(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsThe latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2016. The report has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at:
http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office.
I commend the report to the House.
[HCWS178]
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this valuable debate and commend him for the power of his speech. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the debate. We have heard speeches or interventions from 43 right hon. and hon. Members, and I think that every one has made clear the horror of the House at the suffering being endured by the people of Aleppo, where rebel-held districts have come under furious attack from the Assad regime and from Russia, with the help of Iranian-backed militias.
Let me spell out some of the consequences. At this moment, the 275,000 inhabitants of eastern Aleppo are under siege. They are isolated from the outside world, subjected to constant bombardment, and prevented from receiving humanitarian aid. Their power and water supplies have been cut off in what has become a signature tactic of the Assad killing machine: the besieging of civilian populations. What we are now seeing in eastern Aleppo is the biggest and, potentially, the deadliest siege since the outbreak of Syria’s civil war more than five years ago.
Last week the United Nations special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, warned that eastern Aleppo might be “totally destroyed” by the end of the year. In the past two weeks, at least 376 people—half of them children—have been killed, and another 1,266 have been injured. Every hospital in eastern Aleppo is believed to have been bombed, some more than once, and several have been put out of action. Hospitals have been targeted with such frequency and precision that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this must be deliberate policy. As the House will know, intentionally attacking a hospital amounts to a war crime.
It is time, I think, for all these incidents to be properly and fully investigated with a view to assembling the necessary evidence and ensuring that justice is done—and, yes, I say in answer to questions that have been raised by several Members today that we do think that there could be advantage in the procedures of the International Criminal Court. I remind the House that in recent history, war criminals have been successfully prosecuted decades after their offences.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this catastrophe represents a terrible failure of the security order that protects our very civilisation, and that if these prosecutions are not made, a terrible, terrible failure will be laid at our door?
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that we are all judged in the House by our actions and our resolve. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield who spoke of the will of the House. I am afraid that that was absent three years ago when, as several Members pointed out, we took an historic decision not to intervene. I hope that we will show a different measure of resolve this afternoon. Those who are conducting this bombing and who are, in my view, culpable of these crimes should realise that the mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind small.
The same penalties should apply to those involved in deliberate attacks on humanitarian convoys. As many Members have pointed out, on 19 September a UN aid convoy was destroyed near Aleppo and at least 20 people were killed. The vehicles were clearly marked, and the convoy had official permission from the Assad regime to deliver those desperately needed supplies. Satellite photographs that are in the public domain leave no doubt that the convoy was struck from the air. The incident took place after dark; by Russia’s own account, the war planes of Syria’s regime cannot strike targets after dark, and—also by Russia's own account—its aircraft were in the vicinity at the time. All the available evidence therefore points to Russian responsibility for the atrocity.
I trust that the UN board of inquiry will establish exactly what happened, and we in the United Kingdom Government stand ready to help. I emphasise that it is the UK which, week after week, is taking the lead—together with our allies in America and France, and all like-minded nations—in highlighting what is happening in Syria to a world in which, I fear, the wells of outrage are becoming exhausted.
I listened to the passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the co-chair of the all-party friends of Syria group, who is carrying on the tradition of Jo Cox, whom we mourn. I listened to all the speeches that made the point that there is no commensurate horror among some of the anti-war protest groups, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley: I would certainly like to see demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Where is the Stop the War coalition at the moment?
It is up to us in the Government to show a lead, and week after week in the UN we are indeed doing what we can to point out what the Russians are up to and to build an international understanding of what is going on in Syria. I believe that we are having some effect. As Members have pointed out, the Russians have now been driven to mount a veto in the Security Council to protect their own position five times. This is not some anti-Russian campaign; we are not doing this out of any particular hostility towards Russia. Indeed, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, did his utmost to negotiate an agreement with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, that would at least have reduced the killing. Anyone who has studied the Lavrov-Kerry talks will know that John Kerry threw himself into that task in a Herculean way. However, on 3 October, he was driven to abandon his efforts by the attack on the aid convoy and the pounding of Aleppo, which destroyed all hopes of a ceasefire. The US Secretary of State has concluded, I think rightly, that Russia was determined to help Assad’s onslaught against the women, children and families of Aleppo regardless of any agreement.
Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to tell the House whether he supports the French proposal that, in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should voluntarily undertake to give up their veto in order to enable the Security Council to take action when these heinous crimes are being committed, as is clearly the case in Aleppo at the moment?
We are in constant touch with our French colleagues about this proposal. As I said earlier, I am personally very attracted to the idea of holding these people to account before the International Criminal Court, so that is certainly something that I would like to pursue.
Does the Foreign Secretary not think that more weight would be attached to the strength of his words about the International Criminal Court if the regime of President al-Bashir of Sudan—who has also been bombing his people from the air, who has recently been seen to be using chemical weapons against them, and who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity—was not now being embraced by the UK Government through the UK-Sudan strategic dialogue as a partner in countering terrorism and managing migration?
I take that point very sincerely, but it is vital that we concentrate our efforts and our censure on the Russians and on the Assad regime, who are primarily responsible for what is going on in Syria now. We can get lost endlessly in all sorts of moral equivalences, and I heard a few earlier from the Scottish National party, but it is vital that we focus on what is happening in Syria. That is the question before us this afternoon.
I must say bluntly to the House that if Russia continues on its current path, that great country is in danger of becoming a pariah nation. If President Putin’s strategy is to restore the greatness and glory of Russia, I believe that he risks seeing his ambition turn to ashes in the face of international contempt for what is happening in Syria. Russia tries to justify its onslaught on Aleppo by saying that its sole aim is to drive out Jabhat al-Nusra, or Fatah al-Sham as it now calls itself, which is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. No one questions that these people are terrorists, but their presence in that city cannot justify an assault on 275,000 innocent people, still less the imposition of a siege, which is, by its very nature, a wholly indiscriminate tactic. I agree with the phrase of Staffan de Mistura who said that the Russians should not be able to use the presence of Jabhat al-Nusra as an alibi.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I wonder whether he will go further in relation to Staffan de Mistura. Is he in a position to say today that the British Government will support Staffan de Mistura’s initiative to escort the jihadi fighters out of eastern Aleppo so that the Russians no longer have an excuse to bomb that section of the city?
I will come to the way forward for Aleppo in a minute. Let me remind the House of all the ways in which the UK is trying to be of use and trying to salve the situation. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the White Helmets, who rescue men, women and children from the rubble of bomb sites. Many Members have met them. Funded partly by the UK Government, they are doing an heroic job. Of the 3,000 volunteers, 142 have been killed in the line of duty and 400 have been wounded.
Britain is at the forefront of this humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis. We have pledged £2.3 billion—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis—which makes us the second largest donor after the US. We can be proud in this country of the help that we are giving to hundreds of thousands of people. Britain has done a huge amount to mobilise the international community. I pay tribute to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their work in that regard. In February, we co-hosted a conference and secured pledges of more than $12 billion, which is the largest amount ever raised in a one-day conference.
Let me answer the question about whether we are taking enough refugees asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). Yes, of course we should take our share, and we are doing so, but Members will agree that the overwhelming priority is to help those nearest the centres of conflict in the berm and elsewhere and to keep them as near to their communities as we can.
Let me turn to the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and repeatedly by other Members. Many have expressed the view strongly that they want this country to go further. Others have spoken about no-fly zones, or no-bombing zones. I have every sympathy with those ideas and the motives behind them. We must work through all those types of options with our allies, especially as this House is not committed to putting boots on the ground. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, we cannot commit to a no-fly zone unless we are prepared to shoot down planes or helicopters that violate that zone. We need to think very carefully about the consequences.
I am really sorry, but I must make some progress.
We must consult on this as widely as possible, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield suggested, I will certainly be talking to everybody involved in the 1991 effort to provide no-fly zones over northern Iraq. We must ensure that we have innovative ways of getting aid into Aleppo and, as several Members have said, we must step up the pressure on Assad’s regime and on the Russians through sanctions. I listened carefully to what was said. The House will accept that there is a certain friability in the European resolve to impose sanctions on Russia, given the large dependency of many European countries on Russian gas. It is vital that our country remains at the forefront of keeping that resolve from crumbling, which is what we are doing.
In the long term—to get to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury—the only realistic solution is to persuade both sides to agree to a ceasefire and then to work towards a political solution. It is of course true that that process has been stopped since April, when the ceasefire was destroyed. That does not mean that the process is dead, and it must not mean that the process is dead. On the contrary, this country and this Government have worked to keep that flame of hope alive and have worked for a settlement. On 7 September we hosted a session in London with the high negotiations committee of the Syrian opposition, which set out a detailed and progressive vision for how to achieve a transition in Syria towards a democratic, pluralist administration in which the rights of all communities in that country would be respected, but would also preserve the stability and institutions of the Syrian state while getting rid of the Assad regime.
Before we run out of time, may I refocus the right hon. Gentleman on the question that I asked about getting rid of the jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo?
As the hon. Lady will understand, one cannot get rid of the jihadi fighters from eastern Aleppo as long as the population of Aleppo is being bombed in a ruthless aerial bombardment that is driving people into a position in which they will do anything to fight and resist the Assad regime. Our best hope is to persuade the Russians that it is profoundly in their interests to take the initiative, to win the acclaim of the international community, to do the right thing in Syria, to call off their puppets in the Assad regime, to stop the bombing, to bring peace to Aleppo and to have a genuine ceasefire. That is the way; that is the prelude. I am perfectly prepared to look at Staffan de Mistura’s proposals for leading out al-Nusra and all the rest of it, and perhaps to bring in a UN contingent—that all sounds eminently sensible—but a ceasefire and the end of the Russian bombardment has to come first, and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees.
I think that millions of people in Syria are yearning for that outcome and for a return to talks. I hope that they will hear the passion of this afternoon’s debate. They will recognise that, of course, there are no easy solutions and no pat answers to this. They also know that this House and our constituents are disgusted by the behaviour of Assad and his regime. I hope that in Moscow and Damascus they will hear the message from British MPs that we are willing to consider anything honestly and practically that can be done to bring peace and hope back to Syria. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken so passionately this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.
May I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate and for the succinct and comprehensive way in which they have addressed this important issue?
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsI wish to make a statement about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to respond to the situation.
This Government wholeheartedly condemn the use of chemical weapons, by anyone, anywhere. It is appalling that three years after the Ghouta attacks in 2013, where hundreds died from exposure to nerve agent, Syrian civilians continue to be the victims of chemical weapons.
In 2013, following concerted international pressure, Syria joined the chemical weapons convention (CWC), and declared a stockpile of 1,300 tonnes of chemical weapons and precursors. These have been destroyed by the international community. The UK contribution to this effort included the safe destruction, by incineration, of approximately 200 tonnes of chemical precursors. However, Syria has yet to satisfy the international community and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that the declaration it made of its chemical weapons programme is complete and accurate. The OPCW has stated that Syria’s declaration contains “gaps, inconsistencies and inaccuracies” which need to be answered. We continue to press for the Syrian regime to provide the required level of co-operation and transparency for the OPCW to be able to resolve these issues.
The UN Security Council has made clear repeatedly, in resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), and 2235 (2015), that there would be consequences for those responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria. The Security Council thus sent a clear signal that all chemical weapons attacks in Syria must cease. Despite this there have been frequent allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, including in Aleppo earlier this month.
The UK has been at the forefront of international efforts to ensure that reports of attacks are properly investigated and those responsible identified. In August 2015 the UN Security Council established the UN/OPCW joint investigative mechanism (JIM) to
“identify to the greatest extent feasible individuals, entities, groups, or governments who were perpetrators, organisers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons, including chlorine or any other toxic chemical, in the Syrian Arab Republic”.
The UK argued for the establishment of the JIM and has strongly supported its work, including providing £500,000 to help it become operational. This was in addition to our contribution in excess of £3.5 million to the OPCW, including £2 million to the OPCW’s Syria trust fund, for destruction and verification activities.
In its report of 24 August the JIM focused on nine incidents in Syria, between 2014 and 2015, which the OPCW had identified as involving chemical weapons. The report confirmed what the UK and others have strongly believed for a long time, that the Syrian regime is directly responsible for chemical weapons attacks. Specifically, the JIM concluded that attacks in Sarmin and in Talamenes were the responsibility of the Syrian regime. This is the first time either the UN or OPCW have publicly attributed use of chemical weapons to the Syrian regime.
The JIM concluded that one incident, involving sulphur mustard gas, was the responsibility of Daesh—an attack in Marea in August 2015. The use of chemical weapons by Daesh is completely unacceptable. The UK continues to play a leading role in efforts to defeat Daesh and prevent its further use of chemical weapons, including through the global coalition.
The UK is working with international partners, including other members of the Security Council, to ensure there are consequences for those responsible for using chemical weapons and to send a clear message that such attacks are completely unacceptable and must stop.
[HCWS152]
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsMy right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, and I wish to make a joint statement about the significant contribution that Her Majesty’s Government have made to international efforts to ensure the safe destruction of precursor chemicals from Libya’s historic chemical weapons programme.
Libya’s chemical weapons stockpile was destroyed under international supervision and verification by 2014. However, a quantity of precursor chemicals remained in Libya. The international community was concerned about the risks that, in the current security situation, these chemicals might be acquired and misused by non-state actors. Earlier this year, the Libyan Government of National Accord asked for support from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the international community to remove the remaining chemicals from Libya and to destroy them in a safe and timely manner in a third country. The UK has played a major role in co-ordinating international efforts to assist Libya and the OPCW to achieve this, including in the UN Security Council and with practical steps.
On 22 July, I voted on behalf of the UK in the UN Security Council for authority to be given for the chemicals to be removed from Libya for destruction in another country. Subsequently, the Danish Government asked the UK to provide a naval escort to support Denmark’s operation to ship the chemicals out of Libya.
The Secretary of State for Defence agreed to provide support, in the same way as the Royal Navy supported Denmark and Norway in the operation to remove chemical weapons from Syria in 2014. During late August, RFA Mounts Bay escorted the Danish task group from Libya through the Mediterranean.
In order to enable the safe transport and destruction of the Libyan chemicals, and to provide verification assistance to the OPCW, experts at the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down were tasked to analyse samples of the chemicals. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has contributed some £500,000 to support both the analysis and destruction of the chemicals.
The UK’s contribution to this task is now almost complete. The chemicals are being taken to a specialist facility in a third country, where they will be safely destroyed.
In close co-operation with our international partners—notably Denmark, Germany and the US, who contributed significant funding to the overall destruction effort, as well as with the OPCW—the UK has taken practical and effective action to eliminate chemical weapon risks in Libya. This reinforces our collective commitment to the people and Government of Libya, and, ultimately, to all of us who want to live in a world free from chemical weapons.
[HCWS127]
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsThis Government continue to believe that the best way to achieve stability in Yemen is through a political solution. The UK’s priority is to support the UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, in facilitating a credible peace process in Yemen. I deeply regret the failure of the parties to reach an agreement at the UN-led peace talks in Kuwait, and I continue to urge them to find the compromises that will end the current conflict.
There has been a sustained international effort in support of the UN throughout and the UK continues to play an active role. In July I hosted a meeting in London to discuss Yemen with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the US Secretary of State where we collectively reiterated our strong support for the role of the UN in mediating a lasting political solution to the crisis. We affirmed that a successful resolution should include arrangements that would require the withdrawal of armed groups from the capital and other areas, and a political agreement that would allow for the resumption of a peaceful, inclusive political transition. In August, Minister for the Middle East, Tobias Ellwood, represented me in Saudi Arabia for talks with the US Secretary of State, GCC Foreign Ministers and the UN Special Envoy. The discussions focused on finding a way to end the political deadlock in Yemen, humanitarian assistance and ways to support Yemen’s precarious economy.
We will continue to support the peace process through our diplomatic efforts. The UK will host a discussion on Yemen at the UN General Assembly later this month with key international partners. In parallel, we continue to press for military restraint on all sides and call for a renewed commitment to a cessation of hostilities.
We are aware of reports of alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by parties to the conflict and take these very seriously. We regularly raise the importance of compliance with IHL with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the Saudi-Arabian led military coalition. I raised the issue of IHL compliance with my Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Al Jubeir on 22 August. It is important that the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in the first instance conducts thorough and conclusive investigations into incidents where it is alleged that IHL has been violated. They have the best insight into their own military procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. It will also allow the coalition forces to understand what went wrong and apply the lessons learnt in the best possible way. This is the standard we set ourselves and our allies.
In this respect, Saudi Arabia announced more detail of how incidents of concern involving coalition forces are investigated on 31 January. The Saudi Arabian-led Coalition Joint Investigations Assessment Team publicly announced the outcome of eight investigations on 4 August.
The UK Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application. The key test for our continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia in relation to IHL is whether there is a clear risk that those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious violation of IHL. Having regard to all the information available to us, we assess that this test has not been met.
[HCWS128]
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsIn 2015, 11 serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by parliamentary and diplomatic protection of the Metropolitan police, or other law enforcement agencies. Six of these were driving-related. We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are drink-driving and driving without insurance.
Around 22,500 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and the majority of diplomats abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious crimes committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, those entitled to immunity are expected to obey the law. The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When instances of alleged criminal conduct are brought to our attention by the police, we ask the relevant foreign Government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we seek the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat.
Alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCO in 2015 are listed below.
2015 | |
---|---|
Driving without insurance | |
The Commonwealth Secretariat | 1 |
Causing or permitting the driving of a vehicle without insurance | |
St Lucia | 1 |
Driving a vehicle without insurance or a MOT | |
Nigeria | 1 |
Driving under the influence of alcohol | |
USA | 1 |
Kazakhstan | 1 |
China | 1 |
Actual bodily harm | |
Gabon | 1 |
Human trafficking into the UK for the purposes of exploitation, specifically domestic servitude | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Human trafficking; slavery or servitude/forced or compulsory labour | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Taking an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child; and using threatening /abusive/insulting words or behaviour to cause harassment/alarm/distress | |
Mexico | 1 |
Causing a child aged 13 to 15 to watch/look at an image of sexual activity | |
Mexico | 1 |
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsSunday 17 July marked the Day of International Criminal Justice, a perfect opportunity to look at the UK’s support of the principles of international justice and its various institutions.
International criminal justice and accountability is a fundamental element of our foreign policy. We continue to voice our support for this principle, and are committed to working with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international tribunals. This work helps to strengthen the rules-based international system, reduce conflict and promote stability. We firmly believe that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes.
In 2015 we showed our commitment to international justice by contributing £7.6 million to the ICC, £3 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), £1.4 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and £1.8 million to the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals which has taken on the residual functions of the former Rwanda tribunal and will do the same for the former Yugoslavia tribunal when it closes. Furthermore, in financial year 2015-16 we made voluntary contributions of £1 million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and contributed £225,000 to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The UK also provides practical support for the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone (RSCSL) as former Liberian president Charles Taylor is serving his sentence for war crimes in a British prison. In 2015, the UK worked with partners to secure United Nations authority to commit $12.1 million and $2.44 million to supplement voluntary contributions to the ECCC and RSCSL respectively in 2016. This work helps place the voluntary funded tribunals on a more secure financial footing.
The support we have offered the ICC and the other tribunals has contributed towards their valuable work in entrenching the rule of law, fighting impunity for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, including the use of rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence as weapons of war and the recruitment and use of child soldiers. Their work acts as a deterrent to atrocities, placing a spotlight on individual responsibility, supporting victims and helping to establish an historical narrative of accountability.
The ICC opened their new premises in The Hague in April this year—giving this permanent institution a permanent home. In these new premises, the ICC sentenced Jean-Pierre Bemba (Democratic Republic of the Congo) to 18 years in prison, following its first conviction of rape as a crime against humanity and war crime, on the basis of command responsibility; this also marked the first time in the history of international criminal law that sexual violence against men was charged as the crime of rape.
The ICTY delivered its verdict this year on Radovan Karadžic who was found guilty on one count of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war; and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Karadžic was one of the highest ranking officials to be tried by the tribunal and his trial marked the biggest war crimes trial in Europe since Nuremberg. The judgment was long-awaited following a trial that lasted over four years.
The ICTR finished its judicial work at the end of 2015. The ICTR’s work over the last twenty years has been instrumental in developing international law and making sure that those most responsible for the genocide in Rwanda are held accountable. Its remaining functions were transferred to the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.
The FCO’s support for international criminal justice requires close co-operation with a wide range of stakeholders including partners across Government, law enforcement bodies, international organisations and non-government organisations. Over the next 12 months we will continue to work closely with these partners to ensure that our assessed and voluntary contributions to the ICC and other tribunals are used for maximum effect in the fight against impunity.
This is the fourth annual update to Parliament on the FCO’s work to support international justice.
[HCWS111]
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsThe value of unpaid congestion charge debt incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London since its introduction in February 2003 until 31 December 2015 as advised by Transport for London was £95,811,650. The table below shows those diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines of £100,000 or more.
Country | Number of Fines | Total Outstanding |
---|---|---|
Embassy of the United States of America | 89,308 | £10,626,970 |
Embassy of Japan | 59,533 | £7,072,020 |
High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria | 50,952 | £6,045,440 |
Embassy of the Russian Federation | 46,894 | £5,485,360 |
Office of the High Commissioner for India | 36,984 | £4,489,825 |
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany | 35,706 | £4,147,600 |
Embassy of the Republic of Poland | 29,304 | £3,533,290 |
Office of the High Commissioner for Ghana | 26,482 | £3,186,530 |
Embassy of the People's Republic of China | 24,002 | £3,016,760 |
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan | 24,466 | £2,830,520 |
Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan | 21,849 | £2,665,255 |
Kenya High Commission | 19,497 | 19,497 |
Embassy of France | 16,639 | £1,970,090 |
Embassy of Spain | 15,246 | £1,811,520 |
High Commission for the United Republic of Tanzania | 15,020 | £1,744,075 |
High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | 14,204 | £1, 740,700 |
Embassy of the Republic of Korea | 13,418 | £1,631,700 |
Embassy of Romania | 12,812 | £1,511,410 |
Embassy of Greece | 11,820 | £1,396,627 |
Embassy of the Republic of Cuba | 11,435 | £1,387,155 |
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria | 11,659 | 11,659 |
Embassy of Ukraine | 11,503 | £1,346,455 |
South African High Commission | 11,556 | £1,345,310 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | 11,081 | £1,283,745 |
Embassy of Hungary | 8,680 | £1,033,295 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cyprus | 8,247 | £986,445 |
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen | 7,032 | £831,735 |
High Commission for the Republic of Zambia | 7,069 | £828,520 |
Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria | 6,667 | £772,275 |
Embassy of the Republic of Belarus | 5,646 | £661,180 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon | 5,594 | £649,760 |
Embassy of the Slovak Republic | 5,394 | £629,100 |
High Commission of the Republic of Malawi | 5,220 | £617,700 |
Botswana High Commission | 5,070 | £609,330 |
Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia | 4,900 | £565,310 |
High Commission for the Republic of Namibia | 4,886 | £564,620 |
High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique | 4,713 | £553,885 |
Kingdom of Swaziland High Commission | 4,739 | £545,395 |
Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe | 4,816 | £539,290 |
Embassy of the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire | 4,254 | £500,510 |
Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea | 4,204 | £489,065 |
Malta High Commission | 4,050 | £486,065 |
Embassy of Austria | 4,021 | £479,410 |
Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania | 3,832 | £468,765 |
Mauritius High Commission | 3,971 | £462,535 |
Uganda High Commission | 3,707 | £441,615 |
High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho | 3,754 | £436,210 |
Embassy of the Republic of Turkey | 3,411 | £415,035 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | 3,396 | £410,100 |
Embassy of Belgium | 3,430 | £408,035 |
Embassy of the Czech Republic | 3,432 | £396,385 |
Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam | 3,140 | £368,420 |
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan | 3,072 | £366,690 |
Embassy of the Republic of Guinea | 2,994 | £345,870 |
Royal Danish Embassy | 2,890 | £344,395 |
Jamaican High Commission | 2,700 | £319,485 |
Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo | 2,559 | £315,380 |
Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco | 2,164 | £274,320 |
High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka | 2,102 | £263,795 |
Embassy of Portugal | 2,139 | £260,900 |
Embassy of the Republic of Latvia | 2,111 | £253,710 |
Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan | 1,962 | £252,535 |
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia | 2,037 | £252,368 |
Embassy of Finland | 2,095 | £250,300 |
Embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea | 2,130 | £243,340 |
Embassy of Tunisia | 1,953 | £240,380 |
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt | 2,281 | £240,320 |
Embassy of Luxembourg | 1,909 | £228,575 |
High Commission for Antigua & Barbuda | 1,770 | £210,385 |
Embassy of the Republic of Iraq | 1,579 | £199,490 |
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia | 1,727 | £188,250 |
Embassy of Estonia | 1,342 | £164,755 |
Belize High Commission | 1,201 | £149,420 |
Embassy of the Dominican Republic | 1,139 | £135,315 |
Embassy of the State of Eritrea | 1,120 | £131,710 |
High Commission for Guyana | 1,010 | £118,035 |
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsIn 2015, 4,858 parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London were brought to our attention by local councils, Transport for London and the City of London. These totalled £477,499.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has held meetings with a number of missions about outstanding parking fine debt. In addition, in May this year we wrote to diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly.
Subsequent payments (including amounts waived by the above authorities) totalled £161,328. There remains a total of £316,171 in unpaid fines for 2015.
The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding fines from 2015 totalling £1,000 or more, as of 21 June 2016.
Diplomatic mission/international organisation | Amount of Outstanding Fines (excluding congestion charge) |
Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan | £53,708 |
High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria | £41,531 |
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia | £20,692 |
High Commission for the Republic of Zambia | £18,212 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | £13,795 |
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan | £13,429 |
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan | £11,885 |
Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan | £10,950 |
Embassy of the United Arab Emirates | £8,425 |
Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’lvoire | £7,421 |
Embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea | £7,305 |
High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | £6,292 |
Embassy of Tunisia | £6,020 |
Embassy of the Republic of Angola | £5,775 |
Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman | £5,415 |
Embassy of Georgia | £4,871 |
Malaysian High Commission | £3,705 |
Embassy of France | £3,669 |
Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia | £3,352 |
Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan | £3,255 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | £3,091 |
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria | £2,935 |
High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania | £2,460 |
Embassy of Libya | £2,457 |
Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria | £2,095 |
Embassy of the State of Qatar | £2,065 |
High Commission of the Republic of South Africa | £2,062 |
Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo | £1,965 |
Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco | £1,944 |
Embassy of the Republic of Iraq | £1,929 |
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen | £1,920 |
Embassy of the Gabonese Republic | £1,910 |
Embassy of the Russian Federation | £1,887 |
Embassy of Brazil | £1,827 |
Kenya High Commission | £1,822 |
Embassy of the People's Republic of China | £1,490 |
Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam | £1,255 |
Embassy of Greece | £1,250 |
Commonwealth Secretariat | £1,235 |
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt | £1,150 |
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsThe majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates (NNDR) due from them. Diplomatic missions are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services received such as street cleaning and street lighting.
Representations by protocol directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to missions in 2016 led to the settlement of outstanding debts by a number of missions.
As at 27 June 2016, the total amount of outstanding NNDR payments, due before 31 December 2015, owed by foreign diplomatic missions as advised by the Valuation Office Agency is £907,976, an increase of 22% over the 2014 figure, as reported in the 2015 WMS (£743,858). However, £40,838 of this outstanding debt is owed by Syria— which is not currently represented in the UK and we have therefore been unable to pursue this debt. A further £87,020 is owed by Iran, the majority of which was accrued during its embassy’s closure between 2011 and 2015. The Iranian embassy has now reopened and the FCO will be requesting payment of what is owed. Four missions are responsible for just over a third of the remainder. We shall continue to urge those with NNDR debt to pay their dues.
Missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR | |
---|---|
High Commission for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh | £100,762 |
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan | £81,419 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | £62,478 |
Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe | £57,636 |
Uganda High Commission | £36,885 |
Embassy of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria | £35,257 |
High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | £30,154 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | £27,170 |
Malaysian High Commission | £26,917 |
High Commission for the Republic of Zambia | £25,886 |
Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia | £22,924 |
Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia | £22,688 |
Kenya High Commission | £21,352 |
Embassy of the Republic of Albania | £21,258 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon | £19,281 |
High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka | £15,765 |
Embassy of Ukraine | £15,675 |
Embassy of the Republic of Angola | £12,719 |
Embassy of the Gambia | £12,210 |
Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire | £11,987 |