UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Hilary Benn – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Hilary Benn – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The parliamentary question asked by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    How many hours his Department has spent on negotiations with (a) EU member states and (b) the European Commission on the Northern Ireland protocol in the last month.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    Fixing the Northern Ireland protocol is a top priority for this Government. Since September I have been in regular contact with Vice-President Šefčovič. We last spoke on 1 December and I will be seeing him for further talks this week. My officials have also been working with our counterparts in the EU on a regular basis to try to resolve the issues, which we recognise—and we are impressing this upon them—are causing serious, genuine and damaging friction in relationships between the various communities in Northern Ireland.

    Hilary Benn

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. It was reported recently that the Prime Minister has assured President Biden that an agreement will be reached with the EU in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. We also read that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is on ice while the negotiations continue. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if an agreement with the EU is reached—and we all hope that will happen—the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill will be dropped?

    James Cleverly

    The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason. The commitment that I made to Maroš Šefčovič in the conversations that I had with him and others was that we would not either artificially accelerate that process or artificially hinder or retard it. We have always said that our preferred option is through negotiations. We speak regularly, the tone is positive, and I think that there is now an understanding that the concerns that we have raised, and that have been raised particularly by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, are not confected but real, and that any agreement would need to address them.

    Ian Paisley

    Is it not the case that there has not been one hour of actual negotiations, because the EU has not extended its mandate to allow for any changes whatsoever in the operation of the current protocol? That being the case, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that the EU will smell weakness in this Government if they take their foot off the pedal with the protocol Bill in the other place? I encourage him to press on with the Bill.

    James Cleverly

    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK negotiating team are very conscious of the frustrations, particularly in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. But we have also made the point to our interlocutors in the EU that, across communities in Northern Ireland, there is a recognition that the protocol is not working, that it needs to be addressed, and that the relationships between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—of which Northern Ireland is a part—all have to function properly. That is the underpinning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and that is what we seek to achieve through our negotiations.

    Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

    One needs only to visit the port at Belfast and see the potential for new facilities there to realise the interruption there could be to the vital east-west trade routes that Northern Ireland relies on. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the Government are clear that we do not take anything off the table in getting to an agreement? Even though we want an agreement, we still need all the options to be on the table, to ensure that we get what we need for the United Kingdom.

    James Cleverly

    The United Kingdom’s position has been consistent. We recognise that the way the protocol is working is undermining community cohesion in Northern Ireland and disrupting business flows, particularly east-west between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. These issues have to be addressed. That is, I think, something that the EU negotiating team understand, and we will continue negotiating in good faith. However, as I say, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason, and we want to ensure that we get a good working resolution that is sustainable for all the communities in Northern Ireland.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

    For 18 months we have been at an impasse on the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of negotiations, we have had cheap rhetoric and threats to break agreements. With a UK Government showing determination and diplomatic skill, and an EU willing to be flexible, these problems would be easily resolvable. Is the real problem that the Prime Minister is in the pocket of the European Research Group, too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers, and putting his party before Northern Ireland?

    James Cleverly

    The right hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. We have had very well-tempered negotiations between the UK and EU negotiators. He will find in our public reporting of those negotiations that there has been a high degree of mutual respect. He says that there is an easy resolution. If he believes that, all I would say is that we are waiting to hear it. If it were easy, it would have been done already.

    Mr Speaker

    Let us hear from the SNP spokesperson.

    Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)

    I say to the Foreign Secretary that if politics goes wrong for him, he has a great career in stand-up ahead of him.

    This discussion is not happening in a vacuum. The Foreign Secretary will be aware of a poll in The Irish Times yesterday that showed that 54% of the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of EU membership. I want to see a negotiated outcome over the protocol; we all do. There are things with the protocol that need to be addressed, and we all agree on that, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is not the way to do that. Surely he must recognise that it is the biggest block to progress in these talks, and that now is the time to scrap it.

    James Cleverly

    I am the one who has been in the conversations with the EU. I know that it does not particularly like the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, but, nevertheless, the conversations that I have had with my direct interlocuters and that our officials have been having with their opposite numbers in the EU system have been progressing. As I have said, there are still a number of serious issues that need to be resolved, but we are working in good faith. The Bill exists for a reason and it is important that it is there.

    I welcome the hon. Gentleman highlighting the fact that there is pretty much universal agreement now that the protocol needs to be changed, because that is what is driving an increased degree of community tension and disruption in Northern Ireland.

    While I am on my feet, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman resuming his place.

  • Chris Elmore – 2022 Parliamentary Question on War Crimes in Ukraine

    Chris Elmore – 2022 Parliamentary Question on War Crimes in Ukraine

    The parliamentary question asked by Chris Elmore, the Labour MP for Ogmore, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)

    What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure that perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine are held to account.

    Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)

    What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure (a) prosecution of and (b) effective sanctions against perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    The UK has led diplomatic efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court. With the US and EU, we established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group. We are working closely with our international partners to ensure that our sanctions are effective, and that those who are responsible for atrocities and breaches of international humanitarian law, at whatever level, are ultimately held accountable for their actions.

    Chris Elmore

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer. In her recent visit to Parliament, the first lady of Ukraine highlighted that Russian soldiers had carried out sexual violence, including rape, against Ukrainian women with the consent of their commanders. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, under UN international law the use of rape in combat is a war crime. Will he set out specifically what he will be doing on the diplomatic stage to ensure that when the war is over, or indeed before then, the soldiers who committed those crimes and the officers who authorised those disgusting and heinous rapes are dealt with in the International Criminal Court?

    James Cleverly

    The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I had the privilege of speaking to the first lady at the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference that we hosted in London recently. I can inform him and the House that this morning we designated 12 more Russian military officers who were in command of Russian troops when atrocities took place. We work closely with the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, the International Criminal Court and our international allies to ensure there is an accountability framework that is effective, from the people on the ground who are perpetrating these crimes directly, to the officers who are ordering them to do that, right up to and including Vladimir Putin himself, who is ultimately responsible for these vile acts, which have taken place because of his invasion of Ukraine.

    Andrew Selous

    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that prosecutions and sanctions for atrocities in Ukraine should also be extended to those in Russia who perpetrate violence against women and girls, such as the Russian police officer Ivan Ryabov, who tortured courageous Russian women for speaking out against the brutality done in their name but against their will in Ukraine?

    James Cleverly

    My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are many, many Russians who are deeply opposed to the invasion that Putin initiated against Ukraine. Their bravery is legion. We have sanctioned more than 1,200 Russians and more than 120 entities as a direct result of Putin’s invasion. I will make note of the name he raised. He and I have discussed this previously, and he will understand that we do not comment on specific designations that might have been brought about.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

    Labour has been calling for a special tribunal to prosecute Putin personally since March. This is a necessary part of securing justice for the victims of Putin’s war crime, and would add to the legal basis for confiscating frozen Russian assets. The EU has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, and Canada has already passed laws to do that. Why are the Government not doing the same?

    James Cleverly

    The Government and I have committed to exploring ways of ensuring that those individuals who supported Vladimir Putin—the kleptocrats and oligarchs who have helped to fund this aggression against Ukraine—are not just sanctioned; ultimately, we will look at legally robust mechanisms to seize assets as part of the reparations, rebuilding and reconstruction phase. Of course, we work closely with the Canadian authorities. Canada has a similar legal system to ours, for obvious reasons, and we will explore what it has done to see what we can learn to ensure that whatever vehicle we put in place has the desired effect and is robust.

  • Anthony Eden – 1942 Speech on the Holocaust (First Mention in House of Commons)

    Anthony Eden – 1942 Speech on the Holocaust (First Mention in House of Commons)

    The speech made by Anthony Eden, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 December 1942.

    Mr. Silverman (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the plan of the German Government to deport all Jews from the occupied countries to Eastern Europe and there put them to death before the end of the year?

    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden) Yes, Sir, I regret to have to inform the House that reliable reports have recently reached His Majesty’s Government regarding the barbarous and inhuman treatment to which Jews are being subjected in. German-occupied Europe. They Have in particular received a note from the Polish Government, which was also communicated to other United Nations and which has received wide publicity in the Press. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have as a result been in consultation with the United States and Soviet Governments and with the other Allied Governments directly concerned, and I should like to take this opportunity to communicate to the House the text of the following declaration which is being made public to-day at this hour in London, Moscow and Washington:

    “The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxemberg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettoes established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.

    The above mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They re-affirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.”

    Mr. Silverman While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, in which he has given eloquent expression to the conscience of humanity in this matter, might I ask him to clear up two points: First, whether the phrase, “those responsible” is to be understood to mean only those who gave the orders, or is it to include also anybody actively associated with the carrying-out of those orders? [An HON. MEMBER: “The whole German nation.”] Secondly, whether he is consulting with the United Nations Governments and with his own colleagues as to what constructive measures of relief are immediately practicable?

    Mr. Eden The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that the declaration I have just read is an international declaration agreed to by all the Governments I mentioned at the outset. So far as the responsibility is concerned, I would certainly say it is the intention that all persons who can properly be held responsible for these crimes, whether they are the ringleaders or the actual perpetrators of the outrages, should be treated alike, and brought to book. As regards the second question, my hon. Friend knows the immense difficulties in the way of what he suggests, but he may be sure that we shall do all we can to alleviate these horrors, though I fear that what we can do at this stage must inevitably be slight.

    Mr. Sorensen Having regard to the widespread abhorrence of all people regarding these crimes, could attempts not be made to explore the possibility of co-operation with non-belligerent and neutral Governments to secure the emigration of Jews, say, to Sweden or to some other neutral country?

    Mr. Eden My hon. Friend will see that it is only too clear, from what I have said, what is going on in these territories occupied by Germany. Naturally I should be only too glad to see anything of the kind, but the hon. Member will understand the circumstances.

    Mr. Sorensen Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is exploring that possibility?

    Mr. de Rothschild May I express to the right hon. Gentleman and this House the feelings of great emotion—the really grateful feeling that I am certain will permeate the Jewish subjects of His Majesty’s Government in this country and throughout the Empire at the eloquent and just denunciation which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman? Among the Jewish subjects of His Majesty there are many to-day who have been in this country only for a generation or so. They will feel that, but for the grace of God, they themselves might be among the victims of the Nazi tyranny at the present time. They might be in those ghettoes, in those concentration camps, in those slaughter-houses. They will have many relations whom they mourn, and I feel sure they will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the United Nations for this declaration. I trust that this proclamation will, through the medium of the B.B.C., percolate throughout the German-infested countries and that it may give some faint hope and courage to the unfortunate victims of torment and insult and degradation. They have shown in their misery and their unhappiness great fortitude and great courage. I hope that when this news goes to them they will feel that they are supported and strengthened by the British Government and by the other United Nations and that they will be enabled to continue to signify that they still uphold the dignity of man.

    Sir Percy Hurd Can my right hon. Friend say whether Canada and the other Dominions were asked to share in this declaration?

    Mr. Eden In the first instance, this, as my hon. Friend will realise, is a declaration organised by the European countries who are suffering, and it was necessary that the three great Powers should get together quickly about the matter. We thought it right, and I am sure the House will think it right, that the principal victims should sign this paper as rapidly as possible. I think the whole House fully understands that, and I know that the Dominions Governments very fully understand it. Perhaps I should state that arrangements are being made for this statement to be broadcast throughout Europe from here, and, of course, it is being done from Moscow and Washington also. I may also say that all the information we have from the occupied countries is that the peoples there, despite their many sufferings, trials and tribulations, are doing everything in their power to give assistance and charity to their Jewish fellow subjects.

    Mr. Lipson May I associate myself with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), and ask my right hon. Friend whether if this protest is broadcast to the German people, it will be made clear to them that this is not war but murder and that they must be held in some measure responsible, if they allow the German Government to carry out their horrible intentions?

    Mr. Eden Yes, Sir, that is precisely what was in the minds of His Majesty’s Government when we took steps to set this declaration in motion.

    Mr. Silverman Would the right hon. Gentleman consider in the broadcasts which are made not limiting the question of responsibility to the negative side of punishment but expressing the appreciation which we all feel for the numerous acts of courage done all over Europe by individuals who take enormous risks in order to render what help they can to those who are suffering; and would it not be right, in the broadcasts, to promise those individuals that what they are doing now will not be forgotten but will redound to their credit and benefit when the time comes?

    Mr. Eden Yes, Sir.

    Mr. McGovern May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that any persons who can escape from any of these occupied territories will be welcomed and given every assistance in the territories of the United Nations?

    Mr. Eden Certainly we should like to do all we possibly can. There are, obviously, certain security formalities which have to be considered. It would clearly be the desire of the United Nations to do everything they could to provide wherever possible an asylum for these people, but the House will understand that there are immense geographical and other difficulties in the matter.

    Miss Rathbone Will this declaration be addressed also to the Governments and the peoples of Hitler’s unwilling allies, the other Axis countries, who might be able to do much to secure the rescue of these victims?

    Mr. Eden That has already been arranged.

    Mr. Cluse Is it possible, in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, for Members of the House to rise in their places and stand in silence in support of this protest against disgusting barbarism?

    Mr. Speaker That should be a spontaneous act by the House as a whole.

    Members of the House then stood in silence.

  • 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.