UK-EU: International Development

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

As ever, Mr Hanson, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who gave a very powerful speech, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), not only on securing the debate—I am glad that it is happening today, although unfortunately it is quite short, and I hope to hear more debates like it in the future—but on his incredible work in Uganda, which I am glad he told us all about.

The UK has a long history of working with European Union partners to help some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, and figures indicate that around 11% of our aid budget is channelled through the European Commission. However, serious choices for this Government lie ahead about whether and how to co-operate with the various development institutions of the EU after Brexit, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

The Scottish National party wants to see the closest possible relationship with the EU in relation to international development. Close co-operation with our European partners has had a hugely beneficial impact, not just here in Europe in terms of our relationships, but in the world, and it has allowed us to raise, pool and co-ordinate aid and expertise.

Working with others is essential for solving many of the world’s biggest problems, including achieving gender equality, tackling tax avoidance, using diplomacy to end conflict and promote peace, and, of course, tackling the devastating impact of climate change—fragile states are hit the hardest and have the fewest resources to cope with climate change impacts.

The EU functions as a bloc within the UN framework convention on climate change, with the UK as a leading member. After Brexit, if the UK does not maintain a close relationship with the EU, our influence on global environmental and climate change policies, which affect everyone, will be significantly reduced, and the world will be a whole lot worse off for it.

At present, many UK non-governmental organisations receive funding from the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations Directorate. Post-Brexit, they will not be able to apply for any of those funds, and they are already finding that grant applications are no longer being accepted. This situation undermines the global capacity to respond effectively to natural disasters, which is something that UK NGOs are among the best in the world at, including in terms of humanitarian recovery. All of us involved in this debate should be proud of that. However, we must make sure that Brexit does not impact the funding of those NGOs. Again, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that point.

After we, sadly, leave the EU—I have to say “sadly”—some will undoubtedly want aid funds to be reallocated away from foreign aid and into domestic expenditure. Can we be clear today what we are talking about here? UK aid alleviates suffering in some of the most climate-vulnerable, poverty-stricken and war-torn countries in the world. UK Government domestic expenditure policies —most notably austerity policies—are causing poverty and inequality in this country. That is a political choice and not an economic one, and it is one that the SNP does not support. We should not let these two things become conflicted.

As the UK remains committed to the 0.7% of gross national income aid target, funds that were previously channelled through EU international development activities will be reallocated to other foreign aid-related activities. However, there has recently been an alarming shift in the focus of the UK aid strategy, with increasing importance being attached to the promotion of the UK’s national interest. A key mechanism for achieving that has been to direct the aid budget away from the Department for International Development to other Departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Let me be crystal clear: the foreign aid budget should never be used for defence, and this development appears to be a clear attempt to dilute our efforts to achieve our No.1 goal in giving aid, which is to fight extreme poverty.

Not only that, but the International Development Secretary previously pledged to use Britain’s aid as part of

“a bold new Brexit-ready proposition to boost trade and investment with developing countries”.

It is concerning that UK aid could be used to mitigate the negative impacts of Brexit, with the UK’s security and prosperity becoming key factors in deciding how aid is spent. This direction of travel will reduce the focus on global poverty alleviation, as well as raising concerns about the transparency and accountability of aid spending outside DFID.

It is well known that Brexit will have a huge impact on the UK, but if unchecked it will also have significant repercussions on the world’s poorest people. It is vital that the UK and the EU continue to support harmonised responses and co-ordinated action to humanitarian crises. The SNP will continue to urge the Government to prioritise international development as a key dimension of our global contribution to the international community —something that all of us in this room are proud of—informed by core values of fairness and equality.

International development is about being a good global citizen, which can be accomplished only through effective international collaboration. That is why the UK Government should seek the closest possible co-operation with our European partners.

Burma

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. He is right. The issues around minority communities are not restricted to the Rohingya. The Rohingya are the largest single community to be treated in an appalling way by the Burmese authorities, but there are other minorities, Christian and others, who are being persecuted. We will continue to keep the pressure on the Burmese authorities.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying in this House that this humanitarian tragedy has reached an unthinkable scale and the atrocities are almost unspeakable. As he knows, only last week, I visited the mega-camp in Bangladesh with the International Development Committee. The enormity of what we saw, with almost 1 million people in three or four square miles, was unbelievable. I am lost for words in trying to explain just how big this humanitarian emergency is. Five hundred people are still coming across the border every week from Burma to Bangladesh and their stories are the same—of atrocities, loss, murder, rape, and the rest, as we have been hearing in previous months.

Right now, we face an imminent challenge and we are running out of time, weeks away from a monsoon impending and a potential cyclone. I want to hear more from the Minister about what specifically is being done on that. Flooding and imminent landslides could both lead to further devastating loss of life. The reckoning is that more than 200,000 will be affected, and obviously, there could be subsequent waterborne diseases. The UK Government plan to work towards returning refugees to Burma. I know that needs to be slow and considered, but we in the Scottish National party are cautious and share the view of the UN and aid groups that this could thrust the refugees back into danger. Last week, we even heard from a Bangladeshi Minister that it is unsafe for the Rohingya to return.

We welcome the report by the UN fact-finding mission in Burma, which adds to the overwhelming evidence that what has taken place is a human rights violation of the most serious kind, likely amounting to crimes under international law. Earlier, we heard the UN special rapporteur state that the conflict had the “hallmarks of genocide”. As I speak today, my city of Dundee is considering the withdrawal of the freedom of the city that was given to Aung San Suu Kyi for human rights and democracy and for upholding international law. For my constituents, that is profoundly important.

The Minister said that he does not agree with the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry that the UK failed to see this crisis coming. However, this conclusion is backed by overwhelming evidence. The unchecked hate speech, lack of Government control over security forces, the presence of non-state and pseudo-non-state armed groups, growing nationalist support of the military and increased incidents of identity-based attacks were all serious indicators of the escalating violence against the Rohingya. The UK does not currently integrate an index of risk factors for identity-based violence, even though that would help to predict incidents of violent extremism, mass atrocities and institutional violence. I urge that the work on this index starts immediately, and I urge the Minister to announce today that he will begin the work on it.

Finally, will the Minister set out today what lessons have been learned from these events regarding atrocity prevention? How will these lessons be applied in Burma and elsewhere in future?

[Mark Field]

I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his kind words about the work we are trying to do together across Parliament. On cyclone preparedness, the UK is working with a number of partners in Bangladesh on strengthening infrastructure and ensuring that at-risk households are provided with shelter materials. Part and parcel of the process is trying to persuade the Bangladeshi authorities. I will do that in the meeting this afternoon and express the strength of feeling that we need to open up more space, so that the confinement that the refugees are under, which could be calamitous if a cyclone hits part of that area, is restricted as far as possible.

I did not want to be in any way critical of what the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded, not least with its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me. We have not been quiet about this issue in Burma and the fact that the Rohingya were continually going to be under pressure. We would contend that it is not the case that this notion came out of blue sky.

Being candid, I think everyone had a sense of wishful thinking. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who spoke earlier, had a DFID role and was a Minister at one time—I am not in any way blaming him, but the whole international community was so hopeful that after decades of military rule in Burma, going back to 1962 and, arguably, to the creation of the state in 1947-48, we would suddenly have a big surge towards democracy. The constitution that we in the international community were all party to seeing set up, I am afraid, provided massive difficulties almost from day one, when Aung San Suu Kyi became State Councillor. The power that was still in the hands of the military meant that we overlooked, for example, the Rohingya’s rights. They were not included in the census and were not allowed to vote in the first elections. In many ways, we recognise with hindsight that that gave succour to the Burmese military in thinking that they could get away with what they have now got away with. There was a lot of wishful thinking. With the best motivation in the world, we wanted to see some progress. After decades of the darkness of being a military dictatorship—almost a closed state—we looked upon any advancement as something that we should grasp hold of. That is a lesson we shall learn for the future.

I want to work with many non-governmental organisations —Protection Approaches is a good example —to work towards having a set of policies with which we can look at conflict prevention for the future. However, many hundreds of lives have been blighted and tens of thousands of lives have been ended by this dreadful event, and we know that this is still an ongoing situation. The best legacy that we can give to the Rohingya is not just to get a better life for them and ensure that they have citizenship and a stake in longer-term Burmese society, but to ensure that the sacrifices and hardship that they have gone through can be used as an example to make sure that the rest of the world makes those changes. Ultimately, that is a partly academic, practical exercise, and we need to work within the international community to bring that to pass.

Protection of Civilians in Afrin

Chris Law Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The UK has consistently raised the need to protect civilians and to de-escalate the operation. I repeat: the Turkish Government have assured the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they are working to prevent civilian casualties. We believe the Turkish Government, and we will hold them to their statement.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The devastation in Afrin represents a new front in the ongoing and devastating Syrian crisis—a seven-year civil and proxy war that has killed an estimated 500,000 people. As we all know, the laws of war strictly prohibit attacks targeting civilians or civilian structures, unless they are being used for military purposes, yet since Turkey’s aggressive airstrikes began, the local Kurdish health authority estimates that 220 civilians have died and more than 600 have been injured. The UN has said that the Afrin district, as well as nearby northern Aleppo, has a population of over 320,000, of whom the majority are classified as being in need and over 100,000 are now internally displaced.

To bring this home to my constituency, I have been speaking to a constituent of mine, a Syrian refugee called Kawa from the Afrin region, who was close to tears when he explained what is happening to his family. He told me his family are not safe. It is possible to contact them only every few days, but he spoke this morning to his brother, who said they are under siege and do not know what to do. They have no water, no electricity and not enough food. In his village near Afrin, every window has been shattered by bombs, and many homes are booby-trapped with explosives. Yesterday, his neighbour was killed by a bomb just by opening his front door. There is no safe place to go. These are civilians.

Will the Minister set out how the UK intends to put pressure on Turkey to end unlawful attacks and ensure respect for international humanitarian law? As a key member of the UN Security Council, what progress have the Government made in bringing about a political resolution in accordance with resolution 2254? Finally, on 20 February, the President of Turkey said that Turkey would “cut external aid” to Afrin. What are the UK Government doing to increase aid to the region and ensure that that vital aid gets there?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman started with a brief description of the horrors of this conflict, and in that he is absolutely right. The greater horror is that we have seen in recent times the shredding of the international norms on which we have tried to work for the best part of 70 years since 1945. If the UN Security Council cannot prevent conflict or bring it to an end, if we have moved away from the norm on the use of chemical weapons and that norm is not adhered to by parties on the UN Security Council and if we have seen the tactics of siege and hunger come back into modern warfare, then we risk losing everything that the international order put together after the horrors of the second world war was designed to prevent. Almost every conflict we now come across in the middle east has echoes of that. Unless we find a way to restore that international order, we will be debating this issue longer and it will give rise to the question what on earth states can do in response that does not go back to the old ways of dealing with conflict, which was a case of, “My stick has to be bigger than yours,” in order to prevent something. We all thought we had moved away from that, but maybe not.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s three questions, we will continue to talk to our NATO partner about its need for security and how this operation may be assisting it, and about the distinction it is drawing between humanitarian casualties and the need to protect civilians, and those from whom it seeks to protect its population.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second question about diplomatic efforts, we are doing everything we can to support Staffan de Mistura. There have been some efforts recently. The Sochi and Astana process has come to an end, which means that the Geneva process is now the best bet for the political resolution.

On aid, £2.46 billion is the largest support that the United Kingdom has ever given to protect refugees in a conflict situation. There will be no shortage of support for those who need it, but the best way to help them is to bring the conflict to an end.

International Development Committee: Burma Visas

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. During the previous Parliament, I was part of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and played a role in working together with the Burmese Parliament. We do have integrated programmes. On a cross-party basis, I think, we would not wish to desert—in perhaps Burma’s biggest hour of need—some elements in the country who feel strongly about this matter. Equally, my right hon. Friend will recognise the deep concern that we cannot continue as though it is business as usual in all our relations with the Burmese authorities. I very much hope that we will be able to work with some individuals to make that country a better and more democratic place in the years to come.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It goes without saying how deeply disappointed I am to be in this Chamber along with my International Development Committee colleagues, when we were supposed to be on a planned flight to Burma to see the good work that DFID is doing in the area. It is also with bitter disappointment that I found out just now that Aung San Suu Kyi is personally responsible for blocking the visas for us to see the essential work that we are providing to the poorest and most vulnerable of her citizens in her nation. DFID has a substantial aid programme in Burma, and our job is to go out there to see the good work that is being done. It is with a heavy heart—after hearing what we have heard today—that, as the Member of Parliament for Dundee city, I feel that I will have to recommend the withdrawal of Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom of the city.

Will the Minister tell me what assurances can be given for future visits to Burma to see the essential work that has been carried out by DFID in the regions, including in Rakhine state? Will he give us an opportunity to seek a further, more detailed explanation, given the fact that we are a democracy that has supported democracy in Burma, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi? I signed the letter mentioned previously and I would endorse anybody else signing it. If war crimes and mass atrocities have been carried out in Rakhine state, it is for all democracies to make their voice heard. Aung San Suu Kyi has been championing democracy in Burma for over 20 years. I hope that she is listening well to this message today, because she should also be speaking out. If any costs have been incurred by this Parliament and lost as a result of the cancellation of this trip, they should be refunded. Lastly, I ask for an apology from the Burmese authorities.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman and I spoke earlier this morning, before the disappointment when it became apparent that the Burmese authorities’ refusal was in place. I wish him and the rest of the Committee all the best in being able to see as much as they can in Bangladesh, but it is a depressing situation, as it would have been more worthwhile for Committee members to have visited Sittwe in Rakhine state, which is where they intended to be.

It is not that I want to defend Aung San Suu Kyi, but equally we have a bilateral relationship and are trying to keep lines of communication open. The recognition has to be that it is the Burmese military that has been responsible for many of the atrocities that have taken place in the aftermath of 25 August. We should not forget that point amidst the great disappointment that is shared by many Members of Parliament, given the great high hopes they had for the new regime when it came into play only a couple of years ago.

On issues of accountability, the immediate task will be to support those who are building evidence and testimony. That task has been ongoing over the past six months. A range of non-governmental organisations is already collecting that testimony, and we are considering how best we can support them. Burma is not a party to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, the ICC would only have jurisdiction over the alleged crime if Burma were to refer itself to the court—an unlikely scenario—or if there were a referral by the UN Security Council, which is also unlikely given the reasons that I have mentioned. We are working through a strategy on impunity and accountability for those who have committed some of these terrible crimes, and hope to come back to the House regarding that before too long.

International Disaster Relief

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) for his excellent speech, and I thank hon. Members for all the others that have been made in the debate. There is clearly a lot of consensus about the significance of the UK’s contribution to international disaster relief.

This is an important and timely debate. The world is facing the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945, with 20 million people at risk of starvation as a result of drought and conflict in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria alone, according to the UN. The UK public have been among the most generous responders to emergency appeals, and they largely support action by the UK Government to respond to such disasters. However, an improved response is and will be needed to cope better with current and future humanitarian crises.

I welcome UK bilateral spending on humanitarian aid, which has steadily increased over the past seven years, and the vast majority of which has been spent on emergency response. That can only be a good thing. However, research shows that investing in disaster risk reduction prior to disasters saves life and is far more cost-effective than funding the response after a disaster has happened. It is too simplistic to assume an overarching cost-benefit ratio, but a study by the World Bank estimates that every pound spent on preparedness saves in the region of £7 in repair and recovery costs. Despite that, as has been mentioned, just 0.4% of global aid is spent on preparing for disasters. The world humanitarian summit in 2016 agreed to increase humanitarian aid spending on disaster risk reduction from 0.4% to 5%. DFID signed up to that, and I ask the Minister to provide an update on what progress has been made towards that goal. I also urge the UK Government to continue to invest in the disasters and emergencies preparedness programme beyond this year, when it is scheduled to end.

It is important to note that 90% of recorded major disasters caused by natural hazards from 1995 to 2015 were linked to weather and climate change. Fragile states have been hit hardest, and have the fewest resources to cope with climate change impacts. Even the global strategic trends programme of the Ministry of Defence acknowledges that humanitarian assistance will increase by up to 1,600% in the next 20 years, and says that that is

“in large part due to the effects of climate change”.

The current draft of the sustainable development goals highlights the fact that to achieve goal No. 1, which is to

“End poverty in all its forms everywhere”,

society needs to

“build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental disasters”.

The Government should follow the world-leading work of the Scottish Government by setting up a climate justice fund to support vulnerable countries in mitigating and adapting to the changing circumstances caused by climate change events. It would make much more sense, rather than dipping into the aid budget after such events, to acknowledge the risks and take action to reduce them before disaster strikes. There is a critical opportunity to do that now, while the political will exists, and I ask the Minister to look at that as soon as he can.

To give an example from last year, Hurricane Irma was not adequately prepared for and there was a lack of forward thinking and a slow response from the UK Government, despite indications that the hurricane would wreak devastation. Every year hurricanes cause on average $835 million of damage in the Caribbean and almost $200 million of damage in the Pacific, so the UK Government should have seen it coming. The climate challenge must therefore be integrated into national development plans and strategies. Coping with climate variability and attempting to anticipate future climate changes are no longer an optional extra but should be a policy imperative for the Government.

As well as investing in disaster risk reduction to make aid more effective, it is important to channel more funds as directly as possible through local and national actors on the ground in the affected area—we have heard a bit about that this afternoon. Such organisations know their local communities well and can respond to humanitarian crises in a quick and effective manner.

At the world humanitarian summit 2016, the biggest donors, including DFID, came together to recognise and agree the Grand Bargain. That was a series of changes to the way that donors and aid organisations work, and it aimed to get means into the hands of those in most need. Last September the UK Government recommitted to the full implementation of the Grand Bargain, but the UK response to the Rohingya crisis shows that there is a long way to go to meet those objectives. There is a lack of transparency regarding how much funding local organisations receive from the UK, and mechanisms for empowering the Rohingya with access to decision making and planning in the crisis remain limited, meaning that the response is less effective than it could be.

Only 0.2% of humanitarian funding is currently channelled to local and national actors—I think everybody in the room would say that that is woefully inadequate. NGOs support an increase to 25%, and the UK Government should also commit further funding to the Start Fund, which provides grants to small organisations in emergency situations.

Let us consider the changing focus of international aid. The UK is seen, without doubt, as a leader in shaping the global development agenda. Although aid effectiveness is difficult to measure, recent reports from the International Development Committee point out that foreign aid is—quite rightly—the most scrutinised part of UK Government spending. It is monitored by the Committee, the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, and it scores highly on the international aid transparency index. However, there has recently been an alarming shift in the strategic focus of the UK aid strategy, and growing importance is now attached to the promotion of the UK’s so-called national interest. A key mechanism for achieving that, as set out in the 2015 aid strategy, has been to direct the aid budget away from DFID to other Departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Official figures show that, last year, roughly a quarter of the UK’s aid budget was spent by Government Ministries other than DFID—a rise of almost 50%. The direction of travel has raised serious concerns that that will reduce focus on global poverty alleviation, as well as concerns about the transparency and accountability of aid spending outside DFID. DFID has a commitment, enshrined in UK law, to reducing poverty, but it is not at all clear that other Departments have that same commitment. Will the Minister outline what steps DFID is taking to ensure that other Departments improve transparency and accountability in their ODA spending, and say how that will be measured? A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies emphasised that position, and warned that the trend towards funnelling less aid money through DFID, combined with a growing emphasis on ensuring benefit to British firms, would have a negative impact on poverty reduction in developing countries.

After an OECD meeting in November, the Government reported that reforms to the ODA rules had been agreed. Those included doubling the percentage of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions that count as aid—such as the UK troops sent to South Sudan—from 7% to 15%. That followed agreements last year that made more security and counter-extremism spending eligible. It is our view that the foreign aid budget should never be used for defence, and this change appears to be a clear attempt to dilute the fight against poverty. We are extremely concerned about such developments driven by the UK Government.

The Secretary of State recently pledged in a Telegraph article to use Britain’s foreign aid as part of

“a bold new Brexit-ready proposition to boost trade and investment with developing countries”.

It is concerning to read that UK aid could be used to mitigate the negative impacts of Brexit, with the UK’s security and prosperity key factors in deciding how aid is spent. The reiteration that aid must be spent in the national interest was typically disappointing. I cannot emphasise enough that the delivery of aid must remain focused on ending extreme poverty and supporting a fairer, more sustainable future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed, and I believe the SNP spokesman has three minutes to go.

[Chris Law]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I must say that it is also a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, since I see the Chair has changed in the past few minutes.

I was coming to my conclusion, but I will reiterate the point I was making about the notion of the national interest, which is that it does not mean very much. I have to reflect on what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) called the moral interest, because it is in all of our interests to serve the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable internationally.

I cannot emphasise enough that the delivery of aid must remain focused on ending extreme poverty and supporting a fairer, more sustainable future for all. Although that sounds obvious, it needs to be reiterated time and again. It is in all of our interests. It is a promise we made to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, and that is what the UK taxpayer has the right to expect.

It is also critical to ensure that all our aid is high-impact, transparent and accountable and that it delivers real change for people living in poverty, no matter which Department it comes from. That is why I urge the Minister to commit to investing more funding to resilience and recovery for those living in the fragile nations most at risk of climate-related extreme events and economic and social disasters. Lastly, I urge him to channel more funding as directly as possible through local and national actors on the ground in the affected area, working with local communities and organisations.

Taliban and IS/Daesh Attacks: Afghanistan

Chris Law Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

Others will have observed that, as I have said, the solution for long-term peace and stability lies not just with the military, but in a broader peace process. Although my hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that the Taliban have clearly not gone away, equally they have not been able to take any major cities during the past two or three years. That means that large, relatively ungoverned parts and open spaces of Afghanistan may well be under Taliban control, for want of a better phrase, but most of the larger towns and cities are assuredly not.

I can appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters, that perhaps our efforts in Helmand are perceived as wasted. It is certainly an argument put by some—I am not trying to put words into his mouth, but that is an increasing concern. Without doubt, UK personnel served with great commitment in Afghanistan, and our forces could play an important ongoing role in training the Afghan security forces to help to create the conditions for a more viable state moving forward. My assessment is that Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, but I am optimistic for its longer-term future. It is the view of the UK and our NATO allies that we have to look upon our presence as conditions-based rather than time-based.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

We are appalled to witness the surge in deadly attacks in Kabul. Such indiscriminate attacks against civilians are a complete violation of human rights and humanitarian laws, and we strongly condemn them. Our thoughts are with all those who are affected. As we have heard, at least 11 soldiers have been killed today in the attack on an army post in Kabul, and just two days ago an ambulance packed with explosives killed more than 100 people in a busy shopping area. Last Wednesday, an attack on the Save the Children office in Jalalabad killed at least five people, while 22 people were killed in a Kabul hotel on 20 January.

Can the Minister set out how precisely the UK Government’s counter-Daesh strategy is addressing the situation in Afghanistan? What steps is the UK taking to bring an end to the attacks? Will he tell us what more the UK Government can do to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected? Lastly, what have the UK Government done to provide assistance to humanitarian workers who were affected by the horrific attack on Save the Children?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Let me touch on the issue he raised last, that of humanitarian aid and the NGOs on the ground doing incredibly important work in difficult circumstances. Although the UK Government do not pass on information on threats to NGOs or other project partners directly—due to our security rules, we can pass on only what is on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel page, although he will appreciate that in many districts there will also be an opportunity for ongoing dialogue—we do require NGOs receiving official development assistance to manage their security, and an assurance process is required as part of that due diligence. He will therefore appreciate that there is a lot of ongoing dialogue, and we remain open to providing assistance to any humanitarian organisation on the ground there that has UK connections or may have UK employees. However, I appreciate that the parents and other relatives of those working out in such difficult circumstances must be increasingly alarmed by what they have seen in the headlines over the past 10 days.

From the UK’s perspective, we feel broadly speaking that progress is being made. It is sometimes very slow and painstaking progress, and when such events happen, particularly in quick succession, one is inclined to think that the Taliban and others have suddenly decided to do what they are doing in part because of the peace process conference taking place in February.

If I may respond to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) made earlier, it is our understanding that, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, only 13 districts are under Taliban control. Although that is still 13 too many, I hope the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) will recognise that that provides some evidence of progress. However, some of that progress is slow and painstaking, and we have to be patient.

Select Committee on International Development

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, everyone on the Committee felt a huge sense of disappointment at the lack of words from Aung San Suu Kyi. It was not the main focus of our inquiry, but we did take evidence on it, as is reflected in the report. Even at this stage, she has an opportunity to speak out and provide leadership. The evidence that we and the Foreign Affairs Committee took from Mark Farmaner, from Burma Campaign UK, was clear that her voice could make a real difference. Of course, we are also saying that in the end it is the military in Burma who hold the reins of power and that it is for them to change, but if she spoke up, I think it would be more likely that they would change their position.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The report is clear in highlighting where the UK Government have been slow to act. I hope they have been listening and, in particular, will now allow these 70 experts in gender-based violence to get out there as soon as possible. Does the Chair agree, however, that particular attention must be given to a clear and decisive plan for repatriation, not just on security and safety but on the legal status of every Rohingya who voluntarily goes back to Burma, and that the international development agencies need to have oversight at each and every stage?

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He is a new member of the Committee, having joined after last year’s election, and serves with distinction. He is absolutely right that if there is to be any sort of process of repatriation we need assurances about the legal status made available to any returning refugees. There is a particular issue about babies born in refugee camps and what status they might have if they return. We say in the report that as well as the Governments of these two countries, we need to listen to the Rohingya themselves, and we need the community leaders in the camps to be heard and to have their say on behalf of the Rohingya if there is to be any possibility of voluntary repatriation.

Enslavement of Black Africans (Libya)

Chris Law Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I begin by thanking those who initiated the petition and have secured over a quarter of a million signatures—an incredible feat. It is vital that we bring this hugely important issue to the forefront in Parliament today, and from what I have heard in the previous speeches, all of us in this Chamber feel very passionate about this matter.

As we have heard today, the world’s most vulnerable people, fleeing war and poverty back home, are being abused and auctioned off as slaves in Libya. According to reports, the trade works by preying on the tens of thousands of vulnerable people who risk everything to get to Libya’s coast and then across the Mediterranean into Europe. That has been described as the deadliest route on earth. The International Organisation for Migration, which provides services and advice on migration to refugees, estimates that there are up to 1 million migrants in Libya, and more than 2,000 have died at sea this year attempting to travel that route.

Most of the migrants in Libya are fleeing armed conflict, persecution or severe poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Their journey usually begins with a deadly trek through vast deserts to Libya and then involves either braving the Mediterranean sea on rickety boats headed to Europe or struggling to survive in one of the overcrowded detention centres in Libya, many of which are run by smugglers. As a result, many of those detention centres are the scene of widespread torture, rape and forced labour, according to the United Nations. When they get too crowded, people are sold off like goods in an open market. Testimony from the International Organisation for Migration states that

“they get off the bus and they are quickly put into a kind of murder machine, an extortion machine. They are robbed of their possessions…They are forced, they are tortured…And then they are sold. Unbelievable, but they are sold in open, public auctions: $400 for a labouring man, maybe a bit more for a woman who can be put in the sex trade. And this is what’s happening across the country.”

As we have heard today, recent news footage of scenes reminiscent of the 19th century, when the slave trade was rife, shows auctioneers advertising a group of west African migrants as

“big strong boys for farm work”

and referring to the migrants in Arabic as “merchandise”. That disturbing footage has served as a wake-up call for some and has rightly sparked outrage across the globe. Hundreds of thousands of people have now signed the petition demanding that more be done to stop the sale of vulnerable people in Africa. On 9 December, thousands of protesters descended on the Libyan embassy in London in an anti-slavery march. That followed protests across Europe, including in Stockholm, Paris and Brussels.

Libya is by no means unique: modern-day slavery is widespread around the world. It is happening in developed as well as undeveloped countries. There are estimated to be—wait for it—more than 40 million people in modern slavery in the world today. Forty million people; that is just under two thirds of the population of the UK. What is particularly shocking is that it is happening in the open, particularly in Libya, where people can go to a farmhouse, place a bid and end up “owning” a fellow human being.

The UK Government’s response to modern slavery has been slowly improving in the past few years. An example of that is the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which of course is very welcome. However, it is time for the Government to go further, with concerted, co-ordinated global action, and to lead from the front. Tackling forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking should be an absolute priority for the UK Government, both here and abroad. I ask the Minister to tell us here today what further steps the UK Government will take in order to lead the international approach to tackling this crisis.

Experts say that reports of slavery coming out of Libya from human rights groups and non-governmental organisations have been falling on deaf ears for a very long time. The UK Government must put pressure on Libyan leaders to stop the illegal markets, and those committing these unspeakable crimes must be brought to justice. We would like to see all UN member states working together to implement and enforce a protocol against human trafficking and slavery. That is not just a moral duty for the UK; it is a duty based on the active role that this Government has played in recent years and in conjunction with NATO in Libya.

This slavery did not come about in a vacuum. The atrocities revealed in the recent footage are the direct result of NATO’s military intervention to topple Gaddafi, which created a lawless society. There are now three Governments: one in the east, one in the west and one backed by the UN, none of which are able to govern. The UK Government had next to no strategy to support and reconstruct post-Gaddafi Libya. Indeed, a report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs stated that those failures led to the country becoming a failed state on the verge of all-out civil war. It is against that backdrop that the slave trade is booming. The human rights situation in Libya can be improved only under the stability of a united and representative Government, and the UK Government must work alongside international partners to support UN efforts towards that goal.

Furthermore, the EU goes to great lengths to stop migrants coming into its territory. That even includes training the Libyan coastguard to stop boats reaching Italy. As a partner of the EU, the UK is complicit with the EU as it has pushed to tighten its borders and has not provided alternative safe routes for migrants and refugees.

Amnesty International, in relation to its report published last week, said:

“European governments have not just been fully aware of these abuses…they are complicit in these abuses.”

In other words, it is nothing short of a policy of containment. Amnesty International went on to say:

“European governments have shown where their true priorities lie: namely the closure of the central Mediterranean route, with scant regard to the suffering caused”.

The reality is that that has led to hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants finding themselves trapped in Libya and exposed to horrific abuses, some of which we have heard about today. We will not be able to put an end to the tragedy in the Mediterranean if we do not create significant legal migration routes. It is also important to address the root causes of the crisis if it is to be resolved. We must ensure that people can find a dignified future in their home country. The UK Government need to work with the international community to co-ordinate efforts to tackle the root causes of large movements of people, including forced displacement, unmanaged migration, human trafficking and, of course, the ever increasing slave trade. Will the Minister therefore illustrate in some detail what steps the UK has taken to influence its EU partners to develop safe routes for people fleeing war, armed conflict and persecution?

In short, what we have heard today is that the reports coming from Libya are of violations of human rights and human dignity on an unthinkable scale, and I am sure that all of us in this Chamber agree that they have no place in our world. It goes without saying that the UK cannot stay silent or stand by in the face of such inhumane atrocities, as it has done in the past and continues to do. It is therefore time for the UK to join the international community and act now through multilateral diplomacy with the EU, NATO and the UN Security Council, where the UK still has significant influence, and to take all measures to end slavery in Libya and help to rebuild and reconstruct a stable and secure country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening it. Like everyone else, I also thank those who have worked so hard to raise the petition. I think we would all say that the fact that so few colleagues are here does not reflect the level of interest in the House; this debate has landed on a particularly busy day in the House. I venture to suggest that almost every single Member of the House of Commons would have wanted to listen to the speeches made today, and probably to make one themselves. Those who have done so much work to raise the petition should not doubt that they have done a great job. The way in which the House has conducted itself in this debate and the speeches that have been made reflect colleagues’ concern.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke for the Opposition, did my job in running through the speeches. I thank him; I will not repeat the process because he summarised extremely well what colleagues said. I am coming to the substance of the debate, but I take issue with the statements about the intervention in Libya and the aftermath. I was there; I was the Minister responsible at the time. The hon. Gentleman praised Peter Millett; I know how hard diplomats worked in the immediate aftermath of the events that removed Gaddafi. There were elections. We worked to create a civil administration out of nothing, because Gaddafi had left nothing. There was an absolute commitment by those in Libya. They wanted no boots on the ground. There was a limit to what they wanted from the outside world. We tried. The circumstances are clear now: the efforts were not successful, despite all the work that was put in.

There was no abandonment of Libya, but the depth of the damage done by 40 years of Gaddafi and the failure to create any institutions left a bigger hole than probably anyone understood at the time. There were a series of consequences, for which it is impossible to pin blame purely and simply, beyond on those who created the misery in the first place and who were overthrown. That is of only partial consequence now. What is important is to deal with what is happening at present, and that has been the substance of the debate.

[Chris Law]

I want to touch on that important point. We learned some painful lessons around Iraq. In terms of our involvement in Libya, was there preparedness and thought about medium to long-term plans and strategies at the end of the conflict, whatever its outcome, or was it a posthumous question at the end of, “Oh God, here we are now—what do we do next?”

[Alistair Burt]

During the conflict, nobody quite knew how it would end, because the circumstances were happening on the ground, militias were forming and so on. NATO played a part after the Arab League made a presentation to the UN demanding intervention because Benghazi was going to be attacked and people were going to be slaughtered. Let us not forget the reasons why the intervention happened in the first place: the determination to save civilian lives in Benghazi, prompted by the Arab League and the UN, was highly significant.

All the way through the conflict, the sense was “What happens next?” That is why people went in afterwards to seek to build a civil administration and prepare the ground for elections. Those took place, and a Government were established, but the fallout since then has been a combination of pressure from Islamist forces that came into the process afterwards and the inability of those who formed the militias to agree among themselves about how to support the politicians in civil Government. It was thought through, but it could not be imposed.

People themselves must create their own institutions. I remember people at the time praising the fact that there were not boots on the ground determined to do it for the Libyan people—they were doing it for themselves. It was thought through, but for every particular conflict and difficulty, it seems that a new adverse reaction is created, and that is what we are living through now. I will come to that and what we are trying to do, because it is most important.

Anyone who has seen the horrific footage of slave markets in Libya cannot possibly have been unaffected by it; it is appalling. I also put on the record our admiration for the journalists who got the footage. When I saw the pictures of them going into that place, my first thought was, “They’re going to be killed.” How could anyone go into those circumstances unarmed, knowing that the people conducting the auction were who they were and what the outcome was likely to be. If they treated the lives of those whom they were buying and selling with such disdain, what would they think of reporters who were there to expose them? We thank the CNN crew who did such a remarkable job.

We will always remember some of the things that came out of the footage, such as the talk of merchandise, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) spoke of wickedness, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. We discussed the fact that once someone has a mindset of treating someone else as not human, there is virtually nothing that they will feel unable to do. That has been the scourge of the region and other parts of the world for too long.

The Government share the deep concern and alarm expressed about modern slavery, the formation of the conditions that have produced the migration, and what migrants face in Libya today. As the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) reminded us, we must not forget that the men, women and children enslaved in Libya typically began their journeys hundreds or even thousands of miles away. They are likely to have fallen foul of traffickers and organised criminal gangs that pay no heed either to the desperate human suffering caused by their despicable trade or to international borders. That is why our work to help the victims of traffickers, prevent others from falling victim to them and shut down the trafficking networks that exploit migrants must be carried out on an international scale, as all hon. Members have said.

Let me first brief hon. Members on the UK Government’s work to tackle modern slavery globally and then focus on the situation in Libya. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has identified modern slavery as

“the great human rights issue of our time”.

She sponsored the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which more than one hon. Member has referred to this afternoon. Eradicating modern slavery is one of our top foreign policy priorities. As we know, modern slavery exists here, too, although not to the degree that we saw on those awful videos. It is everywhere, and tackling it is a cause that unites decent people everywhere.

It is not acceptable that slavery still exists in the 21st century. We reckon that this vile trade generates around £150 billion a year for traffickers and organised criminal groups. As a criminal enterprise, it is second only to the drugs trade. Trafficking of people is horrific and criminal, but it generates huge amounts of money and that is why it goes on.

We are pressing for concerted and co-ordinated global action. We are strengthening the international consensus to support migrants, tackle modern slavery and take a comprehensive approach to migration. The hon. Member for Dundee West asked what we were doing internationally. At the UN General Assembly in September, the Prime Minister convened world leaders to launch a call to action to end modern slavery. She also committed to using UN sanctions to target people traffickers and strengthening the ability of Libyan law enforcement agents to tackle these criminals. The hon. Member for West Ham is absolutely correct that if the people responsible can be identified individually, there are sanctions that can be applied. Most of us would like very serious sanctions to be used against them.

We are also doubling our aid spending on modern slavery to £150 million. That money will be used to address the root causes of slavery, strengthen law enforcement capacity in transit countries and provide support for the victims of these horrific crimes. Their ordeal does not end when they are released; it goes on in their memory.

The UK is committed to addressing illegal migration across the Mediterranean, including through work in Libya and further upstream. Hon. Members mentioned the need to bring different elements together; the UK supports a comprehensive approach that addresses the drivers of illegal migration and reduces the need for dangerous onward movements. That includes not only breaking the business model of smugglers and the trafficking rings that prey on the desperation of migrants, but providing vital protection to victims. The UK’s National Crime Agency is working with Libyan law enforcement, enhancing its capability to tackle the people-smuggling and trafficking networks.

Our new £75 million migration programme will specifically target migrants travelling from west Africa to Libya via the Sahel. It will provide critical humanitarian assistance and protection; assist those along the way who may wish to return home; give information about the dangers ahead; and offer vulnerable people meaningful alternatives to treacherous journeys through Libya and Europe. It will also include a scale-up of reintegration support in countries of origin, particularly for those returning from Libya.

The UK is conscious of the links between migration, people-smuggling and modern slavery. We are increasingly building modern slavery programming into our migration work. We have also assisted vulnerable migrants with voluntary returns. UK bilateral funding has helped more than 1,400 individuals to escape the challenging circumstances in Libya and return home. The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about the voices of those involved; as the recent programme demonstrated, it is those voices that are most powerful in dissuading others from leaving.

If I may make a wider point, a significant amount of our international development contribution of 0.7% of gross national income is designed to be used in countries where we want to support the provision of alternatives for people who feel that their smartphone shows them a different life. We must not neglect how easy it now is for people to find out what is happening elsewhere. There are safer alternatives to leaving, but that can happen only when international development work of the kind that we are engaged in bears fruit.

Israel: US Embassy

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

If there is, this is a decision that has clearly been welcomed by the Israeli Prime Minister and the state of Israel. There is no doubt that Israel sees the United States as a great friend. There is no surprise to any of us in relation to that, and nor does it change anything particularly markedly in terms of relationships in the region. Perhaps, when proposals come forward, if concessions are needed by the state of Israel in order to make the agreement that we all wish to see which will be supported by all sides, there just might now be an extra area of pressure that can be applied because a friend of Israel has done what the President has done.

I have no inkling of the thinking of the President of the United States. But, as everything in this whole business is used in one way or another, there are just possibly those within the state of Israel who will recognise the limb that the President has gone out on, and perhaps, when push comes to shove, that might be of some assistance. As for us, we are very clear on our position. We disagree with this and we will continue to work with all partners to seek the peace settlement that is so urgently needed.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv is not only reckless and wrong but throws the entire peace process into jeopardy. There is no denying that this decision seriously hinders a two-state solution to the conflict. The reaction from the international community has been overwhelming. Pope Francis said, “I cannot remain silent.” The UN Secretary-General spoke of his “great anxiety”. The European Union has expressed “serious concern”. I could go on.

Tomorrow, the UN will meet amid concerns that Mr Trump’s announcement is in breach of both international law and UN resolutions. Will the Minister therefore take a moment to condemn this reckless decision in the strongest possible terms and assure the House that all efforts will be made tomorrow at the UN meeting to have the decision reversed?

Regardless of political differences across this Chamber, we share the values of tolerance, inclusion and respect across these islands. Taking that into consideration, will the Minister today completely rule out a state visit from President Trump and send out a clear message that his divisive and reckless actions are not welcome here?

[Alistair Burt]

We will allow the peace process to be derailed by this only if we interpret the decision as doing just that, as opposed to providing a different opportunity to take the peace process forward. The envoys are still working; they are still in contact with Arab states and Arab partners, as well as the state of Israel. As I said, that work should continue with greater urgency. The risks in the region are even clearer this morning than they were yesterday before the President spoke—risks that many colleagues in this House know full well because of our frequent visits to the region. The only way that those risks can be quelled is by demonstrating to those who seek hope for the process that there is still a chance of hope. The United Kingdom must do nothing to cut off that possibility. That is why we have to keep urging the peace process forward. The deficit of trust with the United States because of its decision will be noted, but it will remain an important part of discussions for the future.

On the hon. Gentleman’s other two questions, we co-sponsored the meeting with the UN, so it is our intention to work with partners urgently on moving this forward. On the President’s visit, again, the Prime Minister has made clear her views on that: an invitation has been extended, but there is no date set for the visit.

World AIDS Day 2017

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing this important and timely debate and for his continuing work with the all-party parliamentary group.

This debate is an opportunity to reflect on the estimated 35 million people who have died from AIDS-related illnesses and to show solidarity with the millions of people living with HIV worldwide today. It is an honour to wear a red ribbon in solidarity with all of those people. However, for many of them, stigma remains a problem. Stigma leaves people feeling ostracised and experiencing poor mental health and social outcomes. Stigma is also one of the biggest barriers to testing and treatment, and fear of a HIV-positive diagnosis discourages individuals from getting tested and engaging with health services. For some, stigma means living in perpetual fear of their HIV status being revealed to those with whom they live, work and spend time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said earlier, in Scotland last week the First Minister took an HIV test, which gives instant results, as part of efforts to reduce the stigma surrounding the disease. Not only that but voluntary sector bodies, along with people living with the condition, joined together to unveil a new action plan in Scotland ahead of World AIDS Day. The anti-stigma strategy “Road Map to Zero” set out how organisations such as the National AIDS Trust, the Terence Higgins Trust, HIV Scotland and others will continue to work with the Scottish Government and others to end HIV-related stigma.

We should all take pride in the fact that Scotland is a leader in HIV policy. It was the first nation in the UK to make PrEP available on the NHS and I pay tribute today to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for that to happen. PrEP is making a huge difference to the lives of many people in Scotland and I hope the UK will follow in Scotland’s footsteps.

At an international level, incredible achievements have been made in the global response to HIV. Some may argue that the worst is behind us, but sadly HIV is still a death sentence for many people across the globe. Sub-Saharan Africa remains most severely affected, with nearly one in every 25 adults living with HIV.

One of the UN’s sustainable development goals is to end AIDS by 2030. To reach that target, significant work still needs to be done. There are signs that the HIV response is beginning to stall. Key challenges remain. One is that the level of new infections each year is still too high. Only last week, the World Health Organisation highlighted the fact that the number of new infections in Europe is growing at an “alarming rate”. In central Asia, infections have increased by more than half since 2010. Key populations—for example, men who have sex with men, transgender people, people who use drugs and sex workers—are disproportionately affected by HIV. A further challenge is the high price of intellectual property and drug prices, which remain a barrier for HIV patients’ access to medicine. UNAIDS predicts we would need an additional $7 billion annually to respond to the global HIV challenge. However, total DFID HIV funding decreased by 22% between 2012 and 2015, and the Department’s last strategy on HIV expired more than two years ago. It has no plans to renew it.

Without a strategy, DFID has no way to set and communicate priorities or measure impact. I would therefore urge the Minister to increase overall levels of UK funding for the global HIV response, in line with UNAIDS recommendations, and to formalise and make public its approach to HIV. With current tools, we can hope to control the epidemic, but as the Gates Foundation has highlighted, to make headway towards ending it, we must bring down the number of new infections at a much faster rate. That will require new and better prevention technologies, such as an effective vaccine.

The Minister noted during last week’s DFID questions that the UK has been a long-standing supporter of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. We all agree about that, but it now needs action. The Government must increase research and development so that we have the necessary tools for the future.

We want to live in communities that have positive and non-stigmatising attitudes towards people who are affected by HIV. World AIDS Day and debates in Parliament help us to share that goal. Ultimately, World AIDS Day reminds the public, and MPs, that HIV has not gone away. Great scientific and medical progress has been made. As others have mentioned, treatment is dramatically more effective, and many more people are living long and healthy lives. At least that is the case in wealthy countries; it is not everywhere. The UK must show leadership in the global response to HIV and AIDS.