

The war in Afghanistan was bruising for NATO—the most formidable military alliance the world has ever seen—as an entity. At its peak, it had 150,000 troops in the country. They departed demoralised, with many asking the question: what is the purpose of NATO? In August 2021, when Parliament was recalled so that the Government could announce our withdrawal, I said that this signalled the high-tide mark of post-world war two western liberalism. Two decades of state building in Afghanistan cost the United Kingdom £20 billion. It cost the US, which lost over 2,400 lives, $2.3 trillion. As our adversaries, who do not share our values, have observed, we have collectively lost the appetite to stay the course and defend the international rules-based order. The war brought an abrupt end to the post-cold war thinking that the west can impose its values anywhere in the world.

There has been no official UK inquiry about the lessons that might be learned, such as how we squandered the incredible umbrella of security created by our brave service personnel through the absence of a co-ordinated strategy to rebuild, and through total mission creep and strategic contagion. A western boilerplate governance structure completely ignored the complex tribal power bases and, indeed, the lessons of Afghanistan’s history, not least Britain’s previous efforts to run the country in the past. Corruption became endemic in Kabul. Lord Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, summed it up in his book, “Hard Choices”, where he says:

“We became the problem, not the solution.”

In July 2019, President Trump gave a nine-month deadline to remove all US forces, simply to boost his presidential election prospects. He then struck a unilateral deal with the Taliban that excluded the Kabul Government, with no built-in human rights guarantees for women and children. However, it did see the release of 5,000 prisoners, including many terrorists. Afghanistan’s fate was sealed, resulting in the nation being handed back to the very insurgents we went into the country to defeat.

Just months after NATO’s article 5-approved invasion of Afghanistan, which followed the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks, an international conference took place in Bonn, in Germany, in December 2001, to consider the future security and governance of Afghanistan. The Taliban requested attendance, but Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary at the time, told them to go away, saying that the losers do not get to sit at the table. Of course the Taliban did go away, across the border with Pakistan to rearm, regroup and return to fight another day.

I have visited Afghanistan about a dozen times since 2005. I sat in the same swivel chair in the large conference briefing room in Camp Bastion, I have been shown PowerPoint slides on how the Taliban were being defeated, and General Petraeus famously said of Iraq that it is not enough to defeat the enemy; we must enable the local. However, I am afraid that I saw very little evidence of that on any of my visits. I saw very little of enabling programmes or indeed of a strategy to develop workable local governance, and win over hearts and minds.

When President Karzai had to approve a new school headteacher in Lashkargah, and when an enormous turbine delivered by 16 Air Assault Brigade in 2008 to the Kajaki dam to generate game-changing electricity for communities remains in its bubble-wrap for a decade beside the dam, we know that something has seriously gone wrong in our post-conflict reconstruction planning and indeed in the efforts to win over hearts and minds.

The irony is that Helmand is the breadbasket of Afghanistan and beyond thanks to two decades of US investment just after world war two, when the same company that built the Hoover dam created the massive irrigation systems around the mighty Helmand river, which to this day continue to help to grow the crops that feed the nation. That is how to win hearts and minds. However, for 20 years there was no Paddy Ashdown character to co-ordinate efforts.

If we step into the shoes of the Afghan people today, we find that they are war-weary. They have endured four decades of conflict and instability. We have to go back to President Daoud’s time in the 1970s to find a time when it could be said that the country was relatively stable. Today, there is an eery calm, as another phase in Afghanistan’s history plays out.

As I found out, security is different now, but that is thanks to the Taliban’s daily attacks having ceased. Satellite images confirm that Afghanistan’s opium trade is significantly down, but that is because the Taliban’s black market to fund their insurgency has gone, and farmers are able to grow other crops, rather than opium, and take them to market without fear of running into the Taliban’s improvised explosive devices.

Whether from the people of Afghanistan or indeed from the Afghan diaspora here in the UK—the Pashtuns, the Hazaras, the Uzbeks and the Tajiks, many of whom I have engaged with—there is no clarion call for regime change. That prompts a very difficult question: if the Afghan people are not calling for regime change, should we continue to punish them because the Taliban are in charge?

There are no easy options here, but the challenges that this fragile country now faces remain immense, and the Taliban know it. First, there is the economy. It was mostly US funding that propped up three quarters of Ashraf Ghani’s budget, in order to keep the country going. That funding has now gone. Varying estimates suggest that Afghanistan now has about two years before its economy collapses. In 2019, the UN estimated that around 6 million Afghans were considered to be in need of humanitarian aid. Today, that figure is estimated to have risen to 28 million. Meanwhile, China is eyeing up Afghanistan’s rich mineral resources and could easily turn the country into a vassal state.

Secondly, there is the demise of human rights. The brave demonstrations on the streets of Kabul by women who sought to retain their basic freedoms to work and study are dispersed by gunshots. Only a few days ago, that happened again in Kabul. It is just one example of how the Taliban are rowing back on the initial assurances given to women and girls when they gained power. The latest example is denying schooling to 11-year-olds, preventing 11-year-old girls from going to school, and preventing women from working in certain trades. Such diktats offer understandable, absolutist grounds to rule out having any truck with the Taliban until these conditions are removed.

Finally, there is the renewed threat of terrorism. As Afghanistan becomes ever more unstable, terrorism is once again allowed to incubate—most worryingly in the form of ISIS-K, which is increasingly active in the country. Senator Lindsey Graham warned in 2019:

“If we abandon Afghanistan out of frustration and weariness, we pave the way for another 9/11.”

Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, recently warned of the uptick in radicalisation that we are now seeing and that could impact the UK, saying that it is “unparalleled”.

This all leads to the difficult question: if our current strategy of condemning from afar is having no effect and if Afghanistan is on a worrying trajectory where international aid could be so pivotal, is it time to better understand what is happening in the country and within the regime that is leading to the increase in restrictions? I say that because the Taliban, as I discovered, are far from one cohesive identity. There are clearly tensions within the regime that was once united with the principal goal of violence against the Kabul Government and NATO. No doubt it remains an ultra-conservative movement with the most ruthless interpretation of sharia law in the world, but there are differences of view between Kandahar, where the reclusive leader Akhundzada is based, and Kabul, where the practical realities of holding the country together are grappled with.

The hard-line political messaging is abrupt and, rightly, internationally condemned. An example involves women denied university and school education. “How does any woman have access to a female doctor?” I asked, and how can women continue to work in Ministries, at the airport and with non-governmental organisations, including the United Nations, as I witnessed? The response was that licences are quietly issued, allowing those women to continue to work in such necessary professions.

Saad Mohseni, an Afghan media entrepreneur, set up TV and radio companies across Afghanistan a few years ago, when NATO was there. They all continue to operate today and now broadcast a range of educational programmes for children. Many urban areas now have access to the internet, and Zoom lessons are commonplace for all manner of subjects and all ages.

Let us be clear: this is so sub-optimal. It is, though, tolerated by the Taliban who are running the Ministries in Kabul, quietly maintaining some of the gains that have been secured over the last 20 years. But ironically the Taliban leaders in Kabul, understanding the rules on schooling, send their girls to school in Dubai. Clearly, the duality between Kandahar and Kabul is unsustainable in the longer term. One side or the other will eventually need to give. Are we really going to watch from afar this latest phase in Afghanistan’s history play out, or is there a more cognitive, proactive approach of engagement and influence?

In his excellent book “The Return of the Taliban”, Hassan Abbas, a professor at the National Defence University in Washington, suggests that about 40% of the Taliban are signed up to the full religious ideology. But for the majority of people in Afghanistan, it is either the military and fighting lure that encourages them to support it, or simply a social one—a bond extended through family and tribal loyalty. Many of the rank and file receive little religious training. They do not understand the sharia law obligations; they simply join the Taliban because that is what happens in Afghanistan. When a force looks like it is going to win, everybody then sees the changing winds and joins sides with it.

The older generation, many of whom held leadership roles back in the late 1990s and were content to be globally isolated, now lean upon the younger, Kabul-based, more tech-savvy generation to run the state Ministries. Those Ministries have changed little in function since 2021, but they know that their stability comes only with greater international engagement. That is why Kabul is growing ties with Doha, the Emirates, Turkey, Russia, China and so forth. Afghanistan certainly has changed from what it was in the ’90s. It is a more populous, more complex country, with complex needs and a desperate request for international support.

I dared to suggest this summer, and I repeat it today, that given the dangers that are looming, we re-evaluate our strategy. We should answer the plea of Roza Otunbayeva, the UN head in Afghanistan, and engage. She stressed in her formal report to the United Nations General Assembly in September last year that engagement does not mean endorsement, nor any form of recognition. The Taliban in Kabul recognise that there is $9 billion of frozen assets. That could easily be used to provide conditionalities in improving rights for women and girls if we used it more cognitively.

Other respected voices are also coming to the same position. Thomas West, the US special envoy in Afghanistan, says that we should engage. By the way, the United States has given $2 billion since 2021 compared with our £100 million a year. Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur for Afghanistan; Ms Fawzia Koofi, the former Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament; the UK’s former ambassador, Laurie Bristow; General David Petraeus; Rory Stewart; General Sir David Richards; General Sir Nick Carter; and distinguished journalists Christina Lamb and Kathy Gannon all have extensive experience and understanding of Afghanistan. They are all saying, “Let’s engage.”

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I want to finish, but I look forward to his contribution.

As I mentioned, most tellingly, it is the Afghan people who desperately need our help and want us to engage. Let me end by speaking about the value of education. My brother was a teacher and educationalist. It was his death—he was killed in the 2002 Bali bombing by an al-Qaeda affiliate—that prompted me to visit Afghanistan so many times, to understand what we were doing to counter terrorism. My brother spoke passionately about the importance of teaching people how to think, and the dangers of simply being told what to think.

The UN head Roza Otunbayeva has raised just $0.5 billion of the $4.5 billion that she needs to honour the humanitarian programmes on the ground. Education restrictions on 11-year-old girls are a concern of course, but her bigger worry is that half of all children under the age of 11—boys and girls—are getting no education whatsoever. The schools and buildings did not exist, and do not exist, to teach them. That means that unless the international community helps soon, half of the next generation of Afghans will be open prey for radicalisation —the next generation of extremists—as they are lured into a false belief that their violence will be rewarded with a fast track to paradise.

It is Charlie Wilson all over again, abandoning a country that turns into an incubator for terrorism. We should not make that same mistake again. As the saying goes, we may have lost interest in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan has not lost interest in us. We now have a duty to develop a strategy of engagement that moves from our current position of punishing the Afghan population for the Taliban’s takeover. Our approach to Afghanistan at the moment is not just incoherent but ineffectual. Our financial support is down to just £100 million, as I said. An economic, humanitarian or terrorism crisis is looming. Afghanistan’s threat is not just to the country itself but to the region and beyond. Let’s make sure Afghanistan and its people are not forgotten. It is time to engage. It is time to reopen our embassy.

My experience this summer was bruising. It made me reflect on this place, on Parliament, and more specifically on the conduct of Parliament. On a good day, we match that accolade of being the mother of all Parliaments. We have pioneered that important democratic journey across the centuries that is now emulated across the globe. Yet on a bad day, we are an exemplar of how shallow, discourteous and intolerant we can be of each other. Politics has always been a contact sport—I understand that—but by and large it remains civil, respectful and professional. Parliamentarians should be encouraged to show political curiosity and passion for an issue, cause or interest, and yes, advance or even challenge current thinking and dare to look four or five chess moves ahead and ask, “What if?” However, if we lose the art of disagreeing or offer latitude when a colleague miscommunicates a serious message, as I did this summer, and it is replaced by a “Gotcha!” culture deliberately encouraging a media storm, that is indeed a sad day for Parliament.

Political curiosity is what this place should be about. It should be encouraged and respected, otherwise MPs simply will not stick their heads above the parapet. That cannot be good for democracy and will certainly not inspire the best in our nation—the next generation—to consider following in our footsteps. We need to keep the bar high. Thank you, Dr Huq. Once again, I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate this important issue today. I will listen with interest to colleagues and to the Government’s response.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. Please stand if you want to speak, and we will then work out how long everyone has.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

As in, in 20 seconds?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Yes. Go for it.

[Mr Ellwood]

Twenty seconds from now?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, but this is an injustice. I cannot do justice to such an important subject—my time is up already. I am saddened. This is an important subject. Perhaps I can now raise a point of order, Dr Huq?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Okay.

[Mr Ellwood]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Please, some latitude. The next debate is here. I am sure they will not mind another minute—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is saying that I am compelled to stop you. Sorry about that.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Israel and Palestine

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the plight of children on both sides of this conflict. We are in close touch with the NGOs that he has cited, and we are also considering carefully what contribution a UK medical team could make. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, field hospitals, both inside and outside Gaza, are an important aspect of that. They could have a dramatic effect, and using them would be much better than taking people who are wounded either on to ships or to other countries. We are looking at all these matters to try and address the precise problem that the right hon. Gentleman has described.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The conflict is clearly escalating, and no single power or, indeed, alliance is in full control, but what we should not lose control over is freedom of navigation and shipping movements in international waters. Surely a red line has already been crossed because ships have been targeted. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what will happen if shipping is further targeted? Will we not just take out those missiles in the air, but attack the silos from which they are launched?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will have seen that HMS Diamond has shot down an attack drone, on, I think, the first occasion that the Navy has been in action in that way for 30 years. He will also have heard what the Government have said: like many other countries, they have made it crystal clear that we will not accept the fettering of the international rights of navigation, and all those involved in trying to frustrate that should hear those words.

Israel and Gaza

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I understand how deeply distressing this is for her, with her family caught up in the Holy Family church complex. As I said in my response, I am grateful to her for the harrowing update she was able to give me direct from the Holy Family church. I am very pleased to hear that she thinks food has been delivered—we will follow up on that point directly after this urgent question.

The hon. Lady talked about the protection of civilians; the British Government make absolutely clear that international humanitarian law must be abided by. She also mentioned humanitarian aid; we understand that yesterday 191 trucks entered the Gaza strip, 127 through Rafah and 64 through Kerem Shalom, which is a new avenue that we very much welcome. Finally, on the point she made about the United Nations, we are working with partners on a resolution, and I expect there will be a vote at 3 pm today, UK time. That is what we are working towards, and while the position is not yet clear, we are hoping to support that resolution.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

While walking to Parliament yesterday, I politely challenged a driver who had selfishly parked his car in the bus lane leading on to Chelsea bridge so that he could buy a coffee at the nearby kiosk. When I suggested he move it given the traffic chaos it was causing, he blankly refused, began swearing at me, threatened to throw my phone in the river if I took a photo of him, and then called me a racist and a Zionist. Sadly, that illustrates how hate and intolerance here in the UK are being fuelled by events in the middle east. This conflict is now in its third month, with no end in sight, no clarity from Israel as to how long the occupation will last, and the death toll is mounting. Does the Minister agree that without concerted international intervention, the conflict will escalate?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am appalled to hear about the way in which my right hon. Friend was treated on his way into the House of Commons. We are stressing the importance of a more surgical approach by the Israeli Defence Forces and are working towards a more sustainable cessation of hostilities. We recognise that there are too many casualties, and we are pressing forward on what is the policy of both the Government and the Opposition: more extensive humanitarian pauses, so that aid can get into Gaza.