International Engagements

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

All I can say is that genuine concern is being expressed. The transatlantic slave trade is a diabolical stain on our history, and we do have to remember what happened in the past, condemn it and say why it was entirely unacceptable. That is the sort of dialogue we need to have with our partners in the Commonwealth. What I do know is that the agenda discussed at CHOGM was far more extensive and was looking to the future, particularly that of small, developing island states, which will experience the huge impact of climate change. I was at several launch meetings in CHOGM where we directly addressed that issue by providing information and support. The Commonwealth is dynamic and forward-looking, and I have every confidence we will be able to face the challenges of the future.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, we are about to commemorate our war dead. Will the noble Lord reflect on the 1,000 British soldiers who died during the Korean War—more than in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Falklands combined—and on our agreements with the dynamic democratic Republic of Korea as it faces dangers on the peninsula itself as well as in Europe, with North Korean soldiers fighting alongside Putin in his illegal war? How can we strengthen our relationship further with the Republic of Korea and ensure that we see off what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has described as a “deadly quartet” of dictatorships that is a threat to our democracies?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord has raised our relationship with the Republic of Korea; I think he and I share a respect for its democratic credentials. Our relationship is as close as ever, and certainly, the Downing Street accord elevates that relationship to a global strategic bilateral partnership, placing it second only to that with the US in terms of strength. The noble Lord said that it looks like the DPRK is extending tensions further globally. The assessment is that its troops could be deployed in Ukraine, and that would be a very significant and concerning development. I reassure him that our relationship with the Republic of Korea has never been stronger, and we are determined to develop it.

Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, but I think he knows very well just how seriously we take Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment. He will recall my questions to the previous Government on this. He will recall my statements on this, where we have taken a very strong position. Let me reassure my noble friend: the idea that the Foreign Secretary goes to China and does not raise these issues is ridiculous. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary said in his response to the Oral Question on Monday that it was because he had been out of the country visiting a wide range of countries he had not at that stage been able to meet the family of Jimmy Lai. But Catherine West has and will continue to do so and the Foreign Secretary said he would do so. I reassure my noble friend that we take this very seriously and will raise it at all levels.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in 2019, at the conclusion of the last fair and free elections in Hong Kong, at which I was one of the international monitoring team, the last person whom I met was Jimmy Lai. He is a friend, along with his family. Of the 1,800 pro-democracy prisoners in Hong Kong, he is probably the best known and a British citizen. He is 76 years of age and his health is declining; he has even been denied access to his pastor and the sacraments. His family believe that he will not see out another year if he is left in that prison. Can the noble Lord tell us when we last formally asked for consular access to Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong and why we have not called in the Chinese ambassador to ask that Jimmy Lai should be allowed to leave and return to the United Kingdom?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Again, let me reassure the noble Lord that we do take his imprisonment seriously. He knows very well that I raised these issues, together with him, when others did not. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary has raised the case. In fact, on 18 October, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Foreign Minister Wang Yi; and it was certainly raised under the previous Government on 5 December. We take this incredibly seriously. The problem remains with some issues of consular access because of dual nationals. The noble Lord knows that he and I have taken up other cases on that basis, but rest assured that we will continue to put much pressure on the Chinese Communist Party officials who are taking this action. We are extremely concerned about the continued imprisonment and I repeat that the Foreign Secretary will, as he assured the House of Commons on Monday, meet the family so that we can continue to give support at all levels.

Sudan

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are taking a series of actions. Our first focus is to look strongly at humanitarian access and getting in support, in relation to the UN decisions. On 18 October, we led a joint statement with 10 other donors to condemn the obstruction. On broader support, we are providing nutrition, safe drinking water, medical care and shelter through both the WFP and UNICEF. But be under no illusions that the situation in Sudan is dire because of a civil war conducted by two generals. We need to ensure that we put immediate pressure on those two people to stop the war, so that we can get the sorts of actions in place that my noble friend referred to.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, earlier today, on behalf of the All-Party Group on Sudan, I chaired a meeting with the civil society actors in Sudan —the Taqaddum, which means “progress”—which is a starting place for civilian engagement. Its members have asked whether the Minister, who has responsibility for Africa, would be willing to meet them. They also asked whether we, as penholders at the Security Council, will take the opportunity to ask for the extension of the mandate of the International Criminal Court that currently covers Darfur to cover the whole of Sudan, so that those responsible for some of the horrors that the Minister has rightly described will one day be brought to justice.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord of the importance of Taqaddum and the engagement with civil society in Sudan. I not only met His Excellency Mr Hamdok yesterday but saw him at the FT Africa conference today. I will continue to engage with Taqaddum. We have been a constant supporter of the group, as it is very important. When I met His Excellency, we stressed the importance of inclusive engagement, so that everyone in Sudan feels involved.

On the situation in Darfur and the UN resolution, as the noble Lord understands we tend not to move resolutions that we cannot garner support for. What I do not want to do is to move the clock back. By working with the Human Rights Council, we managed to ensure that the fact-finding mission had its remit extended, and we increased the number of people supporting that Motion. We will take all diplomatic steps. I hope that when we take the presidency of the Security Council, which I will attend, we will ensure that the focus to which the noble Lord is drawing the House’s attention will be included.

Taiwan

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign Secretary plans to raise directly with the government of China the recent military activity against Taiwan during his visit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, in our Statement of 14 October, we stated our concern about China’s military exercises around Taiwan and reaffirmed our interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The United Kingdom considers the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. We will continue to raise issues of concern with China.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Beijing this week, will he be raising the escalation in the military intimidation of Taiwan and its 23 million people directly with the Chinese authorities? With Bloomberg estimating that a blockade of the Taiwan Strait could cost the world economy around $10 trillion—equal to 10% of global GDP—can the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has confusingly decided to no longer describe the PRC as a threat, and spell out exactly what is the Government’s policy on Taiwan, which has never been a part of the People’s Republic of China?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There are two questions there. The first is: what is our relationship with the People’s Republic of China? It is one of co-operation, particularly when we need to address those global issues, but we will confront China, when we need to, particularly on human rights issues, which the noble Lord has raised on repeated occasions. On Taiwan, we are quite clear about the need for peaceful dialogue to resolve these issues. The Taiwan Strait is of interest globally, but particularly to the United Kingdom in terms of our trade routes. Dialogue is what we will try to seek to ensure that we have a peaceful approach to these issues.

Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for initiating today’s important debate. During her remarks, she referred to the consequences of indebtedness on development—a point taken up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Forty years ago, on 22 November 1984, in the House of Commons, I challenged the then Government on their policy on Ethiopia, stressing that Ethiopia was still paying back more in debt than it was receiving in aid.

As the noble Baroness rightly remarked, in comments that were echoed very movingly by her friend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the catastrophe in Ethiopia was brought into our homes by the extraordinary journalism of the BBC’s Michael Buerk. His devastating first hand accounts roused our consciences and indignation —a point to which I will return in my comments.

I will follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and roll the clock forward from the two years of war in Tigray between 2020 and 2022 to the situation there now. Professor Jan Nyssen of Ghent University, a leading European authority on the war, put the number of war fatalities at between 300,000 and 500,000 people, including 50,000 to 100,000 from fighting, 150,000 to 200,000 due to famine and 100,000 from a lack of medical attention. To be clear, this was manmade, but no men have been brought to justice.

Professor Alex de Waal, the executive director of World Peace Foundation, draws parallels with the catastrophic situation in 1984. He says:

“In 1984, the Ethiopian government wanted the world to believe that its revolution heralded a bright new era of prosperity, and foreign donors refused to believe warnings of starvation until they saw pictures of dying children on the BBC news”.


On Tuesday evening, while speaking here at a meeting held in the Palace, I was struck by the intervention of a Tigrayan who believed that a complete denial of media access to the region from 2020 to 2022 enabled the regime to repeat these unspeakable acts of horror—these atrocities. That meeting was held to discuss a report of the New Lines Institute, undertaken over two years and comprising some 100,000 words. It concludes that the crime of genocide has occurred in Tigray. I have a copy for the Minister, which I will give to him during the debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I have one.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will know then, having seen the report, that that the situation has echoes of 1984. Ethiopia, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was then ruled by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-Soviet Derg. That ended in 1991, when its leader, Mengistu, fled to Zimbabwe. The House should note that an Ethiopian court found him guilty of genocide in absentia. His regime was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 0.5 million to 2 million Ethiopians, mostly during the famine. Of course, he has never been brought to justice, becoming a role model for others who commit atrocities with impunity.

In September 2023 I chaired a cross-party inquiry, which published a report entitled The Three Horsemen of the War in Tigray: Mass Killings, Sexual Violence and Starvation. It called on the UK Government and other actors to provide a response commensurate with the gravity and scale of what had occurred. It made clear that starvation in Tigray is not an unintended consequence of the conflict but, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, a method of war. That finding is underlined in the New Lines inquiry, which concludes that there was an

“intent to destroy Tigrayans as an ethnic group, in whole or in part”.

That is one of the criteria for the crime of genocide, fuelled by torture, rape, mutilation and sexual violence. Another criterion—one of those factors taken into account when declaring a genocide—is the prevention of birth, illustrated by the slogan:

“A Tigrayan womb should never give birth”.


In October 2021, Mark Lowcock, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, commented on the situation in Tigray, including the attempt to block aid from going into the region. These are his words:

“There’s not just an attempt to starve six million people but an attempt to cover up what’s going on. What we’re seeing play out, I think, is potentially the worst famine the world has seen in the 21st century … What’s happening is that Ethiopian authorities are running a sophisticated campaign to stop aid from getting in by, for example, making it impossible for truck drivers to operate by setting up checkpoints with officials and militia people, by preventing fuel from getting in … And what they are trying to do is starve the population of Tigray into subjugation or out of existence, but to avoid the opprobrium that would still be associated with a deliberate, successful attempt to create a famine taking the lives of millions of people”.


In 2021 Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s Foreign Minister and a European Union special envoy to Ethiopia, said that, following his talks with Prime Minister Abiy and other Ministers, he believed that they were

“going to wipe out the Tigrayans for 100 years”.

In response to our cross-party inquiry, the Tigrayan Advocacy and Development Association told us:

“The Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Amhara forces left a trail of scorched earth … in which they deliberately burned houses, forests, and field crops ready for harvest; cut mango orchards, papaya trees, and plant nurseries; mixed grains with soil; looted and slaughtered livestock; and killed hundreds of protected wild animals. To ensure no harvest for the next season, ENDF, EDF, ASF, and Fano militia worked in tandem to block vital agricultural supplies, including seeds, destroyed and looted farm tools and prevented farmers from tilling their land during the most crucial period”.


Martin Griffiths, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs reported that, at the height of the crisis, 100 trucks a day of aid needed to get to Tigray but only 10% had gained access in the previous three months. New Lines highlights the shooting of truck drivers and the arrest and detention of drivers before they reached Tigray as another way of preventing food getting through.

The restrictions of aid continued after the ceasefire and during the informal truce. Although WFP and OCHA reported a resumption of aid deliveries at the beginning of April 2022, in reality, while they estimated that 115 food trucks would be needed every day throughout May, convoys were able to bring supplies into Tigray on only six occasions.

That brings us to today. In February 2024, Tigray officials warned of an unfolding famine that could equal or eclipse the 1984 famine. Ethiopia’s ombudsman said it confirmed the starvation deaths of at least 351 people in Tigray and another 21 in the neighbouring Amhara region as a result of drought and instability. Once again, the scale of this tragedy—like that in Sudan, as we have heard—has been massively under- reported.

In February the Guardian reported that

“humanitarians have mostly kept quiet, fearful of losing their operating licences”.

It went on to say:

“In private, however, their language is stark. A recent memo circulated among aid agencies warns that ‘starvation and death are inevitable … in considerable numbers’ from March onwards in some areas of Tigray if aid does not reach them soon. Another says child malnutrition rates”—


the role that malnutrition can play in long-term development was emphasised earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others—

“are as high as 47% in parts of Oromia, Ethiopia’s biggest region”.

On 30 July, I asked the Minister to comment on reports that more than 2 million were reported to be at risk of starvation in Tigray. He responded:

“The humanitarian community is targeting 3.8 million people … with food assistance”.


I was pleased to hear that the UK is leading a pledging conference. I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as to how much of the $610 million has been raised and deployed.

I ask once more: what is being done to bring those responsible to justice? I hope, like the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Browne, that in another 40 years there will not be a similar parliamentary debate asking why those with political power in 2024 did no better than those who went before them.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. It was laid on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, this instrument was first laid on 24 May under the previous Government. This Government support the aims of this instrument so we revoked and relaid it to provide additional time, post-election, for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy in relation to Russian sanctions and the substance of this instrument is the same.

The United Kingdom’s commitment to Ukraine is ironclad. In July, the UK contributed £40 million to NATO’s comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, which ensures that Ukraine will have access to vital assistance for counter-drone technology, demining of reclaimed land and the medical rehabilitation of injured Ukrainian personnel. Ukraine has placed new orders for ammunition worth £300 million through the International Fund for Ukraine, which is administered by the UK.

Sanctions, too, are a crucial tool to weaken Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine. In July, the UK hosted the European Political Community at Blenheim Palace, where over 40 countries signed a “call to action” to tackle Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, a fleet of ageing oil tankers which use deceptive shipping practices and substandard insurance to attempt to undermine sanctions on Russian oil. At the event, the UK spearheaded action against the shadow fleet when we sanctioned 11 oil tankers. We have since built upon this with a further 10 such sanctions in September. Through this action, we continue to demonstrate the UK’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and to underline our leading role in eroding Russian oil revenues.

Targeted sanctions against oil tankers have had a material impact. The majority of UK-sanctioned tankers have been heavily disrupted and have struggled to re-enter the Russian oil trade. A good number of these tankers have even been left idling or at anchor since sanctions were imposed. This instrument provides the basis for those sanctions and has enhanced the UK’s ability to respond to Russia’s increasingly desperate and reckless attempts to undermine our and our partners’ sanctions. This instrument broadens the designation criteria under the Russia regime. It expands our powers to target those who provide financial or material support to Russia’s war machine. This could include, for example, foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant transactions on behalf of or in support of Russia’s military-industrial base. This is in line with steps taken by partners and the G7’s commitment to curtail Russia’s use of the international financial system to further its war in Ukraine.

I will now consider each measure in the instrument in a bit more detail. On ship specification, the instrument adds new relevant activities to the existing powers in the Russia sanctions regime under Regulation 57, which provides the criteria to sanction individual ships, called ship specification. The amendment provides that a ship may be specified by the Secretary of State where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is, has been or is likely to be

“used for any activity whose object or effect is … to destabilise Ukraine or undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine”

or

“to obtain a benefit from or support the Government of Russia”,

That includes where a ship is involved in carrying dual-use or military goods, oil or oil products that originated in Russia, or any other goods or technology that could contribute to destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

Where a ship is specified under Regulation 57F, it will be subject to measures in Regulations 57A to 57E called shipping sanctions. Where shipping sanctions apply, a specified ship is prohibited from entering a port in the United Kingdom, may be given a movement or port entry direction, can be detained, and will be refused permission to register on the UK Ship Register or have its existing registration terminated.

Additionally, United Kingdom persons and persons in the United Kingdom cannot provide funds and financial services, including maritime insurance or brokering services, in relation to specified ships that are transporting oil and certain oil products, and cannot use specified ships to supply or deliver Russian oil and oil products, regardless of the price of the oil on board. Once again, the United Kingdom has already specified ships using this enhanced power. The previous Government specified six vessels on 13 June to coincide with the G7 summit in Italy, and recently this Government have specified five tankers operating in the Russian LNG industry, as well as 11 vessels in July and a further 10 in September that were operating as part of Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers. This fleet attempts to undercut our sanctions, undermines the maritime rules-based order and presents an environmental and maritime security threat to coastal states.

The SI amends Regulation 6 in the Russia sanctions regime, which is the criteria for the designation of individuals or entities under the Russia regulations for the purposes of asset freezing and other relevant measures. Specifically, the instrument adds additional activities for which a person may be designated, including individuals or entities

“providing financial services, or making available funds, economic resources, goods or technology”

to persons involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia within the meaning of the regulations. In practice, that widens the set of actors and enablers who can be targeted for providing financial or material support to Russia and its war machine as Putin continues to prosecute his illegal war in Ukraine,

The instrument consolidates powers under the Russia regulations to designate individuals or entities involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine. Specifically, the additional activities that the instrument adds to the designation criteria make possible the designation of persons who own or control entities involved in destabilising Ukraine, as well as individuals who work as directors or managers of such entities.

European security is a key focus of this Government. Supporting Ukraine remains vital to that end, and the United Kingdom is committed to doing so. We will work with our international partners to ensure that the values of democracy, human rights and international law are maintained. This legislation and the subsequent sanctions made under it show our commitment to Ukraine as it defends its freedom in the face of Russian aggression. British support remains ironclad. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister introduced these regulations with great clarity. I doubt that there will be any hostility to the principles that he has outlined this afternoon. I wonder whether I could ask him a number of questions, though, about the way in which the regulations were made—that is, the procedures that were used—as well as clarification on some of the points he just made to the Committee.

For most of us, as parliamentarians, when we look at regulations that were made on 29 July, were laid before Parliament on 30 July and came into force on 31 July, that kind of pell-mell rush and retrospective approval is not normally something that we would want to countenance; the Minister would agree with that, I think. However, I accept that, in these circumstances, there is an inevitability about it. I am not being argumentative in raising this but, in future, if it is possible for us to know more about regulations such as these in advance, that would be well received.

I wish to ask the Minister about the general matter of sanctions. Given that we now have 2,000 entities and individuals from Russia who are sanctioned in the UK and, as I understand it, we hold five times as much money as we have given in total to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, it is not unreasonable for us to ask some questions about how that money is being used. Is it being released? How can we get it back into the system to support the Ukrainians in the way the Minister outlined to us in his remarks? My first point, then, is about retrospectivity and process.

My second point is about how we can have better oversight. For instance, could the Minister look at something such as regular reporting back to Parliament on the effectiveness of the sanctions and how they are being used? Could that be done through reports on a six-monthly basis, perhaps, or opportunities for us to ask questions in situations such as this, which do not arise very often?

His Majesty’s Government have taken important steps to address Russia’s war on Ukraine, including by way of imposing sanctions and freezing assets. I agree with what the Minister said about this being a crucial tool, but that raises some questions about how the sanctions can be used to provide compensation to victims and survivors and to rebuild Ukraine. So, my third point is about knowing more about how we are going to repurpose these sanctions.

Noble Lords may recall that, last year, I laid an amendment to the legislation on how we dealt with sanctions and criminal offences. It received cross-party support in the House and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who dealt with amendments at that time, was extremely helpful. Eventually, an agreement was reached with the Government that there would be secondary legislation to give effect to some of the ideas in my amendment. What progress has been made on that?

Again, that touches on how effective the sanctions have been. One good example of this, for instance, is an issue that both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I raised when we were in opposition: the sale of Chelsea Football Club. We are not talking small sums of money here; we are talking about £2.5 billion. That money could—indeed, should—be channelled back towards those who have suffered at the hands of Putin’s army. The destruction of Ukraine has been truly appalling; I think we are all agreed about that, so anything that we can do to get support to victims and for reconstruction, we should do.

In addition to the targeted approach of repurposing assets that are, after all, a product of criminal activity—namely, sanctions evasion—what is the Government’s assessment of other ways in which frozen assets could be repurposed? This could include, for instance, following the much more transparent and open approaches of the United States and Canada. I am told that, because their approach is open, it has a much stronger effect on people who are likely to be sanctioned; it might, therefore, be in our interest to emulate that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I totally accept that we are at one on ensuring that we are able to defeat the illegal efforts of the Putin regime, and that we show complete solidarity on support for Ukraine, so I welcome noble Lords’ comments.

The scope of this instrument strongly reflects the work we are doing on sanctions by consolidating and ensuring that we can react. Picking up on a couple of reflections from noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Alton, before this debate, I thought that I had better see what I said as an Opposition spokesperson so that I remain consistent. I have just realised that, in March 2019, we debated this question in this very Room. In fact, it was a repeat of a question picked up from Anne-Marie Trevelyan, whom I was quoting, particularly on the challenges around shadow and dark fleets of oil that we were seeing move around the world. That was in 2019, so we know exactly what has been going on.

One of the things that we have to do is to be constantly fleet of foot. Wherever there are sanctions, people try to avoid them. Those who do so tend to be the most innovative people, so we have to be pretty sharp and quick in our response. Strengthening our enforcement capacity and making it harder for entities to circumvent these sanctions is absolutely key to implementing them; indeed, keeping our regimes under review and lifting them when they no longer serve the purpose that was intended when they were originally introduced is also key.

Let me respond to some of the specific points made. To pick up on a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Purvis, we have acted speedily and need to do so but there is a requirement under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which we took through together in the Chamber. We keep all aspects of that sanctions regime’s legislative framework, established under that Act, under review in order to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Under that Act, there are a number of routes for parliamentary scrutiny and designation so that, at any time, a designated person can request a reassessment of their own.

Picking up on the legal representation point, we need to make sure that our regime is watertight and legally test-proofed. We will certainly continue to do that, but I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says. We will continue to ensure that we have a dialogue—not necessarily fully in the Chamber, but we all share the same objectives. We need to ensure that the regime is effective, so I welcome the comments from the noble Lord and will continue to engage.

We have raised the seizure of assets repeatedly. There is no doubt that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. This includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damages that it has caused in Ukraine. We will work with our allies to pursue all lawful ways to ensure that Russia is made to meet those obligations. Together with our G7 partners, we have agreed to make approximately £50 billion available to Ukraine by the end of the year by advancing the extraordinary profits generated by immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU and in other relevant jurisdictions. Our focus now is on working with our partners to implement the G7 leaders’ commitment as quickly as possible. It is an absolutely vital step to ensure that we continue to hold Russia to account and to make it pay.

All noble Lords have raised the sanctions’ effectiveness and impacts. They have deprived Russia of more than £400 billion since February 2022; that is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. There is no doubt that we are having an impact. The impact of sanctions, alongside Russia’s military spending, has forced the Russian Government to undertake the first major tax hike in more than 20 years, with Russia having increased its profit tax from 20% to 25%. Putin thought that he could take Kyiv in three days but, two and a half years on, his military is turning to North Korea and Iran for supplies. Russia is no longer a major arms supplier. Its military exports have fallen to levels not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. So we are definitely having an impact.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will have seen that President Zelensky’s spokesman said earlier this week that 60% of the components in the weaponry and missiles that are being so brutally used against Ukraine were made in the People’s Republic of China. He referred also to the presence of North Korean soldiers and munitions in Ukraine. What can we do to apply greater sanctions on those nations that, certainly in the case of China, still have many economic and financial links with the United Kingdom? Is there a way in which we can apply leverage through sanctions on them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The first point of call is to ensure that all our allies who support our efforts to try to defeat Putin’s aggression deliver on those sanctions. Along with all the other nations, we are working through the multilateral system—particularly at the United Nations; I did so last month—to ensure that our concerns are fully recognised and that we uphold international law. I hear what the noble Lord says but that is the effective route we have to address.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of Chelsea. I thought that he must be back-reading Hansard because he knew that I had focused on that issue when I was the shadow Minister. Let me be clear: this Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a United Kingdom bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money.

The United Kingdom’s unilateral declaration makes it clear that we will only issue a licence which ensures that the money from the sale is used for exclusively humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. This Government are fully committed to that position as part of our iron-clad support for Ukraine. UK officials continue to hold discussions with Abramovich’s representatives, experts and international partners, and we will double down on our efforts to reach a resolution. The fact that we want to ensure and guarantee where that money goes is key to delivering on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others asked how we are immobilising Russian sovereign assets, particularly regarding the actions of others such as the US and Canada. The fact is that the impact of that has not actually happened. The real impact is what we have been able to agree within the G7; it is working with G7 partners that guarantees that the amount of money we are determined to give to Ukraine will be delivered.

The noble Lord raised the question of insurers. Here, I have to repeat the script: with regard to insurance providers, we cannot comment on plans for future sanctions, not least because, as we know and as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say, if we announce them, the people who want to evade them will have adequate notice, so I cannot comment. However, we have sanctioned Russian insurers such as Ingosstrakh. We believe that tackling tankers through insurance has been impactful, so we will continue to monitor that, but I have no doubt that we will have to keep it under effective review.

I will obviously follow up with a letter on the India trade agreement, having consulted with my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. I will also write on the broader issue of legal services, another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who raised the impact on the shadow fleet and Russian oil supply. Ship specifications, together with US and EU action, have disrupted Russia’s shadow fleet, which it spent over £8 billion on purchasing. We are determined that it will have and has had an impact. UK and partner sanctions have forced many of the sanctioned tankers to cease their irresponsible trade in Russian oil. We will closely monitor how sanctions impact specified ships and the wider impacts on Russian oil trade and oil markets. I do not want to keep repeating myself, but we have proved that this is a sharp tool that is exacting a price. Each specification must be robust and proportionate to our objectives.

The key element is enforcement, as I have raised. It is one thing to introduce regulations to say that we will sanction, and good to have a regime of laws and regulations, but those regulations are meaningful only if we are able to properly enforce them. We are committed to significantly strengthening our sanctions enforcement tools. For example, we have introduced new civil monetary penalties for transport and certain trade sanction breaches.

The new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, which was launched on 10 October—another issue that I raised with the previous Government was about the speed of that—is now in place, with enhanced civil enforcement powers to maximise the impact of our trade sanctions. Those new powers will include civil monetary penalties to make the details of breaches public. The Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to clamp down on sanctions offenders. The introduction of additional capacity, which is a key element, and the powers are starting to pay off. We are seeing an increase in the reporting of suspected breaches, which we expect to result in further fines and referrals for prosecutions.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was very generous to me in his opening remarks, and so was the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It brought to mind EM Forster’s book, Two Cheers for Democracy, in which he says that the justification of our political system is the curmudgeonly, awkward, cantankerous and difficult Member of Parliament who sometimes gets some minor injustice put right. I suspect that rather than being a force of nature, that is more descriptive of the kind of role that all of us who have the privilege of serving in your Lordships’ House should take when it comes to causes such as this one.

As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has reminded us, what is happening in Xinjiang is certainly very close to a genocide. Terrible atrocities are occurring there and without a pathway to determine whether this is technically in breach of the 1948 genocide convention, nevertheless, many of us, without using rhetorical flourishes or hyperbole, are able to say: we believe that, accurately, this indeed is a genocide. I will come back to this.

This is not about individuals. This was not my amendment but the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and it was supported right across this House. Its support was bipartisan and from the Front Benches of the opposition parties but also from distinguished Members on the Government Benches. That was true in both Houses. A former leader of the Conservative Party was the principal sponsor in another place and it was supported last night in the Division Lobby by the former Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This is not about obscure people who are just trying to make life difficult for the Government; it is better than that. This is about a hugely important cause and it has been an honour for me to work with colleagues drawn from across the divide. In both Houses, there has been a coalition of significant players.

Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, will doubtless be relieved that they have arrived at the touchline and that the Bill will shortly become an Act of Parliament. However, I would caution them if they assume that they have heard the last of the all-party genocide amendment. Last night, 300 Members of the House of Commons brought the Government within a whisker of defeat. That, and repeated majorities of over 100 in your Lordships’ House, have demonstrated that as new genocides occur in places such as Xinjiang, this argument is far from over and is unlikely to go away.

By establishing a degree of parliamentary accountability in the way that the Minister outlined, the Government narrowly avoided defeat in the Commons. They have— and I welcome this—left a way open for Parliament to name atrocity crimes for what they are, enabling us to address our duties under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said it was up to Parliament to decide exactly how to go about doing that. One possibility is a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is not a bad precedent, were we to go down that route.

In line with what the House of Commons decided yesterday, our House could, if it wished, establish its own ad hoc committee comprising former judges who now sit in the Lords. To determine precisely what a genocide is will take time, expertise and great knowledge of the law—things that this House is uniquely equipped to contribute. Such a committee should urgently evaluate the evidence of the genocide and atrocity crimes being committed against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. This is undoubtedly urgent, and I will write to the Liaison Committee urging it to think about the various options open to it.

Yesterday also saw three welcome harbingers of a change in mood music. First, some Ministers accepted the principle that they should not strike trade deals with genocidal states, allowing parliamentary oversight of trade deals with nations accused of genocide. I would like to hear a simple statement from the Minister that he too would oppose trade deals with any state credibly accused of genocide.

Secondly, we have also been told that changes strengthening supply chains will be made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was repeated earlier during exchanges on the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. It would be very helpful for your Lordships’ House to know when that will happen.

Thirdly, ahead of the vote yesterday, the Government finally announced those Magnitsky sanctions. But they left out the organ grinders, such as Chen Quanguo, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Blackstone, during earlier exchanges on the Statement. He was the architect of the Xinjiang atrocities and indeed, before that, those in Tibet as well.

Like the famous curate’s egg, the Government’s response to the genocide amendment is there in parts. What is missing is a failure to remedy the policy that only a court can fully determine whether a genocide is occurring and there is no provision of a pathway or mechanism to do so. Undoubtedly, the parliamentary debates on the Trade Bill have exposed this argument for the sham that it is. Since earlier stages of the Bill a bad situation in Xinjiang has only got worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly told us.

The outgoing and incoming Administrations in the United States have recognised this as a genocide. The Canadian House of Commons, the Dutch Parliament and others have declared it to be a genocide. A 25,000-page report by over 50 international lawyers says that it is a genocide, with every single one of the criteria in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide having been breached.

Meanwhile, the BBC has been banned in China because it dared to broadcast the testimonies of courageous Uighur women who describe conditions in the concentration camps, including their “re-education”, their rape and public humiliation by camp guards. Those women have been threatened, bullied and defenestrated publicly by the Chinese Communist Party, with their characters besmirched.

Speaking only last month at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that what is afoot in Xinjiang is on an “industrial scale” and “beyond the pale”. Earlier in the year he said

“frankly, we shouldn’t be engaged in free-trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights well below the level of genocide.”

In Committee, on Report and in various iterations during ping-pong, we have tried to address the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the United Kingdom’s inability to make a declaration of genocide and whether we should continue business as usual. The reality is that some in government want to keep things as they are.

Just a week ago, during two sessions of a Select Committee of this House, key witnesses—a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former National Security Adviser and the former head of the Foreign Office on China—declined to say when asked whether trade should continue with a state accused of genocide. One said there was not enough evidence, another said the question was too political. One rejected suggestions that Britain should distance itself from China owing to its human rights record, saying:

“I see no British prosperity without a trading relationship with China.”


Another said:

“There are many countries in the world with appalling human rights records with which we have had an economic relationship over many decades. That has been a traditional position of the UK”.


But should it be?

Two hundred years ago, the foremost champion of free trade Richard Cobden, that great northern radical, said that free trade was not more important than our duty to oppose both the trade in human beings and the trade in opium. Today, the red line should be states involved in the crime of genocide. Genocide is not one of those “on the one hand this, and on the other hand that” questions; no balance needs to be struck.

In 1948, Raphael Lemkin, who studied mass atrocities throughout the 1930s, was drafting the genocide convention. Nearly two years ago, I visited a site in northern Iraq at Simele, where Assyrians were murdered in a massacre that became a genocide. Raphael Lemkin described that, and he went on to experience the slaughter of all his extended family in the Holocaust: over 40 of his relatives were murdered. He coined the word genocide from “genos” and “cide”—“genos” being the family and “cide” being the destruction, the cutting of the family or any group that is part of it. The genocide convention came out of that. It was his way, and the way of nations, to ensure that the world would not witness atrocities like those committed by the Nazis again. But acts of genocide and atrocity crimes have continued to occur.

Since 1948, we have witnessed genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, northern Iraq and now in China, Burma, Nigeria and Tigray. That is not an exhaustive list. The response to these atrocities has always been inadequate. Whenever a genocide has taken place, there is a collective wringing of hands. But the promise to break the relentless and devastating cycles of genocide has never materialised.

In forcing Parliament to address these questions, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have helped to open the debate. I thank Members of both Houses and people outside of Parliament who have given so generously of their time in promoting and supporting this amendment. I must make special mention of the Coalition for Genocide Response, of which I am a patron, and the role of Luke de Pulford, who organised a campaign in the House of Commons. I also thank the clerks in the Public Bill office for their patience and help throughout.

The debate on the genocide amendment may now be drawing to a conclusion, but the debate it has raised in the country has begun and it will not end here.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout the debate on this Bill, we have had a focus on ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to acknowledge that there has been movement by the Government and that has certainly been prompted by the Minister, who has been listening to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been absolutely determined to ensure that these issues are brought to the forefront of our attention. What we have sought to do from these Benches is to complement the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I also thank him for supporting my amendment to the Trade Bill on this issue. We wanted to ensure that there was a broad debate about human rights in relation to trade and for the United Kingdom’s commitments to match its actions, including on human rights and international obligations.

My noble friend Lord Adonis is absolutely right: we want a proper joined-up government approach to end the position of one department condemning the actions of a country committing outrageous crimes against humanity while another department signs preferential—and I mean preferential—trade agreements. We cannot allow that to continue.