Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Last week, the Government made the right decision to lift the quota for pathway 3, thus allowing all eligible British Council contractors to come to the UK. However, many contractors and their families are waiting in Pakistan for clearance to come to the UK because accommodation has yet to be arranged. May I urge the Government to resolve that housing issue urgently, given the Pakistani authorities’ threat to return the contractors to Afghanistan next month? That would be a disaster, and we need to sort it out now.
Leo Docherty
We are acutely aware of the challenge to which my hon. Friend alludes. We are working at pace with our mission in Pakistan and we are seized of the natural justice required and the fact that we need to do our duty to those people. That is why the full pace of our institutional effort is focused on doing just that. We look forward to keeping colleagues updated.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of international development in tackling these problems upstream. He will have seen yesterday’s publication of the very sharp increase in bilateral aid, and he will also have noticed that I announced that we will spend £1 billion on humanitarian relief next year.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
We work closely with the British Council in Ukraine. The British Council continues to provide online professional development to English teachers, reaching one in five English teachers in Ukraine. The British Council’s teaching centre in Kyiv reopened online in April 2022, and it teaches English to approximately 500 students.
Mr Baron
I thank the Minister for that response. The British Council’s teaching and learning in difficult times programme has provided nearly 2,000 Ukrainian English teachers with help to support young people and children who have suffered trauma during the Russian invasion. Thanks to the work of Zhanna Sevastianova, who runs the programme, and Leigh Gibson, the country director, the future of Ukraine, its young children, is being safeguarded. Will the Minister therefore confirm his thanks for this outstanding programme, his support for Zhanna, Leigh and the team in general, and his recognition of the real strategic impact the British Council is having in challenging times?
David Rutley
Yes, I definitely will, and I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that outstanding team’s important work. The programme has already trained 1,482 English teachers to support young Ukrainians, to whom I pay tribute for their great resilience in incredibly challenging circumstances.
Integrated Review Refresh
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly
In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest—[Interruption.] In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest official development assistance donating countries in the world. I can assure the hon. Lady that, from the conversations I have with partners around the world, they hugely value the UK’s contribution, our expertise and the co-operation we have with them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Many aspects of this statement are welcome, including the increases in our hard power and soft power capabilities, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that one-off increases are ad hoc, sporadic and make long-term planning difficult? What is required is a fundamental, threat-based review backed by long-term funding. To properly defend ourselves requires long lead-in times across many aspects of our defence.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right. We have published the integrated review refresh to set the framework for the risks and opportunities in the international sphere. Of course, we need discrete responses to one-off events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but those are within a wider framework of international posture. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is part of the journey towards our baseline of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, which is a commitment to which we will adhere.
Afghanistan: Ban on Women Aid Workers
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his pertinent comments. As he rightly says, there are 28 million people in need of support in Afghanistan and the position is deteriorating. He pays tribute to the courage of women throughout Afghanistan, and the whole House will want to endorse his comments. Women will suffer from this appalling decision, but women are also critical to the delivery of aid, as both he and I have pointed out.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the work of the special representative. The special representative is fully engaged in all aspects of the Government’s policy. He stressed the importance of not reducing aid and humanitarian support and relief in Afghanistan at this time, and the Government are seized of that point. He asked with whom we are working; he will have noticed that the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation has condemned the Taliban’s appalling decision, and he may well know that Amina Mohammed, the deputy Secretary-General, is there now. She is coming in to the Foreign Office on Monday to brief us and Lord Ahmad is, as I speak, meeting leading and influential Afghan women.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This ban reminds us again that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The Minister should be aware—and I think he is—that there is increasing frustration from across the House that, despite British Council contractors, GardaWorld workforce and Chevening scholars still being in Afghanistan, in fear of their lives and hunted by the Taliban, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme introduced a year ago has failed to relocate one person. Since our debate in Westminster Hall on this issue last week, what progress has been made by the Government to put that right?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. This is a subject upon which he is both extremely learned and extremely agitated. I will be speaking in a debate brought forward by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) later today in Westminster Hall, where I hope to give a full update, but let me make it clear to the House that we recognise the increasing frustration of which he spoke, and in particular the points he has been making about GardaWorld workers, British Council contractors and Chevening scholars.
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I am sure that when the Minister responds, such questions will be fully answered. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue.
We all know what happened when the rapid Taliban advance in 2021 culminated in the fall of Kabul and Operation Pitting. We also know that as these events unfolded, the UK Government implemented the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and, exactly one year ago, the Afghan citizens relocation scheme. This debate serves as a moment to look back on the last year and assess, as the hon. Lady said, how far we have moved on that; many of us feel that we have not moved.
The ACRS has three pathways. The first is for people who have already been airlifted out of Afghanistan—there were some of those—and now need help settling in the UK. The second is for those who have already escaped to a third country, such as Pakistan, and are in the hands of the UNHCR. The third is the one that probably reflects our British values the most. It is no secret that I am very proud to be British. I look upon this great nation as a nation that delivers on its compassion and understanding, and therefore I want this scheme to be implemented in its totality. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, who will follow me, will confirm that as well. We have a real problem. For those who have been identified as belonging to a particularly vulnerable group, two issues emerge in relation to pathway 3 time and time again. The first is a lack of clarity, and the second is a lack of urgency. Where is it? I cannot see it at all.
When the scheme was launched, a core component of pathway 3 was the focus on providing safe asylum routes to help members of minorities who were specifically identified as being at the most risk under Taliban rule, and I give the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay lots of credit for consistently speaking in defence of the scheme. The three groups identified were religious minorities, members of the LGBT community and pro-democracy activists. All three groups were deemed to be under a high risk of a violent attack but had been excluded from the ARAP scheme.
Even at the outset of ACRS, there was confusion about when people could expect to start receiving help. The scheme launched with the intended aim of resettling 20,000 people in five years. However, Afghans were only allowed to register an expression of interest seven months after the scheme formally opened. In the short time that that window was open, over 11,400 expressions of interest were submitted under pathway 3. The vast majority of those who expressed an interest had to wait, even though their lives were in danger. I have the utmost respect for the Minister, but that is why we are so frustrated about where we are.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay is likely to go into greater depth on this issue, and I want to give him lots of time to put forward his understanding of where the scheme is and where it is going. Last Wednesday, he led a Westminster Hall debate on British Council contractors who are eligible for pathway 3. Indeed, at the opening of the scheme, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) stated that, alongside GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni, they would be the priority group for 2022. Some 200 teachers, security guards and frontline staff were to be offered a safe haven in the UK alongside family members. These people represented those who worked on the frontline, who were recruited to teach British values across Afghanistan. They were people who we—this country and the United Kingdom Government—left behind, and it is clear that we owe a duty to them. As such, I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm during last week’s debate that half the contractors have had their applications granted. Maybe I will leave that point to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What appals me is the fact that we sought assurances in that debate, we received them, and we seemed to be finally making progress—I will go into that in a bit more detail later. The debate was on the Wednesday afternoon, and then I was phoned on the Thursday evening and informed by a Guardian journalist that the Government were retracting those assurances. We now have a mish-mash of assurances, some of which are in Hansard and some of which are not. That is one of the things we need to sort out in this debate—clarity—and I am looking forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister providing it.
Jim Shannon
In a couple of sentences, the hon. Gentleman has succinctly summarised where we were last Wednesday and where we are today. Unfortunately, we have not seen the clarity that is necessary.
There are questions to ask. How many people have been accepted under the ACRS? How many people fit into each category? How many of those accepted are still in Afghanistan, living under the threat of violence from the Taliban? Will the scheme continue in 2023, and when will the scheme finally open to at-risk minority groups, such as religious minorities, the Hazaras and LGBT people? Will the estimate of 20,000 still be reached? The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay covered the issues surrounding British contractors so well last week.
On 30 September 2022, a suicide bomb exploded at the Kaaj Educational Centre in Kabul. The school is in the Hazara district and was packed with hundreds of girls preparing for exams to enter university—young girls just wanting to have a life and to plan a way forward. They were brutally attacked, and some of them were killed. Some 54 students were killed, and over 100 were injured.
There has been a long history of the Taliban targeting the Hazara Muslims. Recent years have seen an increase in attacks, and at least 700 Hazaras have been killed by the Taliban or Islamic State Khorasan since August 2021. There appears to be a deliberate targeting of young Hazara girls—not just in violent attacks, but in an attempt to rob the community of ladies and young girls. I have three granddaughters, and I want them to have opportunities. If they were living in Afghanistan, they would not have any opportunities—that is a fact.
Taliban fighters have sought to remove girls from their communities through forced marriages, rape and forced engagements. I was shocked to find out that in some cases, those girls have been as young—it is hard to even say it—as three years old. What is going on in this world when we hear things like that? In Afghanistan, we see a clear attempt to destroy the Hazara community using violence and killings, but also through the forcible transfer of children out of the group; both acts can be indicators of genocide. The Hazaras are far from the only group at risk, but we need them to feature in this process.
Other religious minorities have also been devastated under the Taliban. The number of Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan fell from 400 to 150 in three years, with attacks by IS-K against both communities having been reported. There used to be 15,000 Christians in Afghanistan, but 13,000 of those have relocated to the United States of America, Albania or Brazil. The US scheme was set up after the ACRS, using in part the model that the UK promoted in our resettlement scheme—they liked our model so much that they made it their model for bringing people in. I speak up for the Hazaras, the Muslims, the Christians and others, because Christian minorities have to be protected if they are not going to get protection in Afghanistan. Since 2004, Afghanistan had enshrined freedom of religion within its constitution. Today, however, religious diversity in the country has been all but extinguished, with those who remain facing the risk of attacks, atrocity crimes or charges under sharia.
As well as religious minorities, thousands of pro-democracy activists have been left at risk. Some are journalists and some are activists, but many were excluded from the list, and I, like others, want them to be included on it. Members of these groups cannot sit around for five years waiting for a decision; they cannot wait. There is an urgency about this, and an ache among those of us who are speaking for a response from the Minister about where we are. In the year that the ACRS opened, not a single British Council contractor, GardaWorld contractor, Chevening alumnus or member of an at-risk minority was brought out of Afghanistan under pathway 3. What? Why have a scheme if it does not work? It is so frustrating. I am not being critical and nasty—you know that is not in my nature, Sir Charles—but I feel an absolute frustration with where we are.
The Scottish Refugee Council—believe it or not, I genuinely look to Scotland to see what it does, because many times it is far ahead of us—has reported that between January and June 2022, more than 2,000 Afghans sought safety in the UK by making a small boat crossing across the channel. These are desperate asylum seekers, not economic migrants; they are people who just want to live and to have a future. That report also notes that 97% of asylum claims from Afghans who have made those crossings have been successful.
The delay in opening safe migration routes for Afghanistan has directly contributed to some of the most vulnerable groups in the world risking their lives by paying criminal gangs to cross the English channel in a small boat. At best, a lack of clarity and urgency in the scheme is causing more fear, uncertainty and suffering for some of the most at-risk groups in Afghanistan. At worst, the delay and the lack of access are directly putting lives at risk. What is happening in Afghanistan is a humanitarian disaster on an immense level—a level of intensity that cannot be imagined, in my mind at least. A rapid response to disasters is key to saving lives, and we need that urgency. We need to see that rapid response, with our Government and our Minister working hard to make that happen.
However, Afghanistan is not the only humanitarian disaster that the UK Government are responding to. Two months after the opening of the ACRS, Russia invaded Ukraine. That invasion triggered the largest mass migration in Europe since the second world war as refugees fled Ukraine. I commend the Government’s quick action in that case, setting up the Ukrainian resettlement pathway, and I am proud of the response of my community, with many in Strangford supporting and hosting Ukrainians. We have a missionary society, Faith in Action, led by Donald and Jacqui Fleming and a fella called Tinsley. Those people are part of that response, and we have brought many Ukrainian asylum seekers—they are not here forever, but only for a certain period of time—to my town of Newtownards and across Northern Ireland, supported by church groups.
There is a marked difference in how the Government have responded through the two schemes. It has been reported by the BBC that fewer than 10 staff in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are working on ACRS. In contrast, there is a team of 50 staff working on behalf of Ukrainians. To clarify, I am not saying that there should not be such a large team working on the Ukrainian scheme—I am glad that there is—but why is there not such a large team working for Afghans as well?
I understand that the Government’s role is to set priorities, and that many priorities have been re-evaluated in the light of Russia’s aggression. I still believe passionately that we are a generous country and, as far as I am aware, no statement has been made to the House on changes to the ACRS. However, one year on, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is clearly not working. That is the situation and why I have secured the debate to request change on behalf of those people.
Last week, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay highlighted the failure to support British Council contractors who were being prioritised in 2022. The scheme fails to support minorities, leaving many with an uncertain future, forced to live in hiding, suffering regular attacks and worrying for their lives, not knowing what tomorrow brings, which concerns me. They are even faced with potential genocidal activities, as there has been against the Hazaras, Christians and others.
Looking to the next year of the scheme, it is vital that more information is made available and guidance for pathway 3 needs to be publicised. We need to fulfil the promises we made to British Council contractors and others employed to help further democracy in Afghanistan. I pray for Afghanistan and many other countries across the world every day, because I believe in prayer and that God gives us a job to do. While prayer is important, it is not the only thing that matters. Physical endeavours from our Government are also important.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion as I made a commitment to you, Sir Charles, to keep to 20 minutes. More needs to be done to protect the three vulnerable groups that pathway 3 was built around. A stronger intervention is needed in light of the credible risk of genocide against the Hazaras. The all-party parliamentary group on Hazaras does fantastic work and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) has also raised the issue of Hazaras in the House.
I will pose some challenging questions for the Minister, but I do not wish to be judgmental. First, given the resourcing allocated to the FCDO and the impact of the crisis in Ukraine, is the ACRS still a priority for the Government? Secondly, does the Minister agree that we have a moral duty to help those who supported the British effort in Afghanistan and those at greatest risk because of their identity? Thirdly, with the evidence highlighted by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, the Hazara inquiry and others, is there enough evidence for the Minister to recognise the potential risk of genocide in Afghanistan in the near future? Fourthly, will the ACRS continue in 2023 and will it finally include at-risk minority groups, such as the Hazaras, the Christians and members of the LGBT community, as well as journalists who endeavoured to make Afghanistan a better country when Britain and other western nations tried to introduce democracy to Afghanistan?
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and giving me the chance to promote the case I have outlined. I look forward to the contributions from other hon. Members, including the shadow spokespeople. We are all here with the same message, Sir Charles: we need urgency, let us help those people and let us do it right now.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on calling the debate.
This is a very unfortunate situation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is an honourable man, and he has a good reputation when it comes to compassion and international aid, but I am afraid that he is overseeing, or is at least in part responsible for, a scheme that is simply not working. As was well pointed out earlier, the scheme was introduced with great fanfare a year ago, and to our knowledge it has not helped one person. Worse, there seems to be a lack of clarity about where we are with it.
Last Wednesday’s debate has been referred to a few times. We debated the ACRS scheme pathway 3 as it related to 200 British Council contractors who were stuck in Afghanistan. They are moving from safe house to safe house, and many of them are in fear of their lives, as they are being hunted. We have all had some harrowing stories and emails about how, for example, professors could not go to a hospital with their daughters, and a daughter subsequently dying because the Taliban had ringed the hospital. I opposed the mission of nation building in Afghanistan, but whatever one thinks of the mission, these people were brave enough to put their head above the parapet and say, “We will help to promote western/British values”—whether by teaching English, dealing with women’s equal rights or by other means. To many of them, if not all, if feels that we have turned our back on them.
I sought four assurances from the Minister last Wednesday. Have 100 of the 200 contractors been given the go-ahead to go to the border? Will the lack of paperwork not impede their entry into a third country? Will the ball now get rolling for the second 100, who had not heard anything after their initial application? They are quite literally in the dark. Finally, can we please ensure that talk of quotas—particularly the quota of 1,500 not just for the British Council but for the GardaWorld workforce and Chevening scholars, whom I also want to include, because we are thinking of them as well—will not impede people’s leaving if they have a right to do so under the scheme? I fully appreciate that there are sensitivities in relation to the issue of paperwork, so I will not dwell on or put the Government in a difficult situation on that. Sometimes things are best understood rather than relayed in detail in a debate like this, because there are local sensitivities with one or two third-party countries.
We received those assurances. It was on the record; it was quite categorical. Those who participated in the debate went away thinking, “Finally, we are making progress.” That was Wednesday afternoon.
Mr Baron
No. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will crack on, because I want to ensure that I stay within my 10 minutes—for everybody’s sake. I apologise, and I am sure that she will make her point in due course.
The debate was on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday evening, I was phoned by a journalist, who told me that the Government were now retracting all those points and would be correcting Hansard. I did not get confirmation of that from the Government until Friday afternoon. I have the transcript. Hansard has allowed some corrections but not others, so we now have a mishmash of assurances given, some retracted through Hansard and some not. This is where I seek clarity from the Minister. This is causing great distress, not just for people here who are passionate about the issue, but most importantly for the people in the country who are trying to get out.
At the moment, marrying up the Government’s corrections —those that have been accepted by Hansard, but also those that were not, and therefore referring back to Wednesday’s debate—we seem to have the following situation. It is not 100 who have been given the go-ahead. I seek clarification on this, and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister’s team to pass whatever notes that they can by way of clarification. This is the situation: on the first assurance, the number was not 100; instead, 47 have been told to head for the border. That is the latest figure. We do not know precisely what state that is in, in the sense of how many have reached a third country or whatever, but we know that 47—according to the correction—have been granted and told, “Right, off you go.”
I have mentioned the paperwork, which we will not talk about. My understanding, however, without going into any further detail, is that a lack of paperwork will not impede entry—exit from Afghanistan is one thing, and entry to a third country another one, but it will not impede entry here. That is how the situation stands, I believe.
The third assurance was about the second 100 of the 200 British Council contractors, who have not heard anything at all since applying, which was a year or so ago. They are still in the dark, according to the correction. In other words, they have not been contacted, despite us being told that some of them had been. I wait for clarification.
The final point was about quotas. In Hansard, last Wednesday the Minister made the point—this stands, because it has not been corrected; Hansard is not allowed to be corrected—that the quotas talk of 1,500 for the ACRS pathway 3, for those three groups that we have mentioned, still stands. Personally, I find that distasteful. It is almost shameful, because there was no mention of quotas when we asked people in Afghanistan to volunteer and no mention of quotas when it came to the extent of their courage in actually supporting the mission in the country. Yet here we are, talking about 1,500 as a quota, when we cannot really put a quota or figure on anything like that
I ask the Minister to address that point specifically. I know it is a little further down the line, because we have to start getting people out first, but I really do not want to hear any news about quotas, or the Government saying that people will have to wait in danger further, because last week the Minister was talking about a second iteration of the scheme. I seek that clarification from the Minister. I will finish early, but I hope he will allow time so that we can make the intervention if we do not think that we have it.
In summary, I say to the Minister: we need clarity and we need to ensure that we set the record straight, so that people not just here but, most importantly, in Afghanistan know where they stand. Above all else, if it is still correct that 47 have been given the go-ahead, roughly 150 British Council contractors and their families —also, GardaWorld workers and Chevening scholars—remain in the dark and have not been told anything. We need to get this sorted now. They need to be contacted and told that they can head for the border, paperwork or not. I seek those assurances from the Minister when he makes his contribution.
Mr Mitchell
I will in a moment.
Since then, we have heard accounts that some of those eligible in principle under pathway 3 are feeling more at risk as a result of specific figures being quoted. We are therefore ensuring that we do not provide a running commentary on how many individuals are at each stage of the resettlement process, which could draw unnecessary attention to those preparing to leave.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I remind the Minister to sit down at 2.58 pm to allow Mr Shannon two minutes at the end to wind up.
Mr Baron
Clarity is required here. Will the Minister answer some straightforward questions about the 200 British Council contractors who have initially been told that they are eligible under ACRS pathway 3? How many have been told that they can now proceed out of the country—if they can get out—into a third country? How many are yet to hear anything from the Government after making their initial application? Our understanding is that roughly 47 have been told to go, with another 150 still in the dark.
Mr Mitchell
If my hon. Friend will bear with me until I have finished making sure that I get these points correctly on the record, I will clarify most of the points that he raises.
Mr Mitchell
I come now to the Foreign Office’s role in the pathway 3 expressions of interest process. The Foreign Office is responsible for administering referrals in the first year of ACRS pathway 3.
Mr Mitchell
I am not going to give way for a moment, but I will of course give way to my hon. Friend in due course.
For eight weeks last summer, we invited British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni to express interest in resettlement under pathway 3. The Foreign Office received more than 11,400 expressions of interest when the online window was open between June and August last year. We are assessing them carefully against the relevant published eligibility criteria and working hard to ensure that everyone who expressed interest is provided with a decision as soon as practicable. It remains a priority for the Government to honour the commitments we made to eligible at-risk people. We continue to work in close co-operation with British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening colleagues to support and resettle eligible individuals.
On Home Office security checks, Members will appreciate that the Government have a duty to protect the security of the UK and ensure the safety of its citizens. It would be wrong to make a blanket offer of sanctuary to those who may have committed offences that would be crimes in the UK or who pose a threat to our national security. That is why everyone who comes to the UK from Afghanistan is subject to rigorous security checks.
Mr Mitchell
It is also why any offer of a place on the ACRS is contingent on an individual satisfying those security checks. We are pleased that for many the initial security checks have now been completed, which allows us to notify them of the outcome and provide advice on next steps. If my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay will allow me to proceed just a little further, I will give way soon.
Let me turn to the next steps for those who have passed the initial security checks. A number, having passed initial security checks, have been able to secure passports and visas to travel to third countries outside Afghanistan. Some are waiting for visas or passports to be issued and some have not yet applied for them. Members will appreciate that travelling from Afghanistan is challenging and takes time, particularly for those who are currently undocumented. Travelling throughout Afghanistan and across borders involves crossing multiple Taliban check- points, and people are often asked to provide documents to verify their identity. Those who attempt travel without them may put themselves at risk. The Taliban and countries surrounding Afghanistan require valid documents for travel across their borders.
We are committed to working in step with the international community, including by co-ordinating with like-minded partners and countries that neighbour Afghanistan on resettlement issues to support safe passage for eligible people and allow them to cross their borders from Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds. The House will understand that I am unable to go into detail about the resettlement journey, for obvious reasons; however, the Government remain grateful to partner Governments in the region for their continued support for our resettlement operations.
Once in a third country, those eligible are offered accommodation and support, paid for by the UK Government through our development budget, while they continue to be processed for resettlement and undergo biometric visa checks. A number have been referred to the International Organisation for Migration, which provides the majority of third-country support, including medical care, food and accommodation. I recently met the head of the International Organisation for Migration and I am very grateful for their ongoing support.
Mr Mitchell
People arrive by different streams, so that is true of some of them but not all of them.
The Government have also put in place support for eligible Afghans once they have arrived in the UK. As the House is aware, the Government have engaged extensively with local authorities and other partners to source suitable accommodation as soon as possible. We are committed to supporting people to settle, find jobs and rebuild their lives in the UK. Anyone resettled through the ACRS will receive indefinite leave to remain under existing rules. They will be able to apply for British citizenship after five years in the UK.
Mr Baron
I applaud my right hon. Friend for trying to clarify the situation, but may I bring us back to basics? I asked the Government about how Hansard stands at the moment. Forty-seven have been given the green light to leave the country; we are therefore still talking about 150—security checks or not—of the 200 British Council contractors who have not been contacted at all. That is how the position stands in Hansard, and I have not heard the Minister correct it. May we have clarity on that, please?
Also, when it comes to the quota, is the 1,500 an upper limit on the three groups that we have been discussing, or is the Minister saying that in time there will be a further iteration so that there is in effect no limit for the three groups? That is the sort of clarity we lack.
Mr Mitchell
On my hon. Friend’s second point, I am unable to say. Currently, the position is clear: 1,500 is the limit, and that includes dependents. I am very clear about that.
My hon. Friend asked whether anyone has been given the green light to come to the UK under this scheme, and about the 47 contractors referenced by the Minister last week. It might be best for me to be clear about the answer to that question: the total number of British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni informed that they are eligible in principle for resettlement, subject to passing security checks, stands at nearly 200. Including their dependents, that accounts for more than 750 of the 1,500 available places on pathway 3. Of those, a sizeable number have passed initial security checks and are being advised on next steps, including travel to visa application centres, as I said earlier.
Mr Mitchell
May I complete the point, because I am coming on to the precise number he asked about? I know there is a desire for specific numbers, and details of each cohort and their position throughout the process of settlement, but this is a dynamic picture that changes daily. Individual cases can progress at different speeds for a number of different reasons. Given the sensitivity of the security checks element of the process, I am sure that Members will understand why we have declined to give precise numbers of individuals. Importantly, we do not think it is helpful to those in-country for us to give a running commentary on numbers, which might draw attention to the ones preparing to cross the border. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect carefully on that point.
Mr Baron
I will reflect carefully on that point, but I am not even getting any assurances privately about the numbers. It is all very well to quote big numbers, but— I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, so I apologise but I will focus on that—we know that 200 eligible contractors, the majority of whom we have heard nothing about, are deemed to be at very high risk or high risk of their lives. The figure on the record—the Minister was not reticent about giving out figures last Wednesday—is that 47 have been given the green light. That suggests that 150—security checks or not—have not been told to proceed. They are in the dark still. If not now, when can we get some clarification on the British Council contractors?
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that an ongoing constraint is the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural or bureaucratic constraint from the British Government.
Mr Baron
The Minister is being generous in giving way again and I appreciate his generosity. When he talks about security, I understand what he is saying; all of us in this Chamber fully appreciate the fact that these people have to be security-checked. However, they have already been identified as legitimate, and at very high risk or high risk. I take on board his point that there has to be a security check, but once these people have gone through that, what I am sure he is saying to the Chamber is that there will be no impediment from a quota point of view to getting them out of the country. Am I right?
Leo Docherty
That is my firm expectation. I reiterate the fact that the constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be the constraint. I hope that is clear.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 292WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct response should have been:
British Council Contractors in Afghanistan
John Baron Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I will call Mr John Baron to move the motion and then call the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for John Baron to wind up, because it is just for the Minister to respond.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British Council contractors in Afghanistan.
Thank you, Ms McVey. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and you, Ms McVey, for chairing it. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare a slight interest, in that I am chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group.
Since the fall of Kabul in August 2021, Members and peers of all parties have been united in our efforts to do right by those who worked on behalf of the UK in Afghanistan. I opposed the morphing of the mission into nation building once we had rid the country of al-Qaeda in 2001, but whatever one’s views, those people were the visible face of Britain in their country, promoting our language, culture and values. We owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude as well as having an obligation to look out for them.
I wish to raise the specific issue of the 200 or so British Council contractors who remain stranded in Afghanistan. Although all eligible British Council employees were evacuated as part of Operation Pitting, to this day around 200 contractors and their families remain in Afghanistan, often in fear of their lives, moving from one safe house to another as they are hunted by the Taliban. Those 200 have been deemed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the British Council as in the very high-risk or high-risk categories.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his perseverance. Whenever he has raised the matter in the Chamber or Westminster Hall as a question, statement or query, I have been here to support him, as have others. Following on from what he said, last month it was reported that the Government had not granted a single Afghan citizens resettlement scheme application since the programme was opened. Fewer than 10 staff in the FCDO are working on the matter. Does he agree that 18 months on from the fall of Kabul is too long to wait for asylum for individuals whose lives are threatened by Taliban reprisals? As he said, we have a duty of care to those people.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. That British Council contractors and their dependants remain in Afghanistan, despite eligibility for the ACRS, shows that the Government’s policy on Afghan refugees is lacking. Does the hon. Member agree that the Home Office needs urgently to review the effectiveness of refugee policy for the region, and make swift adjustments?
Mr Baron
I agree that, sadly, the Government are failing these people. I am trying to use the normal channels to add some urgency. I do not think it is just the Home Office; a few Departments, including the FCDO, are involved. I hope to hear some positive news from the Minister and I will certainly prompt him in that direction when I resume my address.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Although I can understand why the Government are worried about eligibility, does my hon. Friend agree that our reputation globally is at risk? Although we make promises about their welfare and support for their rights, we do not honour them. The people who worked for us in Afghanistan worked for the good of their own country. If we want to help Afghanistan in future, we will depend on their goodwill.
Mr Baron
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We asked these people to step up to the plate and are looking away when it is our turn to do so. That cannot be right and does not create a good impression of our country’s approach to such matters on the international stage.
Last summer, after activity from the British Council all-party group in particular—I thank the APPG and its members for being so hardy in this cause—the Government opened an application window for the contractors to apply for a place on the ACRS. The British Council worked at pace with the FCDO, as the Minister will know, to winnow out genuine applicants. By September, around half had heard that they had a place on the scheme, pending security checks, but they have heard nothing since. Certainly, that was the case up to Christmas. The other half of applicants—around 100—had simply heard nothing at all. Their papers were stuck in a bureaucratic mishmash in Whitehall. Following pressure from the British Council all-party group in particular and from others, I understand that over the Christmas recess around half of the contractors had their ACRS applications acknowledged and granted, and I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can confirm that.
Barriers remain. People will apparently require the necessary ID and travel documents to leave Afghanistan. They left their homes at short notice and are in fear of their lives, moving from one safehouse to another, and I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic to the case that they might not have all their paperwork. The idea of applying to the Taliban for passports is, as I am sure the Minister will realise, just not feasible. Meanwhile, new-born children may have arrived, bringing further complication for paperwork.
In the interest of brevity, knowing that others might want to contribute to this very brief debate and wanting to allow the Minister plenty of time to respond and take interventions if necessary, I have four questions for the Minister. I hope he will take note of them and answer them in turn. First, am I right to understand that around half the contractors have been given the go-ahead? It is a simple yes or no.
Secondly, have they been told they can make for the border? If so, I ask the Minister what he and the wider ministerial team at the FCDO are doing to encourage Governments in third countries to offer a greater degree of flexibility on paperwork for those seeking to cross the border out of Afghanistan. Such arrangements were previously agreed with the Government of Pakistan, which allowed individuals under the predecessor Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme to cross the border without ID if their names were on a list approved by the British Government. Is it going to be as simple as that?
Thirdly, I understand that around half of contractors are yet to hear anything. By when can they expect to be contacted? It is totally unacceptable, as Members have already heard and will continue to hear. It is totally unacceptable—a view widely held in the House—that those people have had to hold on and wait for so long. It is just inhumane.
Finally, may I make a plea to the Minister? In my various deliberations, I have heard some unedifying, if not distasteful, talk of quotas. Will he ensure that quotas do not prevent those who worked for Britain and their families seeking safety in the UK? After all, there was no talk of quotas when we asked for volunteers. There is no talk of quotas when it comes to the extent of these people’s bravery in stepping up to the plate when we needed them. We should therefore not be talking about quotas when it is our turn to stand by them.
In conclusion, although I do not doubt Government or the Minister’s good intentions—it is often an issue of cock-up rather than conspiracy—the sad fact is that after the scheme was introduced, for the whole year of 2022, not one person was relocated. I will not accept any of the talk I have heard previously of many hundreds or thousands being helped. That is disinformation. People who got out under Operation Pitting have been retrospectively shoehorned into various schemes. I hope the Minister will not recite those figures to me. The sad fact is that during 2022 nobody has been relocated under the scheme.
As we reach the first anniversary of the ACRS, I urge the Government finally to get all those contractors and their families to safety. Recent talk in certain circles of the number of Taliban being killed has not helped them at all. After all, the ACRS was a flagship scheme announced with great fanfare, but nobody has yet been relocated. The litmus test of the success of the scheme is how many people have been relocated over the course of the past year, and that figure is a big fat zero. Now is the time to put that right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so near to the end of his speech. I just wanted to remind Members that this is very similar to what happened with Afghan interpreters, where there was a redundancy scheme—this was before the fall of Kabul—and an intimidation scheme. While considerable numbers were brought out under the redundancy scheme, none was brought out under the intimidation scheme, at least until the fifth report of the Defence Committee of 2017 to 2019, which was published in May 2018 and recommended a more generous approach. As the Minister was a member of the Defence Committee that drew up that report, I am sure he will be sympathetic to a request for a meeting to discuss all these matters—as has already been offered by his ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I am mindful of time, but permission has been given for Sarah Champion to make a short speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am very grateful to be able to respond to this important debate. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his continued advocacy of these people and this issue. He has a long-standing track record of interest in global affairs but also our Afghan policy. I am very grateful for his raising these issues today and I will try to answer his questions very directly.
First, on the proportion of British Council contractors who have been notified and processed, I can confirm—that is a yes—a considerable number of principals have been processed and informed and granted forward processing. Their dependants number almost 300, so, in the round, it is quite a considerable figure. As to my hon. Friend’s third question, about when the other half will hear, I can confirm that some 47 have recently been contacted to start that process. We are making progress; they have been contacted. Notwithstanding the difficulty of the situation in which they find themselves, we are trying, in terms of communication and administrative support, to ensure that they can also start that journey of resettlement. I hope that I have answered that question very directly.
In his second question, my hon. Friend asked what support we are providing through our work with third countries, because of course he has rightly identified our work with Pakistan and the support that it afforded to our efforts to extract these benighted people. During the worst of the chaos of August last year and the heroic efforts of those involved in Operation Pitting, the role of Pakistan was much appreciated. It is a very sensitive issue, as regards placing strain on our diplomatic relations with Pakistan, because it has very considerable security and diplomatic equities involved. It is not always easy, but Pakistan has been very, very helpful, and we look forward to that help—that mutual help—continuing. We put a huge amount of diplomatic effort into it. Of course, we have also worked with other countries, such as Uzbekistan. Considerable diplomatic effort has gone into that, so we hope that those relationships will continue, despite the considerable strain that is sometimes brought to bear.
My hon. Friend asked a very reasonable and direct question about the utility of quotas. I of course share his concern. None of us in this room, a room in which a long-standing interest in Afghanistan is represented, would not. We all share a sense of needing to nourish those who helped us in our hour of need in Afghanistan, especially in terms of the work done by the British Council in teaching English and giving educational opportunities to Afghans. We would all want to see the best possible outcome for those who stood up and took risks for the sake of not British but Afghan interests, affording educational opportunities to young Afghans. We all want the best outcomes for those people. None of us want to see any limits placed on safe refuge for those who stood up and took risks for their benefit.
We can see some of the numbers that the Home Office uses to process the cohorts as more of a measuring tool. We have referred to 1,500 initial places for pathway 3, which runs into June of this year. That is helpful as a measuring tool, but I would not see it as an upper limit because another cohort will be established from June of this year. Let us see it not as a limit, but as a measuring tool. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay knows that strong representations are being made from the Foreign Office to our colleagues and friends in the Home Office to ensure that maximum flexibility is given to afford spaces to our friends and colleagues who are British Council contractors.
Mr Baron
For absolute clarity, will the Minister correct me if I am wrong in any of this? Taking his first two answers, about half of the 200 contractors have been given the green light to head to the border. No ifs or buts—they have been given the green light. Up until very recently, none of the other half had heard anything at all, but now around 47 have been contacted and that ball is rolling. Am I right in saying that?
Mr Baron
In that case, I seek clarification on my second and fourth questions. On the second question, is the Minister saying that getting across the border will be as it was previously? There was simply a list and no expectation that those fleeing Afghanistan, who had been approved by us but told to go to the border, would need travel documents in hand, whatever they may be. Will their entry into a third country be unimpaired? Will it be unhindered because, as I raised with the Minister, there will be a list of those names? The priority is to get them out of the country and sort out the paperwork once they have arrived in that third country. Is that what he is saying?
Leo Docherty
I do not think it is useful for me to be drawn in on the details. I do not want to undermine any possible facilitation of any process that may or may not have been put in place. I will not comment on the details, but I will say that it is our firm intention to facilitate the onward movement of those people, notwithstanding the extreme political, diplomatic and security constraints faced by everyone right across Afghanistan on a daily basis.
Mr Baron
That is question four. I do not wish to make life difficult for the Minister because I know him to be a decent man, but at the same time, we have waited for so long and this is an opportunity for clarity. He can correct me if I am wrong, but he has made it clear that on the paperwork, travel documents will not hinder access to third countries when the contractors reach the border.
May I come back to the issue of quotas? In my travails on this issue, I have heard quotas mentioned a few times. Will the Minister give us an assurance at the Dispatch Box that quotas will not limit the number of contractors and their families who are deemed very high risk or high risk as per the FCDO British Council categorisation? Will there be no limit on those people being able to get out, provided we are happy they have met the deemed criteria?
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that the constraint—the limiting factor—will be the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural, bureaucratic or quota constraint from the British Government.
Mr Baron
The Minister is being generous in giving way again and I appreciate his generosity. When he talks about security, I understand what he is saying; all of us in this Chamber fully appreciate the fact that these people have to be security-checked. However, they have already been identified as legitimate, and at very high risk or high risk. I take on board his point that there has to be a security check, but once these people have gone through that, what I am sure he is saying to the Chamber is that there will be no impediment from a quota point of view to getting them out of the country. Am I right?
Leo Docherty
That is my firm expectation. I reiterate the fact that the constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be the constraint. I hope that is clear.
I do not know how many minutes I have left, Ms McVey.
British Council Contractors: Afghanistan
John Baron Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on British Council contractors in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Minister who is responsible for Afghanistan—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty)—is travelling. I am a poor substitute, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for raising this very important matter.
During Operation Pitting, nearly all British Council staff and some contractors were evacuated and offered resettlement through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Some British Council contractors, plus dependants, remain in Afghanistan and are eligible for consideration for resettlement under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The scheme will see up to 20,000 people from Afghanistan and the region resettled in to the United Kingdom. It provides a safe and legal route for some of those affected by events in Afghanistan to come to the United Kingdom and rebuild their lives.
The first year of ACRS pathway 3 is focused on eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors, as well as Chevening alumni, honouring the commitments made by the Government to those three groups. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office opened an online process on 20 June this year to seek expressions of interest in resettlement from those groups. They have played a key role in supporting the UK mission in Afghanistan, and it is right that we are honouring the commitments made during the evacuation to support those at risk. Up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region will be referred for resettlement in the UK in the first year of pathway 3, including eligible family members.
The FCDO received more than 11,400 expressions of interest, which are being assessed in terms of eligibility. People are being notified of the outcome, and we are sending names to the Home Office for security checks. Once the checks have been completed, we will provide advice on the next steps for those who are being referred for a place on the ACRS. It remains a priority to honour the commitment made to eligible at-risk British Council contractors, and to offer a route for resettlement in the UK under the scheme. I want to thank the council for its excellent co-operation with the FCDO to date, as we work together to resettle eligible contractors under pathway 3.
We are doing everything we can to bring the first British Council and other arrivals under pathway 3 to the United Kingdom as soon as possible, where we will help them to rebuild their lives. Anyone who is eligible and resettled through the ACRS will receive indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and, under existing rules, will be able to apply for British citizenship after five years in the UK. This is one of the most ambitious resettlement schemes in our country’s history, and we are proud to offer a safe and legal route to those affected by events in Afghanistan.
Mr Baron
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. Let me start by both welcoming the Foreign Secretary’s speech on foreign policy this morning, which called for a long-term, resilient approach that will build the long-term, trusting relationships that this country needs for the future, and underlining the fact that that is precisely the purpose of the British Council, which has been building connections for this country throughout the world, quietly, consistently and effectively, since the 1930s. I hope that the Minister sees, as I do, the key role that the British Council can play in helping to achieve those objectives.
I make no apologies for asking this urgent question, because people’s lives are at risk. I went through the regular channels a year ago, and was told that progress was being made, which is more or less what the Minister has just said. I raised it again in October/November, but there has been no response. The progress has not been made.
For more than 16 months since Operation Pitting and the fall of Kabul, about 200 British Council contractors and their families have been stuck in Afghanistan. As has recently been highlighted in the media, many of them are in hiding and in fear of their lives, unable to seek medical advice when it is necessary for themselves and their families, and family members have died as a consequence. As the Minister said, British Council contractors are eligible under ACRS pathway 3, but those 200 or so contractors remain stuck in Afghanistan because of a blockage of red tape here in the UK. Until that blockage is cleared they will remain in danger, possibly for a second Afghan winter. Since its launch in January, the scheme has not repatriated a single person from Afghanistan: I have received confirmation of that from the British Council. In July and August, an application window closed for the contractors to submit expressions of interest. British Council employees worked at pace with the FCDO to identify those who had actually worked with them, yet there has still been no progress whatsoever. Having used all the regular channels, I would now like to ask the Minister to do all he can before Christmas to clear these blockages and get these contractors back to the UK.
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He eloquently extols the brilliance of the British Council. I had some responsibility for it 10 years ago, and I know very well that what he says about it is entirely correct. He is quite right about the eligibility, and we very much understand the urgency to which he refers. This particular pathway process started on 20 June and remained open for eight weeks. The Foreign Office has looked at every single one of the applicants, and the process is moving through. I would just say that, although it is taking a lot of time, it is right that officials should look carefully at each and every one of those cases. There is a balance to be struck, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s words and concerns are reflected across Government as a result of this urgent question.
Sri Lanka
John Baron Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I reiterate the congratulations of the House to the hon. Lady.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Further to that point of order, briefly I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on winning. I confirm what she says; it was a good-natured, courteous and civilised campaign. I thank everyone who has voted and in particular the Clerks who organised it.
Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
John Baron Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument to the Committee, and I am sure that he will have no trouble getting it passed. Like many colleagues in this place, I have been banned from visiting Russia because of our apparently Russophobic approach and rhetoric. I wholeheartedly welcome the measures, but may I urge the Minister to go further? The bureaucracy in Belarus extends beyond 50 individuals. Given how active those individuals are in supporting Russia’s invasion, surely we can do more to target them and the bureaucracy more generally.
Rehman Chishti
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have a huge amount of respect for him and for his expertise in foreign affairs—he sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is absolutely right that we must do everything we can to ensure that all levers possible are applied, across the board, to individuals contravening the legislation passed by this Parliament though their unacceptable behaviour in support of Putin’s illegal actions in Ukraine.
My hon. Friend will agree that the difference between us and those in Belarus and Russia is that we believe in democracy. Therefore, the sanctions that we impose in the United Kingdom have their legislation and criteria set through Parliament. We will use every lever possible to hold those individuals to account. We are making it very clear that we are looking at individuals in all sectors and areas where we feel that they are aiding and abetting Putin’s aggressive behaviour in Ukraine. I note his point about ensuring that the measures are continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that we catch the widest number of individuals who need to be held accountable.
The trade sanctions contained in this instrument include a ban on the export of dual-use goods and technology for all purposes and on the export of goods and technologies for critical industries. That includes high-end equipment such as microelectronics, marine navigation equipment, aircraft components, quantum computing components, and oil-refining goods and technology. That in part answers the point made by my hon. Friend on the widening of the criteria under which individuals can be held responsible for the unacceptable activity in Ukraine. That will place further constraints on Belarus’s military, industrial and technological capabilities and on refining petroleum, one of the country’s highest value exports. The measures include a ban on the export of luxury goods to Belarus and a ban on the import of iron and steel from the country.
Finally, the legislation introduces new sanctions on transport. It extends measures introduced in 2021 against aircraft, giving us the power to detain and deter registered Belarusian aircraft. It also introduces new shipping measures, prohibiting Belarusian ships from entering UK ports and introducing powers to detain and deregister ships. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to members of the Committee for their contributions to today’s insightful and timely discussion and I will address the important questions that they have raised. I thank the Committee for its full support for these regulations. The House is united in agreeing that we must do everything we can to stand by the people of Ukraine. The United Kingdom Government at every level, supported by all political parties, took decisive military, economic and diplomatic action to support the people of Ukraine, and we will continue to do that.
I turn to hon. Members’ specific questions. I thank the Opposition spokesman for his constructive dialogue and support, and for raising the issues that need to be raised. We improve regulations and legislation only by engaging in discussion, interaction and reflection, and the process for dealing with the situation in Ukraine has been constructive throughout.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned the numbers. We must do more. We will absolutely do everything we can to support the people of Ukraine and ensure that those responsible for this unacceptable behaviour are brought to account in order to deter others from such unacceptable actions and deeds.
The figure of 50 was mentioned, but I want to set out the overall mapping, in terms of sanctions, that we have applied to Belarus. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and others asked about that. On the designations and criteria that we have applied, under the Belarus regulations 108 individuals and 10 entities were designated pre-invasion. That comes back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. He asked what we have done about the unacceptable behaviour and aggression, and the fraudulent elections in Belarus. What have we done to hold individuals to account—not now, with regard to the Ukraine situation and the Belarus Government aiding and abetting Putin’s illegal invasion, but what did we do then, and what have we been doing since? Some 108 individuals and 10 entities were designated pre-invasion, and an additional six entities were designated in response to the invasion, as they are significant to the regime. They include Alexander and Viktor Lukashenko. The United States has not designated 69 of those individuals, but we have.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth says that we need to work with international partners. Absolutely, but the United States and United Kingdom have different legal criteria. Nobody in this House would say to me that we should do anything outside our legal criteria. We will do it in the right way, by applying our legal criteria.
The second set of designations come under the Magnitsky sanctions and the global human rights legislation. Eight individuals have been designated, including Alexander and Viktor Lukashenko, on human rights grounds. Only one of those is not designated by the US, although its designations are via its Belarus programmes, rather than the global human rights regime.
Then we come on to the Russia regulations. We now have a separate entity for Belarus, but from February, when we were looking at Ukraine, we were using the Russia regime. Under the Russia regulations, 47 individuals and seven entities were designated following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some 41 of those individuals are not sanctioned by the US, and the remaining six are. All those entities are sanctioned by the US. Five of the individuals sanctioned by the US and all seven entities are sanctioned under the Belarus programmes, rather than the Russia programme. The remaining individual is sanctioned under the Russia programme.
I have given that answer because I wanted colleagues in the House to know the different regimes that we have applied sanctions under.
Mr Baron
I do not for one moment question the Minister’s good intent. What he said there is absolutely spot on, but what is troubling some of us is that given the size of the Belarusian Government bureaucracy and the state generally in pursuing its aims, which we all condemn, 50, 100 or even 200 are probably not enough. If we are to send a strong message to Belarus and any other people aiding and abetting the invasion of Ukraine, we have to get tougher and perhaps be even quicker in our response. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Rehman Chishti
Yes. I thank my officials for the note over here, but let me just answer that point. I am trying to multitask in reading, reflecting and answering; hopefully my lawyer’s training helps in that regard. I get the point raised by my hon. Friend. I think the officials get the point. We have to do everything we can. I have tried to give an overall picture with regard to the number of individuals, but his point is that looking at the scale and size of the country, we have to do everything we can to ensure that as many of those individuals who need to be held accountable are held accountable. I get that, and no doubt officials here get that, and it will be taken back and looked at. I will write to him specifically on that point with further details so that he gets the fullest answer.
I want to address another point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, about why we are replicating measures made on 28 April. Why are we doing it now? His point was with regard to the timing of the different regulations. The new measures are the latest in a co-ordinated package of measures that the UK has introduced in response to Belarus’s support for the Russian invasion. The point I made earlier was that we put a number of measures and designations into play prior to the invasion. The new criteria that we have put in place extend and broaden the group of individuals who can be held accountable for the unacceptable behaviour of aiding and abetting Putin’s financial actions, and supporting the aggression in Ukraine.
Since the invasion of Ukraine, we have launched a series of sanctions targeting Belarusian individuals and organisations who have aided and abetted this reckless aggression. We designated 47 Belarusian individuals and seven Belarusian entities under the Russia sanctions regime. We also introduced a 35 percentage points increase in duties on a range of products imported from Belarus. Those measures are in addition to the wide range of measures that we have already imposed on Belarus under our Belarus sanctions regime, which include sanctions on Lukashenko and members of his family, and on other individuals and entities.
With regard to the third point that the hon. Gentleman raised on the issue of steel, iron, aviation, space and goods, I will take that matter away and make sure that it is answered as fully as I can, to do justice to the answer, rather than reflecting on it now. I will make sure that he gets a full answer on that specific point.