Gaza and Humanitarian Aid

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Throughout the past 12 months, the UK Government have failed to highlight or prevent the Israeli Government’s denial of international assistance into Gaza and their clear breaches of international humanitarian law. The UK has also failed to highlight the Israeli Government’s not complying with International Court of Justice orders, which require them to facilitate the unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officials engaged in the provision of humanitarian aid. The UK is failing to stand up for international law as Israeli forces are forcibly transferring civilians as we speak—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. This should be an intervention, not a speech, because many people are waiting to speak.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must act urgently to enforce UK Security Council resolutions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. A number of Members wish to speak, so I will impose an informal three-minute time limit. Please be kind to each other so you can all get in.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this absolutely crucial and essential debate.

Last night, my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and for Birmingham Perry Barr and I attended a film showing by Al Jazeera at a cinema near here. The film showed very raw footage of the behaviour of Israeli soldiers in Gaza. It was about the destruction of life and of the appalling death toll of children, in particular, across Gaza. It showed soldiers cheering when they destroyed an entire Palestinian village. It showed pictures—devastatingly realistic in the horror they showed—of the torture of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

Afterwards, we had a question and answer session with a number of lawyers, medical people and so on. A doctor said that when she tried to enter Gaza to act as a doctor, she was restricted to one suitcase and told that she had to bring in three days’ water supply, have her own personal security and have a car and a driver with her at all times just to undertake her work. She said that there are very few hospitals working in Gaza, and the conditions are appalling and abominable. Many doctors are now not working in Gaza any more because they simply cannot get in; Israel controls all access and exit. The small number of very brave and wonderful doctors who were working there are now being forced to go elsewhere. The film showed the way in which Israel’s occupation has been entirely directed towards the destruction of Palestinian life—Palestinian buildings, schools, roads, hospitals and everything else.

I have never forgotten going to Beech primary school in Jabalia refugee camp many years ago—a wonderful school in a wonderful place with wonderful children. With joy, the children sat down and read, through translation, the poetry they had written about their lives, their hopes and what they wanted to achieve. We then went on to the roof of the school, and we could see the fence on one side and, not that far away, the sea on the other. To the north, we could see Ashkelon. We could hear the sadness in their voices when they said, “We are never going to be able to go anywhere. We are never going to be able to travel anywhere. We are forever prisoners in this school and our homes,” but at least at that time they had homes and a school. I have seen the footage and seen the films; the school is totally destroyed. Many of those children who I met, who were so happy in those days, are now deceased. Famine is there in Gaza. It is recognised as a famine around the world. Polluted water, inadequate food, inadequate medical supplies—it is an absolutely appalling situation.

Yes, obviously we have to demand all the aid that we can to go into Gaza—we would do that for any people anywhere in the world—but when there are more than 40,000 recorded deaths, and possibly 100,000 more bodies waiting to be discovered under the rubble, the answer has to be a political one. Why are we still supplying arms to Israel, knowing full well that those arms, in contravention of ICJ rulings, are actually being used to bomb civilian targets in Gaza?

War crimes are being committed before our very eyes on our televisions every night. It is up to our Government to show that they believe in international law. If they did, they would halt the supply of weapons to Israel, because they know full well that those weapons are being used to destroy human life, in breach of all aspects of international humanitarian law.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to take winding-up speeches from the Front Benches at about 4.5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It does not need saying, because everyone with eyes can see it, but we cannot say it often enough: too many civilians have died over the last year in the middle east. It is so important that as few as possible follow them.

Before being elected, I worked at Save the Children, and I have worked on migration policy for the past 15 years. I am profoundly worried by the high levels of displacement we are seeing in the middle east. One million people have been displaced in Lebanon. Within Gaza, it is estimated that nine in 10 people have been displaced at some point. This is awful for those personally affected, but it is also profoundly politically destabilising to an already febrile situation, and it adds to the potential for escalation and therefore miscalculation.

We should be terrified of escalation and miscalculation. That is the biggest threat to the humanitarian situation, because we have already seen things escalate appallingly quickly. We must be clear: “escalate to de-escalate” is a falsehood, it is misguided and it will strategically misfire for all. Will the Government strain every sinew to avoid further escalation in the middle east? The reason is not just political or diplomatic; it is humanitarian. Too many have died already, and the only way to stop more joining them is by stopping escalation.

I know that the Minister will be constrained in what he can say today. I welcome the decisions on UNRWA, arms and the ICC, and the commitment to the rule of law, but can he reassure us that the Government’s aim in this situation is de-escalation for humanitarian purposes?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

We will try to get everyone in. We have three people and I want to start wind-ups at 4.5 pm, so please keep it short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Two minutes left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hamish Falconer]

I will try to make a tiny bit more progress, and then I will hand back.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

You have a minute left, Minister.

[Hamish Falconer]

Then I will probably get to the end, in order to allow people to respond.

From the Prime Minister down, we will continue to call on all parties to act in accordance with international humanitarian law. Earlier in July, when he was visiting the region, the Foreign Secretary announced £5.5 million in new medical aid to field hospitals in Gaza; I think that was the subject of a question that was asked today. We are working to try to bolster medical capacity for patients. We think that is best done in the region, and we are frustrated by the impediments that still exist, particularly around children being able to access medical care and other aid.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered humanitarian aid and Gaza.

Recognition of Western Sahara as Moroccan

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes. That is why I just stated that I visited the Kingdom of Morocco on an official visit, and that is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That is correct.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please stick to the motion?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes, I will. I was trying to explain why I feel so strongly that Morocco is a reliable partner for the United Kingdom. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make. Yes, we do go overseas on visits where we try to increase our understanding of other nations. We do not have a budget in the House of Commons to pay for those visits; we are guests of the foreign country, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

During our visit to Morocco, we had a very unsatisfactory discussion with the British ambassador on the telephone. As on many other occasions, the British ambassador tried to indicate that we cannot recognise Western Sahara because somehow it will impinge on or affect our relationship with our overseas territories, particularly the Falkland Islands. Yet, when I pressed the British ambassador to explain why and how that could be the case, no satisfactory response was forthcoming.

I seek clarification from the Minister on this point. Is it the fact that we cannot recognise Western Sahara as being Moroccan because there is some legal, constitutional or technical difficulty that might affect our relationship with our overseas territories? I cannot see that, given that France, which is in the process of recognising this issue, also has overseas territories. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that point. We need to recognise Western Sahara, as Israel and America have done. At the very least, we should follow Spain, the former colonial power, along with Germany and France in recognising that the autonomy proposals are the only way forward.

I have mentioned women’s rights; during my visit to Dakhla we had the opportunity to visit the new port that is being constructed in Western Sahara, and I was able to speak to Mrs Nisrine Iouzzi, who is the lady who runs the 1,600 engineers and construction workers at the port. It is going to be an extremely important link, not just for Morocco but for the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, including Niger, Chad, Mali and many other countries.

One way to deal with illegal immigration in Europe and to support Morocco is through a programme of support for illegal migrants, which I saw at first hand in Dakhla. The Moroccan Government are helping illegal migrants to settle there, training them and giving them opportunities.

Only four Arab nations have signed the Abraham accords, of course. The first contact between the Egyptians and the Israelis in the 1970s was brokered by Rabat, leading to Sadat’s visit to Israel and, ultimately, the peace accord. In 1994 the late King Hassan hosted a World Economic Forum, inviting Israelis and Palestinians to Casablanca for their first joint session at an international conference.

Professor Marc Weller, chair of international law and international constitutional studies at the University of Cambridge, has submitted a report to the Foreign Office. He was commissioned to evaluate the concept of why the United Kingdom may find it difficult to recognise Western Sahara, bearing in mind the intricate relationship we have with our overseas territories. I have met Professor Marc Weller here in the House of Commons on two separate occasions over the past few weeks. He submitted his report to the Foreign Office three weeks ago; I would be grateful if the Minister could recognise whether it has been received and say whether his officials will brief him on it.

Let us not forget that Professor Marc Weller, chair of international law and international constitutional studies at Cambridge, is one of this country’s leading academics on international law and works in the sphere on which I am pressing the Minister directly. He says that when he took on the commission he found it a potentially daunting prospect, yet after the research he has done he has come to the conclusion that recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, and indeed recognising the autonomy proposals, would actually strengthen our relationship with our overseas territories and with the Falkland Islands. Professor Marc Weller from the University of Cambridge says the direct opposite of what we hear from our own ambassador in Morocco.

During my visit to Western Sahara, we came across representatives of 30 countries that have set up consulates in Dakhla, and more than 90 countries around the world have recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I rather suspected that the right hon. Gentleman would ask that question. I will come to that later in my speech. I have not been, as yet, to the Tindouf camp in Algeria where the Polisario are, but I have received very serious allegations from various friends in the Moroccan Parliament. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Tindouf camp, because we have received very serious allegations about the promotion of terrorism within it. We have received transcripts of audio discussions from the Tindouf camp in which various members of the Polisario Front urge young female fighters to plant bombs in Dakhla and to try to murder their way back to the Western Sahara. That is a great concern if it is true, and I strongly urge the Minister to take up the matter with his Algerian counterpart to seek the veracity of the situation.

We here in the United Kingdom have had to deal with terrorism ourselves during the course of our lifetime, have we not? We have experienced bombings in this country by the IRA. We have experienced innocent men, women and children being murdered and bombed in Manchester, London and other places. Indeed, there was an attempt to assassinate the leader of my party in the Brighton hotel bombing. So we, of all countries, should recognise the difficulties that Morocco is facing, if the allegations are correct and it is true that the Tindouf camps are still being used by the Polisario as a hotbed to promote terrorist activities across the border in Morocco.

Finally, there are allegations from organisations, even including Amnesty International, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) respects and recognises, of human rights abuses in the Tindouf camps. I will put those allegations into the House of Commons Library. Will the Minister take that issue on board?

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for talking about Morocco rather than just Western Sahara. When we discuss Western Sahara, I do not think we can discount why and how certain parliamentarians have so much confidence in Morocco, because of the strategic bilateral relationship we are creating with the country. I pay tribute to the Moroccan ambassador, who works tirelessly and very effectively on behalf of his nation in trying to educate us parliamentarians about the Moroccan perspective.

I recognise and understand that there are hon. Members with views different from my own, and I am sure we will hear those views later in the debate. From my perspective, I want the Minister to realise and recognise that in the remaining time we have in government, however short or long that is, this issue will not go away. We are falling behind our main competitors, such as Spain, France, Germany and America, and unless the issue is resolved satisfactorily for the Moroccans and unless we recognise Western Sahara, we will be jeopardising our relationship with them.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to move to the winding-up speeches at 10.28 am. I remind Members to refer to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of their contribution.

Global Ocean Treaty

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot to me. In preparing for this debate, I have been grateful for the many supportive emails I have received from constituents who are keen to see the global ocean treaty ratified. I am also grateful for the time that Lord Benyon took to hear me strongly pushing him to go faster with his policy. For clarity, although I have a private Member’s Bill that is due to be considered by the House, my remarks will focus not on that but on the process of and work needed to implement this landmark treaty.

This debate is one in which we all agree with the goal: that the UK should ratify the global ocean treaty, also known as the high seas treaty, which was agreed by UN negotiators on 6 March 2023 following nearly a decade of negotiations in which, although I know she would be too modest to mention it herself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) had a driving role. She has been supporting me with this issue and, I am sure, will make a worthwhile contribution later. The UK played a significant part in the negotiations. Our team of negotiators, who were supported every step of the way by Ministers committed to achieving an agreement—and, to be fair, by the main Opposition parties—should all be thanked today.

It is good to note that the UK Government was one of the first signatories to the treaty; however, it still has not been formally ratified by the UK. The treaty is a welcome update to the main international agreement on the oceans, which was adopted way back in 1982 and came into force in 1994: the UN convention on the law of the sea. That established the high seas as international waters in which all countries can fish, ship and do research, but did not include any specific protections for marine biodiversity. The global ocean treaty will change that by providing a legal framework for establishing marine protected areas, to protect against the loss of marine wildlife and share the genetic resources of the high seas.

With the current legal framework now out of date, every week that goes by without the new treaty in place sees the precious environment of our oceans put at risk. As soon as 60 countries ratify it, the treaty will enter into force and we can ramp up international action to protect our shared ocean, mitigate climate breakdown and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people worldwide. Hence, the UK should make progress to get the treaty ratified quickly and within the remaining period of this Parliament—[Interruption]—despite the objections of some people’s mobile phones.

One question that some listening will ask is: what is the potential impact once the treaty is enforced—what are we actually seeking to achieve? At its heart is the delivery of the 30 by 30 target. For background, the UN convention on biological diversity aims to promote biodiversity conservation and includes a focus on the identification of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. In 2022, the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was adopted at the 15th conference of the parties. It included a target to ensure that

“by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas…are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”.

That is now commonly referred to by the much snappier title of the “30 by 30” target. The global ocean treaty is crucial to enforcing that pledge, because without the treaty there will be no legal mechanism to set up marine protected areas on the high seas. We could declare them, but it would be open to some to simply ignore them.

The UK has committed to 30 by 30 and, in an election year, it is worth noting that the three main parties of Westminster are broadly committed to the agenda. The UK is also the leader of the 77-country global action alliance that champions ocean action and conservation towards the target. In that area, we can also be proud to be practising what we are preaching to others within our own waters. Some 38% of UK waters are included in a comprehensive network of marine protected areas, and within the overseas territories more than 60% of waters are protected and sustainably managed within the blue belt. We have a good record, so we should want to show it by being one of the first 60 to ratify the treaty.

We must see the global ocean treaty in the context of the wider work being done to protect our oceans. A few years ago, the idea of mining the deep sea would have been confined to a sci-fi film. Now, technology makes it possible, and areas that until the last century man had never seen or touched, which harbour some of the most unique biodiversity, are under threat. I therefore very much welcome the announcement on 30 October 2023 that the UK would support a moratorium on the granting of exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. As a nation, we should be driving the need for the ISA to develop strong, enforceable environmental regulations, standards and guidelines before any mining commences, while adopting a generally precautionary approach to this novel practice.

Deep-sea mining could pose a new threat to the deepest parts of the oceans, but another threat has been building for decades, and has now touched even the deepest parts of our ocean and washed up on the most remote shores: plastic. I welcome the Government’s work to reduce the use of single-use plastics, some of which might be used only for a couple of minutes but last centuries in the environment. The fact that a litter pick in Torbay found crisp packets from the 1980s, with some from the 1960s being discovered nationally, speaks volumes about what a moment’s idleness can produce. I am pleased that the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is committed to achieving an ambitious treaty by the end of 2024. We need a clear and strong set of global standards to tackle the problem. Each nation can make its own contribution, but it is inevitable that a global approach is needed.

I note the aim of ending plastic pollution across the globe by 2040, including by restraining and reducing plastic production and consumption to sustainable levels, promoting a circular economy for plastic, and managing plastic waste in an environmentally sound and safe manner. I still recall how difficult it was during my time in local government, back in the 2000s, to get a contract for the processing of plastic collected for recycling that could guarantee that the plastic would actually get recycled, rather than shipped abroad, often to take advantage of labour and environmental practices that were banned in the UK. At that time, it was also well known that many of the items collected could end up as landfill, and not recycled as claimed when they were collected. It was said that they had been recycled simply because they had been exported for that purpose.

I generally welcome the written ministerial statement of 25 March, which provided a welcome update on the current position on ratifying the treaty. As of that day, the agreement had gained 88 signatures and two ratifications out of the 60 needed—although I understand that the number of ratifications is now four, with Belize, Palau, Chile and the Seychelles having formally ratified the agreement. The treaty was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 16 October last year. According to the statement:

“Before the UK can ratify international agreements, legislation needs to be in place to ensure that new obligations can be complied with…The provisions in the agreement on marine genetic resources…require a clear legislative framework, including substantive provisions in primary legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 67-68WS.]

Hence my introducing to the House a Bill to provide a legislative vehicle for just that.

The Government’s statement also outlined how the treaty creates new obligations for UK businesses, in particular the pharmaceutical, agricultural technology, cosmetic and chemical sectors, along with science and research. It also outlined that

“thorough engagement with key stakeholders is underway to help to ensure that implementation is effective and avoids any unintended consequences.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 68WS.]

Few would argue with a statement like that, but we do not want any delay in getting vital protections in place for our oceans—hence our wanting to ratify the treaty as quickly as we can.

My meetings with the Minister in the other place and officials were interesting, and I welcomed the written statement formally confirming the Government’s intention to ratify. However, given the importance of this work and the impending general election, it is no surprise that many stakeholders are keen to see the Government, who were so keen to get the global ocean treaty in place, be the one that ratifies it—thereby ruling out its ratification being subject to any of the vagaries of future politics, which are inevitable in an election year.

I note that the statement last month indicated that the Government are preparing legislation, with their aim being to implement and ratify the treaty in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025. I understand that that target is shared by some other countries, but as always I am keen that we set the bar. Hitting 60 countries as quickly as possible is important because the first conference of the parties will meet within the first year of the agreement entering into force. That is when the real work of the treaty can start.

I note that the UK is already part of the preparatory commission to be established by the United Nations to prepare for that conference. It has been indicated that the legislation will come in the first part of the next Parliament, which could be later this year but similarly could be nine months away. Yet would this be a top priority in a new Parliament in the way that it has clearly been for this one and this Government? The sooner we hit 60, the sooner the first conference of the parties will take place.

Given what I have already outlined, there are some specific points to which I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response. First, what timeline have the Government set themselves for completing the work on drafting the legislation? Why could it not be done by summer for an autumn introduction? Secondly, what prevents a legislative slot being used in the latter part of this year, given the obvious wide support that the legislation could command across the House and in the other place and—although I do not want to speak for them—the likely support we would have from the Opposition for moving it through this place relatively quickly? Thirdly, from her engagement with other countries, when does the Minister expect the 60-nation mark to be hit?

The global ocean treaty is a landmark treaty. It is the basis of delivering the 30 by 30 target, which would protect vast areas of our ocean and the biodiversity within them. Over the past decade, the Government have helped to drive forward the creation and negotiation of the treaty. Individual Ministers have worked with determination to get it agreed and to put the UK’s signature on it. The final stage is ratification. While the pledge by World Oceans Day next year is welcome, surely the Government must want the ratification of this landmark agreement to be a landmark achievement they can cite to voters when the general election comes.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to go to the Front Benchers just before 3 pm, to give Kevin Foster two minutes at the end to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. The contributions today have been excellent. I was beginning to question my life choices when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) started talking about whale poo, but he explained in great detail and breadth why this treaty is important and why it is rightly getting attention today. After decades of campaigning and about a decade of negotiation, it was a landmark moment when it was agreed, and there is no doubt that it will have a positive impact when it is finally ratified.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need 60 countries to ratify the agreement, and as we heard, it will provide a legislative framework for the first time. That is a crucial step if we are to achieve our 30 by 30 goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. All hon. Members present are committed to that, which is a rarity; there is great unanimity about the need for us to get on and ratify the treaty.

I have many constituents, as other hon. Members do, who asked me to take part in this debate, because they understand the importance of the ocean for protecting not just the diverse ecosystem in there but the wider planet. We have seen the effects of the failure to protect our environment in this country alone. A report from the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee published last year noted that, in the UK,

“41 per cent of species have decreased in abundance since 1970 while 15 per cent of species have been classified as threatened with extinction.”

The fact that the Government support the treaty and are undertaking the groundwork is welcome, but there are concerns about some wider aspects of Government policy, such as the progress of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which comes into potential conflict with the ambitions behind marine protected areas. New oil and gas beds can inflict serious harm on the marine environment. Exploration can cause oil spills, which harm marine wildlife and ecosystems. Underwater noise pollution from surveys also causes severe harm to marine mammals, commercially important fish, and invertebrates. There is also direct destruction of habitats such as deep-water sponge and cold-water corals, which form an important part of the natural cycle of our oceans.

Exploration can have a wide-ranging impact on marine life and ecosystems. The treaty is meant to limit those kinds of harms, so it is surprising that some policies seem to conflict with MPAs. Will the Minister comment on how that contradiction will be resolved? Questions ought to be raised about the place of MPAs in UK waters and the commitment to restore 70% of designated features to favourable conditions by 2042. It would be useful to know exactly what measures will be brought in to ensure that that is delivered.

We are short on time, so I will end on a positive note. The treaty is a step in the right direction, which has been decades in the making; we do not want to see more decades go by before we see the results. There are many reasons to be optimistic about where we are heading. The consensus that we have heard today is encouraging, but we have to be aware of wider Government policies. There is a lot of evidence that much more needs to be done to protect our seas—let alone the rest of the planet’s oceans. With 71% of the Earth covered by oceans, we have to pay as much attention to what is going on there as we do to dry land.

Last year, we saw record temperatures in the oceans. We cannot ignore the influence that has on the climate. The oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Importantly, they drive weather patterns, the impact of which we are seeing regularly. Warming oceans also contribute to the increasing melting of ice, which causes sea levels to rise. Everything is connected. It is clear that with every passing year, the battle against climate change becomes a little harder to defeat. Protecting the oceans is a key part of that. Ultimately, it will determine whether we continue to survive as a species on this planet, which is why we really must get on and ensure that the treaty is delivered and begins to produce results.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 2.58 pm.

Religious Persecution and the World Watch List

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. We are all very much of one heart and mind that this important issue is one that needs to continue to be moved forward. It is in that vein that I say to the Minister that, yes, I am forceful in my role, but I make no apology for it—millions are suffering across the world.

There was almost complete unanimity but not quite. I want to come back on the position of the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for the Opposition. I very much appreciate her presence in these debates and she contributes thoughtfully, but I want to quote some of the report from Open Doors on Nigeria and west Africa, because we have a difference on the level to which religious differences are a motivating factor in some of the violence there.

The report says,

“ISWAP (Islamic State West African Province)”

—the clue is in the title to an extent—

“continues to menace Nigeria’s north-east and many other parts of the country.”

According to Open Doors research:

“A decentralized armed group with ethnic ties to the pastoralist Fulani people, the Fulani Ethnic Militia”—

a separate group—

“attack predominantly Christian villages, abducting, raping and killing people, destroying buildings and harvests or occupying farmlands.”

The report quotes the July 2023 all-party parliamentary group on FORB report, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide? Three years On”. Based on evidence from a wide range of organisations, it concluded that FORB violations had “worsened” in the intervening years, with religious identity remaining “the key motivator” in the violence and Christian groups suffering “disproportionately”. It pointed to the fact that while a range of other factors are contributing to violence in Nigeria, from poverty to existing ethnic tensions, the flow of weapons and insecure borders, contributors to the report highlighted how the religious dimension was often obscured or played down by appeal to those other factors. I want to put that on the record.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I just say to the hon. Lady that wind-ups are two minutes?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will conclude.

I therefore believe that with regard to the recent universal periodic review on Nigeria, while it was good that the UK’s recommendations highlighted blasphemy and the need for accountability for mob killings in Nigeria, it is regrettable that the UK did not mention increasing attacks on religious minorities, or freedom of religion or belief.

I close with a quote from Henrietta Blyth at the Open Doors launch of this year’s world watch list. She said:

“Never has it been more important for those of us who are free to worship as we wish to wake up to what is happening to our Christian family and those of other faiths around the world”

and to speak out.

Question put and agreed to.

That this House has considered religious persecution and the World Watch List 2024.

Israel and Gaza

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with Cardinal Vincent Nichols’s version of events that took place in the compound of the Holy Family church?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady will understand that I am not in a position to make that judgment, but I have heard with great respect what the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has said.

Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. What happens if the Minister is not in his or her place? This is the first time this has happened to me since I have been a Member, since 2015. Others may have experienced that dereliction of duty, but I have not—and not on such an important subject.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If another Minister or Whip cannot be found in time, the Parliamentary Private Secretary should be advised to take notes and rise at the end to make apologies on the Minister’s behalf. They should inform hon. Members that the Minister will respond to the points made. PPSs cannot make specific speeches on behalf of the Government, but I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I know is very assiduous, will make an assiduous note.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for that clarity. It is important that we have that; she is right. With these debates, we do not fill in a Thursday afternoon just because we have a bit of time; we fill it in because we have subject matter that is important. We are all here for that. We hope the PPS can take copious notes on all the important points and that the Minister, when he or she arrives, makes sure the responses that we seek are the ones that are placed on the record.

I am grateful that we are having this important debate on the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet. The people of Tibet are dear to me, so I find the topic to be of special importance. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those of Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. Today, we are speaking for those with other faiths; we are speaking for those who have the Buddhist faith. Buddhists are among our stakeholders on the APPG and they are very important to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I apologise for the delay, Ms Vaz. There may always be a challenge when digital and analogue aspects of parliamentary information do not align. That is something we will work on, but please accept my apologies for being late. To the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has kindly provided me, as always, with a copy of his speech.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

May I clarify for the Minister? The summary agenda sets out the debate time as starting at 3 pm and in the House we go by the summary agenda.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Absolutely; that is why I apologise. My private office will be able to learn from the practicalities of that point.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I just want to say, Ms Vaz, that there was a bit of confusion because on the website, where it says “What’s on” in Parliament, it said 4 o’clock. People contacted me saying there was a debate at 4 o’clock. I just thought that it would be 3 o’clock and double-checked, because it usually is at 3 o’clock. That needs to be clarified in future.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

That has been noted by the very assiduous PPS, who pointed that out to us, and we will take it back.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. Just to say that the hon. Member for Strangford always provides a copy of his speech. That is hugely helpful and means that I know that I did not miss a single one of his words, even though I missed those first few minutes. I thank him, as ever, for sharing his speech. Other colleagues should consider doing that sometimes, as it is a helpful way to absorb and think more thoroughly about the issues being raised.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

You also have your PPS’s notes.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Of course. As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this incredibly important debate, for his continuing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and for his heartfelt presentation of the tragic Tibetan situation. I also thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

The Government place huge importance on protecting human rights around the world and on using all our diplomatic tools, alongside other countries, to highlight abuses where we see them. We are paying close attention to the deeply concerning situation in Tibet, where members of the Buddhist faith are enduring systematic violations of their rights. I am glad of the opportunity to reflect on the troubling situation and I will do my best to respond to all the points raised on the subject today.

We believe that long-term stability in Tibet is best achieved through respect for universal human rights and genuine autonomy for Tibet within the Chinese system. However, China is systematically violating Tibetans’ rights, including by restricting their freedom of religion or belief and, as colleagues have set out so starkly, their right to assemble and associate freely. We also have those troubling reports of forced labour.

Tibetans are banned from worshipping the Dalai Lama and there are reports of them being arrested for owning photographs of him, celebrating his birthday or watching videos of his teaching. The candidate identified by the Dalai Lama back in 1995 as the next Panchen Lama, who is a senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism, was forcibly disappeared by the Chinese authorities. Today, the authorities restrict the size of Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and there are multiple reports of their destruction, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

It is Chinese law that all senior religious appointments must be approved by the authorities. The UK views the Dalai Lama as a respected spiritual leader, and as such he has visited the UK on a number of occasions and we will continue to do all that we can to encourage freedoms for religious and cultural expression in Tibet and across China. We view the appointment of the next Dalai Lama as a matter for the relevant religious authorities to decide in line with those freedoms of religion and belief. We continue to engage regularly with international partners and non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Tibet and to continue to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, reports continue to document the suppression of Tibetan cultural, linguistic and religious identity. Earlier this year, UN special rapporteurs found that around a million Tibetan children have been separated from their families and placed into Government-run boarding schools with no access to traditional Tibetan learning. Rural schools have been closed and students have been forced to attend schools far from their family homes.

The Chinese authorities use enforced disappearances to silence critics and suppress dissent in Tibet. We are aware of reports of politically motivated detentions and arrests of Tibetans, as well as mistreatment in detention. UN special procedure mandate-holders have written to the Chinese authorities regarding the disappearances of Tibetans. There are estimated to be more than 700 political prisoners held in Tibetan areas and monks in particular are targeted for persecution. Reports continue to document the mass collection of DNA and other biometric data in Tibetan regions.

On forced labour, the Government are aware of UN reporting from April 2023 on allegations of so-called “labour transfer” and “vocational training” programmes in Tibet, which are being used “as a pretext to undermine Tibetan religious, linguistic and cultural identity” and “to monitor and politically indoctrinate Tibetans”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, who has an office next to mine in the Foreign Office. May I thank her for her comments about the publication of the White Paper? The way in which it has been received around the world demonstrates renewed energy and vigour. I hope that it shows Britain’s reinvigorated leadership on those important matters, and, of course, value for money for our taxpayers.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The White Paper also talks about development diplomats. How many will be trained and what will be the cost?

[Mr Mitchell]

How many—

[Valerie Vaz]

Development diplomats—they are in the White Paper.

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, the right hon. Lady is quite right: we are increasing the number of development diplomats—I thought she mentioned something about water, but I may have misheard. The point about the White Paper is that it sets out very clearly the aims and aspiration that Britain has to drive forward the sustainable development goals and ensure that we increase climate finance at this critical time. She will be pleased to have seen that and will note that we are now driving forward that agenda.

NATO Summit: Vilnius

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for bringing forward this debate ahead of next week’s summit.

As someone who spent a brief time on the NATO PA and longer on the Defence Committee, I am no stranger to these debates. The issues of the High North and the north Atlantic were a constant litany from me when I was on the Committee, which I am sure the right hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Warley (John Spellar) were too aware of. One issue that I constantly raised was the north Atlantic command. It sadly did not come to the UK; it went to Norfolk in the United States, but it was welcome to see that gap being filled after some substantial time.

As ever in such debates, there is an unusual amount of agreement from all sides. I hope to continue in that spirit. Any illusion we had of living on a peaceful continent has been shattered. The conference itself is an ideal moment for us to reiterate the commitment to ensuring that Ukraine specifically has whatever economic and military aid it needs, not only to repel the Russian invasion but to restore its pre-2014 boundaries. We know that one calculation that President Putin made when proceeding with his disastrous strategy was that Europe and the western allies were too divided to really care about Ukraine and its people. I am glad to say that he not only has been proven spectacularly wrong in that regard, but he has spurred such a precipitous move away from economic dependence on Russia that with each passing day he loses the ability to divide our societies in the way he once did. Just as it will be no surprise to all those here today who have heard me opine on Ukraine over the years, so it should be no surprise to those watching the debate from the Russian embassy that although there may be innumerable subjects on which this House does not unanimously agree, this is certainly not one of them.

One thing that we will be hoping to see at the summit— I hope that Members agree—is a move towards some sort of NATO membership action plan for Ukraine. Obviously, the same caveats apply as we might see elsewhere, but a direction of travel, I think, must be established. When talking about these scenarios, it is always, of course, article 5 that is given the most attention. I think that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell mentioned it in his opening speech, but in Ukraine’s case we can clearly hope to proceed with aid and mutual assurance along the lines of articles 2 and 3. Article 2 refers to

“the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being.”

Article 3 states that

“the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

We are moving well along the track of article 3 without necessarily acknowledging it, but we will not achieve anything if we do not ensure that Ukrainian civil society and the country’s institutions receive just as much attention as the deliveries of Storm Shadow missiles. I hope, therefore, that last month’s conference here in this city will become an annual event even after Crimea is liberated from the clutches of Vladimir Putin.

Part of the strengthening of free institutions among our NATO allies is of course the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I am glad that it is getting the recognition that it deserves in the debate today. Multilateral institutions like NATO can often be disparaged; I think that the right hon. Member for Warley alluded to that. They can be disparaged as “parasitic or pointless”, to quote Anne Applebaum’s excellent profile of the Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, in the latest edition of The Atlantic magazine. What the Parliamentary Assembly does is bring the democracies that constitute the alliance, however messy and imperfect they may be, to the leading edge of what makes NATO important and of its strength. I think that, far from its democratic nature being a drag, events such as the invasion have demonstrated how, although autocracies may notionally be able to move quicker, NATO is, to quote Applebaum’s article again, one of the

“force multipliers that function better than the autocracies run by strongmen.”

This is because when NATO and similar multilateral institutions make a decision, they tend to stick to it. The other democratic aspect of NATO that we often overlook is the fact that it is a consensus organisation: Iceland and the recent member, Montenegro, have as much say on the North Atlantic Council as the United States or, indeed, the UK.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I note that the hon. Gentleman said that he was previously a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. I am one of the newest members, but I want to pick up on what he is saying about the leadership. The UK leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is absolutely outstanding. We also have other members who are very experienced and people who have been Members of both Houses, such as Lord Campbell and Lord Anderson of Swansea. That makes for the extremely important soft power role that we have, and I think that the consensus is very much down to the leadership of all those members.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Member. I will not disagree—especially about the right hon. Member for North Durham, because he is sitting behind me.

[Valerie Vaz]

There is also Lord Hamilton. I have just been corrected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar).

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will not disagree with that either. I may not be a fan of the way in which the other House is appointed, but I know that Members there certainly have a role in the parliamentary process.

As I was saying, Iceland and Montenegro have as much say in the North Atlantic Council as the United States or the UK—this is where I might disagree with some Members, because whenever I hear committed Brexiteers waxing lyrical about NATO membership, I am always tempted to ask if they would not prefer to have the qualified majority voting of the EU. The consensus approach makes the choice of a Secretary-General so fraught and unpredictable, which is why someone who has proven to be such a reliable leader of the alliance will continue to be the best choice going forward.

I am of course biased in favour of a social democratic politician from an unequivocally non-nuclear northern European state who can lead NATO with such understated authority. That is precisely the sort of multilateralism that my party and I like to see. We are not alone, however. The Secretary-General is expected to be confirmed in post for at least another year.

I will take a brief moment to break from the consensus, in particular on the recent speculation about the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. and gallant Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), being put forward for the Secretary-General role—I have ensured that he knows I am naming him, albeit in a good fashion. Being someone who has come up against him and his predecessors at first hand, I can certainly say that the Secretary of State stands head and shoulders above them as a man who has not shrunk from the myriad challenges in his Department. Although I may not have always agreed with him, he has played mainly with a straight bat when dealing with Parliament and with No. 10, who I am sure do not consider him to be one of the nodding dogs that they prefer to fill the Cabinet with.

As we were reminded just last week, the Secretary of State is the most popular Cabinet Minister among the Tory rank and file, a man who had to fend off nominations to be Prime Minister. Anyone behind a campaign that had between zero and heehaw’s chance in succeeding deserves a court martial at the very least. That is not because the Secretary of State is unsuitable—not at all—but because this is a critical moment for the issue of NATO and the EU, and there is no chance that a UK candidate could hope to succeed at this time. That is important to the overall debate about the role of the Assembly.

I read the Telegraph’s so-called exclusive this week that the White House would prefer to have the President of the European Commission succeed Secretary-General Stoltenberg, but it was hardly the shock that some people think, especially given the current US presidential Administration. I therefore make one slightly discordant plea not to put us through this every year: states that cannot—some would say—unequivocally support the twin pillars of European-Atlantic security will never find consensus behind them.

Before I get accused of being simply a petty Scottish nationalist, I have to say that that is a fact that not only the UK, but France and Germany may have to get used to as well. In various ways, each of the largest European states has demonstrated that in different ways, but they cannot rely on the weight of the past, especially with both the EU and NATO having expanded so much. In this debate, we have inevitably focused on UK contributions to Ukraine, but often it has been the countries of central and eastern Europe that have done the heaviest lifting, not least Estonia, which has spent the largest amount of per capita GDP on bilateral aid. Let me declare a non-pecuniary interest as the co-chair of the all-party group on Estonia.

We in the Scottish National party believe—as do the Government of Ukraine—that the two pillars of European security are NATO and, for us at least, the EU. I am afraid that I am the only person who is able to be so unequivocal in my summing-up speech, although having to state that is pretty incredible. Let us wish, too, for tangible progress on the future of Ukrainian membership, along with a reiteration of the fact that our support for Ukraine will last longer than the Russian invasion with its heavy losses can—the Russians will continue to experience those until they leave Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. You and I more usually come across each other in the International Development Committee, of which you are one of the most experienced members; it is very nice not to be under your forensic interrogation today but to have you as the Chair of this debate.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this debate and for leading the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Luxembourg in May. As I think he and others pointed out, we approach the 75th anniversary of NATO at a time when we are also commemorating the 75th anniversary of the NHS. Both organisations protect and look after us, and both are hugely respected and valued.

The assembly plays a vital role in strengthening the transatlantic alliance and the values that underpin it; it is also a crucial link with the democracies that comprise it. At the outset of this debate, I express on behalf of the Government, and indeed the House, our gratitude and admiration for the hard work, vigour, intellect, skill and experience that those Members who serve on the assembly so self-evidently bring to their work.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe wanted to take part in this debate, but he is currently travelling on ministerial duties, so he has kindly delegated responsibility upwards to me. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members, and I will try to respond throughout my speech to the points that have been made.

At this early point, however, perhaps I could just acknowledge the brilliant speeches that have been made. After my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell, we had the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who explained why NATO is such an important organisation. He underlined the importance of parliamentarians being involved with NATO. He asked about the proscribing of the Wagner Group—a point that my right hon. Friend also made. I should perhaps explain that the Wagner Group is directly connected to the Russian state, and we have designated both the Wagner Group and its leader under our sanctions regime. I assure the right hon. Member for North Durham and other hon. Members that we keep the list of proscribed organisations under review. The right hon. Gentleman will, I know, accept that it is not Government policy to comment on whether a group is under consideration for sanctions, but he and other right hon. and hon. Members may rest assured that his points have been carefully noted today.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the Defence Command Paper refresh, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, similarly raised the issue. Without getting into the details, which are probably not for me to talk about today, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it will be published before the summer recess, and I very much hope that he will approve of what it says.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) also underlined the importance of NATO and expressed the enormous regard in which we hold for our armed forces for their great skill. He mentioned the work in Estonia, where my old regiment—the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, which is now the only royal tank regiment—has served with such great distinction. He was also eloquent in his condemnation of Russia.

The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is my near parliamentary neighbour, spoke a lot of sense today, as he nearly always does. I will ensure that the kind comments of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) about the Defence Secretary are brought to his attention.

[Valerie Vaz]

The Minister has been an excellent exponent of soft power during his ministerial career. Does he agree that it is good news that the Secretary-General of NATO has had his mandate extended for a further year?

[Mr Mitchell]

In all these situations, we always want a seamless and effective arrangement for any transfers of chairmanships, and I obviously understand the point the right hon. Lady makes.

Turning to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who speaks for the Opposition, I want to acknowledge, at this critical moment, the rock-solid unity of view that he expressed on behalf of the Opposition. It is important, particularly now, that our absolute identity of interest in the current situation in Ukraine is so clearly expressed, and he did that with great eloquence.

There were a number of comments about what the Defence Secretary might say about the armed forces as they stand today, and I did take the trouble to find out what he would say in these circumstances. His past response was:

“The Government have injected more than £29 billion of additional funding into defence since 2020, investing in Army modernisation, major platforms such as Type 26, Type 31, Challenger 3 and F-35, and restocking of ammunition”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 4.]

to ensure that we have some of the finest armed forces in the world. I would echo my right hon. Friend’s comments in that respect.

NATO remains the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s defence and security policy. Our unwavering commitment to the alliance was confirmed in the “Integrated Review Refresh”, which we published earlier this year. NATO leaders, at their summit in Vilnius next week, will be ensuring that it is a key and important moment as the alliance transforms to meet the changing threat from Russia.

Putin’s illegal war poses an historic challenge to Euro-Atlantic security. It is also doing huge damage to many of the nations in the global south, which are seeing a deterioration in food supplies and nutritional support, as well as rising inflation at a time when 70 million people are being pushed back into extreme poverty and 50 million are in serious danger of entering famine crisis conditions.

NATO is responding with iron-clad unity in support of Ukraine and by bolstering every flank of its operations. At last year’s NATO summit in Madrid, alliance members coalesced around the need to stand with Ukraine and to stand up to Russian aggression. We also agreed to accelerate work to transform the ability of the alliance to meet evolving threats.

The Vilnius summit will further bolster NATO’s support for Ukraine and will mark a major milestone for the alliance’s once-in-a-generation enhancement of its war-fighting plans and capabilities. Putin’s illegal war will, of course, naturally dominate talks in Vilnius, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at the Munich security conference, our priority is to ensure that NATO shows Russia and the Ukrainian people that it will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in the short, medium and long term.

Alliance members will demonstrate that commitment in Vilnius by convening the first NATO-Ukraine council, which will provide an ongoing mechanism to strengthen political and military ties with Ukraine. We will increase NATO’s practical support through the comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, which will continue to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs, in addition to facilitating longer-term interoperability with NATO, with projects including medical rehabilitation and military interoperability. We will also send a clear political signal that Ukraine has a future place in the alliance.

NATO has undertaken a once-in-a-generation military transformation to enhance its deterrence and defence. It has transformed itself in response to the evolving threats across the Euro-Atlantic, meaning that we are better prepared for the security challenges of today and tomorrow. The alliance has developed a new generation of war-fighting plans, supported by more high-readiness forces, more pre-positioned equipment and upgraded systems, which will allow us to respond faster to all threats.

I was asked about the number of British troops who may form part of that newly announced force. We do not comment on numbers, but hon. and right hon. Members may rest assured that Britain will be fully playing its role at this vital time. Political leaders will sign off on those new plans in Vilnius and make a new defence investment pledge to make spending 2% of GDP on defence an immediate and hard floor, rather than a ceiling. Members will also agree a defence production action plan, which will increase industrial co-operation between allies and reduce barriers to interoperability in key munitions.

NATO allies will also use the summit to address NATO’s wider transformation. Allies will agree new resilience objectives, which will strengthen national military and defence capabilities across the membership. We will recommit to the cyber-defence pledge that is raising cyber-security standards across the membership. We will also agree to enhance our co-operation to secure our undersea infrastructure, including through the new maritime security centre for critical undersea infrastructure, which NATO recently agreed to establish at Northwood in the UK.

Situation in Russia

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Prior to this invasion, Vladimir Putin’s desire was to limit other countries joining NATO, but because of his attack, we have had direct applications from Sweden and Finland. Finland has now joined NATO, and Sweden is well on the way towards doing so. His desire was to prevent Ukraine from further integrating with western structures, but his invasion has driven Ukraine to do that very thing. His invasion was meant to fracture NATO, fracture the transatlantic alliance, but it has strengthened it. He created the Wagner Group to bolster his power in Russia, but his creation has undermined his authority. Everything that Vladimir Putin has done has been counterproductive to his own explicit aims. That is why I have no doubt that, with our continued support and that of the international community, the Ukrainians will prevail and return their country to its sovereignty.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I start by wishing the Foreign Secretary and his family well?

At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Luxembourg, we unanimously passed a declaration with a clause that specifically recognises the Wagner Group as a criminal and terrorist organisation. Could the Foreign Secretary ensure that the Prime Minister also supports that at the Vilnius summit?

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point about the nature of the Wagner Group. I know that there are variations in the definitions used to describe it. The UK sanctions the Wagner Group in its entirety and also certain key members of it. We will continue to ensure that we undermine the ability of that mercenary organisation to create conflict, not just in Ukraine but around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Our ambassadors play a skilful role in NATO and I wish to place on the record my thanks to Fleur Thomas in Luxembourg, which hosted the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for her excellent briefing. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of Sweden actually joining NATO, which will strengthen its unity, before the Vilnius summit?

[James Cleverly]

The UK’s position has been clear on this: Sweden should join soon. Our desire, which is shared by all allies with the exception of a couple, is that Sweden should be a full member by the time of the Vilnius summit. We aspire to have a flag-raising ceremony and for Sweden to play a full part in the discussions at Vilnius. That will continue to be the aim towards which we work.