Libya

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

One of the biggest problems is that when the United Nations or outside organisations such as the European Union try to help one side or the other, they are regarded with the deepest suspicion by a large number of people in Libya. That is one of the reasons why the latest plan seems to have failed.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I am told that one of the reasons why the Libyans view western involvement with such scepticism is that 2011 was not this country’s finest hour. I agree substantially with many of the findings in the Foreign Affairs Committee report. We went in there, but we did not have a plan or a follow-through. Given that context, it is not surprising that Libyans are sceptical.

Our ideals—what we want to happen—and what we can actually do are often completely different. I completely understand the support for the Government of National Accord, but it is difficult to see how we can empower them to take control of the country. None of the militias that one reads about—Haftar and Operation Dignity, Libya Dawn, ISIS and various al-Qaeda militias—are GNA forces. They are not under the control of the Government of National Accord, yet we carry on in a fantasy world in which they are the official, legal Government and we are going to support them. I totally understand those pious words, but nothing is happening on the ground.

We can go on like this. I am sure that in five years’ time I, or some new MPs, will take up the issue. We can go on forever and a day talking about what is going on, but in this debate I want to say, “Look, this is a big problem. What are we going to do about it?” I do not propose any definitive answers, but it is highly important that MPs have the opportunity to speak and think about these issues. We do very little thinking in this place; we do a lot of talking, posturing and virtue-signalling, but as parliamentarians we need to engage our minds critically with these problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for getting this debate going. I take issue slightly with the comments on the decision in 2011. I felt that we had no choice but to save the people of Benghazi. We did not think of the consequences; we had damn all time to look downstream. I felt that the decision was quite right. My experience of watching people die when there is military inaction was why I supported military operations against Gaddafi.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) raised this matter. It is very sad that, throughout the middle east, stability and safety and a normal society so that children can go to school often seems to require a strong person, normally or even always a man, to be in charge of the country. Democracy such as we have in this country is only a serious long-term wish.

[Alex Chalk]

Is there a lesson from British history? If we go back to a time before there was a civil service, before there were all the organs of the state, it required a strong man in the form of the King to keep the King’s peace. That is a lesson from our own history that we would do well to observe.

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely take that point, which in fact reinforces the point I was making. It seems, therefore, that people such as Saddam and Gaddafi sometimes work for the majority of people in a country. For some, of course, they do not. Libya is seemingly ungovernable at the moment. Some say that there are two Parliaments, and huge numbers—thousands—of militias and generals running around. It is a ghastly place. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned 1,600 militias—goodness, that is a heck of a lot. However, with apologies to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, I shall concentrate on Daesh and what it could do in Libya.

I have no intelligence information on this—it is all open source—but I am told that Daesh started moving into Libya in about 2014, when it was looking for an alternative place. It found that in Sirte. When we talk about Sirte, I, as a military officer, am always reminded of David Stirling and his SAS raids on Sirte airfield, which other hon. Members are nodding about, and the gallant actions of those young men, who were mainly from New Zealand, in those days. [Interruption.] I am so sorry: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds me that the Irish were there, too. We are always reminded of the Irish, Mr Chope, because they apparently have more Victoria Crosses than the English, the Welsh and the Scots put together. Mind you, I have to say, just to add a lighter note, that I am quite sure they were a bit pickled when they won them.

According to open sources, there are about 4,000 to 6,000 Daesh people operating in Sirte and around there. What is the threat? What threat are these guys going to make against us? I think it is not as bad as it could be. They are stuck in an enclave in Sirte. Perhaps they are being hellish inside it, but if I were a Daesh commander, I would not put my operatives into a leaky boat full of migrants or refugees, with scant chance of making it across the Mediterranean. I am also sure that when they do get to Europe the security forces of the country check them out thoroughly before they get ashore.

I would not take that course of action, so how else do they get into Europe? To the east they would be going into Egypt. President Sisi is adamantly determined to wipe out terrorist groups such as Daesh, and has set the armed forces and security forces firmly against them. Again, he is a strong man in the middle east. Tunisia, after the tragedy of Sousse and Tunis last year, has decided to put up a great barricade across the border. That is being done fairly effectively, although it is not complete. Algeria is 1,000 miles away, but the Algerians too are effective at chasing down Islamists trying to cross into their territory. It is not easy to get into Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West mentioned going south across the Sahara, but that is a pretty dodgy route to try.

I am thinking about the threat to us from the people in question—being a member of the Defence Committee, of course I am thinking in that way. They are holed up, but it is quite clear that we have to eliminate them. We will support anything that helps with their elimination. The objective of eliminating Daesh and other terrorist organisations in Libyan society is crucial, but, as other Members and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West have suggested, Daesh is just one. If it is squashed, it will come out in some other form. Somehow, politically, Libya has to find a way. Whether that involves a strong person or not, I am sure of one thing: it took us 800 years to get to our imperfect democracy, and it cannot be imposed quickly. As others have suggested, there will be a Libyan model. I hope it comes quickly for the sake of the decent, normal people of Libya.

Yemen

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

If I may, I would like to stick to what the motion actually says. Many points have been made on which we can agree, but it is important to drill down to what the motion is actually asking the House to do.

Of course we all agree that a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Yemen. The responsibility we all have, as has been said, is to help restore peace and bring stability to the country and the wider region. There is no doubt that the crisis continues to grow. By June 2016, health facilities in the country reported that nearly 6,500 people had been killed, and more than 31,400 have been injured since March 2015. That is an average of 113 casualties a day. At least 7.6 million people, including 3 million women and children, are suffering from malnutrition, and at least 3 million people have been forced to flee their homes. So far, according to Save the Children, 747 children have been killed, and more than 1,100 injured. More than 2.5 million children have been displaced, and 3.4 million are out of school. This year, more than 848 children were forcibly recruited as child soldiers. More than 600 health facilities and 1,600 schools remain closed due to conflict-related damage.

The human stories behind those terrifying statistics are tragic and horrifying, so it is the view of the Scottish National party that the UK Government have a moral responsibility to act now and to do what they can to protect lives in Yemen. However, in addition to that inherent moral responsibility, which should put human lives at the centre of our decision making, the UK Government have legal responsibilities in relation to the conflict that they are failing to act on.

That is because of the actions of the coalition forces backed by the Saudi Arabian Government, which have faced serious and sustained evidence that they have acted in a manner that is at odds with international law. I understand that many atrocities have been carried out against Yemeni civilians by al-Houthi rebels, who have also shelled civilian homes, and deployed snipers who have targeted women and children. That is evil, wicked and wrong, and of course we do not agree with it. However, it is the actions of the Saudi coalition that concern me most today, because it is in that respect that the UK should be able to make decisions and use its influence for good.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I visited the air operations centre in Riyadh, where British air force personnel are helping the Saudis in their target planning. I have also talked to the pilots and the operational planners there. They assure me—and I believe them—that they are doing everything in their power to stop innocent civilians in Yemen dying. We should get that point across.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I will actually make reference to that work in a few moments. I simply cannot understand, though, why the Government are so averse to an independent UN-led inquiry into what is happening. What is the problem? What is there to hide if there is so much confidence on the Government Benches about how we are conducting ourselves?

It is clearly and undeniably the case that the Saudi-led coalition forces have bombed funerals, weddings and markets, and used banned cluster bombs on populated areas and on protected sites such as power stations. They have systematically targeted Yemen’s agriculture economy—as alluded to by the shadow Foreign Secretary—in what academics have called a programme for the destruction of the rural livelihood of Yemeni civilians. They have killed men, women and children who have been gathered at family celebrations, and they have specifically targeted bombs and missiles on sick and dying hospital patients.

The reason why that is materially different from the actions of the al-Houthi forces is that the UK does, indeed, train and support Saudi pilots. We have military personnel embedded in Saudi Arabian military command and control rooms giving advice on the selection of targets. We sell Saudi Arabia the weapons and bombs it is using and the jet planes that deliver them. We have a material stake in this disastrous conflict. We therefore have a responsibility to the people of Yemen to do the right thing. On this, the Government are failing—but do not take my word for it.

British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point. He is completely right: had previous Governments addressed that long ago, we would not be in this very unfortunate position today. It only takes common sense to realise that this could have been resolved a long time ago, and that the money spent has been a huge waste. The appalling record that we have left in not dealing with this when it should have been dealt with has left many of us feeling very sad. That is why we hope that, today, we will get some indication of whether the Government will now resolve the matter once and for all.

Hope for a resolution came in November 2000 following the High Court judgment and the decision of the then Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, who restored the right to return to the outer islands. That remained the case until that right was withdrawn in June 2004 by Order in Council—thus overturning the High Court and bypassing Parliament. Then, nearly four years ago, as Foreign Secretary, William Hague announced a review of the policy, the results of which are still awaited. The Government now state that they intend to make a decision on resettlement before the Christmas recess this year, so today I will focus on why the decision should be in favour of resettlement and on the consequences of not doing so.

The expulsion of the Chagossian people from their homeland remains a blot on the UK’s human rights record, and a breach of international human rights law and, many would argue, of Magna Carta itself, the very basis of our cherished liberties. As long as this situation prevails, I believe the United Kingdom remains guilty of double standards. How can Her Majesty’s Government argue that the people of the British overseas territories of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands should have the right to remain living peacefully in their homelands and their right of self-determination, and be prepared to use the British armed forces to defend their rights, yet at the same time refuse to accept that the exact same principle applies to the Chagossian people of the British Indian Ocean Territory who, despite their forced removal from their island home, have remained loyal subjects of the Crown throughout and cherish the fact that they are British subjects?

If the UK refuses to allow the Chagossians the right of return to live in their homeland if they choose, will the Minister explain how that fits with Britain’s desire to be re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council next year? A decision to grant the right of return would surely demonstrate that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the United Kingdom is now taking its human rights responsibilities very seriously indeed.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am sorry, Mr Betts, that I was a few seconds late. I ask my hon. Friend whether the right to return should also imply a right to a job. I really am concerned that when the Chagossians get home, there will not be a decent economy for them to function in, apart, perhaps, from working for Americans. We should try to build up some kind of support society, as it were.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are talking about a community that has not lived there for more than 50 years, and just giving the right of return on its own is not good enough. We will need to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the people to live in an appropriate way and to work. There are many options, including working for the Americans on the base on Diego Garcia and possibly working in conservation in the marine protected area—I will come to those matters later. He is absolutely right: we cannot just say, “Go home if you wish”, but do nothing to support the community. It was our British Government who forcibly removed them in the first place, so if they go back, we have a duty to ensure that they have adequate resources to have a sustainable community.

This is surely an appropriate time for our new Prime Minister to end this shameful episode once and for all, and to make a right decision after so many years of procrastination by her predecessors. The recent report by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged the UK to

“hold full and meaningful consultations with the Chagossians...to facilitate their return to their islands and to provide them with an effective remedy, including compensation.”

To argue, as sadly Her Majesty’s Government seem to, that the convention does not apply because the British Indian Ocean Territory has no population when the UK expelled those people in the first place must rank as the height of cynicism. The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors observance of the UN human rights covenants, has on two occasions urged Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation and report on the measures they have taken to comply with the international covenant on civil and political rights. The committee’s last report said:

“The State party should ensure that the Chagos islanders can exercise their right to return to their territory and should indicate what measures have been taken in this regard. It should consider compensation for the denial of this right over an extended period. It should also include the Territory in its next periodic report.”

In June, the UK Supreme Court concluded that, in the light of the 2014 KPMG feasibility study that found no obstacle to settlement, maintaining the ban on a Chagossian return may no longer be lawful. The judgment noted that if the Government failed to restore the rights of abode, it would be open to Chagossians to mount a new challenge by way of judicial review on the grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness or disproportionality. After 17 years of litigation, is it not high time that our Government stopped incurring litigation costs that must now amount to several million pounds? Although there is one outstanding case relating to the marine protected area, which the Supreme Court will hear next year, surely the Minister must agree that the resumption of further litigation cannot be in our national interest.

The extension on 30 December this year of the 1966 UK-US agreement for the use of the island of Diego Garcia for a further 20 years provides an ideal peg for agreeing to resettlement. It is the unanimous view of the all-party parliamentary group that the extension should be conditional on both parties agreeing to support and facilitate resettlement. If the UK does not make the extension conditional, there is a danger of losing important leverage with the United States. A decision in favour of resettlement might then be postponed for many years to come. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I think that the marine protection zone is a distraction, and another reason why there should not be a bar to resettlement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford mentioned in his opening remarks, we are now coming up to a break clause in what is essentially an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States about the future use of Diego Garcia, which occupies a strategic location. It was strategic during the cold war and the various Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and given the ongoing turmoil in the middle east, it remains so. It is in Washington’s interest to continue to have an air base there. We have only until the end of the year, just over two months, to sort out the issue, which is why this debate is so important. We are in a strong position to set conditions for the United States. If it wants to renew its military presence on Diego Garcia for a further 20 years, the US should help us facilitate a right of return for the Chagos islanders.

[Bob Stewart]

How many people are we talking about when we talk about those who wish to return to the Chagos archipelago? How many people are there already—I think it is about 3,000 maximum, and they are transitory—and how many people from there want to go back?

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend is showing in this debate. I have yet to meet a Chagos islander or somebody of Chagos descent who does not want the right of return. I think hundreds of people, or possibly a few thousand, want to return. However, the important thing is the principle of being allowed to return. As for the makeup of the current population on Diego Garcia, it is of course US and British military personnel, as well as a lot of Filipinos who work on the base in a service capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be quick, Mr Betts. Let us be quite clear. Diego Garcia is the largest US base outside continental America. Its strategic position is vital for the western world. It is clear that it has got to stay, because, in these troubled times, we should not give up such a positioning. Diego Garcia has a huge air base. It also has facilities for military ships and, clearly, it is a forward mounting base for a large number of troops—allied troops, not just Americans—if necessary.

We all understand the importance of the base’s strategic position in the middle of the Indian ocean. We understand why it was built there. We also probably understand why Chagossians were evicted between 1967 and 1973. I understand it, but it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. A solution is required to this problem and compromise is necessary. The British Government—our Government—say they want to try to get people back. That is great, but it is clear that the base is going to have to stay there. It must stay there. It is too good a strategic military facility for us to give it up lightly. Well, I do not think we are going to give it up. It is not ours. It is America’s, but actually we own the territory—or do we? Actually the Chagossians own it. I am very much in favour of getting Chagossians back to their homeland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has suggested a way for that to happen. If there are about 3,000 Filipino people working there, and about 3,000 Chagossians want to return, how about slowly changing the mix, so that Chagossians can go back and have a job there if they wish? It is mad that Chagossians cannot work there but Filipinos can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

If I may, I will get a more detailed report on the analysis that came back from the consultation and write to my hon. Friend so that he is fully appraised of the response to the consultation. However, the bottom line is that the details about how a resettlement would work in practice need to be pursued. We hope to make sure that that happens, but I will articulate to the Minister responsible that we want an answer and a report back to Parliament within the year.

Many hon. Members have stressed the strategic importance of the military location. Anybody with a military background is soon made aware of the significance of Diego Garcia and its role internationally for our allies, for NATO, for the United States and for Britain. The joint UK and US military facility on Diego Garcia contributes significantly towards global security—I cannot stress it any more than that. It is central to our operations, and to those of the United States and our international partners, to counter threats in the region, including terrorism and piracy. The continuing operation of the base is a key factor that we must take into account in our considerations.

One hon. Member asked about dual accounting in official development assistance and defence spending. I will make it very clear that there are occasions when military activity comes under the Ministry of Defence budget and qualifies for ODA activity. I complained about that when I visited Afghanistan and found that Britain was doing work in military training, mine clearance and so on, which is “ODA-able” but we were not charging for it. We were doing things that did not go towards that figure. It is very important to put into context that this is not a competition as such. Those who make the ODA rules—it is not us—recognise that certain minimal activities to do with stabilisation, reconstruction and peacekeeping can be paid for by military personnel. There are not many activities, but there are some.

[Bob Stewart]

On that very point, would it be possible to use the Royal Air Force’s Voyager aircraft—the big ones—to take Chagossians back for a visit, and then bring them out again?

Aleppo and Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The Foreign Secretary has recently been in Turkey. I am sure that the House will be interested in his comments.

My third question for the Foreign Secretary is, what work has been done to catalogue and record human rights abuses—both individual and collective—in Syria? Will he update the House on the work of the Foreign Office, which was started and commissioned by the National Security Council in 2011, to collect evidence that can be used in the future to hold human rights abusers to account no matter how long it takes?

Fourthly, what steps has the Foreign Secretary taken with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to explore the feasibility of imposing and enforcing a no-fly zone over specific areas in Syria? Does he agree that, with the use of naval and air assets in the eastern Mediterranean, it is entirely possible both to monitor and enforce a no-fly zone with our allies? What steps will he take to make it clear to the international community that a no-fly zone is a matter of will and not of practicality?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have operated under a no-fly zone. It is practical and it can work, but it is quite difficult at a low level. That requires us to have seriously good surveillance over the target areas. If we have that, we can deal with it. We cannot have just a no-fly zone; we need good surveillance as well.

[Mr Mitchell]

I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to comment on those remarks, to which my hon. Friend brings his expert knowledge and understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and myself, and the point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, is that Syria demonstrates the failure of these international mechanisms now. If a veto is continually used on the UN Security Council, what can we do? My right hon. Friend rightly argued—this was recognised on both sides of the House—that the League of Nations was damaged by the stripping of its authority. That is the point that we have reached, and if we cannot rely on these mechanisms, what are we now going to do?

[Bob Stewart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Alistair Burt]

I shall give way very briefly, but I am being fair to Mr Speaker by trying to keep the intervention short.

[Bob Stewart]

The veto in the Security Council by Russia will kill any plan stone dead. Perhaps this is a chance for the General Assembly to get some power and do something about it.

[Alistair Burt]

There may be international mechanisms that involve talk, but perhaps there are other things that we can do, and I think that that will be the mood of the House.

A little bit of history will provide a pointer forward; we need not review it all. Assad knew exactly what he was doing when the revolt started in 2011. Syria was not beset by radical Islam, but he released prisoners from his prisons to join radical Islamic bands because he wanted to create the narrative of his providing stability against terrorism. The narrative has succeeded. It gave him the excuse to attack his own people. That reached a nadir in 2013, with chemical weapons attack on his people. That was a fundamental point. I am not going to rehearse what was said in the House—there are reasons for colleagues to make the decisions that they did—but by stepping back at that moment, the moment not to destroy Assad but to get him back to the negotiating table by convincing him that something would stand in his way was lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I shall keep my speech brief, but I want to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing the debate and commending him for the way in which he made the case yesterday and brought the matter to the attention of the House. It was a powerful, passionate speech that was also practical, and I trust that Ministers listened to every word and will consider the recommendations and suggestions he made. He was exactly right yesterday to describe the situation in Aleppo as an “unfolding humanitarian catastrophe”.

I share the deep, deep concern that my right hon. Friend expressed, and I believe that the House should send the strongest possible signal at this time, both to our own Government and to other Governments, that the present suffering of innocent civilians in Aleppo is unacceptable; that the criminal acts of the Syrian and Russian forces are unacceptable, not least the bombing of hospitals, schools and humanitarian supplies; and that the seeming impotence of the international community in the face of such acts must not, and cannot, be allowed to continue.

As the debate on the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union demonstrated, the attention of the House in the coming months will be consumed, overwhelmingly and necessarily, by issues relating to our withdrawal from the European Union. We will debate and argue about how best we protect our national interest in the Brexit process and how we give our nation the best chance of future prosperity to protect the quality of our lives and those of our children. We will even have debates about debates.

Today’s debate, however, demonstrates that the House remembers its duty to look outwards and have regard for that part of humanity that does not live within our borders. With you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, I am confident that the House will always make time available for us to speak with clarity and unity when confronted with suffering on the scale that we have witnessed in Syria in recent days. We should not underestimate the interest of the outside world in what is said in the House. A number of us have received emails today from groups within Syria who are watching the debate, and who want that clarity and unity expressed by hon. Members.

I pay tribute to the clarity of voice that our Foreign Secretary has brought to bear on the international stage on the subject of the Syrian conflict. He was one of the very first to describe the attacks on the Red Crescent aid convoy three weeks ago as a war crime—that was exactly what they were—and directly to implicate Russian forces. However, in commending the Foreign Secretary may I ask him to update the House on his most recent discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov about the events in Aleppo and what further representations he plans to make? Will he leave us in no doubt whatsoever of his determination to ensure that the Russians know that we will keep up the pressure in the wake of their illegal acts in Syria, and that as the days slip by our anger and disgust at the acts for which they are responsible will not subside?

As has been said, President Hollande of France has stated in the past 24 hours that there should be a role for the International Criminal Court in holding Moscow to account for its actions. What consideration has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary given to that suggestion and any other processes, including at the UN, for upholding international law on Syria?

[Bob Stewart]

On the International Criminal Court, I am worried that any action would be hamstrung by Russia in the Security Council, which in some way controls the ICC. I speak as someone who has given evidence in five trials there.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is right to express those concerns. The ICC has not proved itself effective in many respects in upholding international law, but we have a new opportunity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, a lot of this boils down to an effort of will on the part of the international community. I shall come on to address that point.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not saying that it was okay at all. What I am saying is that as soon as we found out about it, we asked Saudi Arabia to do exactly what any other country should do in the same situation, which is to determine what is going on. As soon as we have more information, we will certainly share it with the House. I invite the hon. Lady to pose those questions to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he comes to the House on Wednesday.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is tragic when anyone who is innocent is killed in such a conflict. I visited the Saudi-led air operations centre some months ago in Riyadh. I specifically asked the pilots and the commanders about their rules on weapons release on targets in Yemen, and I was very reassured by their answers. It was clear that their procedures now seem to be as good as our own. Does the Minister agree with me?

[Mr Ellwood]

There is no doubt that this has been a learning curve for Saudi Arabia. The conference that I attended and represented Britain at last week in Jeddah moved us forward from conflict and a military approach to looking at what agreement can be made politically and militarily so that we can put the matter behind us and create the stability that we need in that country.

UK Involvement in Rendition

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I want to say how pleased I am to have secured this Adjournment debate on the subject of the UK’s involvement in rendition. I wish we could find a better word than “rendition” for what this involves. It is a very dry, technical and legalistic term, suggestive perhaps of involvement in a performance of a piece of poetry or a song. It is, in fact, one of those terms that obscures rather than reveals its true meaning.

Rather than find another term for it, let me quote the words of Khadija al-Saadi who at the age of 12 was rendered from Hong Kong to Libya in a joint CIA/MI6 operation in 2004. She describes the 16-hour flight in which her father, an opponent of the now deposed Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi, was chained to a seat with a needle stuck in his arm. She wrote:

“I was 12 years old and was trying to keep my younger brothers and my six year old sister calm. The guards took us to see our mother once on the flight. She was crying and told us that we were being taken to Gaddafi’s Libya. Shortly before the plane landed, a guard told me to say goodbye to my father, at the front of the plane. I forced myself ahead and saw him with a needle in his arm. I remember guards laughing at me. Then I fainted. We were taken off the plane and bundled into cars. Hoods were pulled over my parents’ heads. Libyans forced my mother, sister and I into one car, my brothers and father another. The convoy drove to a secret prison outside Tripoli, where I was certain that we were all going to be executed. All I knew about Libya at that time was that Colonel Gaddafi wanted to hurt my father, and that our family had always been moving from country to country to avoid being taken to him. Now we had been kidnapped, flown to Libya, and his people had us at their mercy.”

Khadija’s father, Sami, was subsequently held for six years and severely tortured.

That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is why it is important for this House to debate rendition this evening. That act and all that followed from it was done as a result of the efforts of British intelligence officers. These illegal acts were done in our name, and it is right that Parliament and the public should be told what was done by whom and on whose authority.

The circumstances surrounding the al-Saadi case were one of two sets of circumstances that came to light following the fall of the Gaddafi regime, when documents were found by the organisation Human Rights Watch in the Tripoli office of Gaddafi’s spy chief Moussa Koussa. The content and tone of some of that correspondence is shocking, but it provides an insight into the minds of those responsible. The rendition, it is boasted, was

“the very least we could do for you and for Libya.”

If rendition was the least that he could have done, I hate to think what might have been possible at the upper end of the scale.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I clarify a point? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that our secret services were used to move a person to Libya, under Gaddafi, at the express wish of Gaddafi?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is what I understand the position to be, although obviously our knowledge is incomplete.

The correspondence continues:

“I know that I did not pay for the air cargo but the intelligence on him was British.”

To refer to another human being as “air cargo” is just about as degrading and dehumanising as it is possible to imagine.

When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister today, during Prime Minister’s questions, he told me that

“very few countries in the world would have had such an independent and thorough investigation into an issue like this.”

He was right—up to a point. The investigation of the role of senior British officers in the rendition of the al-Saadi family and another one was carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was a thorough investigation, which does the police credit. At the end of it, a report running to 28,000 pages was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, which announced on 9 June that no proceedings would be taken against the suspect in the inquiry.

I shall turn to the question of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service in a moment, but first I want to address the Prime Minister’s assertion about the rigour of the investigation. As I have said, the Metropolitan Police Service appears to have done a thorough piece of work; the fact remains, however, that the whole investigation only ever happened because, in the chaos following the fall of Gaddafi, someone from Human Rights Watch happened to come across those documents. But for that, we would almost certainly never have known of our country’s involvement in this affair.

A number of issues arise from the statement made by the CPS on 9 June, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them in his reply. The first relates to the review of the decision. The decision itself has been greeted with some scepticism and incredulity. I understand that there is to be a review of it, but that the review will be carried out by other CPS officials, subordinate to those who made the decision. Surely a case of such political sensitivity deserves better than that. There is a precedent for the review of a politically sensitive decision being conducted by lawyers who are independent of the CPS: that was done in the case of the decision not to prosecute the late Lord Janner. I suggest that this is another case in which an independent review is appropriate. Will the Minister tell me whether or not there will be such an independent review?

Most remarkably of all, the CPS statement of 9 June concludes that the CPS has sufficient evidence to conclude that

“the suspect had...sought political authority for some of his actions albeit not within a formal written process nor in detail which covered all his communications and conduct.”

Let us pause for a second to consider the significance of that. Officials of the Crown Prosecution Service have evidence that politicians—presumably that means Ministers of the day—were told of an illegal act by British intelligence officers. It cannot be right that officials of the CPS can know that, but we as parliamentarians cannot. It is ironic to think that if the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had remained in his post as Director of Public Prosecutions, he would know more about this than he can today, having faced the voters and been elected to the House. So how are we to get to the truth here? The Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition said of rendition:

“As a moral purpose always must be accompanied by moral means, surely we must recognise that, in the last six years, issues like Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition have done huge damage to our moral authority.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 267.]

It was unsurprising, therefore, that in July 2010, in the first couple of months of his time as Prime Minister, he set up an independent judge-led inquiry into torture under Sir Peter Gibson. At that time, the Prime Minister took the view, and told this House,

“For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and Government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 185.]

He expressly excluded the use of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the task. The Gibson inquiry was suspended in 2012 when the documents discovered by Human Rights Watch were published. At that time, the then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said:

“The Government fully intend to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry, once all police investigations have concluded, to establish the full facts and draw a line under these issues.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 752.]

The view expressed by the Prime Minister today about the investigation of this by the Intelligence and Security Committee is the direct opposite of the view he expressed in 2010. When the Minister replies, will he tell the House when Government policy changed on this and why? Surely public confidence demands that a full, independent and judge-led inquiry be reinstated.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The £350 million figure that was splashed across Vote Leave’s bus did not last very long when subjected to scrutiny. It also did not take into account the huge range of benefits that we gain from membership of the European Union that go beyond that membership fee, as Vote Leave put it.

Freedom of movement—this is often lost—is a two-way process. There are 1.5 million UK citizens who benefit hugely from freedom of movement across the European Union. I often pose this question, but it is yet to be answered: what is the difference between an EU migrant and a UK ex-pat living in the European Union? They are exactly the same. I and others have been appalled by the language used by the Vote Leave campaign, not least about migration and refugees, because we benefit from working with our European partners on foreign policy.

President Obama has said that his worst foreign policy mistake was not dealing with the aftermath of Libya. The campaign in Libya had nothing to do with the EU; it had everything to do with this Government not dealing with it appropriately. And where is the biggest influx of refugees coming from? They are coming from the failed state of Libya. It was a UK foreign policy failure of the worst kind and it had nothing to do with the European Union.

On the issue of UK foreign policy disasters, Labour Members will be well aware that Chilcot will be published in a few weeks’ time. The European Union had nothing to do with the disaster in Iraq; it was another UK foreign policy disaster.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I will make some progress.

Compare that with the EU as a soft power. It has made progress in stabilising south-east Europe and it could play a future role in the middle east and north Africa region and in dealing with the former Soviet Union. Europe can be a soft superpower and we need to be at the heart of that. As our partners in the EU have said, our membership of NATO and of the EU complement each other and have given us the longest period of peace, stability and prosperity in European history. We should not forget that.

The EU has also made us fairer. It protects us in so many ways, including through provisions for paid holidays and by giving parents—mums and dads—the right to parental leave. Just think of the draconian trade union laws that this lot here want to bring in: do we really want to be left to the mercy of a right-wing Conservative Government when it comes to social protections? Those social protections have been advanced through our membership of the European Union.

Last night, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who is not here—which does not surprise me, given the going over he got from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—was reminded that he had previously said that

“we could easily scrap the social chapter”.

He is right—they could easily scrap the social chapter and all the benefits that go with it, because, when it comes down to it, this is a right-wing Tory power grab. The right-wing Tory foxes would be put in charge of the chicken coup of progressive politics in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure—a nostalgic pleasure—to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). He reiterated the fears he first enunciated in relation to our leaving the exchange rate mechanism, and those fears proved to be wrong. He next enunciated those fears in relation to our not joining the euro, and they proved the reverse of the truth. It is nostalgic to hear him recycling his damaged goods again today.

It is even more of a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). He and I worked together at the Department of Trade and Industry. I think I am the only serving Member of Parliament, apart possibly from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who has experience of successfully negotiating an international trade deal and of introducing, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, the single market programme into this country.

We have that experience, and I want to apply it to some of the arguments because on this issue, as on most issues, I find that when we in politics do not have that experience, we simply adopt the most plausible argument that supports our case. By and large, that is what happens on matters of trade and economics in this House, because there is so little experience of them. In a way, I am a member of an endangered species as one of the few Members who has such experience.

Let me first take the very idea that trade agreements are necessary and essential for trade. I hate to say this, because I have a vested interest in claiming to have experience of these things, but trade agreements are less important than people imagine. That is particularly the case for agreements between developed countries, largely because of the success of the Uruguay round, which brought down tariffs between developed countries to negligible levels. The average WTO tariff that would apply to British exports to the EU, in the almost inconceivable circumstance of our having no free trade agreement with it, would be 2.4%. It is better not to have it and I would rather not have it, but compared with the movements in the exchange rate, it is negligible or much less important than it is made out to be. The only important trade deals are those with fast-growing markets in Asia, Latin America and Europe that still have high tariff levels, and we ought to be looking to negotiate trade deals with those markets.

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree with everything my right hon. Friend has said. We have not so far discussed the fact that people want our market just as much as much as we want their market. It takes two to tango in any trade deal, and trade deals will go on regardless.

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trade deals take place because they are in the mutual interests of both parties; they are not military conflicts. They take place between two parties, like trade itself.

A very plausible but incorrect argument is that trade agreements always take a long time. When the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked whether Ministers had done any study of trade agreements, he sidestepped the question. A freedom of information request has actually revealed that neither the Treasury nor the Government have done any study of the trade agreements about which they talk so knowledgeably. However, such studies have been done. I refer to the study by Professor Moser of the Centre of European Union Studies in Salzburg of every single trade agreement in the past 20 years. There are 88 of them. They took an average of 28 months, but the time for each varied greatly. The deals that took a long time were those that involved lots of countries, which certainly concurs with my experience. Of course, by definition any EU treaty involves 28 countries and takes a long time, because all 28 have vetoes. A lot of EU treaties are being held up now, but bilateral treaties take less than that average of 28 months. We should not start deluding people into thinking that it will take a long time to negotiate bilateral deals with countries that already have bilateral deals with Switzerland, for example.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked rhetorically whether anyone was queueing up for trade deals with us. Well, look not for what they say but what they do. Switzerland has trade deals with countries whose total GDP is four times that of the countries with which the EU has trade deals. Chile has trade deals with countries whose collective GDP is even bigger. Switzerland has a trade deal with China. We are told that it is a bad deal for Switzerland, but clearly the Swiss did not think so. The Swiss published the details of the deal online; Members can look at it themselves. By the time the EU even gets around to negotiating a trade deal with China—which by the way will never succeed because the EU will always insist on human rights terms the Chinese will not accept—the Swiss will have zero tariffs on the vast majority of their exports to China.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I want to make a short contribution about the effect of the EU on the economic viability of our fishing industry and to congratulate the fishermen who have taken part in the flotilla on the Thames today to make sure we hear where they stand.

Our fishing industry is a ghost of its former self. Before we joined the EU, we had a successful, viable fishing industry all around the coast. I remember seeing fishing boats in south-east Cornwall moored three or four deep along the quayside. I do not see that today. Although fishing is no longer the largest employer in Looe—tourism is—people come to traditional fishing towns and expect to see fish being landed. A highlight they often mention is tasting fish and chips from one of the award-winning restaurants or buying fresh catch from fishmongers such as Pengelly’s in Looe. Where would tourism be without our fishing?

In 1971, just before we joined the EU, we had a thriving fishing industry bringing home millions of tonnes of fish and directly employing over 21,000 people. Last year, it caught about 600,000 tonnes and employed under 12,000 fishermen. According to a report co-ordinated by the New Economics Foundation, there was a 12% fall in the number of fishermen between 2003 and 2013. My late husband, Neil, was one such fisherman. He was forced to fish alone on his boat as a result of economic pressures arising from reducing quotas while still trying to meet the costs of increasing insurance, harbour dues and landing charges, not to mention repair costs and gear replacement.

The report attributes the decreasing employment to a decline in the number of vessels owing to the forced scrapping imposed by successive Governments to meet the artificial targets from the European Commission and to vessels investing in new technology—the latter might be true for larger vessels, operating with several deckhands, but is certainly not the case for small fishermen like Neil. It was a simple economic decision taken because he often could not land and sell the fish that swam into his net. The report also says that the trend of declining numbers of fishing vessels and fishermen is likely to continue.

The report does not mention the declining fish quotas that the EU sets each year. Haddock is just one example. The UK gets 10% of the total allowable catch, while France gets 70%, and the same applies to many other species in many other areas. Would hon. Members go into a bank alongside a French person, each of them with a bundle of notes to the value of £70, and throw £60 into the wastepaper bin, while the French person invests it all? That is effectively what fishermen in Looe are being forced to do today because of the quota share-out agreed by the EU in 1983 known as “relative stability”.

[Bob Stewart]

Everyone in the House knows the sad story of my hon. Friend’s husband. How much increased capacity would the fishermen of Looe get were we to leave the EU?

[Mrs Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will come to it in a moment.

I will not get into arguments with those who want to remain, further sacrifice this great industry and abandon the economic wellbeing of our coastal fishing towns, which would be disproportionately affected. I cannot say that Neil died as a result of the common fisheries policy, but I can say that it contributed to the economic pressure he felt when deciding to fish alone. We talked about it and decided that it was better that he work alone in less rough water than work in storms to provide for two families.

I say we throw our fishermen a lifeline. Our Fisheries Minister has been to Brussels and seen for himself how little he can deliver through horse trading in the Council of Ministers over proposals put forward by the unelected European Commission. I say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), that if we vote to leave, the Minister could make the decisions that apply to fishermen in the UK’s 200-mile median line limit.

As someone who has lived and breathed the UK fishing industry for 30 years, I say there are no economic benefits to UK fishermen from EU membership. About 92% of UK fishermen are calling for the UK to leave. I say we throw them a lifeline, vote to leave and take back control of our 200-mile line—80% of the total EU pond. We would not necessarily have to say to member states, “You can’t come and fish in our waters”, but it would be on our terms, not those arising from horse trading among 28 states sitting around the EU table debating proposals from the unelected, appointed, bureaucratic European Commission in Brussels.

Human Rights and Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights and the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Gillan.

Last week, BBC parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy remarked that I have emerged as a regular Commons critic of the human rights record of Saudi Arabia. I cannot argue with that assertion, and I have no doubt that in securing this debate I will build upon that reputation.

I am certainly no stranger to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, and I put on the record my appreciation to the Middle East Minister, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for having met me privately on a number of occasions to discuss my concerns about specific human rights cases in Saudi Arabia.

I will use the latter part of my speech to discuss the situation in Yemen, but I will focus first on the domestic human rights record in Saudi. Last September, during a debate in this very room, I first spoke of the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, a Saudi national. Ali was arrested at the age of 17 back in 2012, during the time of the Arab spring protests. After a trial that has been described as unfair by the United Nations special rapporteur, Christof Heyns, among many others, Ali was sentenced to a barbaric death by beheading and crucifixion. His final appeal, heard in secret and without his knowledge, was dismissed. In the nine months since that debate in Westminster Hall, Ali’s case has significantly risen in prominence, with many other politicians adding their voices to the chorus of international condemnation, and more than 1.5 million people from around the world have signed an online petition calling for Ali’s sentence to be commuted.

The UK Government have also raised Ali’s case, and the similar cases of Abdullah al-Zaher and Dawood al-Marhoon, at the highest possible level with Saudi authorities, receiving assurances that the death sentences will not be carried out. However, those three young men remain in prison. Although they have seemingly been spared from their ultimate fate so far, their sentences have not been lifted and the threat of execution still hangs over them. I will continue to campaign for Ali, Dawood and Abdullah, and I wish to see them released from incarceration so that they can live their lives and build their futures. I commend the work of the organisations, in particular Reprieve, that are campaigning to secure the release of these young men.

I hope that the Minister who is here today will be able to indicate whether those cases have been raised again with Saudi authorities recently. Although it has been asserted on several occasions that the UK Government do not expect the three death sentences to be carried out, can he clarify whether the Government have officially asked the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to commute them?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady know whether, once a decision for execution is made, there are a few days, a few hours or a few weeks before it is carried out? Or do we just not know, and therefore the big problem might be that executions are carried out secretly before we even know that they have happened?

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I believe that we do not know. I say that because at the beginning of this year 47 people were executed, and we did not know about those executions until after they had happened. I will talk more about those people later in my speech. I believe that the UK Government do not really have much clout when it comes to stopping death sentences being carried out.

Sadly, the cases I have mentioned are not isolated. There are countless similar cases, and each one points to a corrupt justice system that is being used as a tool for political oppression. Since the Arab spring, Saudi authorities have been purposely targeting civil rights activists and human rights defenders.

Issa al-Hamid, a founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, has been sentenced to nine years in prison by the specialised criminal court in Riyadh. The charges against Issa relate to statements published online on a range of civil and human rights issues, such as the right to peaceful assembly. Freedom of speech is easily taken for granted in the United Kingdom, but it has not been afforded to Issa, nor to Abdulaziz al-Shubaily, another member of the association. The charges against Abdulaziz include communicating with foreign organisations, due to his passing information to Amnesty International for use in its reports. He now faces eight years in prison, and after his release he also faces an eight-year travel ban and will be forbidden from using social media. Clearly, the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association is being targeted, as the Saudi authorities are determined to crush this movement.

All those things are being done to suppress any criticism of Saudi’s atrocious human rights record. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform me today of whether the Foreign Office has raised with the Saudi authorities the issue of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, and the apparent targeting and imprisonment of its members.

Similarly, the website known as “Free Saudi Liberals” has felt the wrath of the Saudi regime. The man behind the website, Raif Badawi, received 50 lashes in public, purely for exercising free speech. He still languishes in a prison cell, awaiting the remainder of his sentence, which is another 950 lashes. International outcry has so far led to Raif being spared that ordeal, which he would be unlikely to survive and which still looms large over him.

Raif’s punishment has been described as a “gratuitous, violent sentence” by the international representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union at the UN’s Human Rights Council. Fearing for the safety of herself and her family, Raif’s wife Ensaf escaped to Canada with their three children, where she speaks out against the wide-scale oppression in her home country.

Ensaf’s voice is part of a growing international chorus that is extremely concerned at what is seemingly a worsening situation in the kingdom. Saudi Arabia has executed almost 100 people this year alone, 47 of them on the same day at the start of the year. One of those 47 people was the uncle of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a well-known Muslim cleric. Last year, the equivalent of one person every two days was executed in Saudi. Sadly, that number seems likely to be surpassed this year. Saudi’s record is ruthlessly regressive.

The UK Government have stressed that, despite not renewing their strategy for the global abolition of the death penalty during this Parliament, there is no change in policy and they continue to work towards its global abolition. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me today when the UK last raised concerns with Saudi Arabia about the number of executions being carried out in the country, and at what level those concerns were raised. Also, in light of the escalation in the number of executions in Saudi and in other countries, do the Government intend to look again at their decision and produce a renewed strategy for the abolition of the death penalty? It is only right that we use our supposed position of influence to lobby Saudi towards having more responsible domestic policy.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The referendum on 23 June will shape this country’s future international relationships probably for the rest of the century. Whatever the result, there will be serious consequences. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee produced a report recently that concluded that

“leaving the EU could result in the UK becoming a ‘smaller”’ or less influential international player, especially in the context of increasing pressure from rising powers on the post-1945 global economic and governance frameworks.”

We see those rising powers in Asia. The Americans have just agreed to sell arms to Vietnam. We see massive territorial disputes between China and almost all its neighbours: the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam. The rising powers of Asia, including south-east Asia, believe—rightly—that the global institutions that we did so much to shape in the immediate post-world war two period do not reflect the growing economic importance of other parts of the world. If we were to leave the EU, the British permanent seat on the UN Security Council, currently defended by our 27 EU partners, who see Britain and France as having worked together consistently in the UN system to protect European interests, would no longer be seen as protecting European interests. France will have that role, but we will not.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that the European Union was seeking to take France’s and the UK’s position in the Security Council and act as one, which is not how the hon. Gentleman presented it.

[Mike Gapes]

That impression is wrong. The reality is that there is general acceptance—at this moment, grudgingly in some cases—that the UK and France work collectively and consult their European partners within the UN system. That, however, might well be put in jeopardy if we leave. There would be big question-marks for the future.

We live in a world, as already mentioned in the debate, in which Russia is nationalist and assertive under the Putin regime and that led to the annexation and invasion of other territories—not just Ukraine, but Georgia—along with cyber-warfare against NATO members in the Baltic states. We have seen aircraft either going very close to or entering other countries’ air space and, of course, the buying of political parties, including the Front National in France. Then there is Putin’s propaganda channel, which pumps out every day through Freeview a completely distorted view of what is happening in many countries around the world, without ever referring to internal Russian problems. We see all that today.

Some countries around the world have started to take action on the money laundering and other activities going on from Russia. I hope that the Bills that will come out of this Queen’s Speech will lead to more robust action against the money that is being put into our financial institutions by the kleptocracy in Moscow.

I do not have time to refer to it in detail, but the Home Affairs Select Committee heard evidence from William Browder, of Hermitage Capital Investments, in the early part of this month. This needs to be looked at and studied by Members to understand how Sergei Magnitsky died in very strange circumstances. The United States Congress has, of course, passed the Magnitsky law. Interestingly, human rights was mentioned in this debate. Last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives agreed a proposal for a Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act to extend the sanctions against people involved in corrupt activities to those who abuse human rights globally. That is an interesting concept. If for good reasons we are not prepared or do not wish to stop trade with certain countries, but nevertheless wish to target the individuals who carry out human rights abuses, perhaps we should consider a similar proposal in this Parliament.

Let me highlight one other area in the time left available to me. The European Union provides a democratic vision. The shadow Foreign Secretary referred to the peace and co-operation we have had since the second world war, but we also act as a magnet for those countries coming out of authoritarianism, out of fascism or out of domination under the Warsaw pact. We need to maintain these standards, but if Britain leaves the EU, we will weaken that process in our continent.

Aleppo

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am a former soldier, and I looked at the idea of no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors. I even wrote some papers on it when I was on the Back Benches. The trouble is: who implements them, and what authority would they have to be in the country? We wanted to take Syria through the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court, and guess who vetoed it: China and Russia. That is the difficulty we have. We have to ask ourselves how we would implement and enforce such a no-fly zone. I concur with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says, but these are the realities of where we actually are.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I think that the most important concern with unaccompanied children is their safety, and I am beginning to wonder whether we might not have our policy the wrong way around. Three thousand children wandering around Europe can easily be picked up by traffickers; 3,000 children in the middle east can be kept safely in camps. I am wondering whether we should look at our policy anew.

[Mr Ellwood]

The concerns expressed about the 3,000 children are absolutely sincere. The solution, however, is not simply to remove the challenge from the area, but to solve the challenge in the area. We cannot endorse the idea that it is acceptable for other EU states not to meet the basic requirements for looking after refugees. By taking those refugees, we would simply be providing more space for further refugees to come in, and that is not a long-term solution.