Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks The following Statement was
made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 23 January. “Overnight, at
my order, the Royal Air Force engaged in a second wave of strikes
against Houthi military targets in Yemen. We did so because we
continue to see, for instance in intelligence, an ongoing and
imminent threat from the Houthis to UK commercial and military
vessels and to those of our partners in the Red Sea and the wider
region. I...Request free trial
Action Against Houthi
Maritime Attacks
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Tuesday 23 January.
“Overnight, at my order, the Royal Air Force engaged in a second
wave of strikes against Houthi military targets in Yemen. We did
so because we continue to see, for instance in intelligence, an
ongoing and imminent threat from the Houthis to UK commercial and
military vessels and to those of our partners in the Red Sea and
the wider region.
I told the House last week that we would not hesitate to respond
if the acts continued, in order to protect innocent lives and
preserve the freedom of navigation, and that is what we have
done. We acted alongside the United States, with support from
Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands. We acted on the
same basis as on 11 January—fully in line with international law,
in self-defence and in response to a persistent threat—and, and
as with the first wave, the strikes were limited to carefully
selected targets, with maximum care taken to protect civilian
lives.
Attempting to counter every Houthi attack after it has been
launched is simply not sustainable. We have already shot down
dozens of missiles and drones targeted at civilian vessels and at
the Royal Navy, and the Houthis have conducted at least 12
further attacks on shipping since 11 January, including just last
night, shortly before our strikes were conducted. So we acted to
further degrade their ability to mount such attacks.
Last week I gave the House our initial assessment of the first
wave of strikes. Since then, we have seen further evidence that
they were successful in degrading the Houthis’ military
capability. Last night, we hit two military sites just north of
Sana’a, each containing multiple specific targets which the
Houthis used to support their attacks on shipping.
I want to be very clear: we are not seeking a confrontation. We
urge the Houthis, and those who enable them, to stop these
illegal and unacceptable attacks. But, if necessary, the United
Kingdom will not hesitate to respond again in self-defence. We
cannot stand by and allow these attacks to go unchallenged.
Inaction is also a choice. With that in mind, and given the
persistent nature of the threat, it was important to update the
House again today. I listened carefully to right honourable and
honourable Members last week, and we will give the House a chance
for a full debate on our broader approach in the Red Sea
tomorrow.
We took extensive steps to address this threat to international
security before taking military action. We launched Operation
Prosperity Guardian in December, with over 20 other countries.
The international community issued repeated statements on 1
December, 19 December, 3 January and 12 January condemning the
attacks and urging the Houthis to desist. On 10 January, the
United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding
that they stop the attacks. I think it is important to note that
the internationally recognised Government of Yemen have also
condemned the Houthis for their actions, accusing them of
‘creating a conflict for propaganda’
serving only their own selfish ends.
As we saw in the House last week, Members are rightly keen to
hear how this situation can be brought to an end. The answer must
include the vital right to self-defence when we are attacked, but
that is only one part of our wider response, which I want to say
more about today. First, we are increasing our diplomatic
engagement, because we recognise the deep concerns about, and the
complexities of, the current situation. I spoke to President
Biden about these issues last night. The Foreign Secretary will
be in the region in the coming days, and he met his Iranian
counterpart last week. He made it clear that they must cease
supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence and use their
influence to stop Houthi attacks.
Secondly, we must end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi
militia. We have intercepted weapons shipments in the region
before, including components of the very missiles used by the
Houthis today. This brings home the importance of maritime
security in the region, and it includes working closely with our
allies and partners to disrupt and deter the supply of weapons
and components.
Thirdly, we will use the most effective means at our disposal to
cut off the Houthis’ financial resources, where they are used to
fund these attacks. We are working closely with the US on this
and plan to announce new sanctions measures in the coming
days.
Fourthly, we need to keep helping the people of Yemen, who have
suffered so terribly as a result of the country’s civil war. We
will continue to deliver humanitarian aid and to support a
negotiated peace in that conflict, not just because it is the
right thing to do but because we need to show the people of Yemen
that we have no quarrel with them—as the Yemeni Government
understand. This is our strategy and we will keep all other tools
under close review as well.
I repeat that there is no link between our actions of
self-defence in the Red Sea and the situation in Israel and Gaza. Those
who make that link do the Houthis’ work for them, and I want to
be clear that those here at home who glorify the Houthis’ attacks
are glorifying terrorism, plain and simple. They will be met with
a zero-tolerance approach. All of that said, I would like to
address the situation in Israel and Gaza
directly because it remains at the forefront of Members’ minds.
President Biden and I discussed this again yesterday and he
shares my deep concerns about the situation and the terrible
suffering and loss of civilian lives, so together we are working
to establish a new aid route through the port of Ashdod.
The UK wants to see an end to the fighting in Gaza as soon as
possible. We are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause to
get aid in and hostages out, as a vital step towards building a
sustainable, permanent ceasefire without a return to destruction,
fighting and loss of life. To achieve that, Hamas must agree to
the release of all hostages. It can no longer be in charge of
Gaza. The threat from Hamas terror and rocket attacks must end,
and an agreement must be in place for the Palestinian Authority
to return to Gaza to provide governance, services and security.
That pathway to peace should unite the whole House. I believe we
are also united in support of a two-state solution.
Through all the complexity of the current situation, our
principles hold firm: resolute in the face of threats,
compassionate in support of those in need, and determined in
maintaining stability, security and the rule of law. That is what
our allies and partners have come to expect from the United
Kingdom, and that is what we stand for.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
3.52pm
(Lab)
My Lords, the principles set out in this Statement are similar if
not identical to those in last week’s Statement. Perhaps that is
why noble Lords are leaving—they knew that they would be much the
same.
The issues are similar, but they are also absolutely crucial. All
efforts must be made to resolve this issue by diplomatic means;
where military action must be taken within international law, it
should be targeted and proportionate; and there is a need to
ensure ongoing international support and co-operation. As we have
said, any potential further action should be judged on a
case-by-case basis. So, in the light of Houthi attacks continuing
in the Red Sea and the intelligence regarding their ongoing
military capacity, we back the military action taken on this
occasion. We support the ongoing diplomatic engagement as well as
the principles of sanctions that were outlined in the
Statement.
The Houthi Red Sea attacks are a danger to civilian shipping and
a danger to life, and they bring serious economic risks,
particularly to the poorest and the most vulnerable. The attacks
are unacceptable and unjustified, and there is a clear imperative
to protect those waters for international shipping. Again, the
professionalism, commitment and bravery of our Armed Forces, both
in defending commercial shipping and in the military response,
are impressive and commendable, despite the pressures they face.
They are so often the best of us, and we are grateful for their
service.
In his Statement last week, the Prime Minister seemed optimistic
that there were unlikely to be further military strikes because
of the success of the operation. I appreciate that, following the
attack on Houthi military sites, any assessment of the remaining
capability is not immediate, and intelligence about a range of
issues has to be taken into account, including any flow of
resources to the Houthis. Last week, I asked the Lord Privy Seal
for more information on the strategic objectives of the military
response and to confirm whether the objective was to degrade or
destroy the capability to launch attacks on international
shipping. He confirmed that the strategy was
“to ensure and maintain the principle of free and open
navigation”.—[Official Report, 15/1/24; col. 272.]
We concur with this.
However, when reporting on the UK-US military action, the Prime
Minister used the term “eliminated” regarding the identified
targets. Yet the Houthi attacks have continued, so we know that
they retain capability. We agree with the strategic aims, as set
out by the Government and the noble Lord, but it would be helpful
for your Lordships’ House to understand how effective our
military strikes have been in achieving these. So can the Lord
Privy Seal say something about when he will be able to share any
further information about the Houthis’ military capacity
following this week’s action?
More broadly, the avoidance of any escalation across the Middle
East obviously remains a primary objective, and collaboration
with the international coalition is absolutely vital. We share
the Government’s rejection of Houthi claims that their action in
attacking international shipping can be justified in any way by
the conflict in Gaza. There is no benefit to the Palestinian
people, who desperately need a sustained and effective ceasefire
and urgent humanitarian aid and support. We continue to urge the
release of all hostages. The only way forward for a just and
lasting peace is a secure Israel alongside a
viable and secure Palestinian state. A sustainable ceasefire and
humanitarian truce are needed, first, to allow the return of all
hostages and the provision of urgent humanitarian relief, but
also to enable progress to be made towards a two-state
solution. Israel existing
alongside Palestine is the only path to a just and lasting peace
in the region.
We welcome that the Foreign Secretary is visiting the region
today. Given the desperate need for increased humanitarian
support and a path towards peace, I hope he will make a Statement
to your Lordships’ House on his return, and I hope the Lord Privy
Seal can confirm or give further information on that.
Finally, and crucially, the Prime Minister’s Statement set out
the continuing humanitarian aid and diplomatic support to the
people of Yemen. We agree and would welcome any further
information from the Lord Privy Seal about what specific steps
are being taken towards these ends. The people of Yemen have
suffered civil war for almost 10 years, and any recent efforts to
bring stability to the country risk being undermined by
opportunistic action from those who would seek to encourage
further conflict.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader for answering questions on this
Statement. It is useful to have this debate, although, as the
noble Baroness said, large parts of the Statement are almost
verbatim what the Prime Minister said last week. I will therefore
repeat what I said last week: these Benches support the
proportionate military action taken against the Houthi aggression
and salute the professionalism and courage of the RAF personnel
involved in the raids.
The Statement illuminates the complexities of the situation in
the Red Sea and the region as a whole. I hope the noble Lord will
find space in government time for a proper debate on this issue,
as it is very difficult for noble Lords—other than the noble
Baroness, Lady Smith, and I—to engage with such a complicated
issue via a single question. I believe that such a debate is
happening in the Commons today; I hope we can have one in your
Lordships’ House in the very near future.
The Statement says that the UK’s diplomatic efforts are being
increased and that the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Iranian
counterpart last week. This is extremely welcome, but it leaves
us in the dark about the Iranian response to our requests for a
cessation of arms supply to the Houthis. Did the Foreign
Secretary feel that he had made any progress with Iran? What
happens next in our engagement with it?
Next, the Prime Minister says that he plans to
“end the illegal flow of arms”
to the Houthis. How is this to be achieved? How many naval
vessels have we deployed to intercept these flows and what other
navies are supplying vessels for this purpose?
On sanctions, what estimate has been made of the use by the
Houthis of western financial institutions to channel resources
for buying weapons? Do we have the ability to freeze or cut off
these resources? Which other countries, beyond the UK and the US,
would need to do so for any sanctions to be effective? On
humanitarian aid to Yemen, I pointed out last week that our
current level of aid can feed only a small fraction of the
children currently wholly dependent on it for their food. Have we
any plans to increase our humanitarian aid, given the scale of
the need?
The Prime Minister repeats his assertion of last week that there
is no link between our actions of self-defence in the Red Sea and
the situation in Israel and Gaza. This
may in a limited sense be technically correct, but the Government
cannot credibly argue that the Houthi attacks have nothing to do
with what is happening in Gaza. It is noteworthy and worrying
that this very link is increasing the popularity of the Houthis,
not just in the areas they control but across the whole of Yemen.
It is therefore only appropriate that the Statement proceeds as
if they are linked and sets out the latest UK position on the
Gaza conflict as a whole.
It is welcome that the Government are working to establish a new
aid route through the port of Ashdod, and for a humanitarian
pause, but progress is, to put it politely, very slow. In the
meantime, thousands more men, women and children are being
indiscriminately killed in Gaza. There have been reports in
recent days about a possible new deal on the hostages which would
lead to a pause in hostilities, and there appears to be an
Arab-led initiative that would see Palestinian control of Gaza
without Hamas involvement, alongside concrete moves towards a
two-state solution. Predictably, this initiative has been
rebuffed by the Israeli Prime Minister, but can the noble Lord
give any indication of the UK’s involvement in this move and the
extent to which the Foreign Secretary will feel able to put
pressure on the Israeli Government to respond more positively
towards it?
The situation in the Red Sea and in Gaza remains extremely
volatile and dangerous. The Government need to continue to act
with both determination and care. It is also important that they
do so with the united support of Parliament, so I hope that we
will continue to have further regular updates on what is
happening in this most troubled region.
The Lord Privy Seal () (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness and
the noble Lord. Following on from what the noble Lord said, I
understand that there is a high degree of concern and interest in
these matters in your Lordships’ House and outside it. The
Government’s accountability to Parliament takes place partly here
and partly in the House of Commons; the House of Commons is
debating matters relating to the Red Sea and on Friday we will
debate the situation in Ukraine, which is not being debated in
the other House. That does not absolve either House from being
concerned about both things, but the Government are aware of
their responsibility to keep both Houses informed on these
matters. We will reflect through the usual channels on what the
noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said.
Of course, I am very grateful for the considered support that has
been given from the Benches opposite. When there are matters of
conflict and matters in which people’s lives and livelihoods are
in peril, whoever and wherever they are, it is right that not
only support but action should be considered, commensurate with
the problems seen. I assure the House that this is very much the
attitude of His Majesty’s Government. We feel fortified in that
by comments opposite. I very much welcome—and I know that the
Armed Forces would welcome—the comments by the noble Baroness
opposite about those members of our Armed Forces involved.
I do not think the Government have ever claimed that this
defensive action to defend freedom of navigation—so far as we can
and intend to—was going to be resolved by the first strike. In
response to this gross violation of international law by the
Houthis, which is threatening humanitarian aid, among other
things, the Government are seeking to degrade the Houthis’
ability to carry out their dangerous and illegal attacks. Our
assessment of the first round of attacks was that they were
successful and had that impact. Obviously, we are currently
assessing—and, as those who have been involved in these matters
will know, it takes time to accurately assess. In the present
light of knowledge, it is our belief that the actions undertaken
by His Majesty’s Armed Forces were successful in their objectives
and have hopefully degraded further the Houthi capacity.
Since the first round of strikes, the Houthis have conducted 12
further attacks on international shipping. I am not going to come
to this Dispatch Box and say that there will not be more, but I
think we are agreed across the House that it is vital to take a
realistic, proportionate and legal response to this—the legal
case has been set out.
The noble Baroness asked about strategy, quite legitimately.
These matters have to be very carefully thought through. I can
tell the House that it is not isolated, individual action; there
is a coalition of nations involved in the operation in the Red
Sea, Operation Prosperity Guardian. As was repeated in the
Statement, a number of nations have been involved in this latest
action. We will continue to keep our posture under review,
alongside our allies. The House will forgive me if I do not
speculate on any further specific action, but we will not
hesitate to ensure the security and safety of the British people,
our interests and our assets. Strikes are one tool we have used
in order to do this. They work alongside the deterrence and
defence work in Operation Prosperity Guardian and importantly, as
noble Lords opposite so rightly said, the diplomatic pressure we
are seeking to apply bilaterally and in forums such as the
UN.
Again, I do not wish to go into specifics, but there is work
going on by the international coalition to seek to prevent
weapons smuggling, and weapon parts have certainly been
intercepted in these circumstances. My noble friend the Foreign
Secretary, who was sitting here last week when we had the
Statement, is not able to be here, precisely because he is
engaged on a new round of diplomatic activity of which a major
part will be to try to encourage further movement towards perhaps
opening a new route through Ashdod, as the Prime Minister said in
the Statement. He is meeting the Israeli Prime Minister and, I
believe, the Foreign Minister. He is also going on to meet other
counterparties in the Middle East. I take note of what the noble
Baroness said about coming back and I will take that away and
consider that with my noble friend and others, in the general
light of accountability to Parliament.
On escalation, the Government and their partners, including the
United States, believe that we are confronted with, as I said, a
grossly illegal breach of international law in the interception
of shipping. What is escalatory is the Houthis’ attempt to
interrupt lawful occasions on the sea by launching missiles and
drones against not only commercial ships but UK and US warships.
I think Noble Lords have said that they would expect— as I
would—that military action was and is a last resort, and it will
continue to be a late resort. We have provided warning after
warning, and the Foreign Secretary has twice said to the Iranian
Foreign Minister that he hopes very much that Iran will use its
restraining influence—if that term is well understood there. The
Iranian regime needs to be judged by its actions and by the
actions of its dependants, which have not been encouraging so
far.
The fundamental point remains that the Houthis have the ability
to stop these attacks. If we did not take action, it would weaken
international security and damage the global economy,
including—as the noble Baroness opposite rightly said—some of the
poorest people in the world, who suffer from the interruption of
the movement of goods by sea. As I said on the Statement last
week, I totally agree with her on that important point.
As far as sanctions are concerned, the Prime Minister said in his
Statement that these matters are under consideration. I hope
that, if action is taken, information will be given to
Parliament.
As I said, the Foreign Secretary has humanitarian matters at the
forefront of his mind during his current trip to the region. We
have to recognise that the Houthis, by their actions, are making
it much more difficult to do the things that we all want to do to
get humanitarian aid into Yemen. On the Gaza conflict, which
noble Lords alluded to, we are very much focused on the need to
make humanitarian aid more substantial, more proximate and more
open.
If I have not answered any questions, I apologise to the House. I
will look very carefully at Hansard and reflect on the matters of
further engagement with the House as we go forward.
4.12pm
(Con)
My Lords, it is surely obvious to everyone—at least, I hope it
is—that the Iranians are completely behind all these Houthi
operations, with their advisers crawling all over northern Yemen
and Sanaa. Indeed, some of their advisers may be actively helping
to launch the rockets. It is pretty obvious that the motive is
that they want to assert, against the opinion of the Saudis and
others, that they are the top dogs in the region. I do not think
they want escalation—otherwise, they would have given the green
light to their Hezbollah friends, which they have not done—but
they are very determined to show that they are the leaders in the
axis of resistance, looking east.
In light of that, what moves does my noble friend suggest that we
can take now to contribute more effectively? That could be either
through stronger sanctions than those that came into action last
December or by working in closer alliance with other powers in
the Middle East. How can we build up and contribute to that kind
of pressure and bring even more clearly to the attention of the
world stage the fact that this is a murderous regime that is
highly unstable internally and well in a position to be
surrounded and not cowed to in any way?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend quite rightly stresses the importance
of the role of the Iranian Government and the Iranian regime. One
must not forget that, looking at the whole span of human history
back to ancient times, Iran has been a vital and greatly
civilised place in the world, and it will always be a powerful
force in that region, whatever the circumstances. However, it is
incumbent on people who have authority, power and strength to use
them with wisdom and for specific and constructive purposes. That
is not, as my noble friend said, what the Iranian regime is doing
at all; it is doing the reverse and is responsible for a lot of
the instability in the region, including in relation to the
Houthis. We have made it clear to Iran that we view it as bearing
responsibility for the actions of these groups. We will continue
to discuss with allies what the appropriate further actions on
Iran may be.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Leader of the House is clearly right when he says
that it is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of the
kind of action that has taken place, although the Statement says
that the first assessment of the wave of strikes that took place
provides
“evidence that they were successful in degrading the Houthis’
military capability”.
Surely one other, perhaps more precise, measure of the
effectiveness of any strikes would be the effect on traffic in
the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. Does the Leader of the
House have any precise information about the effectiveness so far
on the levels of shipping in that area?
(Con)
My Lords, the efforts that we are making with Prosperity Guardian
are to seek to secure, so far as we may, the most secure and most
effective situation for the movement of traffic by sea. The
choice of where to travel in such circumstances is a matter for
those who are operating vessels. It is the case that some vessels
are diverting and some other vessels are not diverting. The noble
Lord is quite right to say that these matters need to be kept
under careful examination. We are doing that, and our allies are
doing that. The end result we wish to see is that all people
operating commercial shipping feel able to continue using these
waters, rather than feeling that they have to divert around the
Cape.
(LD)
My Lords, in his Statements this week and last week, the Prime
Minister suggested that it is wrong to accept that there is any
relationship between what is happening in the Red Sea and what is
happening in Israel/Gaza, and yet we have already heard from my
noble friend and the noble Lord, , that one of the
key links between those two areas is Iran. What assessment have
His Majesty’s Government made of the role of Iran in supporting
Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah and of what response the United
Kingdom can make? I may be a lone voice, but however persuasive
the Foreign Secretary may be, conversations between him and the
Government of Iran may not be sufficient to persuade the
Government of Iran to take the decisions that we all need to
bring about greater security in that region.
(Con)
My Lords, it is a challenge. In the international world, people
in different places make their calculations on different bases.
The fundamental point that I have been trying to relay, and my
right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been trying to
relay, is that there is an issue which this country for centuries
has been concerned about, which is ensuring freedom of navigation
and freedom of movement and trade on the seas. That stands as an
integral, vital, independent issue. Noble Lords have referred to
the complex and dangerous tapestry of activity around the region
and the role of Iran. I can only repeat, without going into
specifics, that we have taken action against the Iranian proxies
in Yemen, the Houthis. We are on due guard to make sure that we
protect our interests in the region as a whole. The British
Government do not favour war; it is not the first resort of the
British Government to resort to military action, but I assure the
noble Baroness that we are watching very carefully the role of
the Iranian Government and that they know they are being
watched.
(Con)
My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Leader of the House just
said, because we must never enter lethal conflict lightly; we
have to consider it very well not just to avoid deaths of our own
service personnel but for the sake of civilians and others
elsewhere. Regarding Iran, does my noble friend consider that in
fact, the Iranians’ wish—the whole purpose of this—is to test the
resolve of the West by attacking shipping to see whether we are
actually willing to stand up? Regarding Gaza, does my noble
friend agree that, if Hamas was to lay down its weapons and
release the hostages and the criminals responsible for the
attacks of 7 October were to flee to the Gulf and live in luxury
hotels with their friends, there would be an immediate ceasefire,
the possibility of a new Government in Israel and a
possibility, however remote, of a decent settlement which allowed
both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace?
(Con)
I fully agree with my noble friend. The Houthis should cease
their action; Hamas should never have undertaken the action it
did. We are putting the Iranians under pressure, and I remind the
House that we have already sanctioned 400 Iranian individuals and
entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we
will continue to watch their role in weapons proliferation,
regional conflict and human rights violations—all the things they
are up to in the region.
(CB)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
(CB)
My Lords, the RAF operations have been widely publicised, and
they have come from Cyprus. Are the Government absolutely
satisfied that any necessary defence of our facilities in Cyprus
is in hand and will continue to be in hand as long as we operate
against the Houthis?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right that the
strikes were launched in that way by, in this case, four Royal
Air Force Typhoons, supported by a pair of Voyager tankers. I
repeat what I said: the Ministry of Defence has very much in mind
the safeguarding of our assets and British nationals and British
forces right across the region, and that is under constant
review.
(Lab)
My Lords, the large-scale attack we made first of all was never
going to stop the Houthis making their attacks, as the Minister
said; it was going to degrade only. Indeed, post then, the
Americans have made a number of strikes in retaliation when
weapons have been fired at them. The attack we are talking about
now will hopefully degrade the capabilities of the Houthis to
attack innocent shipping even more. I fear that the shipping
companies seem to be showing a huge reluctance to think about
getting back in the Red Sea, even though the Houthis have been
degraded, and I can understand that. Therefore, this is likely to
be quite a long, ongoing operation. It is quite right that we are
enacting the rules of self-defence, and it is very good if you
can do that immediately. In other words, when someone fires
something from the shore at you, you hit where they fired at you
from. That is why the Americans have been making these responses.
One of our problems is that our aircraft are attacking from
Cyprus, as the noble and gallant Lord said, several thousand
miles away from this operation. Is the Minister surprised that we
have not put an aircraft carrier there, because one could then
respond immediately to these things and put that much more
pressure on their ability to fire weapons at us? Having said all
that, it is absolutely right what we are doing: freedom of
navigation is so crucial to our nation.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with much that the noble Lord said. We are
working in a coalition here. The Prosperity Guardian operation
involves 21 nations plus ourselves. The strikes, the response,
the action that was taken which we are talking to, took place
with the support of Bahrain, Canada, the Netherlands and
Australia. This is an international response to unlawful action
at sea. We always review deployment of our assets, but, for the
moment, the British Government believe that the forces that the
coalition has available are sufficient to deal with the threat
that is currently presented.
(Con)
My Lords, I support the Minister and what the Government are
doing 100% because this action had to be taken. However, to
reinforce the point, it is vital that every effort is made to
avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, because unfortunately the
Houthi movement appears to be gaining credibility and support in
the Arab world as a result of what has happened. The action must
continue but can the Minister reassure me on that point?
(Con)
My Lords, in these strikes we have been very careful to take
those matters into consideration. That the strikes took place at
night also minimised the risk of civilian activity in these
areas.
(Lab)
My Lords, the House understands why the military action has taken
place and the Prime Minister reported that it has had some
degrading effect on the Houthi attacks. However, it is the nature
of this situation that it is unlikely to be immediately
successful and that this could escalate.
I have two brief questions for the Leader of the House. First, at
what stage might the Government decide that it would be
beneficial to consult Parliament, with debates and votes on what
should occur in the future? Secondly, when it comes to diplomacy,
a great deal of the sea traffic that is being adversely affected
by the current situation comes from the Far East, especially
China, and surely in diplomatic terms there is a case—perhaps it
is happening—for China to be brought into play to exercise and
bring to bear some pressure on, for example, Iran. Are there
moves to this effect going on?
(Con)
My Lords, there is an enormous weight of diplomatic activity
going on. It is important to note that China backed the UN
resolution which called for this activity to stop and to enable
lawful traffic on the seas to go ahead. As far as the
accountability of Parliament is concerned, I have spoken about
it. We also have a Question on the matter from the noble
Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, tomorrow, which may provide a further
opportunity.
The Government are conscious of their duty and of their duty to
protect servicepeople who may be sent into hazardous operations.
There is also a balance there as to the time and nature of
information that can be disclosed.
(LD)
My Lords, the UK is a penholder within the United Nations. In
addition, the UK signed a development partnership agreement with
the internationally recognised Government of Yemen last summer.
Can the Leader of the House outline whether that agreement is
still in place? Also, in the Statement he said that humanitarian
assistance was central to this issue. I agree with him, but he
will know that the UK has reduced humanitarian assistance for
Yemen by up to 80% over the last three years. If the partnership
agreement with the internationally recognised Government is still
in place, what plans are there to restore the humanitarian
assistance to Yemen that we have reduced?
(Con)
My Lords, these arrangements are still in place. My noble friend
Lord Ahmad on the Front Bench here was whispering in my ear that
he was speaking to the Foreign Minister of Yemen only last week,
so we count this to be extremely important and ongoing.
It is vital that we continue, if we can, to get support into
Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. As noble Lords will know, the
Houthis have said that UK and US staff working for the UN in
Yemen should be ready to leave their controlled areas of Yemen in
30 days. Those kinds of statements, plus these unlawful attacks
on the shipping that imperil the bringing in of aid by sea,
suggest that the noble Lord should use considerable influence, as
I know he does, to ensure that these malefactors cease making it
more difficult to get humanitarian aid to their own people.
(Con)
My Lords, I think that Denmark and Germany have not yet supported
the action and that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are sending their
ships around the whole of the continent of Africa. What are the
security implications for this country? I entirely support the
government action against the Houthis but notice that the Foreign
Office advice is that a terrorist attack in Denmark may be
likely. I presume that our alert here must be at an increased
level as well.
(Con)
My Lords, I do not wish a comment on the postures or action taken
by other friendly nations. I again remind my noble friend that
there is, not just through Operation Prosperity Guardian but
through the United Nations, a very strong, broad coalition of
nations, which are using diplomacy and all their efforts to try
to bring this situation to an end. It is true that the economic
impact of attacks could be severe if there were ongoing
disruption and ships continued to divert around. There would be
delays and additional fuel, insurance and shipping costs. But
these are commercial decisions for people making shipments as to
the course that they take. Our effort is to try to make the Red
Sea a safe place for them to send their ships and the brave
merchant seamen who trek the waters of the world every day.
(Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult to understand what advantage there is
to be gained by the Houthis in sending their missiles into the
Red Sea. The idea that it might be in support of their friends in
Hamas does not seem to hold too much water. It is much more
clearly the result of Iran’s sponsorship. Influencing Iran’s
behaviour is extremely difficult, as we have heard from many
noble Lords. One way is by encouraging in some way, perhaps
surreptitiously, the poor people of Iran, who are rising up and
suffering under the regime of the ayatollahs. What efforts have
been made to utilise that approach?
(Con)
My Lords, that is a little beyond the scope of the question, and
I would not like to comment or speculate on anything in that
region. What I will do is agree profoundly with the noble Lord
that this is a regime that governs in the name of God but acts in
a way that seems to be in defiance of the great moral principles
of the ages. Ultimately, it will be judged by its own people and
by history.
|
