Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the critical importance of the Global Fund’s work. The Global Fund has saved more than 50 million lives. It was very heavily reformed in 2010. Two thirds of the money goes towards the Commonwealth and it is brilliantly effective. She can rest assured that we are looking very carefully at the pledge we are going to make.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister for Development to his place. As a Back Bencher, he spoke passionately and frankly in holding his party to its manifesto commitments on international development, and I applaud that. Indeed, in July he said:

“I urge the Government to ensure that we are as generous as possible on the replenishment of the fund”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 922.]

Yet today, under his ministerial role, not a single penny has been pledged to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I just heard him say on the record that it will continue to be supported substantially, so he may wish to correct that. Words are deeds, so will the Minister put money where his mouth is and join the other G7 countries by making a late donation to the Global Fund and delivering what his party promised?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our support throughout the whole House for the Global Fund is absolute and intense. Discussions are ongoing on the subject of money. I hope very much it will not be too long before I can come before the House and answer his very specific questions on both the money and the results that that money will achieve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Law, the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

According to the UN Secretary General, people are 15 times more likely to die if they live in a climate crisis hotspot, which is what we see unfolding right now in Pakistan, with more than 6 million people in dire need of humanitarian aid and already more than 1,000 people dead. Last year, at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland became the first developed economy in the world, led by our First Minister, to pledge dedicated loss and damage funding. Ahead of COP27, will the UK Government finally commit to establishing a similar loss and damage policy in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord?

[Vicky Ford]

We are working with countries across the world to ensure that everybody holds up the promises that they made at COP26. We understand the challenges that many countries are facing, including the terrible situation in Pakistan, where we have already donated more than 10% of what the UN and Pakistan have asked for to meet their emergency need. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman should focus on the work that the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), has been doing with more than 50 missions working across the world to ensure that we get action before the next COP in Egypt.

Strategy for International Development

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), because I watched him during his speech and his hand did not shake once. That impressed me, as it is certainly not how I experienced making my maiden speech—although perhaps it is because today Operation Big Dog might finally be going to the vet for one last time. I also thank my trusted friend and colleague, and Chair of the International Development Committee the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing her conclusions.

This debate has gone on for more than a couple of hours and what has been striking is that we are all saying one thing: this strategy is not an international development strategy. Not one Member has stood up and supported it this afternoon. That should be the most striking feature of the debate. Rather, it is almost entirely a business and trade-focused strategy, with only one mention of the UN sustainable development goals, which are the very backbone of development and aid, and just nine mentions of poverty. Instead there is a relentless focus on business, trade, enterprise, exports, global supply chains and the private sector. As a serial entrepreneur, I get that, but that is not the first priority in the minds of those who are absolutely on their haunches and who have nothing on a day-to-day basis. Frankly, we have abandoned what an international development strategy is all about: to alleviate the most fundamental issues of starvation, persecution and all the other problems in some of the least developed and most vulnerable countries.

The Secretary of State previously held office in the Department for International Trade, so it comes as no surprise that this document could easily have originated from that Department. I have been thinking about a new title for her: the Secretary of State for Enterprise—the SS Enterprise, so she could be Captain Truss. What underpins this strategy is not poverty alleviation but trade with UK businesses. Indeed the strategy states:

“Our financing model…will deliver for people here in the UK—investments abroad will generate export opportunities in the UK, creating jobs right across the country.”

The UK Government clearly view international development as an investment and profit venture, in their own narrow nationalist interests.

The international development sector has been scathing of the plan, with Bond stating that the strategy

“seems largely driven by short-term political and economic interests rather than the attempt to tackle the root causes of global crises such as inequality, conflict and climate change, which impact us all.”

Similarly, Oxfam has said that

“this strategy prioritises aid for trade and the financialisation of development. It is clearly motivated more by tackling China than tackling poverty...By gutting its aid budget—and now putting geopolitics above poverty—the UK has fallen short of the challenge.”

Perhaps that is why no one so far has stood up and supported the strategy.

The SNP is of the firm opinion that international development should not be viewed as a business and profit venture. It should be focused on protecting and safeguarding those in the most acute need around the world. Anything else is, frankly, a complete dereliction of both moral duty and a duty as one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Therefore, it is shameful that poverty is rarely mentioned in the strategy. The only mention of UN sustainable development goals is as follows—even the framing of it is appalling:

“The UK brings powerful economic and political tools to our development partnerships:”—

I agree—

“aid, diplomacy, trade, investment, expertise and influence. We will use those to meet the evolving needs of our partners, and support achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals…in line with the Integrated Review.”

I ask the Minister here today: how can a strategy that claims to be wide-ranging and holistic possibly address the UN sustainable development goals in a co-ordinated and clear manner when there is only one mention of the SDGs in the entire strategy?

By focusing heavily on trade and investment opportunities, the UK Government are implicitly prioritising economic opportunities with middle-income countries that have immediate domestic business potential, rather than with countries in dire humanitarian need whose national and economic infrastructures have been crippled by crisis. A key question therefore arises: who is the intended beneficiary of this new international development strategy? Is it aid recipients, or wealthy UK-based donors?

At the International Development Committee in May—I am glad to see a number of my colleagues from the Committee here in the Chamber—I asked the Foreign Secretary why the first case study within the international development strategy was that of Liquid Telecom, a company established in the UK, building fibre broadband in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What sustainable goals does that achieve and how exactly does it reduce poverty? It has been estimated that 73% of the Congolese population live on less than $1.90 a day, yet UK aid to the DRC has been cut by around 60%.

Last year, 19 aid agencies appealed to the FCDO, stating that 27.3 million people in the DRC—[Interruption.] I do hope the Minister is listening while she is on the phone. Some 27.3 million people in the DRC are experiencing acute food insecurity. Action Against Hunger stated that the UK aid cut to the Democratic Republic of the Congo—I hope the Minister is listening at this point—would kill 50,000 children who would otherwise have survived.

There is no mention of any uplift in ODA food and nutrition programmes within the strategy, despite the current global food crisis—it is bonkers—and despite its being one of the key goals of the SDGs. However, the strategy says:

“We will make more targeted investments of our resources and our efforts in fragile states or where there are compelling trade and investment opportunities.”

This strategy should be in the bin. Why is the broadband provision being highlighted in this strategy, instead of its addressing acute food insecurity? Can the Minister answer the question that the Foreign Secretary could not answer: at what point does a trade or investment opportunity become more compelling than saving starving children's lives?

The strategy is rhetoric-heavy and spending-light and fails to make any explicit funding references to health, education, food, or women and girls’ programmes. For example, the strategy commits to: increasing access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics; building stronger health systems; ending preventable deaths; and investing in research and innovation. However, it does not mention how those aims will be achieved, or how much funding has been earmarked for these efforts. [Interruption.] I am trying to deliver a speech! The Minister needs to hear what I have to say. Similarly, there are commitments to education, empowerment and ending violence for women and girls, but no detailed funding commitments, and no references to wider educational targets for boys and young men.

The Foreign Secretary has also said that she would restore the budget for women and girls to £745 million, which sounds honourable, but CARE International estimates that the FCDO would have to provide £1.9 billion to restore spending levels for gender equality to 2020 levels, so that money is a fraction, and what is being claimed is not true. There is lots of rhetoric, but little, if anything, of the detail.

Crucially, the International Development strategy provides no concrete roadmap to reinstating the 0.7% aid budget, and boy what timing! As we heard earlier, the G7 was coming to UK, and all of its members stepped up to the plate as we stepped down.

The Government’s approach is also bonkers at a time when the planet is facing multiple crises. Let me list just a few. The UK Government have cut health and medical funding during a global pandemic. They have cut food programmes during a looming global food security crisis. They have cut environmental projects in the midst of a climate crisis. And—you couldnae make this up—they have cut conflict-resolution projects at a time of renewed war. Those cuts cost lives. Analysis has shown that over 7 million children have lost access to education, 12 million babies will not receive nutritional support and over 100,000 unvaccinated children will die. Yes, that is death as a result of the UK’s callous decision to cut the aid budget—I hope I am clear. These death-sentence cuts are as miserable and rotten as the core of this Government today. It is morally and pragmatically indefensible that this UK Government continue actively to jeopardise the lives and wellbeing of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.

Let us put this issue in the current political context. Ever since he came into office, the Prime Minister has been intent on dismantling and reversing the UK’s leadership on international development—his ideologically driven departmental merger, savage budget cuts and now this aid-for-trade strategy have put that beyond doubt. He has aligned policy more closely with the manifesto commitments made by Nigel Farage when he was leader of the Brexit party and UKIP; he has dismissed cross-party consensus in this Chamber; and he has U-turned on his own party’s manifesto and the Government’s legally binding commitments. With his time in No. 10 coming—rapidly—to an end, I hope those irresponsible actions and callous attitudes towards the world’s poorest and most vulnerable are reversed as swiftly as possible.

I also live in hope that those on the Government Benches who have defied their leadership and their party Whips make the case for a return to 0.7% of GNI, with that money focused on poverty alleviation more loudly than ever before. I even dream that those who voted for these destructive policies for narrow, short-term reasons or for their own personal political advancement will reflect on the damage they have done to the UK’s reputation, to the UK’s national interest and, most importantly, to the millions of people who have lost out on life-saving support which was destroyed at the stroke of a pen and without a tinge of regret.

Over the past three years we on the SNP Benches have been resolute in our opposition to the Government’s international development policies and in our support for a fully funded aid budget targeting those in acute need. We will continue to push the UK Government into adopting an international development framework akin to the good global citizen policy proposed in the Scottish Government’s recently published “Global Affairs Framework”. We are committed to prioritising the furthest behind first, instead of politicising aid. We will amplify marginalised voices on global issues such as migration, human rights, biodiversity and the climate crisis. We have committed to listening and acting in response to often unheard voices, especially those of women and young people and those from the global south. We will always aim to be a good global citizen, no matter what challenges may emerge and irrespective of the behaviour of others. That is fundamental to everything we do internationally, and it is at the core of why we in the SNP are true internationalists and put our money where our mouth is.

The Scottish Government, with the Scottish Parliament’s meagre devolved powers in the field of international development, have already taken wide-ranging positive action. Scotland was the world’s first nation to set up a dedicated climate justice fund, which will double to £24 million over the next four years. At COP26 we were also the world’s first nation to commit to a loss and damage fund. Rather than cut aid, the Scottish Government will increase their international development fund from £10 million to £15 million during this Parliament. Scotland is already demonstrating that it sees international development very differently from the UK Government and is stepping up to make its global contribution, rather than retreating inwards and focusing on self-interest.

With the referendum on Scottish independence coming in October 2023, it is time to set out our hopes and ambitions for what Scotland could and should do differently as a good global citizen in the international community. Scotland can and wants to do better. I envisage an entirely different, more progressive and more humane way of delivering on our international development commitments.

For example, I would like an independent Scotland to make helping the furthest behind first, and alleviating poverty, the basis for all international development policy within a separate department for international development. I want an independent Scotland to commit in law to spending the UN target of 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance and fully embed the UN’s sustainable development goals and grand bargain commitments into its international development strategy. Scotland has an opportunity to lead the way in decolonising development, ensuring that development projects are partner rather than donor led, and promoting the establishment of a decolonisation officer within Scotland’s department for international development.

I will finish on this. I believe without doubt that as a progressive, outward-looking and truly internationalist nation, focusing on core themes such as conflict, health, climate and gender equality, an independent Scotland will not only have profound potential for positive change but will be a key partner, leader and influencer, committed to the most vulnerable peoples across the world, to do more, to do better and to deliver a fairer and more just global future.

FCDO Diplomatic Staff: Funding Levels

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure and a pleasant surprise to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I thank the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for securing this important debate today and for raising really fundamental concerns; and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The Prime Minister’s foreword to the integrated review boasts:

“The UK will continue to be renowned for our leadership in security, diplomacy and development, conflict resolution and poverty reduction.”

What a boast that is. Since it was published just over a year ago, we have seen the UK abandon that leadership in a number of the areas mentioned.

To begin with, in development, the UK Government have doubled down on their tragic decision to cut lifesaving aid spending from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, ensuring that that supposedly temporary cut will be in place for years to come owing to the fiscal tests required to return to 0.7%.

In addition, poverty reduction was barely touched upon in last week’s international development strategy, with trade and investment opportunities proving to be the focus and driving force behind that strategy, rather than the globally agreed UN sustainable development goal No. 1 of removing poverty. Secondly, commitments to conflict resolution have been undermined by cuts to the conflict, stability and security fund, significantly so by cuts to programmes in the middle east and North Africa, and also by cuts to other programmes in fragile and conflict-affected states. All that has undermined the UK’s own national security in the process and damaged the UK’s ability to lead and be trusted on the global stage.

The FCDO has also been guilty of several gross diplomatic miscalculations, including the shambolic military and diplomatic withdrawal from Afghanistan—indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee is calling for the resignation of Sir Philip Barton today—as well as the diplomatic fallout that resulted from France being excluded from the AUKUS security pact, and the UK Government’s renewed antagonism of the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol, with threats to unilaterally end that legally binding agreement. Rather than projecting an image of a stable, reliable international partner, the UK looks impulsive, short-sighted and removed from reality.

Diplomacy cannot be the next victim of cuts, particularly if the UK wants to repair its damaged reputation on the world stage. In December, the Prime Minister told the House that a reported FCDO staff cut of 10% across the board was, in Donald Trump’s famous words, “fake news”. That was reiterated by the then Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who said:

“There will not be a 10% staff cut and Ministers will make the final decisions on workforce changes in the spring.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 1155.]

Yet within the last weeks, the Government have revealed their target of cutting 91,000 civil service jobs. Will the Minister address how many of those jobs will be cut in the FCDO and how that will affect diplomatic staff?

Over the weekend it was reported that the Cabinet Office was poised to write to all permanent secretaries, asking them to model what would be required to slash staffing numbers in three different scenarios. The fascinating bit about that is that when working out the 91,000 figure, the answers should be there before any asking is done. But no; let us have a look at this. What scenario does the Minister expect for the FCDO? The cuts, according to the different scenarios, are 20%, 30% and 40%. That is like the back of the proverbial fag packet. Are those figures not in excess of the 10% cut dismissed as fake news by the Prime Minister in December, or will the jobs within the FCDO be ringfenced—yes or no?

The Foreign Secretary said in March that her staff would not be cut, and would instead be redeployed to key geostrategic areas. There is no coherence in the Government’s statements or certainty for FCDO staff, with a spokesman for the PCS union stating:

“Morale is incredibly low, and there’s a feeling of understaffing in some areas, with people being shifted from crisis to crisis.”

So we go to the very heart of the question: when we are still in the midst of a global pandemic, threatened by a potential global food supply crisis, facing a climate catastrophe and witnessing war in Europe once again and across the world, is this really the time to be considering cuts to diplomatic staff? All those challenges are international in their scope and consequence, so diplomats should have as much funding and resources available to match the UK’s ambition to be a force for good in the world alongside allies, rather than being hampered by cuts to staff and funding.

[Jim Shannon]

I should have said this in my contribution, but I wish to make the point that the hon. Gentleman is outlining the importance of the staff. I am not sure whether people read the obituaries in The Times, but if they do and they look at the diplomats who have contributed across the world, they will find their commitment, interest and knowledge, and the way that they have used their positions on behalf of this good United Kingdom, incredible. The hon. Gentleman is very right in what he says: the importance of diplomats can never be underestimated.

[Chris Law]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. On that important point, institutional memory stretches across years—decades, in fact. With Governments coming and going, whether Labour or Conservative, diplomats are a continuing presence and the mainstay of the voice for the UK. So cutting staff is short-sighted; it is brutal, and most of all it means that our reach in the world is fundamentally more short-sighted, so that we go from one crisis to another.

To add insult to injury, efforts to address global challenges have not been helped by the deeply mistaken merger of the Department for International Development into the Foreign Office. The fundamental fear that the expertise that had made DFID world-leading would be diminished as a consequence is now coming to fruition. Earlier this year, it was reported that nearly 100 former DFID technical directors left the FCDO between September 2020 and November 2021, with no one hired to replace them. In fact, there are recent reports of how the German Government have benefited from some of those people, who have gone over to help with their international development. The Institute for Government director Bronwen Maddox recently told a House of Lords Committee that it was frequently heard that DFID people were not convinced that the Department was the place for them.

Furthermore, an FCDO official told Politico:

“The department is so unwieldy right now. It’s like three departments shoved into one, with all the responsibilities of DfID and [the Department for Exiting the European Union] DExEU and now a war.”

Not only has the merger resulted in death-sentence cuts to millions in the world as a result of an erosion in the aid budget and the focus on poverty reduction; it has also caused talented staff to leave and added to the confusion and lack of direction within the Department. That simply cannot continue. Funding levels for diplomacy need to be maintained, with funding for aid and development restored, at the very minimum.

Another area of expertise that has not been touched on so far, but which is just as important and needs sufficient investment, is linguistic capabilities. For example, the number of fluent Russian speakers in the Foreign Office fell by a quarter in the years before the most recent invasion of Ukraine—let us not forget that the invasion of Ukraine began in 2014. Given the security challenges of today’s world, it is essential that across Government, staff are equipped with the correct skills to predict and handle the myriad international security problems. The UK Government must address those linguistic shortcomings as a matter of urgency. What assessment has been made of staffing cuts and the FCDO’s ability to operate across languages?

Finally, the SNP will of course continue to push the UK Government to adopt a foreign policy akin to the good global citizen policy proposed in the Scottish Government’s recently published global affairs framework. That framework aims to amplify marginalised voices, share experience in policy making and learn from others on global issues, such as global inequality, migration, human rights, biodiversity and, of course, the changes in climate that are looming ever closer. Scotland is looking out to the world to build friendly and socially conscious relationships with others, while the UK is retreating and looking inward, viewing aid and diplomacy as a profit and loss exercise.

Faced by the own goals of Brexit, departmental mergers and budget cuts, alongside the global challenges of conflict, climate change and health and food crises, it is ever more urgent that the UK has a full-scale rethink of how it conducts itself on the world stage. Cuts to FCDO diplomatic staff funding would simply be another own goal, and another indication that “global Britain”, as they call it, is nothing but a worn and ragged slogan.

Xinjiang Internment Camps: Shoot-to-Kill Policy

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson, Chris Law.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The Xinjiang police files provide some of the strongest evidence to date for a policy targeting almost any expression of Uyghur identity, culture or Islamic faith and of a chain of command running all the way up to the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. That follows the Uyghur tribunal that concluded that there is proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that China is committing crimes of torture, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. We simply cannot collect more and more evidence of atrocities being committed; we must act now. What plans are there to impose sanctions on Chinese officials named today, including Chen Quanguo, who chillingly told senior military figures:

“even five years re-education may not be enough”.

Let us remember that he was responsible for many of the human rights abuses in the sovereign state of Tibet, which has been illegally occupied by China for some decades.

In line with recommendations from the Foreign Affairs Committee, has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office begun engaging in dialogue with the International Criminal Court on the feasibility of an investigation into crimes committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjian—yes or no? Will the UK Government finally declare that China is committing genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang?

[Amanda Milling]

I have been clear on the shocking details that have emerged today, which are adding to an already extensive body of evidence, and very clear that we have been standing with international partners in calling out China’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. We remain committed to holding China to account. It is important to note that our policy on genocide determination does not prevent us from taking robust action, and we have done that. As I said in an earlier answer on future sanctions, we keep all evidence and potential listings under review, but it would not be appropriate to speculate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The UK’s funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees was cut by more than 50% last year. UNRWA provides essential services to Palestinian refugees in the west bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, but it has been described as “close to collapse” due to funding shortfalls. Can we truly say, as Ambassador Allen stated to the UN Security Council in 2018, that

“the United Kingdom strongly supports peace”

between Israelis and Palestinians when it simultaneously sells arms to one side and cuts humanitarian aid to the other?

[Amanda Milling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have said, we are committed to a two-state solution as the best way to deliver Palestinian self-determination and a safe and secure Israel. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America announced last year that we are providing £27 million to support UNRWA, including £4.9 million for its flash appeal following the Gaza conflicts in May.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Scottish National party spokesperson Chris Law.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

On International Women’s Day, Europe is leading and united in welcoming more than 2 million refugees, almost all of whom are women and children, fleeing the bloody and murderous war by Putin against Ukraine and its citizens. Yet, pitifully, the UK stands at only 300 visas. Shamefully, we learned this morning in The Daily Telegraph that while Ireland has waived visas and expects to welcome 100,000 refugees, the UK Government have expressed fears that that would create a drug route to the UK. On the very day that President Zelensky will address this House, does the Foreign Secretary realise that the Home Office’s continued xenophobic and inhumane immigration policy must be, for her and her office, a complete humiliation, undermining the support for Ukraine and its people? Will she now call on her colleague the Home Secretary either to reverse that policy, or to resign?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, we have opened up two new routes. The Home Secretary has opened up a family route and a sponsored humanitarian route. We are also providing huge support in the region, working closely with the Ukrainian Government and local Governments such as the Polish Government.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Funding

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this important and timely debate.

This should have been an opportunity to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Since 1992, after offering support for projects across the world, this Foundation has promoted its belief

“that we need strong democracies to prosper and to protect our rights and freedoms.”

And yet—and yet—it is clear that democracy is under threat globally. Over the past week we have seen just how precious but fragile democracy is. It is a simple and unequivocal fact that the spread of democracy that followed the cold war has been reversed. Every major democracy index, such as Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World”, has shown a slide downwards over the past 15 years.

Only 20% of the world’s population live in free countries: 38% live under authoritarian rule, and the rest have restricted freedom. Some say that we are living through a democratic recession—who knows? It may become a depression. Given that the WFD was founded after the fall of the Berlin wall and tasked with supporting pro-democracy political parties and developing democratic processes as countries from eastern Europe emerged from the cold war, it is a particular tragedy that Ukraine—one of the nations that has embraced democracy—should now be the victim of a bloody, brutal and barbaric invasion by Russia under Vladimir Putin’s autocratic and authoritarian regime. Sadly, the Russian regime is not the only one working to diminish freedom of expression and democratic participation. From Belarus to Syria, China to Afghanistan and Myanmar to Eritrea, we have seen that democratic freedoms are by no means guaranteed.

At this time of increased need to be vigilant about these threats and continually defend, promote and improve democracy, the WFD faces cuts that will significantly hamper its ability to operate. That is a consequence of this UK Government’s short-sighted and unimaginable decision to renege on its manifesto commitment and the cross-party consensus to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas development aid, which is not only morally reprehensible, but penny wise and pound foolish.

The WFD’s core funding was cut by 29% during the pandemic—what a time to choose!—without consultation or consideration of the consequences. The result is that programmes are either curtailed or cancelled; staff, with all the expertise they have, are made redundant; and efforts to promote democracy ultimately suffer. The Government can try to argue that there will be a return to 0.7% when fiscal tests are met, but that will not bring back those programmes or those staff, and the likelihood is that democracy will have been eroded in the meantime.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy should be rightly proud of the work it undertakes. It focuses on accountability and transparency, elections, environmental democracy, inclusion, participation and openness, and women’s political leadership, with 74 programmes implemented across 43 countries in the years 2020-21. Key to its work—in many ways, its unique selling point—is its collaboration with party political offices, providing them with the resource to develop their own programmes across the world. The SNP established its own WFD office after becoming the third largest party in the UK in 2015, placing a particular focus on gender equality in political representation and participation. Its two key programmes include the Arab Women Parliamentarians Network for Equality, which the SNP was instrumental in helping build. That network has gone on to develop a policy paper on violence against women in politics—the first of its kind in the Arab world, and something we should all be proud of.

The SNP WFD also supports the Malawi Parliamentary Women’s Caucus, pursuing gender-just politics and legislation, and works to promote the effective participation of women in Parliament. Furthermore, it has recently launched a new environmental democracy project in Pakistan, supporting the Climate Change Committee with post-legislative scrutiny. However, all this important work can be supported only if the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is adequately funded—it is as simple as that. The SNP’s WFD funding has dropped from £260,000 in 2016 to around £156,000 in 2020. There are real concerns that if funding drops any further, this work will simply no longer be viable.

The UK Government recognised the importance of the WFD in its integrated review last year, and made commitments to address democratic governance around the world—given how critical this is for UK interests. I agree, and I am sure every Member present does as well. However, that was on the back of cutting funding for international development programmes at the same time, when the UK Government cut aid spending from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, and they subsequently announced that funding for the human rights, democracy and rules-based international system would be cut. That makes no sense: it is a completely incoherent and ultimately self-defeating decision, one that has the likes of Putin and other autocrats around the world laughing at us for being such blind fools.

Not only is this spending the morally right thing to do, but it is in our national interest. A fairer, more democratic world is a safer and more stable world, and any savings made now while making cuts will only cost us more in the long term when vast amounts have to be spent on the crises that subsequently emerge across the world. The UK Government must now see the error of their ways, reverse the reduction in WFD grants and reinstate the commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA if they are to have any credibility in defending democracy at this vital time in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is giving me dirty looks; we cannot veer off the topic of the debate for too long.

[Chris Law]

rose—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Chris Law will intervene, and then we will go back to the suitably attired Minister, who is wearing the correct colours.

[Chris Law]

The Minister is making a very powerful case. I hope she will conclude by saying that there will be full funding and support for WFD. She mentioned state media and the shutting down of media. Last night Google shut down RT. Two days ago, the whole of the EU shut down RT and Sputnik. So far, the UK has not gone anywhere near touching RT in this country. Will the UK Government reconsider their position, because we are isolated in our approach to Russian/Kremlin TV in this country?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk has said that it was not a dirty look, but an admonition not to stray from our territory.

Sanctions

Chris Law Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have moved our travel advice on Russia to red, which means that we advise against all travel. That is not the same as a ban; it is ultimately Government advice, but I strongly advise people not to go to Russia. That is very clear. On the wider issue, nothing is off the table on sanctions, and we are absolutely clear about that. We are pushing our G7 allies as hard as we can to get a full ban on SWIFT and on all bank assets, and to reduce dependence on oil and gas, which is ultimately the most important economic lever over Putin.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

In the past eight years there has been a war, not just in the past few days. During that time, it has been not just military warfare, but a war of communications known as hybrid warfare. Yesterday, the EU decided to shut down RT and Sputnik. Just as the Foreign Secretary is leading in some areas, will she confirm that she will follow the EU and shut down RT and Sputnik immediately? Yesterday as I was watching it, there was a documentary completely about Nazification in Crimea in 2014. That is wholly untrue, but it is being put on our television screens today.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are looking at what can be done with RT, but if we ban RT in the United Kingdom, that is likely to lead to channels such as the BBC being banned in Russia, and we want the Russian population to hear the truth about what Vladimir Putin is doing. There is a careful judgment to be made, and that is something the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking at.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

The verdict of the Uyghur Tribunal—that there is proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that the People’s Republic of China is committing crimes of torture, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, as defined under international law, against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang—is further confirmation of what we in this Chamber already know. Indeed, in April last year the House passed a motion that stated that it

“believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in…Xinjiang…are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide”.

As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who brought the debate to the House, there has so far been, in her words, “zero progress” from this Government.

We are not the only ones who are aware of what is going on; others are doing something about this situation. The US State Department has determined that China’s violations constitute genocide, as have the Parliaments of Canada, Lithuania and the Netherlands. Yet there is still no condemnation from the Government. There is shocking evidence of arbitrary detention, re-education camps, forced labour, the destruction of cultural sites, torture, rape and sexual violence and enforced sterilisation. Probably worst of all, and what I heard most harrowingly today, are the abortions of children who are alive at the late stage of pregnancy, who are then murdered by the Chinese state authorities. Those of us with an understanding of the Chinese Communist party’s motives, its actions in the past and its scant regard for human rights have been voicing our concerns loudly, despite attempts to keep us silent. I thank the hon. Member for Wealden for securing today’s debate and her relentless pursuing of this cause.

Although the Uyghur Tribunal has shone further light on the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang, the fact that we are relying on an unofficial body to do that, and the fact that these crimes are not prevented in the first place and continue to take place today, is shameful and an abject failure of the international community. As Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, chair of the tribunal, stated:

“Had any other body, domestic or international, determined or sought to determine these issues, the tribunal would have been unnecessary”.

For too long, as China has been emerging as a global superpower, a blind eye has been turned to the Chinese Communist party’s gross human rights abuses, but these cannot and must not be ignored any longer. Sadly, the International Criminal Court announced in December 2020 that it would not investigate allegations because China, as a non-member, was outside its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the possibility of further investigation by referral from the United Nations Security Council is hamstrung by the simple fact that China would simply use its veto to prevent that.

The UK Government therefore need to stop hiding and get away from the refrain of, “The policy of successive UK Governments is that any determination of genocide or crimes against humanity is a matter for a competent court.” It is not; it is a matter for a competent and active Government, and every voice and every party in this House is asking for urgent action—and now.

It is of grave concern that even despite the findings of report after report and investigation after investigation, the UK Government do not appear to accept the findings of genocide or their moral and, as has been said repeatedly today, legal obligation to prevent and punish these horrific crimes. It is nearly nine months since the House stated that what was happening in Xinjiang was genocide and more than one month since the Uyghur Tribunal published its judgment. We need to hear unequivocally from the Minister what assessment the UK Government have made of these verdicts, and what their next steps will be.

Have the UK Government explored the prospect of a UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry using their Human Rights Council seat, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee? If the Chinese Government continue to stall and prevent in-country investigations, the UK Government should propose a Human Rights Council motion that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should conduct an investigation into atrocities in Xinjiang from outside China. I hope the Minister is making some notes, because I would like to hear the answers to these questions today. Even if the Chinese Government continue to deny international observers access to Xinjiang, there is a great deal of evidence that can be used to verify the extent of crimes being committed there, as shown by the volume of evidence received at the hearings of the Uyghur Tribunal.

When it comes to access to Xinjiang and other regions in China, we can learn from others. The USA enacted the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act 2018, which denies Chinese Government officials access to the US if they are responsible for implementing restrictions on Americans who seek access to Tibet. I put it on the record today that I would like to join colleagues in the House who have been sanctioned and are fearful to travel to China in putting forward a visa application to see whether we will be denied. If we are, it will be a golden opportunity for the UK Government to step up and say, “That is fine. You are denying our own democratic representatives. This is what will happen to your officials.”

[Ms Ghani]

I just want to challenge the hon. Member’s point. I think he said that the sanctioned MPs are “fearful” of the sanctions and travelling to China. May I put it on the record that none of the sanctioned MPs are fearful of travelling to China or of the Chinese Communist party?

[Chris Law]

I am glad that the hon. Member has addressed that point. I did not directly mean those who had been sanctioned, but others beyond that who would like to say and do more. I fully appreciate that there are no sanctioned Members here who fear the Communist party state and its behaviour towards its inhabitants.

I was talking about reciprocal access to Tibet. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his seat, and who I work with as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, has persevered with the Tibet and Xinjiang (Reciprocal Access) Bill. I once again urge the UK Government to give the Bill their full support and to enact its provisions immediately. I look forward to hearing a response on that this afternoon.

Indeed, many have commented that the illegal invasion and occupation of Tibet was the testing ground for the Chinese Communist party, and that the lessons learned from the oppression of Tibetans have been applied to Xinjiang, yet none of us across the decade since then has done enough to stand up for the people of Tibet, and this is the consequence of silence. It would be worthwhile, therefore, if the UK Government reversed the regrettable decision taken by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in 2008 to disregard the previous recognised autonomy of Tibet and accept Chinese authority over the region.

In 2011, Chen Quanguo was appointed the party secretary in the Tibetan autonomous region after the Chinese Communist party vowed never to let the protests that happened there in 2008 occur again. He was the key individual behind blanket surveillance, a heavy police presence, arrests and disappearances, and re-education camps in Tibet. From 2016, he has employed the same security measures in his repression of the Uyghurs, only this time on a far expanded scale. He was able to move seamlessly from repressing one group of people to another, because as far as the Chinese Communist party is concerned, he got results and he got away with it in the international community.

Chen is named in the Xinjiang papers released at the Uyghur Tribunal, and the UK Government must step up sanctions against him and his colleagues involved in perpetrating these gross human rights abuses. So I would like to hear from the Minister what further names have been added to the Magnitsky sanctions. The USA has sanctioned him, and it is again ahead of the UK, having just passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act banning all imports from Xinjiang unless a company can prove that they were not made with forced labour.

The UK could be doing exactly the same, but instead is choosing to sit on its hands, and the Government have in fact rejected the BEIS Committee’s recommendations to help tackle slave labour in Xinjiang. The Minister needs to explain why, and I urge the Government that this needs to change. Given that one in five garments globally are made from the cotton of Xinjiang—which means that just about every one of us in this Chamber will be wearing such a garment—and that other key products such as solar panels, which have been mentioned, are produced there, the UK needs to toughen up and enforce its own legislation. Furthermore, the UK should be pressing for the International Labour Organisation to conduct a full investigation on the Xinjiang region, to verify the extent of forced labour there as a matter of urgency.

The recent integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy called for more trade with China, but that potential trade liberalisation cannot come at the cost of forced labour in Xinjiang and weak words and inaction from the UK Government on these grave human rights abuses. As we have heard, the current Foreign Secretary, in her previous position as International Trade Secretary, facilitated a doubling of trade with China. The world cannot be picked off nation by nation, each turning a blind eye to genocide for the sake of trade deals.

I echo the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is no longer in his place, in saying that we need to work with democracies across the world because democracy is fragile, and that is fundamentally what is being undermined as we do nothing here. Instead of focusing on trade, and whipping Members to vote against anti-genocide amendments to the Trade Bill, atrocity prevention should be the priority. It is deeply regrettable that the UK Government, like others, failed to recognise and prevent the atrocities in Xinjiang before they reached the levels that we are currently witnessing.

Finally, the UK Government cannot appease China, given these crimes against humanity. It is imperative that the UK Government go beyond words of condemnation and use every single possible avenue to end the persecution and to pursue the punishment of those who have instigated and participated in it. The Chinese Government must be held to account for their abhorrent crimes, and held to account now. Given the overwhelming evidence, and given that every single person in this Chamber is saying, time and again, “Please act, and please act now,” I expect nothing less than that from the UK Government Minister this afternoon, to show that we are not cowardly; and I also expect to hear her accept that to do nothing would be an utterly shameful abandonment of our legal and moral duty, as well as our own humanity.