UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Victor Cazalet – 1940 Speech on Palestine and Jewish Ghettos in Poland

    Victor Cazalet – 1940 Speech on Palestine and Jewish Ghettos in Poland

    The speech made by Victor Cazalet, the then Conservative MP for Chippenham, in the House of Commons on 6 March 1940.

    No one realises more than I do the extreme difficulty of speaking after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Although I disagree profoundly with the Government’s policy in Palestine, I recognise that this afternoon my right hon. Friend has made a brilliant defence of that policy, and that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members in my party are behind him. I do not pretend to view this subject with a completely open mind; nor did I come here with a completely open mind to listen to the Debate. I know some of the facts. My right hon. Friend made the speech which I had thought he would make—calm, endeavouring not to raise any unnecessary opposition, dispassionate in all his remarks, but I knew that to almost every argument which he made there was another side.

    I will give the House two examples of that. My right hon. Friend said that the peace in Palestine to-day is due, not solely to the war, but very largely to the publication of the White Paper some months ago. Of course, one can always purchase peace by making concessions to one’s opponents. But what an invitation that is to the Jews to follow the example of the Arabs and to make trouble in order to wring concessions from the Government. I am certain they will not do that. I should, in my humble way, use every endeavour I could to prevent them from doing it. The idea appears to be that although there is peace now, the Arabs may at some future time make a fuss and revolt; and therefore, they must be given concessions. We were then told about the Arabs in Iraq, the Mohammedans in Africa, India and elsewhere. I would remind the House that there are 16,000,000 Jews distributed throughout the world. Surely, in these critical days, their views and opinions should also be considered. My right hon. Friend said that there is plenty of good land in the maritime area for the Jews to buy. He knows very well that it is in that area where the Jews have spent most money that they have attracted the greatest number of Arabs. If the Jews are to buy land there, and indeed they only buy it there, being excluded from 95 per cent. of the rest of the territory, it will put a monopoly price on a very limited amount of land and so make it practically impossible for the Jews to buy any land in that area.

    I am opposed to the Government on this issue. I am pro-Government as they were three years ago, when they adopted the Royal Commission’s Report on partition. I am afraid I have not been able to change my views on Palestine quite as quickly as the Government have changed theirs. Some months ago, I appealed to the Government in vain not to proceed with the proposals of the White Paper because I considered that they were dishonourable and broke the promises and pledges which the same Government had given to the Jews three years ago. In listening to my right hon. Friend, it struck me as rather odd how often he referred to these commissions, and in particular the deference which he paid to the Royal Commission’s views on land. I wish that he had paid a little more deference to their views on other matters in regard to Palestine.

    A few months ago we had a hope that the League of Nations might intervene and prevent the Government from committing what I and others consider to be this crime against Jewry. The Permanent Mandates Commission has met and produced a report, and I think it would not be an overstatement to say that the Mandates Commission’s report is not entirely satisfactory towards the Government. It is of no use decrying the Mandates Commission in this case simply because it happens to recommend something against the Government’s policy. My right hon. Friend has given reasons why the Council has not yet been consulted. I agree with him in one aspect of this matter. I think it is very unlikely that any member of the Council, if asked to-day to give its opinion, would raise its voice in opposition to a policy which is officially favoured by Great Britain and presumably supported by Germany. It would have been much more honest if, from the beginning, the Government had said to the House that, in their opinion, the Mandate had failed, and they proposed something quite different. I would have disagreed with that, but I would have understood it. What I have never been able to forgive is the attempt to make this policy square with the Mandate. When the full White Paper policy is in execution—a permanent minority for the Jews, no more immigration, land sales to be confined within a narrow area—what will be left of the Mandate? The ghost of Lord Balfour ought to haunt those on the Treasury Bench when they try to square their policy with the Mandate.

    Something else has happened during the last few months. War has broken out. I think that for several months the war gave some hopes about what might happen in Palestine. The war has influenced all our lives and policies. Surely, it should have had some effect on the policy in Palestine. After all, the Government in certain very important ways have changed their character. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is no insignificant member of the Government. He was strongly opposed to this policy. When he entered the Government, surely some concession ought to have been made to his views. The Opposition have been invited to co-operate with the Government, and they have loyally co-operated on most issues. Unity is our motto. It has been accepted loyally by the great bulk of the people of this country, and nowhere with greater surprise or with more welcome than in Palestine itself. Now this bomb has been thrown into our midst, spreading dissension and bitterness.

    The legal question has been dealt with. The question of the amount of land avail able has been dealt with. I want to state to the House one or two simple facts—facts, I admit, from the Jewish point of view—because I do not think that my right hon. Friend, although he paid a tribute to the Jews in Palestine, and expressed sympathy with them, understands how they feel about this policy. The question which the ordinary man-in-the-street is asking himself at the present time is why it should be necessary at this moment to introduce in Palestine this one item of the proposals of the White Paper. Does anyone really think it will help to win the war when it will raise bitter feelings on the part of Jews throughout the world? This must be the crucial test of everything that the Government do at this time—will it help us to win the war? That is the only thing which matters. My right hon. Friend has admitted that there is comparative peace in Palestine. In a few months, in a few weeks, war may develop in the Near East, and then we shall want the services of Jewish men—

    Mr. MacLaren (Burslem) And Arabs.

    Major Cazalet —Jewish men, scientists, factories. Already Iraq, Turkey, Egypt and Syria are utilising the brains, talents and resources of the Jews in Palestine. Are the Government really afraid of an Arab revolt? I believe that to-day the Arabs are just as united in their loyalty as are the Jews. I am far less afraid than is my right hon. Friend of Arab dissension. Whom does he fear? From where is the revolt to come? Is the army of the Hedjaz to march up, is Iraq to invade Palestine? I thought we had thousands of troops from the Antipodes in Palestine. There are tens of thousands of troops in Syria, should they be wanted. The Government have always insisted, rightly, that there never will be lasting peace in Palestine except through co-operation of the Jews with the Arabs. It is perfectly correct. I maintain that that co-operation can only be carried into effect successfully along economic lines. Economic prosperity depends on land purchases by the Jews. In areas where the Jews have bought land the Arabs work willingly, peacefully, and happily, with better wages and conditions than they have ever enjoyed. In some periods of the year at the height of the citrus season there are 10,000 Arabs working contentedly for the Jews. So it is a political question. I object to this decision because it will frustrate the only real hope of obtaining permanent co-operation between Jews and Arabs, and because it will deny the Jews the right to invest their money in purchases of land as they have done in the past. By this Measure you are handing back a vast number of Arab tenants and cultivators of the soil to the Arab moneylenders. Up to date they have been able to sell a portion of the land, and for that money they have been able to go in for intensive cultivation. You are condemning two-thirds of Palestine to bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we had not heard of the £5,500,000 loan, but that is for the whole of the Empire, and what proportion will go to Palestine? We know the Jews have spent £5,000,000 a year in Palestine.

    This is the third partition of Palestine. We had the first in 1922, and the second was suggested by the Government on the report of the Royal Commission. Now we have this miserable third partition of Palestine. I know although lip service is paid to the Jews by almost everybody in this country that the Jews have not many friends. One knows so well people who start a conversation by saying, “Of course, I have a great many Jews, intimate friends who I admire and like very much, but—”No one knows better their thoughts and failings better than I, but, perhaps, if we had been persecuted for generations, we might have possessed, if we do not already possess, some of their less desirable characteristics. Perhaps we should not have survived the persecution. One of the most potential factors in giving to the Jews some of their less agreeable characteristics is that for centuries he has had to dwell in towns and ghettoes and has been denied the right of land ownership. Now, for the first time, in Palestine, he has land freedom and space, he can dig the soil and can create something constructive by the sweat of his brow. If you have not seen a Jewish farmer and compared him, as I have, with the type cringing in the ghettoes of Poland, you cannot understand what the possession of land and working on the soil, either in a communal farm or a farm in his own possession, means to him.

    What magnificent work they have done; and have the Arabs really suffered? Have the Jews farmed well? Well, I have never tasted better cheese or drunk better milk than off a Jewish farm. Are they not in Palestine contributing something of real worth to the national need? And now you deny them further expansion. Do not be deluded. The right hon. Gentleman explained how many thousands of acres there were, but what are the facts? The Jews have been told by the First Lord of the Admiralty that they were in Palestine by right, but the Jews under this scheme are there by right in less than 5 per cent. of the territory. They are tolerated only in 20 per cent., and are excluded altogether from another 65 per cent. What a mockery of the National Home. After all, who are these people? Are they likely to conspire with our enemies? No, Sir, these are the men who in the first days of the war were ready to offer a fighting division to go anywhere the British Government asked. So far that offer, no doubt for good reasons, has not been accepted. These are the men and women who have pledged themselves unreservedly—pledged their lives and possessions—in the service of the Government until victory is won. These men will still fight for England, but you have played on their loyalty and strained their patriotism almost to breaking point. You have played them off against the Arabs because you knew that in the last resort they would not let you down. They have no one else to turn to, better for them the ghettoes of Poland than the martyrdom of Lublin in Poland. After all, for what are we fighting if it is not for the preservation of individual liberty and of the right of small peoples to live their lives and cultivate and develop their own culture in their own land? The Jews have been at war for six years, and they have suffered up to date more casualties than the Allies. Their war is our war, and our war is theirs, and yet to-day, they have to suffer this supreme indignity in their hour of need.

    I apologise for perhaps expressing very strong views, but I feel, and believe, that these Regulations should be withdrawn, for a variety of reasons. I think they are almost certainly illegal, that they are unjust in themselves, and, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that they are unnecessary. I have every reason to suppose that there would not have been very much land purchase, and that the money is not, and will not, be forthcoming in the next few years. I believe these Regulations are dishonourable in peace and wicked and contemptible in war. They divide opinion at home and lend support to that body of opinion in the United States of America and elsewhere which wishes to think wrongfully I believe, that we are prepared to make terms with the enemy. They inflict a deep moral wrong on the Jewish race. Holding these views, is it any wonder that I am distressed and feel bitterly on the matter? Is there any wonder that I am prejudiced on behalf of those who are prepared to fight to the bitter end on our side in this war?

    Even if I were the only Member of my party who raised his voice against these proposals, and if necessary vote against them, I should do so. If I did not I should be ashamed of myself ever afterwards. I have been a most loyal back-bencher for 16 years, and perhaps I may be permitted this digression from the path of duty to-night. I realise, of course, that some of those on the Front Bench do not like these Regulations. There has been a good deal of mental shuffling to accommodate their consciences to these Regulations. I expect in their heart of hearts they desire, as we do, to see fair play to both Jews and Arabs, but, knowing as I do the extent of the bitterness of the blow which millions of Jews are feeling to-day, can I do anything else than raise my voice and beg the Government, futilely, I know, to withdraw even at this late hour these Regulations so that honourably once again Jews, Arabs and Christians in Palestine and elsewhere can unite whole-heartedly to destroy and defeat the King’s enemy?

  • Victor Cazalet – 1940 Comments on Welcoming Refugees

    Victor Cazalet – 1940 Comments on Welcoming Refugees

    The comments made by Victor Cazalet, the then Conservative MP for Chippenham, in the House of Commons on 10 July 1940.

    propose in a very few minutes to initiate a discussion on the subject of refugees and their treatment in this country during the past few months. For some years I have been interested in this question, but any humble or slight contribution which I may have made to this problem is only a tithe of the really great work which the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has done for refugees. All refugees in this country, and indeed many refugees in other countries as well, owe her a deep debt of gratitude, and I am glad to have an opportunity to pay tribute to her work to-day. I know enough about the subject to realise something of the hardships, miseries, and sufferings which a great many of these people have endured during the past four years. It has been the historical policy of this country for many centuries to give asylum to refugees, and I do not believe that England has lost by this policy.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Joint Statement from UK and France on Small Boat Incident in the Channel

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Joint Statement from UK and France on Small Boat Incident in the Channel

    The joint statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, and Gérald Darmanin, the French Minister of Interior and Overseas Territories of France, on 14 December 2022.

    Early this morning authorities were alerted to an incident in the Channel concerning a small boat in distress. Regrettably, multiple fatalities have been confirmed.

    Our thoughts are with everyone affected by this tragic event, and on behalf of the UK and France, we send our deepest condolences to the loved ones of those involved.

    There has been a coordinated response to this terrible tragedy, with UK and French actors working side by side. We commend the engagement of all those involved.

    This tragic incident – like the loss of at least 27 people on 24 November last year – is a stark reminder of the urgent need to destroy the business model of people-smugglers.

    We have prevented more than 30,000 crossings so far this year, and together with other European partners, including Europol, we have made over 500 arrests since 2020.

    We recently agreed on a renewed bilateral framework to tackle illegal migration, with closer joint working and intelligence sharing, more French officers equipped with cutting-edge technology patrolling the French coast and UK and French officers working with each other’s law enforcement teams as embedded observers.

    We also held a meeting in Calais format (Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Netherlands) in Brussels on 8 December and resolved, with our European neighbours, to intensify our police, border and judicial cooperation, with the support of EU agencies.

    Today’s tragic incident underlines the importance of taking this forward together.

  • Tom Tugendhat – 2022 Speech to Policy Exchange

    Tom Tugendhat – 2022 Speech to Policy Exchange

    The speech made by Tom Tugendhat, the Security Minister, at Policy Exchange on 13 December 2022.

    I’d like to talk about an evolving threat that we are seeing, an emerging threat, which is of course state threats to our democracy and indeed others.

    I think we should start by recognising what a remarkable achievement the United Kingdom is. It’s not just four nations come together but actually a patchwork of many more nations than that under a single flag.

    It wasn’t that long ago in historical terms, just over a thousand years ago that people owed allegiance to kings in Kent and Fife, in Ulster and Strathclyde. But those kingdoms have intertwined and through a combination of stories and law we’ve made ourselves into one of the most extraordinary countries in the world. We’ve exported stability, we’ve exported principles and the regulations that have constructed a world of free trade and freedom that has made so many prosperous and enabled so much happiness.

    Now this unity was built on shared stories of our past, creating what has become a firm foundation for our future. And it was only possible because the stories that we were able to tell each other, the stories, the myths, the histories turned around to bind the people together. To give us a common foundation. A common root. But those stories that unite can also divide, and today we are seeing that shared understanding fray, we are seeing stories twisted and corrupted deliberately to sow confusion and division.

    We’re seeing threats to our politics and, because of that, to our nation.

    And, I’m not saying this just because I happen to be a very strong unionist, and I believe that our union is one of the pillars of liberty in the world. I don’t need to make that argument – our role in the United Nations, in NATO, in the Commonwealth, in the World Trade Organisation and many, many other organisations besides points to the essential role that our union has had in creating a safer and more prosperous world. I make the argument because we’re not just dealing with just competing narratives today, we’re dealing with false ones.

    Disinformation matters. It can shape debate and it can change outcomes.

    Now this is because democracy isn’t just an event, it’s a process. It’s how we talk to each other, not just how we decide the future in a ballot box. But how we shape that future through discussion. It’s as much about journalists, lawyers, businesses and civic activists as it is about politicians.

    Fundamentally, it’s about citizens. How we participate, what we do, in every community, is just as important as what is done to us.

    That’s why joining political parties, getting together with friends and neighbours, championing ideas and choosing candidates, is the bedrock of our democracy and the heart of our freedom.

    Because democracy can no more be reduced to an election than an economy can be reduced to a market.

    Defending it demands us to understand what matters throughout our society, not just on polling day.

    Now, some have understood this better than many in free countries. They see the source of our strength and have understood the levers that can be used to weaken us.

    Spreading division and lies, challenging the narratives that enable our national conversation and debate, make us less resilient, more brittle and at greater risk.

    And our response must be about more than just protecting politicians or elections.

    I don’t want to confuse however debate for division. It’s entirely right for us to debate our constitution and our laws. It is essential for our freedom that we do.

    We should argue and disagree. A 99% approval rating may sound wonderful if you’re North Korean, but it is truly the sign of a dictatorship not of a democracy.

    What is critical is that we should know where the arguments are coming from. We should know that these debates are triggered by the interests of our nation and our communities. By the peoples who we should rightly be representing.

    We shouldn’t be having them triggered by outside forces and a hidden hand. For too long, foreign interference has been slowly creeping into British democracy.

    And as Security Minister, much of what comes across my desk is acute threats. Quite obviously those are the ones that we respond to immediately.

    But it is the strategic threats to our democracy – because the acts are part of a systematic campaign over a long period of time, to degrade our sovereignty – that concern me most.

    They are threats not just to life; they are threats to our way of life.

    This emerging era of state-based threats isn’t just Le Carré – it’s not the silent battle of shadows – but a challenge to our future and to our society.

    And it’s not a secret that state-based threats are growing and coming from many different sources as competition intensifies, impacting countries across the world including the United Kingdom and our allies.

    Now we’ve seen Russia’s abhorrent and illegal invasion of Ukraine. We’ve seen the attacks around Europe, indeed, the Estonian Ambassador is here and who can talk about the attacks we’ve seen on his great country over the last decade or so. We’ve even seen attacks here in London and in Salisbury, that have sadly cost the life of one British individual and one Russian.

    Now from China we’ve seen increased militarisation, and the growing tension over Taiwan.

    And Iran’s malign behaviour in the Middle East directly threatens our partners and our interests, they are brutally suppressing courageous people in the streets who are calling for an end to the control of a corrupt and corrupted religious and security elite claiming authority from God.

    All of this is clear, much of it has been clear for some time.

    What’s new is that we’re seeing this grow at home.

    During the Covid pandemic, we saw Moscow try to sow disinformation. We saw fake news bots, trying to promote different arguments, false arguments on social media.

    In our universities we’ve seen debate silenced by voices controlled by Beijing, and now, we’re seeing Tehran try to exploit similar routes.

    As the head of MI5 put it recently, the Iranian regime is projecting its campaign to silence dissent directly to the UK, with at least ten such threats since January, as he said. Now, as recently as last month, I – along with other MPs – were sadly given security guidance because of the Iranian threat.

    Since Ken McCallum’s speech just a few weeks ago, we have seen even more out of Iran. This has is not and has not yet finished.

    And we’ve seen states including China and their United Front Work Department try to silence incredibly courageous academics, who are trying to exercise the freedom that every academic in the United Kingdom should enjoy.

    All those are attempts to silence our national debate and to shape our democracies.

    All of those demand responses.

    There is a deeper layer. The activity that hides itself in online platforms and undermines our democratic discourse is like a poison seeping through the body politic. It’s degrading the media environment and attacking our free speech.

    Russian disinformation on Twitter is increasingly obvious. And the bots that we’re seeing attack Ukrainian voices or try to silence those calling out the Kremlin’s human rights abuses in Syria are now often, thank goodness, written about.

    And as the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I was privileged to chair, reported in 2019, Chinese-encouraged smothering of dissent, even beyond its borders, is another.

    That’s why we need to look beyond the sources of disinformation and to its channels.

    As Ofcom reported, only recently, the reach of newspapers and online sources has fallen from roughly a half in 2020, to below 40 percent in just two years. Over that same period, TikTok has gone as a news source, from having 1 percent to 7 percent take up.

    Now that may not sound like a lot, but when you look at the group of younger people, 16-24 year olds, you’ll see that the figure is much higher. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok are all about a third of the news sources young people turn to, outstripping their reliance on the ITV or BBC networks.

    The influence of social media platforms on our younger generations here in the United Kingdom and around the world is pervasive. The content on these platforms will, of course, influence minds. Yet it’s worth noting that foreign states hold considerable sway over the algorithms that are the editor on these sources.

    The challenge for a free country like ours is how we manage this debate. How we keep a society free and open as the last Integrated Review committed us to, quite rightly, while defending ourselves from the dishonesty that could tear us apart.

    The same challenge applies to the platforms themselves. They profit from the liberty that allows the trade in ideas and goods. Ensuring they defend that liberty is not asking them to be altruistic, it’s asking them to invest in their own futures.

    We believe in the liberty of shared views, we believe in the liberty of ideas, we also believe in the liberty of cat videos. But we also need to balance all of this with the reality of the world that we live in.

    To update to the Integrated Review, we are going to have to consider many of these issues in the round and the challenges that they pose to us all.

    And when it comes to tackling foreign influence and malign activity, our National Security Bill, currently in the House of Lords, will modernise our outdated laws and provide the foundations for being better able to protect our people and our institutions from state-based threats.

    Specifically, our Foreign Influence Registration Scheme has been created to tackle covert influence in the United Kingdom.

    The scheme’s aims are twofold, to strengthen the resilience of the United Kingdom political system against covert foreign influence and to provide greater assurance around the activities of specified foreign powers or entities.

    Those who are working on covert political interference will I’m afraid face a simple choice: they will have to register and highlight the activities they seek to hide, or not – and risk prosecution.

    The scheme will not impose restrictions on legitimate activities of people or businesses – it is here to encourage openness and transparency – and it is necessary precisely because we know that those who wish to do us harm are using the shadows to evolve new techniques.

    Together, these threats challenge our democracy. Some are state threats, others are from groups trying to distort us for other reasons.

    This government – is taking them all extremely seriously.

    The Prime Minister has demonstrated he’s serious about it and about tackling state threats, and the specific threat to our democratic resilience, by asking me to lead the Defending Democracy Taskforce.

    Now, this is not just about guarding ministers or protecting technology. Nor even about MPs and those elected across our country to serve our communities in the parliaments and assemblies and councils. Despite the tragedies that all of us have seen in recent years, despite the recognition that is so important, that is not only what this is about. It’s about making sure that all of us, as citizens, are free and able to debate the ideas and choose the future that makes us strong.

    Its primary focus will be to protect the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom from threats of foreign influence.

    We will work across government and with Parliament, the United Kingdom’s intelligence community, the devolved administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society on the full range of threats facing our democratic institutions.

    It will be looking at foreign interference in our elections and electoral process; disinformation; physical and cyber threats to the democratic institutions and those who represent them; foreign interference in public office, political parties and universities; and what we call transnational repression. What we mean by that is the activity of those who seek to stifle free expression in diaspora communities in the UK, those who try to silence the debate that they, as anyone else in the United Kingdom, should be able to enjoy. We have seen the most recent example of this in the so-called overseas police stations that China has set up around the country, and indeed around the world.

    I’ve reached out to Five Eyes partners and I am keen to work closely with European and other international friends to tackle state threats together. This is not just a British problem. This is a problem that all democracies face and sadly too many autocracies are trying to use.

    Over the past decade we have seen the evolving threat to our national life and begun to understand the form it is truly taking.

    The challenges we face to our democracy and national security from state-based foreign threats, now and in the years to come, are serious, complex and abundant.

    They will not be solved quickly. They will not be solved by government acting alone.

    All of us, individuals and organisations, have a role in defending our freedoms, and we best start by understanding and debating the threats that we face.

    For all of our achievements as a country – from innovation and scientific discovery, to economic prosperity, cultural wealth and the cohesion that has made this country so extraordinarily rich and strong – it is our freedom that enables it all.

    As we look to the challenges of the future – and yes, there are many – the essential lesson of the past is that dictatorships may look solid in the short term, but they can’t manage change. Real stability, real resilience, comes from debate, from discussion and the democracy that flows from it.

    Protecting democracy is essential to us all.

  • Drew Hendry – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    Drew Hendry – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    The speech made by Drew Hendry, the SNP MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.

    I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important urgent question. It is morally indefensible that, more than a year after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, there are still innocent Afghans who worked for the British Government and military who have received zero support from this Government and the Home Office. It is not acceptable to use terms such as “something like.” Exactly how many former British Council staff, including support staff, are still living in Afghanistan in fear of their lives and livelihoods? When the Government say they have brought 6,300 Afghans to “safety,” what exactly does that mean? How many of them are former British Council employees?

    The Taliban’s so-called kill list is an active threat. Do the Government know how many of their former employees are on that list? Finally, it is appropriate that 540 staff are working on the Ukraine schemes but, if the Government are taking Afghanistan as seriously as they are supposed to be, why do the figures show a maximum of eight people working on the Afghan schemes?

    Mr Mitchell

    The frustration expressed by the hon. Gentleman is shared by many of us. It is not possible to quantify the figures in precisely the way he requests, but I will ensure that we write to him with the closest possible approximation.

  • Fabian Hamilton – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    Fabian Hamilton – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    The speech made by Fabian Hamilton, the Labour MP for Leeds North East, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    I again thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing this urgent question. He has been a great champion of the British Council in this place. We know that hundreds of British Council contractors are still stranded in Afghanistan following this Government’s botched evacuation from Kabul. Earlier this year, the Minister told the House that the Government were “supporting those in need” and that 50 British Council contractors had been evacuated. However, a recent report in The Guardian indicated that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government had not granted a single ACRS application since the programme was opened—not one. Furthermore, fewer than 10 staff are currently working on the scheme at the FCDO.

    I am contacted frequently by British Council contractors who are suffering terribly, and I would be grateful if the Minister would allow me to raise these cases with him privately. Many of those that are still in Afghanistan are former security guards who protected British staff at the embassy, and they undertook an extremely difficult task during the evacuation in August last year. We owe so much to those courageous British Council contractors, and the fact that they are still in Afghanistan and facing daily violence and threats as a result of their co-operation with the UK is nothing short of a disgrace.

    The last time I put these questions to the Government, answers were not forthcoming, so I am hopeful that this time I might be able to get some clarity. Can the Minister tell us how many former British Council contractors are still stuck in Afghanistan, what measures are being put in place to evacuate the rest of the British Council contractors still stranded in Afghanistan and what engagement he has had with regional partners to facilitate safe passage for British Council staff who attempt to leave? And message does it send to other British Council contractors who work in challenging environments around the world if the UK Government will leave these contractors stranded in this way?

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and he is quite right to express deep concern about those who are caught in this way. He asks me whether he may raise cases privately with me, and of course the answer is yes. I will make arrangements for those meetings to take place straight after this urgent question is over. He asks a number of questions, and if I do not answer them fully, I will ensure that we write to him. He is right to say that we keep in very good contact with regional partners in countries to try to advance this issue. This particular stream only opened in June this year. The Foreign Office has processed and is informing something in the region of 200 of those who are eligible in principle, and if the dependants are added to that, it is something like 750. So those are proceeding, and it is of course up to the Home Office to procure the necessary security clearance prior to them securing entry clearance. So, the process is going on, but I fully accept his frustration—it is a frustration we all share in this matter—and as I say, perhaps we can proceed with a private meeting, as he has requested.

  • John Baron – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    John Baron – 2022 Speech on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    The speech made by John Baron, the Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. Let me start by both welcoming the Foreign Secretary’s speech on foreign policy this morning, which called for a long-term, resilient approach that will build the long-term, trusting relationships that this country needs for the future, and underlining the fact that that is precisely the purpose of the British Council, which has been building connections for this country throughout the world, quietly, consistently and effectively, since the 1930s. I hope that the Minister sees, as I do, the key role that the British Council can play in helping to achieve those objectives.

    I make no apologies for asking this urgent question, because people’s lives are at risk. I went through the regular channels a year ago, and was told that progress was being made, which is more or less what the Minister has just said. I raised it again in October/November, but there has been no response. The progress has not been made.

    For more than 16 months since Operation Pitting and the fall of Kabul, about 200 British Council contractors and their families have been stuck in Afghanistan. As has recently been highlighted in the media, many of them are in hiding and in fear of their lives, unable to seek medical advice when it is necessary for themselves and their families, and family members have died as a consequence. As the Minister said, British Council contractors are eligible under ACRS pathway 3, but those 200 or so contractors remain stuck in Afghanistan because of a blockage of red tape here in the UK. Until that blockage is cleared they will remain in danger, possibly for a second Afghan winter. Since its launch in January, the scheme has not repatriated a single person from Afghanistan: I have received confirmation of that from the British Council. In July and August, an application window closed for the contractors to submit expressions of interest. British Council employees worked at pace with the FCDO to identify those who had actually worked with them, yet there has still been no progress whatsoever. Having used all the regular channels, I would now like to ask the Minister to do all he can before Christmas to clear these blockages and get these contractors back to the UK.

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He eloquently extols the brilliance of the British Council. I had some responsibility for it 10 years ago, and I know very well that what he says about it is entirely correct. He is quite right about the eligibility, and we very much understand the urgency to which he refers. This particular pathway process started on 20 June and remained open for eight weeks. The Foreign Office has looked at every single one of the applicants, and the process is moving through. I would just say that, although it is taking a lot of time, it is right that officials should look carefully at each and every one of those cases. There is a balance to be struck, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s words and concerns are reflected across Government as a result of this urgent question.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Statement on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Statement on British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

    The statement made by Andrew Mitchell, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office on 12 December 2022.

    The Minister who is responsible for Afghanistan—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty)—is travelling. I am a poor substitute, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for raising this very important matter.

    During Operation Pitting, nearly all British Council staff and some contractors were evacuated and offered resettlement through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Some British Council contractors, plus dependants, remain in Afghanistan and are eligible for consideration for resettlement under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The scheme will see up to 20,000 people from Afghanistan and the region resettled in to the United Kingdom. It provides a safe and legal route for some of those affected by events in Afghanistan to come to the United Kingdom and rebuild their lives.

    The first year of ACRS pathway 3 is focused on eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors, as well as Chevening alumni, honouring the commitments made by the Government to those three groups. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office opened an online process on 20 June this year to seek expressions of interest in resettlement from those groups. They have played a key role in supporting the UK mission in Afghanistan, and it is right that we are honouring the commitments made during the evacuation to support those at risk. Up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region will be referred for resettlement in the UK in the first year of pathway 3, including eligible family members.

    The FCDO received more than 11,400 expressions of interest, which are being assessed in terms of eligibility. People are being notified of the outcome, and we are sending names to the Home Office for security checks. Once the checks have been completed, we will provide advice on the next steps for those who are being referred for a place on the ACRS. It remains a priority to honour the commitment made to eligible at-risk British Council contractors, and to offer a route for resettlement in the UK under the scheme. I want to thank the council for its excellent co-operation with the FCDO to date, as we work together to resettle eligible contractors under pathway 3.

    We are doing everything we can to bring the first British Council and other arrivals under pathway 3 to the United Kingdom as soon as possible, where we will help them to rebuild their lives. Anyone who is eligible and resettled through the ACRS will receive indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and, under existing rules, will be able to apply for British citizenship after five years in the UK. This is one of the most ambitious resettlement schemes in our country’s history, and we are proud to offer a safe and legal route to those affected by events in Afghanistan.

  • G7 + Ukraine – 2022 Joint Leaders’ Statement

    G7 + Ukraine – 2022 Joint Leaders’ Statement

    The statement made by the G7 and Ukraine on 12 December 2022.

    We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), met on 12 December, to reflect on progress of our cooperation under Germany’s Presidency to jointly address global challenges at a time of severe geopolitical crisis and critical moment for the world economy. We were joined by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This year in the face of Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, we stood more united than ever, together with Ukraine and in unwavering commitment to our shared values, the rules-based multilateral order and international cooperation.

    Today, we reaffirm our unwavering support for and solidarity with Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian war of aggression for as long as it takes. We condemn Russia’s continuous inhumane and brutal attacks targeting critical infrastructure, in particular energy and water facilities, and cities across Ukraine, and recall that indiscriminate attacks and attacks on the civilian population or civilian objects, constitute a war crime. We also condemn those who are facilitating Putin’s illegal war. We are determined to help Ukraine repair, restore and defend its critical energy and water infrastructure. We will help Ukraine in meeting its winter preparedness needs, will continue to support Ukraine’s civilian resilience, and will further enhance our efforts on this during the international conference to be held in Paris on 13 December. We are determined that Russia will ultimately need to pay for the restoration of critical infrastructure damaged or destroyed through its brutal war. There can be no impunity for war crimes and other atrocities. We will hold President Putin and those responsible to account in accordance with international law. We reiterate that Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric is unacceptable and that any use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would be met with severe consequences.

    Building on our commitments so far, we will continue to galvanise international support to help address Ukraine’s urgent short-term financing needs. We ask our Finance Ministers to convene shortly to discuss a joint approach for coordinated budget support in 2023. We affirm that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be central to this effort.

    We firmly support efforts to secure Ukraine’s immediate financial stability and its recovery and reconstruction towards a sustainable, prosperous and democratic future, in line with its European path. We will build on the outcomes of the International Expert Conference on the Recovery, Reconstruction and Modernisation of Ukraine held on 25 October in Berlin, as well as at the Ukraine Recovery Conference on 21-22 June 2023 in London. In particular, with a view to supporting Ukraine’s repair, recovery and reconstruction, together with Ukraine and our international partners and in close coordination with relevant International Organisations and International Financial Institutions, we will establish a multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform. Through this platform, we will coordinate existing mechanisms to provide ongoing short- and long-term support – with particular responsibility by the Finance Track for short term support – , coordinate further international funding and expertise, and encourage Ukraine’s reform agenda as well as private sector led growth. We will also set up a Secretariat for the Platform. We will each designate a senior government representative to oversee the set-up of the platform and ongoing coordination efforts, and ask them to convene as soon as possible in January 2023.

    With a view to a viable post-war peace settlement, we remain ready to reach arrangements together with Ukraine and interested countries and institutions on sustained security and other commitments to help Ukraine defend itself, secure its free and democratic future, and deter future Russian aggression in line with its rights enshrined in the UN Charter.

    We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defense equipment with an immediate focus on providing Ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities.

    We also reiterate our strong condemnation of Russia’s continued seizure and militarization of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, the abduction and reported abuse of Ukrainian personnel, and the willful destabilization of its operations. We support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) efforts to establish a Safety and Security Zone.

    Russia’s war of aggression must end. To date, we have not seen evidence that Russia is committed to sustainable peace efforts. Russia can end this war immediately by ceasing its attacks against Ukraine and completely and unconditionally withdrawing its forces from the territory of Ukraine. We welcome and support President Zelenskyy’s initiative for a just peace.

    We remain committed to our unprecedented coordinated sanctions measures in response to Russia’s war of aggression. We will maintain and intensify economic pressure on Russia and those who evade and undermine our restrictive measures. We will continue to shield vulnerable countries that are severely impacted by the repercussions of Russia’s war of aggression and its weaponization of energy and food.

    We reaffirm our intention to phase out Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products from our domestic markets. During the week of 5 December 2022, the price cap on seaborne Russian crude oil entered into force in our respective jurisdictions, delivering on our commitment to limit Russia from profiting from its war of aggression against Ukraine, to support stability in global energy markets and to minimize negative economic spillovers of Russia’s war of aggression, especially on low- and middle-income countries. We encourage third countries that seek to import seaborne Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products to leverage the price cap. We reiterate our decision that the price cap on Russian origin petroleum products will enter into force on 5 February 2023.

    Russia’s war in Ukraine is exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy, with direct impacts on the cost of living of people in our own countries, and on the world’s most vulnerable. We will continue to use all available policy tools to maintain global financial, macroeconomic and price stability and long-term fiscal sustainability, while providing targeted support to those most in need and working collaboratively to strengthen our collective economic security to external shocks and wider risks. We will make public investments and structural reforms to promote long term growth. We will further coordinate to respond to the urgent needs of most vulnerable countries and will encourage private investment in developing and emerging markets as a key enabler of sustainable economic pathways.

    We will keep up our ambition to address global food insecurity, including through the Global Alliance for Food Security. We will keep supporting the delivery of grain and fertilizers to vulnerable countries in need and welcome the recent operations led by the World Food Programme (WFP) on this front. We welcome the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) alongside further efforts to bring Ukrainian food to the world, namely the European Union’s Solidarity Lanes and the “Grain from Ukraine” Initiative.

    Reaffirming our steadfast commitment to implement the Paris Agreement and the outcomes of COP26 and COP27, we commit to urgent, ambitious, and inclusive climate action in this decade to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre industrial levels. We reaffirm our commitment to reach net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To that end, and building on our statement adopted in June in Elmau, we endorse the Climate Club’s terms of reference as established by the Climate Club Task Force and hereby establish an open and inclusive international Climate Club. Focusing in particular on the decarbonisation of industries, we will thereby contribute to unlocking green growth. We invite international partners to join the Climate Club and to participate in the further elaboration of its concept and structure. In doing so, we will continue working closely together with relevant international organizations and stakeholders. We ask the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in tandem with the International Energy Agency (IEA), to host an interim secretariat working together with other international organizations.

    Recalling our commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, we will work intensively towards a successful outcome at CBD COP15, in particular the adoption of an ambitious and effective global biodiversity framework, with clear and measurable targets and its prompt and swift implementation. In this regard we are committed to mobilising resources from all sources and to substantially increasing our national and international funding for nature by 2025 to support the implementation of ambitious global framework. We encourage countries beyond the G7 to join us in this endeavor.

    Accelerating our contributions to the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) to make our global partners a better offer on sustainable, inclusive, climate-resilient, and quality infrastructure investment, we welcome the progress on the Just Energy Transitions Partnerships (JETP) with South Africa and Indonesia as flagship projects for multilateral cooperation, just energy transition and sustainable investment and look forward to swiftly concluding negotiations on a JETP with Vietnam, as well as to making further progress with India and Senegal. We will intensify our cooperation within a PGII working group to deliver on our joint ambition to mobilize up to 600 billion dollars by 2027, and on JETPs, we will coordinate through the JETP working group.

    Reaffirming our full commitment to realise gender equality and to consistently mainstream gender equality into all policy areas, we welcome the key recommendations by the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) and look forward to receiving the GEAC’s full report by the end of the year. We thank this year’s GEAC for its important work, reiterate our intention to convene the GEAC as a standing feature of all G7 Presidencies, and look forward to further strengthening it.

    This year, we have achieved progress to improve the global health architecture with the WHO at its core, our capacity to prevent, prepare for and respond to future global health emergencies and to achieve universal health coverage, especially through the G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness endorsed in Elmau. We welcome the successful Seventh Replenishment of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). We will step up our efforts on training and qualifying health workforce as well as strengthening surveillance capacities to detect outbreaks and variants as early as possible by integrating the One Health approach. We will continue to support science to develop safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.

    Under the German Presidency, we, the G7, together with other international partners, have demonstrated our resolve to jointly addressing both major systemic challenges and immediate crises of our time. Our commitments and actions pave the way for progress towards an equitable world. As we look to the 2023 G7 Summit in Hiroshima under the Japanese Presidency, and in our support to the Indian G20 Presidency, we stand strong, united and absolutely committed to rebuilding a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future for all.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Speech on Human Rights Day

    James Cleverly – 2022 Speech on Human Rights Day

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 12 December 2022.

    As you gather to mark International Human Rights Day:

    • in Ukraine, civilians gather in shelters from bombardment, as prosecutors gather evidence of atrocities and sexual violence, committed by Vladimir Putin’s forces
    • in Iran, brave peaceful protestors continue to gather on the streets in spite of the brutal crackdown. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps report that the average age of those arrested is 15. We know many are young girls, who have gathered the courage to call for freedoms they’ve never had before
    • in Afghanistan, women and girls are also being targeted. And erased from all spheres of public life
    • and in China and Russia, we’ve seen protestors so concerned about speaking out, that they hold aloft blank sheets of paper

    2022 has been a bad year for the respect for human rights in many, many countries.

    If you take a step back for a moment, all this evidence confirms my belief, that autocracy and repression are always fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally destabilising. And that human rights, and transparent democratic government, are in the interests of all people, all economies and the long term stability of every nation.

    That is why I believe in human rights. There are now 8 billion people on this planet, and each and every one should be able to enjoy their rights and fundamental freedoms, as set out in the Universal Declaration and subsequent Conventions, and I will do all I can as Foreign Secretary to ensure that they can.

    On Friday, on International Anti-Corruption Day, the UK government announced a package of sanctions targeting those involved in serious human rights abuses and violations, and serious corruption. Sanctions are one of a wide range of diplomatic and development tools that we will use to promote human rights, to promote freedoms, and to promote democracy.

    We will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights violations – including through the UN Human Rights Council.

    We will not shy away from difficult conversations – be it on the arbitrary detention, torture or forced labour in supply chains.

    We will offer advice and expertise to improve human rights adherence – as we do with countries across the world.

    We will strengthen our partnerships with allies to promote and protect rights and accountability – as we did at the PSVI Conference.

    We will defend the international human rights system – and use it to hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account.

    Hand-in-hand with standing up for human rights, we will continue to build democratic resilience, promote civil space, and nurture the institutions of free and open societies. Central to which, we will continue to support and work with civil society, particularly human rights defenders and free media.

    Because human rights cannot be fully enjoyed without democratic freedoms. And democratic freedoms cannot be fully realised where there is a lack of respect for human rights.

    Human rights, underpinned by democratic values and the rule of law, have the power to unite, to transform lives, and to change the world for the better. As Foreign Secretary I will work tirelessly with all our allies to promote and protect them.