Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I shall put forward a few random and hopefully connected thoughts that have occurred to me in the course of the contributions we have heard so far. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate, and I commiserate with him on the fact that he paid a high political price in losing the chairmanship of the Defence Committee, which I know he valued greatly, as a result of speaking out on this subject.

I can go part of the way with my right hon. Friend in support of his thesis about engagement, by saying this: no matter how much we detest a particular regime, a time always comes when, if in reality it has established full control over a country, it gets international recognition. That was true for the Bolsheviks, for example: Britain intervened in the Russian civil war in an attempt to prevent the Bolsheviks from establishing communist control in what became the USSR, but we failed, and, after a few years, that regime had eventually to be recognised. Where I find it hard to go further with my right hon Friend is in the belief that we can somehow manipulate the system to make significant improvements or avert significant threats from an Afghanistan run by the militant Taliban, even if he detects—rightly, I am sure—significant factions within the Taliban spectrum, such as it is.

As too many past speeches will attest, I came to the conclusion over a decade ago that the whole concept of the west trying to engage in nation building from the ground up in countries such as Afghanistan was largely futile, because—and I quote my right hon. Friend, who referred to this country’s democratic journey across the centuries—it often takes centuries for democracy to evolve in a society.

We have no reason per se to feel superiority over countries that we regard as undemocratic today, because we had so much longer than they have had so far to evolve the institutions, values and tolerances in which we have reason to be proud. The fact is that, if we were to go back 400 or 500 years into the history of our own country, we would find religious fanaticism that is not all that dissimilar to what pertains in countries that are subject to what has today been termed radical political Islam. If we then frame the proposition that some completely different society, seeking to impose their more modern values on the England of 500 years ago, could have managed to inculcate those values into a society with a belief that God Almighty was telling them to do one thing and to disregard all alternatives as infidel structures that must be destroyed, we can see that it is pretty unrealistic to think that societies could be transformed with that degree of rapidity.

I have therefore felt, and argued for over a decade, that what we needed with a country such as Afghanistan was not an approach whereby we would be able rapidly to bring it into the modern world, but that we should be able to contain the threats that it posed to us—for a very long period, if necessary—until, by its own evolution, it came to develop the sorts of values that would result in those threats ceasing to exist. That option has now been taken away from us by President Biden’s catastrophic decision to abandon everything and effectively betray all the people in Afghanistan who had put their trust in the NATO countries that had tried, over-ambitiously, to develop Afghan society.

What I feel very strongly, which came out so well in the remarks that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made about Afghan women, is that we may have pursued an unrealistic and utopian policy towards Afghanistan, but, in doing that, we created obligations to those Afghans who sought to travel along the route with us. We must not abandon them.

When I hear about the idea of our having a strategy towards the country, I think of our options as extremely limited. The strategy that we ought to have had is one of containment, whereby we would make it perfectly clear that we had intervened militarily once and would not get sucked in, but that, if there were to be any sign of further terrorist activity aimed at us or our allies, we would not hesitate to intervene militarily again. In that case, we would again make it clear that we would not get sucked in, but would continually keep the threat of counter-action available while avoiding seeking to transform the society in a way that was wholly impractical.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. He is talking about a situation in which a terrorist threat may emerge in the future. At the height of the UK’s presence in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister of the UK talked about Afghanistan and Pakistan in the same breath and had an AfPak strategy. That was because there was a fear of Islamist intent coming together with the weapons of mass destruction capability in Pakistan. Does the right hon. Member think that those threats have completely dissipated, or would he still regard the federally administered tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province as a threat?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I absolutely am concerned about the attitude of Pakistan and about the potential for Pakistani nuclear weapons to one day pass under the control of more radical elements than are currently running that country. What should particularly worry us—this is what I think David Cameron had in mind when, as Prime Minister, he talked about Pakistan facing both ways on the question of radical Islam—is the fact that there has been a wish in Pakistan Government circles to see the triumph of the Taliban. The reasons for that are probably more related to Pakistan’s relations with countries such as India, and have too little regard to the other effects that bringing in a regime such as the Taliban’s might have on the stability and security of the international system and the rules-based international order—about which we hear so much although we often wonder whether it exists.

I share the continuing concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I am far from satisfied that we are in a secure situation. On the contrary, I feel that the withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan have given a huge boost to those who say that the western system of society is degenerate and enfeebled, and will surely fail in the face of a radical Islamic alternative.

What do we do about this now? What I think we can do can be summed up in the following way. We will, indeed, have to recognise that the Taliban are in control. Therefore, just as we have a sort of relationship, however adversarial, with obnoxious and hostile regimes in other countries, so we will have to do that with the Taliban. We must not fool ourselves that having a relationship with them will result in any real reduction in the threat that they and their of way life poses, particularly when they have adherents within our own societies. We saw for many years how much damage people who owed a form of allegiance to the Soviet Union could cause, through their fifth columnists in democratic societies. There is an equivalent danger from radical political Islam, too.

Let us by all means face reality, but let us reassert that we know that this combination of politics, regime and religious extremist ideology is a total threat to us. We will do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Any aid and support that we give to the Afghan Government, as we will eventually have to call it, must be contingent on something in return at every stage. That will probably be in relation to the saving of groups, whether they be women’s groups or former military personnel to whom we owe obligations. That is the saving of people whose lives were changed by our intervention, and who have a right to look to us to help to protect them against the ghastliness of the regime that has sadly re-emerged and taken control of their country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Israel and Palestine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

No, but I can tell the hon. Member that, in respect of the humanitarian difficulties that he has identified, we are doing everything we can to try to secure unhindered humanitarian access, and we will continue to do so.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that Hamas will never accept a two-state solution, does the Minister agree that any two-state solution must exclude Hamas—or any renamed successor—from any role in the government of Gaza after this horror is all over?

[Mr Mitchell]

There is clearly no place in any future settlement for Hamas and their vile ideology and terrorist actions. The two-state solution must be driven forward by people of good will on all sides.

Trial of Jimmy Lai

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The interpretation by China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the national security law at the end of last year stated that the Chief Executive would have to certify whether an act or issue involved national security, including the question of overseas lawyers’ participation; otherwise, its statement was that the Chief Executive-led National Security Committee should make the decision. So, attempts to challenge that have sadly failed and the High Court has noted that Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction over it, but we have called on the Chief Executive to respect those rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and to uphold the rule of law as we all understand it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How many times must a totalitarian communist state behave like a totalitarian communist state before the Government will recognise it as a totalitarian communist state?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I do not quite know how to follow such an articulately put question. My right hon. Friend highlights one of the many challenges for those of us who believe in, uphold and want to allow other countries around the world to uphold those values and freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of association—and we will continue to work with allies and partners to highlight and to sanction, where we can and where we have the tools to do so, those who continue to breach those freedoms.

Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Again, I recognise the integrity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. I can tell him that, no, the Israeli Government never target civilians, but they are pursuing a strategy of degrading and eliminating the appalling perpetrators and the military machine that wrought the terrible disaster that took place on 7 October, which I remind him was a pogrom. More Jewish people were killed on that day than on any single day since the holocaust in 1945.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Even if the Foreign Secretary were at the Dispatch Box today, I doubt if he would do a better job than my right hon. Friend. Can he say whether the Government have made any estimate of the number of Hamas fighters who have been killed? We seem to get very precise estimates of the number of civilians who have been killed but, clearly, a large number of Hamas fighters are engaged in opposing Israeli forces on the ground. Are any other people, other than Hamas fighters, resisting Israeli forces on the ground?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. Truth is often the first casualty in war, and none of the figures that we are hearing can be relied upon.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support—he is probably my oldest friend in the House; we go back many years—and I hope that the Government heard his urging.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Could we add one more to the list of reasons why people conceal their identities in this way, which is to avoid sanctions, including sanctions placed by our own Government?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The right hon. Member makes a really important point, which I will come to later. He is right: this is a national security threat as well as a threat to our economy.

The Government have yet to comply with the legislation by making an Order in Council to mandate compliance by the overseas territories. After discussions between the Crown dependencies and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and myself, the three Crown dependencies —Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—announced in May 2019 that they were committed to introducing public registers and set out a plan to do so. Although I welcomed that in principle, I was concerned that their commitment was qualified and that their action plan contained a number of opt-out clauses. However, on the basis of their commitment, we chose not to legislate but to trust them. It now seems that our trust was misplaced. They are reneging on that commitment and using every excuse not to comply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: those who suffer the most are the poorest in our community. One must remember that no tax is levied on all this illicit finance, so it does not fund the public services that we require. I would also point out to the Minister that a legitimate interest proviso does not meet the requirements of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: the terms of the draft Order in Council specifically said that we want

“a compliant publicly accessible register”.

I ask the Minister to think about that.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant—we all know that. If we are serious about our effects to clamp down on dirty money and eliminate it from Britain, and from our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, we must have public registers, so that we can at the very least start to follow the money.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

For the sake of people who might not be experts in this field, can the right hon. Lady explain the extent to which those Crown dependencies and overseas territories themselves know where the real ownership of the resources resides? Can we be sure that they themselves know what information is being concealed and ought to be made public, or that we will have got to the bottom of the matter if it is made public?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am not sure I can answer that, because I do not know whether they know, but there have been one or two instances where whistleblowers have come to see me—about Jersey, for example. It has been very difficult to find out and identify how much the Jersey authorities knew, and why or whether they took action on the information that is available. It would be wonderful if the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee could look at this issue in greater detail to establish that.

Illicit finance is not just an evil in itself: it is the golden thread that runs through all serious crime, from drug smuggling to people smuggling. It threatens our national security, hits the poorest countries the hardest, and starves our public services of much-needed investment. It was in recognition of that importance that we established the strong cross-party consensus in the House that led to the 2018 law, which was agreed unanimously in this House. Ten years have passed since David Cameron first openly supported public registers, and five years have passed since we legislated, but we are still waiting. That is not good enough.

It is the job of the Executive to implement the will of Parliament. To that end, I ask the Minister to take two actions. First, will he now lay an Order in Council, requiring the overseas territories to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership forthwith? Secondly, will he legislate to require Crown dependencies to do the same? If the Government do not act, I can assure him that Parliament will, for we must—for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our security and for the sake of our reputation. I urge the Government to move forward on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

That is not the intention. We want the light to shine on these issues. That will involve media and non-governmental organisations too. I can give the hon. Lady that reassurance.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[David Rutley]

I will give way and then I will wind up very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Surely, the problem is that if the Minister were correct and any legitimate media could make an inquiry, any citizen with a real interest could go to the media and get the information that way. That must be known in opting for the filter, so presumably its purpose is only to be obstructive and to create legal barriers.

[David Rutley]

The filter is fundamental to the EU’s plans. We want this to be important in and of itself, and also a step on the journey to having full beneficial ownership registers. That remains the case.

I am conscious of time, but I want to assure the House that we are absolutely clear that we want to take this interim step further. We will continue active discussions. The majority of the five territories that we have talked about will sign up to the legitimate interest access filter, and we will continue to have discussions with other jurisdictions that need to do more. As I set out in my response to the right hon. Member for Barking, I intend to update the House with full details before Christmas, and I will lay a written ministerial statement on the outcomes of the ongoing negotiations.

We are continuing further productive discussions with Crown dependencies. In line with the overseas territories, we are recognising our different legal positions following the court judgment, but we are making our expectation clear that the registers need to be implemented during the course of next year. Again, the Home Office will update Parliament before the recess on the outcomes of those serious discussions, as we want to move forward.

In conclusion, I would like to give our great friends in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies the message that we are determined and keen to achieve this important goal for us all. The train is leaving the station. We know the direction of travel. It is time for all our friends in the overseas territories and CDs to get on board. We will do all we can to support them, and it remains a clear priority.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

Our efforts are focused on a more pragmatic avenue, working with allies in the region to ensure there is sustainable and more meaningful support right across the region for a two-state solution.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the Government accept that there can be no political solution unless Hamas are removed from control in Gaza, can the Minister explain to us who exactly will remove Hamas from that level of control in Gaza?

[Leo Docherty]

The political future of the Palestinians is a matter for Palestinians.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the very worrying position that exists in the south of Gaza at the moment. He will have seen that the United Nations and others are considering islands of deconfliction, particularly around Khan Yunis, including safe zones in order to dispense aid. But, like me, he will be very aware of the dangers experienced in other safe zones in the past, and the risks for civilians who are involved in them.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How can a two-state solution, which everybody says they want—everybody in this Chamber, at any rate—ever come to pass while Hamas remains in control of the Gaza strip?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not think that anybody thinks that Hamas are going to remain in charge of the Gaza strip in the medium term, or anything longer than that.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I repeat what I said last week. It is not for Ministers to seek to state where the ICC has jurisdiction; that is for the chief prosecutor. The chief prosecutor has not been silent on this matter, and I am sure he will continue to express his views.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Whether we like it or not, Israel will carry on fighting until it has established control of the area from which it was attacked. The question that then arises is what happens next. If Israel simply withdraws, Hamas will reappear. At least one moderate Arab state believes that a two-state solution will have to be imposed and policed. Are the Government giving thought as to who might carry out that job? Otherwise, the outcome that they want—a two-state solution—is wholly impracticable.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and entirely right that Israel has an absolute right of self-defence in this matter. On the options to which he alludes, I can assure him that a great deal of thought is going on, not only in Britain but across the region and elsewhere.

Repurposing Russian Assets to Rebuild Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The sanctions regimes, and measures taken under them against named individuals and Russian state assets, have played a vital role in the Ukrainian resistance, albeit one of a more slow-burning nature than military help. They are a slow-paced, grinding remedy against what has turned into a slow, grinding war in which bravery, defiance and the spirit and determination of enlisted men will ultimately allow Ukraine to prevail. We must play our part. As of May, records show that 1,604 individuals and 228 entities under the Russian regime are subject to the UK’s freezing sanctions to a value of approximately £18 billion. In addition, an estimated £26 billion of Russian state assets are frozen here in the UK. Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world, and while innocent Ukrainians continue to be killed for Russian imperialist ambitions, that must remain the case. More broadly, it is estimated that some £275 billion-worth of Russian assets have been frozen worldwide.

The Government are actively freezing assets. Freezing is good, but reallocating frozen assets to Ukraine’s benefit will be better, not least because of the monumental sums that are estimated to be needed to fund reconstruction—that is, reconstruction of homes, businesses, infrastructure and lives. I was therefore interested and pleased to read the detail of the statutory instrument—the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023—laid by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), last Monday. Its introduction enables freezing order sanctions to be maintained until Moscow pays compensation to Ukraine for the destruction that Russians have caused and will continue to cause until the war ends. It is a positive step towards the calls that I and many other Members of this House have been making for assets forfeiture, although we are certainly not there yet.

As part of the joint Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Treasury and Home Office press release last week detailing these new legislative measures, I read with interest that the Government’s

“proposal to force sanctioned individuals to disclose UK assets will bring in greater transparency and leaves less room to hide.”

This proposal is long overdue, and I encourage the Government to make it a legal reality as soon as possible. Could the Minister explain the planned legislative process to enable that?

Questions over the specifics of the proposal remain. When brought forward, it is crucial that if sanctioned individuals are found to be in breach of the legislation, the proposal should open all their frozen assets to seizure and reallocation. I ask the Minister: would a breach of this provision cover an individual’s entire sanctioned asset base—at least that in the UK, and not just that which may have been found to have been hidden? That would have the dual effect of equipping the Government with a large motivational stick when it comes to greater transparency and allowing the effective forfeiture of a potentially significant amount of assets if breaches are identified. Both effects are desirable, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees.

Ultimately, the strength of the UK’s response to Russia’s attack on the post-1945 world order rests on being in lockstep with our international allies. The US, the EU and Canada are all proactively working on or have already implemented means of asset seizure and reallocation, even if only in a limited way. The move to allow frozen assets in the UK to be allocated towards Ukraine’s reconstruction complements similar moves in the US and Canada last year and EU proposals made earlier this month. All of this is very welcome.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for missing the opening of the debate. Has any consideration been given to what should happen to the interest or other income generated by those assets during the period that they are frozen? Surely, even if the assets are not seized in the end, their owners should not benefit from anything that the assets earn during that frozen period.

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes a different but important point. That aspect has been pursued by the European Union; in fact, I believe that it set up a committee a month or two ago to look at that very point. I think it is a very good idea, and we should certainly be pursuing it. Obviously, all these sanctioned assets cost money to keep—flats have to be maintained; boats have to be maintained—and we should be using income from these assets at least to pay for the maintenance of them, if not to get income that we can then give to Ukraine. He makes a very good point.

The Minister said earlier that the use of frozen assets towards reconstruction would not be allowed as a means of circumvention. It would, however, seem rather unlikely that a Russian sanctioned person would permit their frozen assets to be donated to Ukraine unless there was some benefit to them, such as sanctions cancellation. Perhaps the Minister could explain why else the sanctioned individual would want to do so. Why would they want to give their assets to Ukraine if there was not a deal to be had? The Ukrainians, it has to be said, have expressed concern at the prospect of deals being done with oligarchs in individual countries—they think that might breach the wall, so to speak. As such, could the Minister confirm that if deals are done at all, they would only be done on a multilateral basis?

To make one final point if I may, the original purpose of our adopting the Magnitsky sanctions was to protect those whose human rights are ignored by foreign regimes. As the Russian Federation staggers on, we must remain vigilant towards those of its citizens who support democracy. At this very moment, Open Russia’s vice-chairman Vladimir Kara-Murza—twice poisoned, and now sentenced to 25 years—languishes in a Russian prison, even though his lawyers and family are unsure of his exact whereabouts. Mr Kara-Murza, whose brave wife I had the honour of meeting in Parliament last week, is a valiant spokesman for democracy and human rights. The Government have sanctioned only five of his dozens of tormentors; even Lithuania has sanctioned 15 of them. As a British citizen, should Mr Kara-Murza not expect us to be leading the way on this issue? I hope that Ministers will now respond with appropriate resolution.

Afghan Women and Girls

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

That is extremely kind of you, Mrs Latham.

I wish to make a single point, which I urge the Minister to take away. After the invasion of Ukraine, the Home Office set up a special unit on the parliamentary estate in Portcullis House staffed by knowledgeable and sympathetic Home Office civil servants, and it was possible for MPs to engage directly with them in support of particular cases of outstanding humanitarian worth. Why should we not reinstate that hub, which would make it easy for those of us who know of cases exactly like those just described by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to feed them into the system, and would mean that there is no chance of them being delayed or ignored, and that there could be no prevarication? When we engage with the relevant officials directly, as we did over Ukraine, we get results. Why should we not help those people in Afghanistan, to whom we have a particular obligation, given that we were prepared to do that for those from Ukraine, towards whom we had fewer obligations but understandable sympathy?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for his important points. He also made important points about freedom of religion or belief, which he and I support very strongly. I was grateful for those.

In terms of engaging with NGOs, there are pathways to bring food and engage women and girls in that process with a limited number of NGOs, including the Red Cross and Red Crescent. We are doing everything we can to work within those pathways to do that, but this is far from ideal. We are not happy with the situation, and we want to find other ways, but at least there are some limited pathways.

While we are talking about the humanitarian situation, it is worth emphasising that more than 28 million Afghans—over half the population—are estimated to be in humanitarian need, with around 17.2 million suffering acute food insecurity. We are working very hard to find ways to get food to those individuals and support them. The UK remains one of the most generous donors to Afghanistan; since April 2021, we have spent over £530 million. Points have been made about the official development assistance budget. It is well known that our aim—the Government’s aim—is to return to 0.7% when the fiscal conditions allow.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the Taliban’s bans on women working for the UN and for NGOs. The UN described the ban on its staff as “unlawful” and it has been unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council. Those bans prevent humanitarian development aid from reaching Afghans, particularly women and girls, and threaten lives in communities dependent on that support, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The UK Government continue to provide support despite the bans, and we are working with allies and countries in the region to put pressure on the Taliban to reverse them. The goal for the aid we provide is to ensure that 50% of those reached are women and girls. We achieved that in 2021-22 and are on track to do so again in the last financial year, despite the bans that we have all called out.

Afghanistan is the only country in the world to ban women from secondary and higher education. It is a genuinely extraordinary step. As a parent of four children—two young men and two young women—it is clear to me, along with millions of others in this country, that that is unfair, economically and socially ignorant and completely self-defeating. We know from our consultations with Afghan women, including those in Afghanistan, that educating their sons and daughters is their No. 1 priority. It is key to lifting families out of entrenched poverty and insecure, low-skilled labour.

We support education provision in Afghanistan through our financial contributions to NGOs, UN partners and the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education. We will continue to use every diplomatic and development lever at our disposal to restore girls’ rights to education. We are working with close allies, regional powers and through the UN to press the Taliban to allow girls back into classrooms. In December, we used the Bali international conference on Afghan women’s education to urge regional partners to speak on behalf of Afghan women and girls.

Important points were made by the hon. Member for North East Fife about the breadth of engagement with NGOs. We have had a range of consultations with Afghan women over the past year, both those in Afghanistan and here in the UK. We engage with NGOs in regular meetings with the British and Irish Agencies Afghanistan Group and we organise consultations with local organisations as well on specific thematic issues, such as education, health and livelihoods. We will continue to take forward that engagement. We also allocated £17 million to support regional countries, including Iran, Pakistan and Tajikistan, in 2021-22. That aid supports those countries to be better prepared for an increase in population movement from Afghanistan and to deliver services to refugees and asylum seekers.

Important points were made about what we can do to help encourage girls to study at home. We support access to education for girls at primary level through community-based education, which reaches adolescent girls close to their homes. Some of the partners that provide community-based education are testing innovative approaches to reach girls through technology, as mentioned by several hon. Members today. However, we have some concerns around access to electricity and the internet, which make it difficult to scale technology-based solutions.

There was a call to impose sanctions on members of the Taliban who send their daughters to schools overseas. I understand those concerns. We believe it is important to continue to engage with the more moderate members of the Taliban to persuade them to call on the Emir to reverse the edict banning girls’ education. That is the primary focus in that work.

Points have been made on how we can support particular cases. I am with the FCDO, not the Home Office, and it would not be appropriate for us to comment on individual cases. However, we are working hard to encourage and support people to come into the United Kingdom. To date, 24,500 people have been brought to safety, and since April 2021 more than 9,000 people have been granted settled status under pathway 1 of ACRS. Since 2022, the first people have arrived in the UK through pathway 2 of ACRS, and, in the first stage of pathway 3, the Government are considering eligible or at-risk British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni for resettlement.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am very grateful to the Minister, who is a very decent man and I am sure very sympathetic to the plight of the Afghan women. Will he please take the message back to the Home Office that if it wants to claim credit, rightfully, for those schemes, it needs to create the machinery to enable right hon. and hon. Members to engage with its officials in the way that we did when we successfully engaged over Ukraine? We need that hub back. Please will he raise that point with his Home Office counterparts?

[David Rutley]

I noted the point that my right hon. Friend made in his short but important contribution, which he has just reiterated. I will take that away and follow it up with the Home Office.

I want to highlight the important work that we should carry on doing to get the Taliban to change course.