Ukrainian Holodomor and the War in Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing this issue to the House. I thank all colleagues who have participated for their insightful, powerful and considered remarks on this truly appalling moment in Ukraine’s history, and for linking it to the terrible events that we see today. I hope that the Minister can respond to the sincere questions that have been raised by all Members present.

I am not allowed to refer to the Gallery, but we have been joined in Parliament today by Lesia Zaburanna, who is a Member of the Rada. She has been speaking to many of us—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Under a recent ruling, you can refer to somebody in the Gallery, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to miss that opportunity.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not miss that opportunity. I am delighted that Ms Zaburanna joins us in the Gallery for this debate. She is a Member of Parliament for Kyiv and has been here speaking to Members across the House. I am sure that today’s proceedings and the meetings that we have had with colleagues have shown her that the UK’s resolve and commitment to Ukraine has never been stronger; indeed, it exists on a cross-party basis across the House.

As we passed a tragic milestone last month, we must all continue to reflect on the immense suffering that Ukraine has endured, as well as the remarkable courage and resilience of its people and the progress that they have made in driving Russia back. It is clearer than ever that Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and we must continue to stand full square behind Ukraine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield, to support relief and reconstruction, to deliver justice, to maintain western unity, to isolate Putin and to undermine Russia’s barbaric war effort.

We were all incredibly moved by President Zelensky’s speech to us in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. As I say regularly in these debates, the Government will continue to have Labour’s full support in confronting the threat that Russia poses to the whole of Europe and the whole world, and in holding it to account for the terrible things it has done in Ukraine.

This debate has brought home the fact that today’s illegal, unconscionable war comes after a history of Ukraine being subjected to immense brutality, especially in the terrible events of the Holodomor, one of the most atrocious instances of man-made famine in European history, which culminated in the deaths of millions of people. I have also visited the museum and memorial in Kyiv just a few months ago—many Members have referred to it. It is incredibly moving. Everybody should see it to recognise the reality of what happened to the Ukrainian people.

Stalin’s role in catalysing enforced, man-made, widespread starvation in 1932 and 1933 understandably, and rightly, lives on in the Ukrainian national psyche. The barbarism we saw 90 years ago carries as much salience today as it ever has, particularly given what we have seen since.

The personal stories are the most harrowing. A congressional commission that took evidence in the late 1980s heard from an individual who grew up in the village of Stavyshche, who spoke of watching people dig into empty gardens with bare hands, in a desperate bid to find anything to eat; of witnessing people bloated from extreme malnutrition collapse on the road one by one; and, of course, of the mass graves. It is a tragedy that we again see mass graves in Ukraine. We have witnessed and heard the terrible stories of atrocities being committed.

As with the war today, there was a clear perpetrator behind the famine. Stalin’s motivation to transform and mould the Ukrainian nation in his own image, at any cost, is mirrored in Putin’s warped, imperialist world view today, the consequences of which continue to devastate the lives of Ukrainians. Putin’s misguided and perverse attempts to wipe Ukrainian identity are the most recent manifestation of Russia’s penchant for interference, subjugation, war and atrocities.

This debate carries particular weight for me as a Welsh MP. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) mentioned Gareth Jones. Much of what we know about the Holodomor is because of the bravery of that one Welshman. He was born a few miles away from my constituency, in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, in 1905. After witnessing the horrible consequences of Stalin’s tyranny first hand, he detailed those consequences. He wrote:

“I walked along through villages and 12 collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, “There is no bread. We are dying.”…In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the same spittoon and the peasant again grabbed and devoured it. The Communist subsided.”

Jones defied Soviet attempts to censor him and reported the truth of the Holodomor to millions. Yet the Kremlin of course continued to deny the existence of the famine. The mendacious campaign that tried to silence Gareth could not.

The parallels with today are striking. Journalists, correspondents and reporters from many countries, not least Ukraine itself, are putting themselves in danger to expose the true extent of Russia’s barbarism. They are absolutely integral to thwarting Putin’s concerted information war and to bringing justice in terms of investigating war crimes and atrocities.

I have a few questions for the Minister. Today in Parliament, we have been talking about the crime of aggression and war crimes. I understand that the Government have now opted to join a working group on holding Putin to account for the crime of aggression. Could the Minister say a little more on the progress of that group?

We have seen concerted attempts by Russia to lie about food supplies to the rest of the world. In a dreadful parallel to the way it used food as a weapon of war in the Holodomor, it is now doing so with the rest of the world. Despite the grain deal, it continues to frustrate. What can the Minister say about what we are doing to tell the world the truth about Russia’s continued interference with world food supplies from Ukraine, including on the mining of Ukrainian agricultural land?

Finally, what can the Minister say about the crucial attempts that are going to be needed to rebuild Ukraine, its agricultural capacity, its ability to thrive, and its economy in the future? What are we doing to seize assets, not just freeze them? What steps are the Government further taking, given the cross-party consensus on the issue and the need to generate more resources for reconstruction?

Historically and today, the price that Ukrainians have had to pay for their freedom is immense. The events of 90 years ago are an anguishing reminder of the consequences when tyranny runs without constraint and imperialism without restriction. We must stand united in this House against it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and to all colleagues for their contributions; my hon. Friend’s contribution was moving and thoughtful. I also appreciated the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster); he spoke of the echoes of history, which was particularly relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) also spoke of his experiences on the delegation. I am very grateful to them for bringing their collective experience to the attention of colleagues today.

I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for his contribution. He referred to the work of Gareth Jones—I am sure many people will be pleased to know that they can watch that film, which will no doubt be of interest—and the terrific scholarship of Anne Applebaum. I was touched that he quoted the national poet, which I thought was particularly apposite. As ever, I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his continued support for our collective resolve to support our Ukrainian friends in their efforts to liberate their territory and maintain their sovereignty. I join him in warmly welcoming our colleague from Ukraine—it is very good to see her in the Gallery, and I hope she has found this debate of interest.

Turning to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, which I welcome, I can confirm that we are indeed in the G7’s core group of nations looking at what additional mechanism might be required to work alongside the International Criminal Court when it comes to countering crimes in Ukraine. That work is in progress, but we will keep the House updated and informed; it is something we are leaning into, because we need to acknowledge that not everything will be able to be covered off by the ICC. When it comes to the appalling disinformation spread by Putin’s regime, particularly with regard to the global south, we are doing a lot of work to counter that disinformation and promote the Black sea grain initiative, ensuring that there is an ongoing flow and that people know that the vast majority of it is ending up in the global south—it is not just for western European nations.

Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman talked about our collective efforts to help Ukraine rebuild itself. As he will know, we are very pleased to be hosting the next reconstruction conference in London in June, at the invitation of our Ukrainian friends and alongside them. That is the successor to the Lugano conference held by the Swiss last year, and it will be a very important moment to map out how private capital, particularly, will be able to find itself in Ukraine, helping the reconstruction effort. The hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about seizing frozen assets. That is something that we continue to look at; clearly, there are very significant frozen assets in the UK—some £19 billion, £2 billion of which are Russian state assets. We continue to look at that issue, because we know it is of urgent pertinence and relevance to the justified efforts of the Ukrainians to rebuild their society.

Turning to the subject of the Holodomor, we have heard today in moving terms how 90 years ago, millions of men, women and children lost their lives in that forced, deliberate famine, victims of Stalin’s brutal regime. Of course, it is an echo from history today, because Ukrainians are again suffering from terror fomented in Moscow at the hands of Putin’s brutal regime, so I pay tribute to those who keep alive the memory of the Holodomor and its victims—we must never forget them. Of course, the Prime Minister visited Kyiv in November and lit a candle at the memorial for those victims. I was pleased that colleagues recounted their own experience of doing a similar thing, because today we stand firm in our support of the Ukrainians amid growing evidence of appalling atrocities committed during this outrageous and illegal war. As I have indicated, we are actively supporting Ukraine to investigate and prosecute those responsible, as well as the investigation by the ICC. We will continue to exert institutional effort and resource, empowering Ukrainians to ensure that there is a very clear line and operational strand of accountability.

Turning directly to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, of course, I entirely understand why colleagues have today called for the Government to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. In response to her first question, I say gently that it is a long-standing policy of the Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. Our long-standing approach provides a clear, impartial and independent measure for the determination of whether genocide has occurred. Of course, I know that is not what she wants to hear, but let me be clear that in no way does that detract from our recognition of the Holodomor as an appalling tragedy, its importance in the history of Ukraine and Europe, and the contemporary pertinence. My hon. Friend asked whether there might be a debate on the Floor of the House and a meaningful vote. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I know my hon. Friend will not be backwards in coming forward to seek out that opportunity. I thank her sincerely for raising these issues in this forum, not least because it affords us an opportunity to reflect on recent events.

We should remember that, since 2014, thousands have been killed by Putin’s forces. Since the full-scale invasion, over 50% of Ukraine’s pre-war population—21 million—have needed humanitarian assistance either inside or outside Ukraine. We should remember the scale of the impact and, of course, it draws parallels with the 1930s. Russian forces have attacked Ukrainian hospitals, schools and energy supplies, leaving cities in ruins. In areas of Ukraine liberated from Russian forces, the Russians leave behind mass graves, as well as evidence of rape and torture on an unimaginable scale.

Ultimately, one man is responsible for the devastation left in the wake of Russia’s forces. Putin’s invasion was unprovoked and illegal. He has started a war he cannot win. It is our judgment that his army is on the defensive. Ukraine’s heroic armed forces have recaptured thousands of square miles. We are proud to continue to work with our allies to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to win this war, secure a lasting peaceand bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and atrocities in accordance with international law.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) raised an important point about the terrible reports we have all heard of the forced deportation of children and the separation of families in an attempt to Russify them to deny them their Ukrainian heritage. Again, there are all sorts of awful parallels with the impact on children during the Holodomor. Will the Minister say a little about our current assessment and what we are doing to bring those responsible to account?

[Leo Docherty]

I will, gladly. We are working with the Ukrainians to invest energy and resource to build capacity for them to record these crimes, so that there is a trail of accountability; so Karim Khan and the International Criminal Court can hold these people to account. That is not least for its deterrent effect, so I welcome the hon. Member’s question.

I will not recount at length the suite of military, humanitarian and economic support we are giving, but it totals nearly £4 billion. We continue to be the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Importantly, we will keep this going. We expect to spend £2.4 billion on military support for Ukraine this financial year and have committed to £2.3 billion or more of support next financial year. That is important to note because this will be a matter of resolve, and we must send a clear signal that our resolve is not failing. In terms of economic and humanitarian support, we are proud that we are providing more than £1.6 billion in non-military assistance. Clearly, Putin is now completely diplomatically isolated. Sanctions are beginning to bite. We have co-ordinated sanctions with our international allies to impose a huge cost, freezing a combined £275 billion of Russian assets. So our response is having effect.

When it comes to war crimes, there are some important next steps. We are supporting the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine to help it investigate, as I have referred to, and set itself up to prosecute alleged war crimes. Colleagues should know that the Justice Secretary will host a major international meeting later this month to support war crime investigations by the ICC. So that important strand of work will progress. I have already mentioned our support and hosting of the recovery conference, which is hugely important.

To conclude, we have heard a moving evocation of the fact that the Holodomor and its modern parallel are two of the darkest chapters in Ukraine’s history. Our stance is that any determination on genocide must be made by the courts. That does not distract from our recognition of the Holodomor as the most appalling tragedy—one that resonates today in the face of renewed Russian aggression. The UK is supporting our heroic Ukrainian friends to fight back, and it is our honour to do so. That includes supporting Ukraine’s judicial system and the ICC to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes.

When President Zelensky addressed both Houses, a short distance from where we are today, he said “Freedom will win.” We know that that desire, and the desire for justice to prevail, unites the entire House.

Turkey and Syria Earthquake

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s debate, to which all colleagues have made considered and moving contributions.

I am afraid that when I saw the news breaking about the earthquake, I had a feeling of dread about what was to come. I worked on the Haiti earthquake response back in 2010 when I was an adviser at the Department for International Development, and I was previously in NGOs, including during the Boxing day earthquake and tsunami. When we see a report about an earthquake of this size, it can only lead to an unimaginable loss of human life and to devastation.

Hon. Members have made some incredibly powerful speeches. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a powerful summary and drew on her own experiences. We used to serve together on the International Development Committee, and of course she spent time as a Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) related powerful stories and spoke about the links in her constituency and the families affected—not only those affected by the earthquake, but those in Syria who had already been affected by the brutality of Assad’s and Russia’s attacks. She rightly asked an important question, which I hope the Minister will answer, about visas for those who have lost family members and who want to reunite with family in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised the same issue, rightly mentioning our track record of supporting those who have fled disasters and of providing support for disaster responses in the region.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) has played an absolutely crucial role in responding, not only in her own community but here in Parliament. We spoke just hours after the news broke. She gave very powerful testimony, not just about her constituents but about the impact on her own family and friends. She rightly raised an important and worrying concern about reports of the potential confiscation of aid. Will the Minister comment on those claims?

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) spoke about the cuts to the aid budget, which I will come on to. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke about the personal losses in his constituency and talked about a visit to the British Alevi Federation. He said that we need to ensure that aid gets to those who need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly praised the firefighters, nurses and others who assisted, and she mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to the Enfield Alevi Cultural Centre.

There were many other important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) raised a very important point about the disproportionate impact of disasters on women and girls. I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The earthquake has resulted in more than 46,000 deaths —a number that will undoubtedly rise—and 100,000 people injured. We must remember those who have been critically injured by this disaster, and of course a disaster of this scale has mental health impacts, particularly for young people and children. As has been pointed out, a significant proportion of those who have died or been affected are from the Alevi Kurdish population. That community has a strong presence here in the UK; many constituents of hon. Members who have spoken today have been left in a state of unimaginable grief.

In recent days, we have seen aftershocks, and further people have been killed and wounded. Will the Minister clarify whether any other British nationals have been affected? On behalf of the official Opposition, I send my deepest condolences, thoughts and sympathies to all those who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally conveyed our condolences to the ambassador of Türkiye, and I know many colleagues have done so directly through communities in their own constituencies.

Türkiye is of course a close NATO ally and partner of the United Kingdom, and there are many close ties of family and friendship between us, as with the people of Syria, many of whom have fled from the crisis there to be in the UK. We are therefore duty-bound as a nation to respond to the challenges posed by this disaster, not just in the short term but in the long term, too.

As we know, the people of Syria have experienced 12 years of conflict, with 4.1 million people already relying on life-saving humanitarian assistance. Some 3.7 million Syrians have ended up in the area affected by the earthquake in Türkiye. It is a huge crisis upon crisis upon crisis. There have been cholera outbreaks in Syria. We even saw Assad barrel bombing areas affected—absolutely despicable behaviour from a regime that has already done so much damage. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the complex situation in Syria, with different areas of control, different challenges and, of course, the influence of Russia, the Assad regime and other extremist organisations in regions that have been affected by the earthquake, which is making it even more complex.

I join others in praising the work of the British people in responding to the crisis. It has just been announced that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—I declare an interest as a past chair of DEC in Wales—has raised more than £100 million. That shows the strength of response of the UK people. On top of that, we have heard repeatedly about the community fundraising and relief efforts throughout the country, particularly among communities affected, but also in others who have raised money out of a sense of compassion and a desire to assist. The Boss & Brew Academy in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency has organised a fundraiser. Many others are doing so, particularly among the faith communities, across the UK.

I welcome the match funding that the UK Government provided, and the fact that the Minister for international development and humanitarian response, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has been out to the region. Of course, the question is where we go from here. I am concerned. There were discussions about cutting the aid budget to Syria as part of the overall Government aid budget cuts. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is being reconsidered. It seems absurd to consider that at this time.

I hope the Minister will provide some more detail on the £25 million aid package announced last week. How is that going to be split between the countries and communities? What will it actually include? Over what timeframe are we talking, and where is that funding being drawn from? I hope the Minister can also comment on some of the other allegations that have been made about aid—particularly aid raised here in the UK—not getting through to certain areas.

There has been some suggestion that some who lived in the disaster zones and have had to leave them could be prevented from returning. What discussions has the Minister had with authorities, where that is possible—I recognise the complex situation in Syria—to ensure that individuals can return, hopefully when reconstruction and redevelopment has happened?

The border crossing situation has been mentioned. It is good to see that the three border crossings are now open. What steps are we taking to ensure that they stay open, that we look at other potential crossings and that they are secure and are not frustrated? Will the Minister say what the Government’s position is on Russia’s game playing at the Security Council and their constant activities to frustrate and make this situation even worse?

When a disaster like this strikes, there is rightly the immediate outpouring of condolence, and there is the immediate support and relief effort. I praise in particular the international search and rescue effort that the UK sent out. I have personally met many of those brave search and rescue teams before and know what incredible work they do. But as the cameras leave, as the media leave, and as attention turns to other crises, the people will still be suffering the crushed buildings, the lives destroyed, the mental health impacts, and the long-term food, infrastructure, water, health and sanitation impacts.

We have to be in these things for the long haul. I hope the Minister will set out what we will do to galvanise the international community to be in there for the long haul, particularly in those communities that are hard to reach and those communities in Syria that, in some cases, receive no assistance at all. We must be in this for the long haul, which will require money and diplomatic engagement with other countries to ensure that we are playing our crucial role in responding to the crisis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

That is an important point. I will come on to the support that we are providing for women and young children.

As has been discussed, we have also provided additional funding to the White Helmets, supporting life-saving search and rescue and emergency relief operations in north-west Syria, which has been one of the most difficult areas to provide support to. The UK Government have set up an emergency medical facility in Türkoğlu in Turkey, providing life-saving treatment to more than 3,000 people to date. Medics from the UK’s emergency medical team and more than 80 personnel from 16 Medical Regiment and the Royal Air Force tactical medical wing are working side by side with Turkish medical staff. Royal Air Force aircraft are helping to deliver NATO’s package of emergency support to Turkey and the UK will continue to contribute to the alliance’s response to the earthquakes.

UK-funded NGOs have also provided medical care in the region, and the UN distributed food and other essential supplies, which the UK contributed to. We are grateful for their important work, as always. I hope that highlights to Members—I think we are all pretty aware—that there is a proper exercise in international engagement with all the different agencies to make the best possible impact.

As has been highlighted, the UK Government match funded the first £5 million of public donations to the DEC earthquake appeal. It has been highlighted that the appeal has now reached a staggering £800 million. I have to say that, coming into this debate, I thought it was £93 million. It shows that there is broad traction here. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) raised concerns about which charity people should support. We have published guidance on that, which has a section on how to make donations safely, but I would say that that appeal in particular is a great way to make a donation. It is an effort we should all be proud of. Others have highlighted the amazing work that has gone on—whether it is Rotarians in Aldridge or local schools and rugby clubs in Newport East, it is incredible to see how the community has come together, particularly where there is diaspora in those areas.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked me to comment on the £25 million package of additional funding that that Government announced on 15 February. It will fund additional emergency relief for Turkey and Syria, such as tents and blankets for families made homeless in what are now freezing conditions. The new humanitarian package will also support the work of the UN and aid agencies in Syria, as well as the ongoing relief efforts in Turkey led by the Government. There is a particular focus on protecting women and girls, which is an issue that has been highlighted, including support with childbirth and efforts to reduce the risk of gender-based violence.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) made an important point about sanitary products. I just wanted to make her aware that the UK is funding the United Nations Population Fund to support immediate need around childbirth, midwifery and reducing the risk of violence against women and girls. That includes providing dignity kits, hygiene kits and other life-saving items.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for that additional detail—particularly the last point. I wanted to ask him about the reports of a planned cut to the budget for Syria. Obviously, Syria was in crisis before this disaster. Surely it is the wrong time to cut the longer-term support package to Syria, even though this additional money is welcome.

[David Rutley]

I was going to come back to that. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had an interesting debate in this Chamber for an hour or so yesterday about the ODA budget, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will recall. Big and difficult decisions will need to be made in that respect, given the global situation and the economic impact, but his point is important and I am sure that the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary will hear it and the other points that have been made. The allocations have not been made yet, so I am not able to report back on exact figures.

In Syria, needs are particularly acute. There is extensive and severe damage to housing, infrastructure, schools, roads and hospitals.

Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing the debate at such a critical moment for Nagorno-Karabakh and the Caucasus more broadly, and I thank all Members for their contributions.

It is a past interest of mine, but I used to work for the OSCE parliamentary assembly in a past life and was an assistant to the special rapporteur on Nagorno-Karabakh at the time, the Swedish MP Göran Lennmarker. That was some years ago, in a more peaceful time, and it is deeply concerning to see recent events. Indeed, the official Opposition are deeply concerned about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the people who are besieged and cut off because of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, which we think must end. This is a humanitarian crisis and undoubtedly worthy of the House’s time. It is an area on which I hope the Minister and the Government will focus intently if we are to avoid further catastrophe for civilians both in Nagorno-Karabakh and in the region as a whole.

In my role as Labour’s shadow Europe Minister, I have met the Azerbaijani and Armenian ambassadors and members of the communities on a number of occasions. Obviously, I am keen to engage with all sides. It is clear to us that unless a peaceful resolution is found, civilians in the region face further perils. That has to start with the ending of the blockade and the preservation of Armenia’s territorial integrity.

As has been said, 120,000 people are trapped beyond the blockade, without access to medical supplies, food and other supplies. On 13 December, gas supplies were cut off and have been intermittently disrupted since. On 9 January, the only high-voltage power supply in the region with electricity was damaged. On 12 January, access to telecommunications and the internet connection was cut. We have heard repeatedly from Members from across the House that the corridor is the only link between Armenia and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the transport of people and goods through it are critical to the wellbeing of all residents who live there. It is a literal lifeline for them.

As we have heard, territorial changes that took place last summer following the recent outbreak of conflict led to the land around the corridor being transferred to Azerbaijan, making the passage even more vulnerable and critical to the enclave and its residents. We have all heard the reports of more than 1,000 civilians being stranded along the blocked highway, unable to return, and of the 270 children who had to find shelter in Armenia while their relatives remained in Artsakh.

Despite the resumption of gas supplies, fuel, medicine and basic goods are now reported to be running low, and local authorities have had to impose price controls and rationing. There is a real risk of malnutrition and other health consequences for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. The provision of healthcare and social services has been obstructed. Following the closure of 41 nurseries and 20 schools, children are being denied their elemental right to education.

Patients with cancer are missing vital treatment, and those with diabetes are without medicine. The situation is especially challenging for those with disabilities and those living in residential institutions. The International Disability Alliance and the European Disability Forum have called on all parties to fulfil their obligations to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and Security Council resolution 2475, and they have called for an immediate unblocking of the Lachin corridor. I am sure they have the full support of Members who have spoken in the debate; they certainly have the support of the official Opposition.

No population should have to live in such conditions. The onus is on international institutions and the international community, with the backing of the United Kingdom and our allies, to do the right thing. It has been said many times in this debate that the blockade contravenes what was agreed in the 2020 trilateral ceasefire. It was agreed that all transport and communication links would be restored and unblocked.

I have raised concerns directly with Ministers over recent weeks, including in parliamentary questions. On 12 December, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Azerbaijani ambassador, and I understand that a range of issues were covered. Will the Minister confirm what conversations have been had since then, and with which parties? Do the UK Government propose to play a positive role in unblocking the blockade and brokering a lasting peace? We simply cannot return to the violence of 2020, when more than 6,500 people lost their lives and civilian lives were shattered. Nor should civilians in the region have to continue living under the shadow of perpetual instability and conflict. We favour fully working with our European and regional partners to secure a return to dialogue more broadly and a peaceful settlement facilitated by, for example, the OSCE Minsk Group. Of course, that has to start with removing this blockade, which is a complete impediment to progress.

From responses to parliamentary questions and the contributions that have been made today, it appears that the Government’s strategy is to watch and wait. It is apparent that, without the UK and others providing a diplomatic impetus to seek peace, violence, discord, instability and humanitarian catastrophe will remain. The Government do not seem to be operating with the same urgency as other Governments around Europe, the United States and others. I have been looking through the list of Governments who have spoken out on this issue in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will assure us that this is a very important issue for his colleague the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), and others across Government, including the Foreign Secretary.

We all know who will benefit if peace eludes the Caucasus—President Putin and Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked what assessment had been made of so-called peacekeeping efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh and along the corridor. I understand from a response to a parliamentary question that the Government have not assessed the adequacy or effectiveness of Russia’s so-called peacekeeping forces. Frankly, I hope the Minister can explain what our strategy in the region is and what is our assessment. We need to understand Russia’s intentions and role across the region—in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and of course in relation to this situation.

Hon. Members have made a number of comments. We have heard about the Russian base in Armenia, and we heard the allegations made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. There have also been serious allegations about matters in Azerbaijan. I have had serious concerns raised with me—I hope the Minister can comment on them—about Azerbaijan bringing in gas from Russia in recent weeks. Of course, it exports gas to the rest of Europe. Given the key role that our own oil and gas industry plays in Azerbaijan, I would like the Minister to give us some more detail on that.

[Bob Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, but I say for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit that I have raised the issue directly with the Azerbaijani ambassador. I understand that the Azerbaijani Government engage in a so-called gas swap with Russia every year. That is deeply concerning given the matters in Ukraine at the moment and the need to wean Europe off oil and gas. If Azerbaijan is taking in gas and exporting it, I hope the Government are looking at that.

Nagorno-Karabakh, although it may seem remote to many, contains women, men and children who will be at risk if efforts to find peace and end the blockade fail. We have heard from many human rights groups—they have been referred to during the debate—about extra-judicial killings, torture and abuse of prisoners of war. I hope the Minister will give his assessment and tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that such crimes are not committed with impunity.

I understand that the EU is planning to establish an observer mission with the goal of permanently ending the conflict. Those plans were formally adopted by a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. Obviously, we are outside the EU, but I hope that the Foreign Office and Ministers are working closely with our allies there and, indeed, in the United States to play a role in any measures of that sort. I understand that the United States Secretary of State had meetings with the Armenian Foreign Minister last week. Will the Minister say a little about what discussions we have had with the United States and other allies? Will he also say what conversations there have been with Turkey, which is a key NATO ally and a key partner of the United Kingdom, and comment on our assessment of its role in this situation and in the region more broadly?

It has been reported that the ICRC has been given access to the enclave and has transferred people who were seriously unwell to Yerevan, but can the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of how much humanitarian relief and how many emergency medical evacuations are passing through the corridor? Is the UK contributing to any humanitarian operations there?

Can the Minister say when the Government will set out a wider regional strategy for the Caucasus that spans diplomacy, aid and trade but also, crucially, atrocity prevention and human rights? It has been mentioned a number of times during the debate that language matters. It is important that the Minister listens to the comments by the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for East Worthing and Shoreham, particularly as we are in a week when we recognise the terrible impact of the holocaust, with all of us committing to preventing atrocities and ensuring that they never happen again. Will the Minister also say what is being done through not only the OSCE but the Council of Europe and forums such as the European Political Community—a new forum that the UK is taking part in—to find solutions to end the conflict and ensure that civilians are protected? What role does he see the UK playing in that?

In conclusion, Russia has shown clearly that it is no guarantor of regional security. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh deserve far better. The blockade must be ended. The UK must play a key role, and we will continue to work with Ministers on the issue. I thank all colleagues for their insights and contributions.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline. I thank the Minister for setting out to the Committee the details of the latest expansion of our sanctions regime.

Last week, it was a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition in support of Ukraine in the debate on Russian strategy and to hear comments that I am sure will be reflected by all Members in Committee about how we as a Parliament and a country continue to affirm our solidarity with Ukraine, and how we want to ensure that it wins the war and Putin, his cronies and all those who abet his illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine feel the walls closing in. Our sanctions regime is one of the most critical weapons in that arsenal. As with the other sanctions measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations or seek to divide the Committee, because we support them.

Before I come to specific questions on the detail set out by the Minister, I will ask a couple of related questions, particularly because she referred to the need to close loopholes in financial and money market instruments, investments and others, and to the potential evasion of sanctions regimes. These first questions are about cryptocurrencies, to which she did not refer. We have raised the matter in previous Committees that have discussed sanctions.

At the most recent such Committee sitting, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), stood in for me and, afterwards, a letter she received from the Minister said that

“the Government and UK authorities are actively monitoring the use of cryptoassets to detect potential instances of sanctions evasion and stand ready to act.”

I see no new measures on cryptocurrencies in the regulations, nor in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is also going through Parliament.

As I have relayed to other Ministers on many occasions, Tornado Cash and Blender—so-called cryptocurrency mixers—have both been sanctioned by the United States. The former has allegedly been used to launder more than $7 billion-worth of virtual currency since its creation, just in 2019. It has been used by a number of regimes around the world, including North Korea. It is believed that Russia is also using such measures to evade sanctions, particularly on financial transactions. Given that the US Treasury has imposed sanctions, that no new measure is in the statutory instrument today, and that both are still not on our sanctions list as of 17 January, why is that the case? It is really important—as we have heard in many debates on these issues—that the United States, the UK, the European Union and other allies supporting Ukraine make sure that there are no loopholes and gaps for Russian assets to escape the sanctions regime. I hope that the Minister will answer that.

Another issue that I have raised in every single one of these sanctions debates is the repurposing of frozen assets to support Ukraine. Last week, the Minister said in the Chamber that the Government would “look at all options”, and I had a similar comment in a letter that I received. Last week, I heard again and again at the Ukraine conference that I attended in Davos—I will draw attention to my declaration in due course on that visit—“Why are we not repurposing frozen assets?” Countries including the UK have done well at freezing, but we now have to turn that into support for Ukraine, given the huge costs of supporting its economy, of reconstruction and of continuing to defend itself against Russian aggression. Will the Minister set out where conversations on that are in Government and whether we might expect to hear announcements in due course?

The issue of Rosatom has also been raised with me, and whether individuals involved in Rosatom are covered by these regulations or by other existing sanctions. Perhaps the Minister can say a little about that or, if not, write to me, because although that is the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, individuals will, without doubt, have resources and assets in the UK and other countries across Europe.

Turning to the substance of what the Minister set out, Labour fully supports the steps being taken to limit further the access that designated persons have to key financial services. A prohibition on providing services related to trusts for the benefit of designated persons and closing loopholes pertaining to loans and money market instruments are prudent steps to take to sever every tether with which those designated under our regime might seek to exploit gaps to retain their wealth or obscure it.

The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are closing further loopholes on oil production and mining equipment, as well as establishing further chemical restrictions. However, can the Minister set out the value of that kind of equipment that designated individuals have obtained since the invasion began, but prior to the loopholes being closed? I ask because although we welcome the sealing of any loopholes or gaps—and obviously, our sanctions regime is a work in progress—we are nearly a year into this terrible conflict. If we have identified that loophole, why has it taken until now to close it?

Finally, further limiting designated persons’ access to auditors, advertisers, engineers and architects is critical in inhibiting their capacity to run and manage lucrative businesses, and it is a welcome step to further prohibit access to information technology consultancy. By undermining designated persons’ access to such services, those aligned with Russia will hopefully and indelibly learn that waging war alongside Putin ends only one way: with Russia and them isolated, economically wounded and out in the cold.

As I said, we will not seek to oppose these measures. We broadly welcome all steps to increase and broaden sanctions on Russia for its barbarous war in Ukraine. We have to look only at some of the atrocities of recent weeks to see why those responsible—Putin, Russia and their allies, aiders and abetters—need to face the full force of our sanctions regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank all the Committee members for their contributions, and I will do my best to answer their questions; if I cannot do so now, I will make sure that we write to them.

In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, the statutory instrument does affect UK citizens with shares in Russian companies. I hear his point about companies that continue to operate in Russia. Of course, many companies have stepped away or are stepping away, where they are able to do so. Clearly, that brings in another layer of services, particularly, that are no longer viable for export. I will take away the point about the company that he identified and get back to him more formally on that. We see a continuing move across the piece of British companies and others making decisions for themselves.

On the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about cryptocurrencies, the UK’s financial sanctions cover funds and economic resources of every type, including crypto, so they are all-encompassing. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has recently imposed monetary penalties against some fintech firms. I am happy to get more details for him.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is reassuring. However, the US Treasury took steps in August to sanction mixers, which effectively jumble up different cryptocurrency transactions to avoid transparency, whereas the UK, as yet, has not. Will the Minister write to me about what is happening and why that has still not happened?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I am happy to commit to do that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not comment on areas or individuals that we may be looking to sanction for obvious reasons, but I will happily get back to him on those specifics.

In relation to asset seizures, a big piece of work is ongoing. We are considering all the options around seizing Russian-linked assets and how they could be used to support the people of Ukraine, including funding humanitarian efforts and contributing to the reconstruction of the country.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is reassuring to hear as well. I hope that the Minister will, in discussion with her ministerial colleagues, look at the example of Canada, which has introduced new legislation recently. There is also a historical example: after the first Gulf war, we took a share of the profits of all companies there to help with the reconstruction of Kuwait.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Member is right: some international partners are looking to test both the freezing and the potential seizure of assets. None of those is fully tested for their lawfulness yet, and we are watching and supporting our allies, who are testing their own legal systems. We want to ensure that we work closely with Government Departments and our law enforcement agencies to identify all possible options and work that through.

On the hon. Member’s point about Kuwait, that decision was taken after the end of the war. We want to continue to work internationally to come up with options that will be viable as and when this terrible war ends, but, for now, we continue to work to see how we can pull together a package that we know would stand up in a court of law.

I hope that these measures give confidence that we are continuing our wave of sanctions, which are having real, damaging consequences to Putin’s regime, and we will commit to going further. We continue to watch where and how we might effectively continue to put on pressure to encourage Putin to end his appalling and aggressive war. We stand firm and resolute with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them and the Ukrainian Government until Putin and Russia withdraw from Ukraine. I hope that the Committee will support these regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and considered contributions to today’s debate. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate, and I agree with the vast majority of what he said.

It is very clear from today’s debate that, despite some differences, Members on both sides of the House are absolutely committed not only to affirming and deepening our support for Ukraine but to confronting Russia and President Putin’s imperialist ambitions, which threaten the peace and security of Europe and risk a very dangerous and bleak future for the entire world. We need to be absolutely clear that this is not only a barbarous war against the people of Ukraine but a war against the very principles of humanity, liberty and democracy. If we fail to understand what is at stake, if we fail to ensure that we have clear and sustainable strategies of defence, deterrence and denial, and if we fail to have clarity and unity on the ends we seek and on the ways and means of achieving them, we risk a bleak and brutal future.

The war in Ukraine may have been the watershed moment when much of the world sat up and finally recognised the extent of Putin’s ambitions, his warped world view and the cruelty of his regime but, sadly, that alarm has been sounding for well over a decade, and some would say longer. We have seen Putin’s record in Chechnya and his systematic crushing, over many years, of democratic opposition and dissent in Russia. Many of us have been sounding those risks in this Chamber for a long time, yet we were ignored as Russian money and influence flooded into Londongrad and as disinformation flooded our politics and society both here in the UK and across the west. Frankly, an atmosphere of gross naivety and expedient complicity prevailed.

Whether we look from Chechnya to Syria, from the Caucasus to the western Balkans, or from Georgia to the annexation of Crimea, let alone his effective absorption of Belarus, we see that international acquiescence has given Putin the pretext for his next violations each time he has breached the boundaries of international law or fractured the global rules-based order. There has now been an unmistakable shift that we cannot allow to be reversed, because his illegal war against the people of Ukraine has garnered unity, solidarity and material opposition across the west to the Kremlin’s actions, which is the exact opposite of what he expected.

Russia’s strategy has met its most formidable defence in the courage and defiance of the people of Ukraine. As we approach the one-year anniversary, it is worth reflecting on the more than 7,000 Ukrainian civilians who have been reported killed since last February—the actual figure is projected to be much higher. Their blood is on Putin’s hands.

We have seen great tragedy this week. I have just come back from a Ukraine forum at Davos with an Ukrainian MP and other friends—I draw attention to my upcoming declaration of that visit. We stood in mutual sorrow, mourning the tragic losses in the terrible helicopter crash. Time and time again, we heard first-hand testimonies of the impact of Russia’s barbarous strategy on civilians, not least the terrible scenes we saw in Dnipro this week.

Many of us have visited Ukraine, and just a few months ago I saw with my own eyes the situation in Bucha, Irpin and Kyiv. I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for talking about what they saw. It is right that we recognise the remarkable tenacity of the Ukrainian people in the face of such brutality. Despite that fantastic counter-offensive in the autumn, winter has brought a bloody stalemate to much of the frontline, and spring—or, indeed, even earlier—is likely to see renewed offences. That is why it is exactly right that the UK and our NATO allies provide additional military assistance to Ukraine now. We on the Labour Benches fully welcome the Government’s decision to send those Challenger 2 tanks.

Across this House, we stand unshakeably with our NATO and international allies in providing comprehensive, military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance. This is not just in relation to Ukraine, but in terms of reinforcement and realignment across NATO, particularly with our Baltic and eastern European allies. Throughout the conflict, we have stood united in this House, and that is evident again today. That said, we believe that the Government should set aside individual piecemeal announcements and instead set out a clear strategy, in concert with our allies and Ukraine, of long-term military, economic and diplomatic support, so that we can make sure that Putin’s invasion really does end in failure.

There was an early focus on Russia using energy as a key part of its strategy, but we have heard again and again today that at the heart of Russia’s strategy is also terror. It is vital that the Ukrainian prosecutor general and the International Criminal Court have the resources they need to document and prosecute the growing body of evidence of Russian war crimes. We have been calling since March—indeed, it was called for by the Leader of the Opposition—for the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression. I have heard that again and again over the past few days. This is something that is gaining real momentum, and I would like to hear from the Minister the Government’s official position.

We also support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and many others to re-purpose frozen Russian assets to help rebuild critical Ukrainian infrastructure and provide much-needed humanitarian aid to the country. We need to get on with that. Other countries, including Canada, are moving forward. What is the Government’s position? Why are we dragging our heels? I appreciate that it is complex, but we have been calling for this for months and months and months. I did have some warm words from Ministers in Committees a few months ago, and yet I have heard nothing since.

Let me turn now to Russia’s wider strategy. Dominating Europe is an integral component of Putin’s strategy and his view of its ultimate success or failure. The Russian world strategy that was unveiled in September made it very clear that Russia wanted to increase its position in the Slavic nations, the Baltic states, central Asia, the Caucasus and elsewhere. Putin dubbed the collapse of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” and considered it a “tragedy” that millions no longer lived behind those former Soviet borders since the dissolution. There should be no doubt about his world view and his ambitions for our continent.

The situation in the western Balkans has been rightly raised a number of times. I take a keen interest in the area and I have travelled out to Kosovo and North Macedonia. My colleague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has been in Kosovo in recent weeks. The region is in its most precarious state since the 1990s, with tensions rife, and figures such as Milorad Dodik and others aligning themselves very clearly with the Kremlin. We know how this works: Putin and his cronies heighten tensions, exploit and enable secessionist movements and political outriders, sow discord, spread misinformation and capitalise on the ensuing turmoil. We cannot allow Russia’s interference in the region to destabilise the carefully calibrated peace brought about by Dayton and the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue.

We have heard about Russia’s ambitions beyond Europe. Putin was sure to formalise his ties with President Xi as a pretext to his invasion of Ukraine, culminating in the declaration of alignment between China and Russia. That relationship and its ramifications will be immensely consequential in the coming years.

We have also heard about the relationship with Iran. Characteristically, Putin is waging his war in Ukraine with its drones, but it is also a geopolitical relationship that could continue to define the entire middle east.

We have heard again and again today of the activities of the infamous Wagner Group, which is engaged in a number of conflicts in Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo, across the Sahel, in Burkina Faso and in the Central African Republic, which has effectively come to depend on that paramilitary outfit. There is also central and South America, which did not get much attention today. Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela remain aligned with Russia. Each of their relationships with the Kremlin is characterised by military co-operation, the weaponisation of information, the repression of the press and democratic freedoms, and the undermining confidence in democratic institutions across the region. What we are seeing is an attempt to extend Russia’s geopolitical reach and to strengthen authoritarianism and dissent worldwide.

Despite the strong vote in the United Nations, we know many countries have refused to condemn Russia’s actions. I would like to hear much more clearly from the Minister our strategy in relation to the global south and for dealing with those countries—some of which we would consider very close allies—that have failed to stand with us and with Ukraine.

[Vicky Ford]

I was extremely concerned when it was drawn to my attention recently that some trade union leaders in the UK have not exactly condemned Putin’s actions in Ukraine and may have been slightly on the other side. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very concerning if that is the case, and that in condemning Russia’s actions we want unity not just among politicians but among the leaders of organisations across the country?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not know which union leaders the right hon. Lady is referring to, but I can tell her that the leader of my own union—I include my membership of the GMB in my declaration of interests—gave one of the most powerful speeches at the Labour party conference. He made it very clear what he thought, and I think that is also the view across the trade union movement in the UK: condemning Russia’s actions and standing with the people of Ukraine. I am not sure what the right hon. Lady is referring to.

I come now to some clear conclusions. We need to remain crystal clear in our commitment to NATO, but we must also end the bluster and brinkmanship that have characterised our relationship with the EU in recent years. The fact is that we all face common threats and we need to use new forums, such as the European Political Community, that bring together EU and non-EU, NATO and non-NATO countries. We all experience threats and we need to co-operate and work together. It is good that the UK was part of that, and we should seek to continue.

We must end the decade of decline for Britain’s defence, with millions of pounds of waste and mismanagement, the number of tanks cut by one third and the Army cut to its smallest size in 300 years. There has been much criticism of that across the House in this debate and I hope the Government listen carefully to that. We are in a new and dangerous world.

It is shameful that it took the invasion of Ukraine for the Government to finally get to grips with the UK’s role in illicit finance, particularly London’s role in facilitating the lifestyles and interests of Putin’s enablers and allies. That cannot go on; we must continue to close the loopholes, and I know there is cross-party support from many in this Chamber for doing that.

We must fully utilise and cherish all our alliances and partnerships worldwide in this fight—again, I hope the Minister can say what our strategy is with the global south. We must tighten our sanctions regime to ensure it is properly resourced and airtight, including in crucial areas, such as cryptocurrencies and others, where there are gaps, something I have repeatedly raised with Ministers.

We must ensure that we are investing in clean, secure and independent energy and ending our vulnerability and exposure to fossil fuels. We must do much more to take on the Kremlin in cyber-space and, of course, its systemic pollution and corruption of the information environment. We must also watch and defend the flanks; I have spoken about what our strategy needs to be with NATO, but we must also watch those areas that Russia is trying to destabilise, such as the western Balkans.

In conclusion, this illegal war of aggression has brought about a sense of unity and common purpose not seen since the onset of Putin’s rule. The incredible progress we have seen, with Ukraine at the fore, is an indication that his grand strategy might be unravelling. With our steadfast and enduring support, I know that the values we share with Ukraine will prevail, but they require a comprehensive strategy, with the resources and political will to see it to the end and Putin’s defeat.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate at this critical time of change for the Chagos islands, and I thank colleagues for the range of comments and contributions they have made to the debate.

I am not sure whether to thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments he made about me at the start of the debate, but we had a very enjoyable trip to the Falkland Islands. I will be making declarations about that trip in due course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of our united position on the Falkland Islands and our resolute support for them. That is the Opposition’s long-standing position, which I have reiterated on many occasions, including well before the visit and in relation to our position on other British overseas territories.

From the outset, I gently say that I do not accept a number of the hon. Gentleman’s historical analyses and comparisons. Neither are they supported by the House of Commons Library briefing that has been provided for this debate, or by statements made by the Governor of the Falkland Islands and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. When we talk about our overseas territories, it is important that we understand their distinct and different situations. The situation around the Chagos islands is particularly complex and nuanced, and we should take it in that vein and not make comparisons to other overseas territories.

I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, particularly those with Chagossian communities in their constituencies, for the advocacy and support they have provided over many years on this issue, which is sensitive and painful for those communities, and for raising concerns about our diplomatic standing and commitments internationally. I express my gratitude to the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, of which I am a member, for its tireless efforts in keeping the Chagos islands on the political agenda and for meticulously scrutinising the policies of successive Governments.

The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to begin discussions with Mauritius about the future of the islands, but I will set out some detailed questions and concerns on the matter. We have to be guided by a few key principles, so my questions are not in order of priority. We must understand concerns about our national security and that of our allies and strategic partners; our compliance with international law and upholding our international obligations, and the consequences if we do not do that; and the rights and wishes of the people of the Chagos after decades of pain and hardship.

I have personally met and heard from many different representatives from the Chagos community over many years. I have heard different views expressed by different parts of the community, but it is crucial that their distinct and different voices are heard in the process. We should also be concerned about other crucial issues, particularly the protection of the environment and the marine ecosystems around the archipelago, which a number of hon. Members have raised.

This is a deeply complex issue, and I want to start with the question of the rules-based international order, which must be central to UK foreign policy. This historic injustice continues to prevent us from adhering to that, and I share the absolute and deep regret for the past actions of previous Governments, including Labour Governments. The actions taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s were completely unjustifiable. A number of us will have read the shocking documents from that period and the language expressed in them, which was completely and utterly unacceptable. We have a fundamental moral responsibility to the islanders that will not go away. I remain convinced that there must be a lasting resolution to this challenge that lives up to our moral and legal obligations, that draws on the views of Chagossians around the world and that is reached in co-operation with our partners and allies. There must be an apology from all of us—there certainly is from our side—for those past actions, but we need to look to the future and to what is being done for Chagossians today, not just in relation to the situation in the archipelago, but for Chagossians here in many communities.

The ICJ in 2019 was unequivocal in its ruling that

“the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.

That was adopted after a vote of 116 to six by the United Nations General Assembly, which called on the UK to

“unconditionally end its occupation of the Archipelago as soon as possible.”

That was supported by the 2021 ruling of the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Although the tribunal did not have competence on territorial disputes, it stated that

“Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago can be inferred from the ICJ’s determinations.”

Unfortunately, the Government have spent several years simply ignoring and denying these developments, and that has damaged our diplomatic reputation with not just Mauritius but many other countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and with a range of international legal and human rights bodies. Even the Maldives, which historically has been aligned with the UK Government position on this matter, recently changed its position to align with the rest of the international community.

I take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on China and its expansion in the South China sea, the Indian ocean and beyond, and he raises some legitimate concerns, although I do not accept his wider characterisations of Mauritius. It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region, so I hope the Minister can set out what assurances we have had on these matters and on China’s activities in the region.

It is my view that the inverse will play out if we do not resolve this matter, because if this is unresolved in terms of international law, it will only play into the hands of China and others who seek to undermine international judgments and law. When we want to call on China to comply with the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s judgment on the South China sea, it will say, “Well, you are not in compliance with the ICJ or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”. That could be the case for a number of other maritime and territorial disputes that it is in our interests to pursue and defend resolutely. We cannot have one hand doing one thing and the other doing the opposite.

Of course, we must also do the right thing for the Chagossians. The various support packages that were announced have not been followed through, and very little money from that £40 million package has been spent. The last answer I had said that only £810,000 of it had been spent. That is completely unacceptable, and I hope the Minister can say something about that. What discussions has she had with all the different Chagossian groups located not just here in the UK, but in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious of the time, so I will not. I want to speak about the costs the UK Government have incurred defending the indefensible on the legal position. An answer I received said the UK had spent nearly £6 million on external legal services relating to defending cases that the Government then lost in the ICJ. That is clearly unacceptable at this time of pressure on the public purse. Could the Minister update us on how much money has been spent on defending the previous position?

Citizenship has rightly been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 created an entitlement for direct descendants of Chagossians who were not already citizens to acquire British nationality. I understand that the process opened in November, but I hope the Minister can set out what will be done to address the issue of Chagossians being denied that right to British nationality and to ensure they get what is rightfully theirs. We know that previous negotiations have not gone well and that they broke down in 2009, 2016 and 2017. Will the Minister speak about the tenor and tone of the negotiations and how we will ensure that they go forward in a constructive spirit to achieve an agreement?

On defence, it is crucial that we understand, as many Members have rightly said, that the United Kingdom-United States defence facility in the territory plays a vital role in keeping us and our allies safe. It plays a role in monitoring drugs and piracy, and in the national security activities of regional partners. It supports allies from many countries, and it carries out nuclear test ban monitoring and regional humanitarian efforts. Can the Minister say what discussions have been had with our allies, particularly the United States, about those negotiations and ensuring we maintain our defence capabilities in Diego Garcia?

On the environment and the maritime importance of the islands, we recognise the judgment in relation to the Mauritius Ports Authority, but, given the importance of the archipelago, it is clear that we need to protect that environment. What discussions have been had on that with Mauritius and other partners in the region, as well as with the Chagossians, who believe in protecting their environment and historical homeland?

I will conclude by saying there have been some important questions asked today and some very reasonable contributions. I do not agree with all of them, or with the tenor of some of them, but this is a complex and nuanced issue and it requires a complex and nuanced solution. We want to engage with Chagossians here in the UK, and we will work constructively with the Government to find a permanent and equitable settlement that will end decades of pain for so many, while addressing legitimate concerns about defence, security, the environment and the right of return for Chagossians.

The ultimate problem here is that this issue is hampering our diplomatic position in the world and having much wider implications. We must remember that this was an historic injustice committed against a people by a past Government, and those people have to be at the heart of any solution.

West Balkans: Council of Europe

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate at a critical time for the entire western Balkans and for the Council of Europe’s engagement with it. I also extend my thanks to our permanent representative, our judges, the whole delegation to the Council—many of whom have spoken today—and our envoy in the region, Sir Stuart Peach, who is doing an excellent job.

We have heard some fantastic speeches today, which have drawn on the huge experience we have in the room. The hon. Member for Henley made a comprehensive speech, speaking of the long arm of attempted Russian influence and the range of challenges across the region and in multiple individual countries. I did not agree entirely with all his views on disenchantment with the EU across the region; I was there recently and, while it is clear that there is frustration with the process, I also saw a lot of enthusiasm for further integration into the European family on multiple levels.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and his work in Kosovo. He spoke from his extensive experience. In particular, he spoke of the hope we need to offer younger generations across the region, and indeed in many troubled parts of the world, as being key to ensuring stability in the future. The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke from his own extensive experience in Bosnia. I pay tribute to him and particularly to the work done by him and his fallen comrades in the region in the past. He said the risks of a further descent into violence are very real, and we should all be aware of them. We heard many other excellent contributions. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made important points on human rights and freedom of religion across the region.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made some important points about not in any way demonising or targeting the diasporas of individual countries with our language and about the damage that that can do to communities playing a critical role in the UK. I very much agree with much of what he said about Albania. We have to be very careful; we need a pragmatic, official-led response to the challenges we see in the channel. The Home Affairs Committee has been very clear that what we are seeing is being facilitated by organised criminal gangs, which is why we have proposed a new National Crime Agency cell to tackle these groups upstream. We need to determine asylum claims swiftly so that those without claims can be returned, but that cannot descend into the language that we have seen from some parts of the media and, indeed, some senior politicians. It does huge damage to our good relations with Albania, which is one of our NATO allies. I sat in NATO headquarters just last week and saw the Albanian flag fluttering in the breeze alongside our own—we need to remember that Albania is our ally at a critical time. Indeed, many Albanians play a crucial role in this country.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) was with me on a trip to Kosovo earlier this year. He made some critical points about trade and commercial links. I saw that myself with him in Kosovo; we need to expand those. The hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) also made some critical points about why the region is so crucial and why the UK has a key role to play. It is right that much of our focus as parliamentarians in recent months has been on Putin’s heinous war of aggression against the people of Ukraine, but the western Balkans is just as critical because of the potential for future instability and the UK’s unique historical role there, as we discussed in the debate in June. Like all present, I maintain that the work of the Council of Europe has never been more significant in ensuring peace, security and democracy for the people of our continent.

I visited Pristina and Skopje earlier this year and have previously travelled in Bosnia and elsewhere across the region, so I am familiar with the challenges, but there are many grounds for hope as well. I saw dynamic young populations keen to expand their links with the rest of Europe, including the UK. In Kosovo, in particular, I saw a young and vibrant population with a strong desire to join the Council of Europe. I join the calls, led by the hon. Member for Henley and supported by the Government, for Kosovo to be a full member of the Council of Europe.

However, we clearly see significant tensions, often fomented and aggravated by internal and external forces, and those tensions have the capacity to unravel into violence. We must be under no illusions about the seriousness of what we see in the western Balkans at the moment. There is real potential to undermine and unravel the immense progress made since the 1990s. Tensions between Serbia and Kosovo are high, following recent disputes over the licence plate issue, and the resignation of Kosovan Serbs from the country’s institutions, despite Prime Minister Kurti’s calls for co-operation. Discussions have been going on; we met Prime Minister Kurti when he was here a couple of weeks ago.

Any further escalation of that situation could put the work done by the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue at risk. I am afraid we have seen some very unhelpful rhetoric from President Vučić in Serbia. We have also seen a range of measures in Serbia that undermine human rights and freedom of expression, including the backlash against EuroPride in August. Serbia has been reclassified as partly free, rather than free, by Freedom House.

We have seen President Vučić becoming increasingly close to Russia in explicit ways, declaring his intention to maintain friendly relations, signing a three-year agreement on gas supplies, and signing other diplomatic co-operation agreements at the UN, during the United Nations General Assembly, though we are not sure what is in those. Serbia has to make a fundamental choice; does it have a European future with progress, the rule of law and democracy, or is it to be a proxy for Putin and his regressive agenda, which we see acted out so violently in other parts of Europe at the moment?

Much of today’s debate was rightly about the situation in Bosnia. The recent election unfortunately confirmed that ethno-nationalism continues to typify political life in the country. Milorad Dodik and Republika Srpska remain intransigent when it comes to healing divisions and keeping the Dayton process alive. In October he pledged to 30,000 people at a rally that secession will become a reality for the Bosnian Serb entity, and he won re-election on that basis. He has also voiced support for Russia and China, and he went as far as to say that, if NATO intervened in Bosnia,

“We will ask our friends to help us.”

Dodik also supported the illegal and bogus annexation referendums staged by Putin in Ukraine in September, and he has taken a sledgehammer to the delicate balance of power in Bosnia. The implications of that could manifest themselves dangerously for the region and across the continent. We must be fully aware of that. It is only right that we have issued sanctions against a number of the individuals involved in undermining the Dayton agreement.

I have specific questions for the Minister, whom I welcome to her place and her new role. What conversations have the Government had with the secretary-general of the Council of Europe regarding targeted initiatives to protect democratic institutions across the western Balkans? She will have seen the resolution at the PACE assembly on 12 October that, since the Thessaloniki summit, political and public enthusiasm for further integration with Europe has been sapped, due to a slowing and stagnation of the processes. What comments does she have on that? I know we are outside the EU, but what does she believe we can do at this critical time, when others seek to undermine us, to stop that sapping of enthusiasm for integration in terms of accession processes with the EU and the role of the new European political community, which we are part of?

The EU-Western Balkans summit takes place in Tirana on 6 December. I understand that the UK will not be present formally, because we are not in the EU, but the UK has a critical role in many of these locations. I am disappointed that we will not be there in an associate fashion or taking part in discussions. Will the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with friends and allies in the EU and what contact there has been between our special envoy and the EU special envoy in the region ahead of that summit?

We have heard today about Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation and undermine democracies across the region. I was concerned to hear of the locations in Serbia that Russia is using to spread disinformation across the region in relation to not only Kosovo but Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia and elsewhere. Will the Minister say a little about what we are doing to share our expertise in counter-disinformation and cyber-security across the region to assist countries to have the strongest possible resilience against those Russian efforts?

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Perhaps you could think about drawing to a conclusion.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am coming to my conclusion. I am on the final page.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Leave time for the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will leave time for the Minister, Ms Nokes.

I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government see the Council as a crucial part of promoting democracy across our continent, fundamentally reinforcing the values that we all share, and that they will continue to support our delegation and its work in the months and years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know the resolute support across the country, and across the House, for Ukraine. The people of Ukraine should know that and, indeed, Vladimir Putin should know that. However, there are unfortunately some siren voices suggesting otherwise, including from the far right of the US Republicans, and this is hugely dangerous. What are the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister doing to challenge those who would give encouragement and succour to Putin in his barbarous actions?

Draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to hear from the Minister on these important matters.

As has been the case with the other sanctions and measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the official Opposition will not oppose the measure. We welcome the steps taken to expand our sanctions regime, to make it more robust and to remedy any cracks in it. The focus today is obviously on Russia, but I assume that the regulations will apply to the range of UK sanctions, because individuals who seek protracted legal means to disrupt attempts to sanction them come from a number of countries. I hope that that is the case. I am sure that the Committee would agree that the evidence against Putin and his regime, and his supporters, remains incontrovertible. We have seen the recent actions with unmanned drones, allegedly from Iran, wreaking further destruction in Kyiv, where a young family expecting their first child in a matter of months were among those killed in the senseless barbarity of Putin’s war. We must do everything possible to take action against the Russian regime, all those who facilitate and support it, and indeed, put in place measures in our own legal, financial and regulatory systems to ensure that those supporters cannot continue to support Putin as they have done.

Before I consider the specifics of the measure, I thank the Minister for his letter on crypto currencies following our previous debate. I asked whether certain entities would be sanctioned, and although I know that the Government do not like to comment on such matters, I re-emphasise the importance of cracking down on how oligarchs hide their money and attempt to frustrate Government efforts against them. Some of those efforts are through legal means, for example the measure before us, or through the use of untransparent financial mechanisms. I hope that the two mechanisms I mentioned, Tornado and Blender, are under active consideration by the Government. I hope to hear from the Minister about that in due course, and about a wider review of the use of crypto currencies and evasion.

On the regulations before us, it is absolutely right that we should be able to designate and act against all persons and entities, irrespective of their financial power or the extent of their influence. It is right to disincentivise oligarchs and other designated persons from maliciously pursuing the Government through the courts by capping the damages they could receive. It is a prudent and welcome step. We know that many oligarchs have attempted to use not only the UK legal system but others across Europe to frustrate attempts to constrain their activities. Last month, according to findings at the European Court of Justice, it was revealed that 21 Russian business people were engaged in legal proceedings across the EU in attempts to overturn sanctions on them. Even when designated, those oligarchs hold awesome financial power to take matters into their hands and to continue to act as though the law does not apply to them. To specify the damages cap, as the Government have done, is a welcome step in constraining their ability to tie up designations in legal showdowns. What has been done today is absolutely right.

I hope that the Minister will also look at the wider ways in which oligarchs attempt to use our legal systems to evade measures against them, or to intimidate those who challenge them. We have all seen the rise in strategic lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPP suits—which put huge pressure on those who seek to expose the activities of those individuals. The UK remains the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs, with 31% of cases originating in the UK, according to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. I hope that not only secondary legislation such as the regulations before us, but the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, and other legislation will look at ways in which we can limit the ability of those engaged in nefarious activities or in attempting to support the Putin regime or other regimes around the world using our legal system either to tie up the Government and frustrate the sanctions that are being implemented or to intimidate others who would seek to take proceedings against them.

That hugely important matter reflects broader concerns that have been expressed over many years, well before this phase of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Indeed, the issue has been raised previously by the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have frequently said that we must look at how our legal architecture, company formation agents, accountancy firms and other agents in particular are used by oligarchs to hide their wealth and their activities. We must ask about how those services are used to facilitate, support and encourage oligarchs to continue to attempt to evade Government sanctions and individuals seeking to expose them. We must question how those UK services are used to frustrate designations and regulation that might prevent those oligarchs from undertaking their activities. I hope that the Minister can comment on the use of the UK’s wider legal architecture and the Government’s plans to address that.

I also hope that the Minister can add to what he wrote to me about, namely the seizure, sequestering and repurposing of the assets of those sanctioned towards supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction and defence efforts. I understand the complex legal framework involved and why that has not yet happened, but, if I read between the lines in those letters, I have had encouraging words from the Government. I hope they come forward with the necessary measures sooner rather than later, because the needs of Ukraine are huge and we need to ensure that those responsible for this war and for the horrific atrocities of recent days pay the price and that those assets are repurposed towards Ukraine.

We welcome the regulations, and I hope to hear from the Minister about the other issues I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Let us be clear that there has been a very broad sense of unanimity across the House on the issue. We very much welcome that support and the scrutiny offered by the Opposition parties, which can only make the legislation better and keep Government properly on our toes.

Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute who pointed out the importance of closing loopholes—he is absolutely right about that. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said on behalf of the official Opposition, there has been a constant process of introducing measures and then infilling, in response to a dynamic and evolving situation, precisely to address those loopholes. The regulations we are talking about in relation to Russia and Belarus apply to conduct by UK persons including not just anyone in the UK but UK nationals outside the UK and businesses incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the UK. Of course, it is Government policy for those measures also to be given effect in overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will he aware, a lot of work has been done in relation to Companies House to track asset movements and give the enforcement authorities extra powers and speed to crack down on some of the loopholes he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman said that the regulations are not before time, but if I may say so, I think that is incorrect. The Government brought forward this legislation before the summer recess, and the present cap that we are discussing will apply to all proceedings brought from 4 March. There has been a staggering level of sanctions introduction over the past few months, and I could show him four or five pages of specific measures that we have introduced. Those are targeted at a large number of individuals.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was absolutely right to ask about the question whether this was just about Russia. Of course not; he is absolutely right—it applies across the board. But even in relation to Russia we are talking about sanctioning more than 1,200 individuals and more than 120 entities. As my remarks about Elvira Nabiullina made clear, we are continuing to push down on designations in order to pick up people who have emerged as significant actors, or who are otherwise culpable and complicit in this dreadful invasion.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on behalf of the official Opposition. He is absolutely right that the recent use of unmanned drones is abhorrent and he will know that the Government and their allies are doing everything they can to support Ukraine militarily and in the field. I thank him for the questions he raised to which I responded in respect of the previous debate conducted by my colleague, the Minister for Europe. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman understands, I cannot comment, however one would like to, on specific entities, but the points he raised are absolutely well taken. His energy in pressing them is a constant source of active encouragement and support for the work we are doing and that which we have in hand.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government will look at wider measures in relation to SLAPP suits. He is absolutely right to target that question, and of course we are reviewing the matter very closely. He also asked about the question of legal architecture. He will understand that the measures we have brought in are moving towards quite a calibrated restraint on the use of legal services for commercial purposes by oligarchs and other designated persons. But it is important to preserve access to rights legal advice, because however individuals might dislike the fact, it has always been our way in this country for hundreds of years that people are allowed to have, subject to law, their day in court, and proper representation. The cap seeks to limit the effects of that, but the principle is clear.

[Stephen Doughty]

I spoke about the scope of individuals to take legal action across the EU against their designation. Can he tell me, or write to me, about the numbers involved who have attempted to take action against the UK Government for being sanctioned? That would give us an idea of the scale of attempts to undermine the sanctions regime.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I will discuss and consider with officials whether we can properly respond, or whether, for reasons he will understand, that information has to be retained for present purposes. I can assure him that we are not seeing a large amount of litigation at the moment, but there obviously is the potential, and that is why it is prudent to introduce a cap. As I have said, that cap is backdated. I take the point that he has raised, and let me consider it with my officials.

Unless there are any other questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I would like to thank the Minister for his comments on the measures we are debating. I want to apologise, because in a previous debate I suggested that they were not in effect. They are, of course, because of the affirmative procedure, but we are only just debating them today. Obviously, it has taken a number of months, which is a concern to me, but we will not seek to divide the Committee today. We support the steps the Government are taking to enhance our sanction regimes, in relation not just to the terrible acts of Russia in Ukraine, but to a number of the other countries that are listed in the regulations.

On the subject of Ukraine, we have all been shocked by the scenes yesterday of attacks on civilian infrastructure. I saw locations that I drove past just three and a half weeks ago that had been hit by Russian missiles. They were clearly civilian areas; these are clearly war crimes. It is utterly horrific for the people of Ukraine, and this is a serious escalation. I draw attention to my declaration of interest on that visit, which I took part in a few weeks ago with other Members from across the House.

I am pleased we are debating these measures, which will apply across the board in relation to human rights abuses and destabilising situations across the world, from Belarus to Syria, Venezuela and the western Balkans —an area I visited recently. I have seen and heard about the activities of those who seek to undermine peace, human rights, stability and democracy in that region.

Specifically on Ukraine, this is no time for complacency. In his desperation, Putin will become more erratic. Our resolve will be tested. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on all the measures we are taking against Russia, but where we think they should go further and broaden the UK sanctions regime, we will say so.

As we know, using cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions and move money around the world was already illegal under UK law. However, the changes outlined today are necessary for those evading sanctions, because users of cryptocurrencies and related services do not have to rely on regulated entities to make transactions. Although ostensibly they are treated no differently to any other type of asset for the purposes of an asset freeze, the nature of virtual currencies could make it more difficult to detect that a sanctioned party is involved in a prompt enough fashion for anything to be done about it. As I have said previously, it is crucial that we do not look just at the wording in the sanctions, because it is their implementation and application that will make the real difference in dealing with all those who are sanctioned under a range of regimes.

It is clear that the Kremlin’s tendrils of influence are far-reaching, and we must recognise that the use of digital currency is not just a means of expanding the wealth of a sanctioned oligarch or indeed a member of the state Duma who is voting through the illegal attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory. It is also a way for the Kremlin to impose its will beyond Russia’s borders and expand its malign influence into the fabric of economies, polities and societies around the world.

Through the use of crypto and other digital currencies, hostile regimes can inject capital into the democracies of the world for the purposes of swaying elections, emboldening political forces who continue to spout the lines of dictators like Putin. The US State Department recently revealed that Russia has covertly given at least $300 million to political parties, officials and politicians in more than two dozen countries since 2014 and plans to transfer hundreds of millions more, with the goal of exerting political influence and swaying elections. The document from the State Department details that Russia is paying for those in cash, cryptocurrency, electronic fund transfers and lavish gifts. They move the money through a wide range of institutions to shield the origins of the finances, through foundations, think-tanks, organised crime groups, political consultancies, shell companies and, of course, Russian state-owned enterprises.

After being asked if blockchain-based currencies could be used effectively to evade sanctions, Elizabeth Rosenberg, the US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, was very clear. She said,

“Yes, Senator, that is possible.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is a real authority in this area, said she had been worried about Russian elites leveraging cryptocurrencies ever since Putin’s regime invaded Ukraine in February. She said,

“We already knew that countries like North Korea had used crypto to skirt sanctions and launder…hundreds of millions of dollars. And Russia could easily be part of that.”

I come to a critical issue on which I would like to hear some answers from the Minister. That is the issue of so-called mixers or tumblers. Those terms refer to mechanisms that are used to jumble cryptocurrencies, holdings and transactions, making them even more undetectable.

An example is the group Tornado Cash, which is a mixing service that lets users make their Ethereum transactions untraceable, by obfuscating the origin of the transactions. The United States sanctioned that service in August, along with the Bitcoin mixer called Blender. The US Treasury is clear that those mixers had repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop criminals from laundering funds. It did something clearly and urgently about that.

I reviewed our sanctions list and currently neither Tornado nor Blender appears. I may have missed something. I would like to understand from the Minister whether those mixers and blenders are currently sanctioned, and if not, why not? Because the US Treasury has been very clear. It said on 8 August:

“Tornado Cash…has been used to launder more than $7 billion worth of virtual currency since its creation in 2019.”

It specifically referred to links to North Korea and the Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking group, and to the use of Blender for similar transactions involving hundreds of millions of dollars. I fear that those mixers and blenders may have the ability to allow the cronies of Putin, who support his regime, to circumvent the sanctions we are debating today. I am concerned that it does not appear that we are taking action against those mechanisms.

I appreciate that the technology is evolving and emerging all the time but, if our closest ally has taken these measures, it seems odd that we do not appear to have done so. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. I hope the Minister can answer questions on that. What discussions are we having with our allies to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of methods to deal with those being sanctioned under all of these regimes, but particularly in relation to Russia and Ukraine, given the situation today, so that they are not able to evade them? I have raised the issue of evasion of sanctions a number of times in debates. I am concerned that these are wily characters and regimes who are attempting to find every single way around our measures and protections. We have got to ensure that we stand clearly against them.

Secondly, what discussions are the Minister and his colleagues having with the Treasury about conversations with the International Monetary Fund to ensure better regulation of cryptocurrencies, so that the risks around them are mitigated? We will debate the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill again shortly. I know that these matters will be of great interest to Members across the House, who want to see a toughening up of our regulation in this space. I put these proposals forward in a constructive spirit, and I hope the Minister will see it that way.

Thirdly, what further consideration has been given by the Government fully to implement the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, particularly on conversations with that Committee about the issue of illicit finance and cryptocurrencies? It made many recommendations but, unfortunately, the Government have dragged their heels on that. There is no reason to do that. The actions of Russia and other regimes are absolutely clear.

I have a few final remarks. We welcome the measures today that enable Government Departments and other agencies to share information and assist the Treasury and the office of financial sanctions implementation to discharge their functions, widening the definition of a relevant firm, including cryptoasset exchange providers. Those are prudent and necessary steps to take.

I thank the Minister and his colleague—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who also covers sanctions—for their replies and detailed letters to me in answer to previous questions. I come back to the question of implementation. The Ministers have answered some very clear questions about the staffing and resourcing of both the sanctions unit in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the office of financial sanctions implementation. However, we hear from other parts of Government about further efficiency savings. Will the Minister confirm that the new roles in both of those bodies are safe and will not be quietly depleted? In fact, we need more of them, not less, at this critical time. I hope that he can reassure me on that point. We have to ensure that they, and other bodies, such as the National Crime Agency, have the resources to follow through on the implementation of the regulations.

Because we regularly debate the sanctions regime in this place, particularly in relation to Russia, I also wonder whether the Minister has anything further to say on proposals to designate United Russia as a terrorist entity, given the actions of those in that party and the actions of recent days. That proposal has certainly been put to us. Does he have any further thoughts on it?

In a letter sent to me after our last debate, the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, said in response to my questions about the sequestration and repurposing of assets that the Government were looking at

“what options there may be to do so and are working closely with HM Treasury to make progress.”

He also wrote:

“we are looking at what we can do in the long term to raise money for the reconstruction of Ukraine using Russian assets.”

That is a welcome statement, but we are keen to see that happen sooner rather than later. The issue was raised with me regularly on my recent visit to Kyiv, and was raised with me again by Ukrainian counterparts when I attended the Warsaw Security Forum in the past few days. I will make a declaration about that in due course.

Those issues are being raised by our Ukrainian friends and allies—and by many of our other allies. There will be huge costs associated both with supporting Ukraine in the way that we are—absolutely rightly—and with reconstruction. We must ensure that those we sanction in relation to the conflict pay the price, and ensure that our sanctions regime as it relates to all the other countries involved—we mentioned Belarus and other situations—is as robust as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for colleagues for their constructive comments and their perfectly valid questions. I will attempt to cover off some of them as I conclude.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth’s characterisation of the appalling ballistic strikes from Russia on Ukraine yesterday. It is important that we put on record our absolute horror at the scale and nature of that activity, and we are as one in our condemnation of the continued barbaric impact of this illegal war on the people of Ukraine. I acknowledge his personal interest in that country.

The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly sensible point that these kinds of transactions—the sort of illicit activity that these instruments are seeking to tackle—are already illegal. What the legislation is doing is tightening up our approach to it. He asked about application. We should acknowledge the context: in our sanctions response so far this year to the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have put in place a very robust sanctions package that includes more than 1,200 individual sanctions, more than 120 entities and 126 oligarchs, who have a total net worth in excess of £130 billion. We can feel pleased that we have been active and quite aggressive in terms of our sanctions, but there is always more to do because we are aware of the extent to which Putin and his cronies will find ways around this globally and cryptocurrencies might be one of those elements. That is why we are seeking to tighten up this particular area, but I agree with him that we must be cognisant of the extent to which Russian wealth around the world is being weaponised. The west needs to be urgently aware of that.

The hon. Gentleman used that as a good springboard to go into a discussion about so-called mixers and tumblers. I note that Tornado Cash was sanctioned recently in the US. I am confident that Tornado Cash and Blender are entities that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, will be looking at, but I commit to him writing to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that those two entities are under consideration.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent to which we are discussing with allies the mechanisms being used for sanctions evasion, and for an update on the discussions between His Majesty’s Treasury and the IMF. I will ask my right hon. Friend to include that in his letter when he has an opportunity to write.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for those comments. However, he will understand my concerns that those entities were sanctioned by the US, our closest ally, in August. It is now October; that is three months where evasion could have been going on. I appreciate his willingness to look at both those issues with his colleague. Will he commit to a wider review of all types of mixers and tumblers—I named two—that might be used in that way?

[Leo Docherty]

We are in complete agreement. I agree that this is urgent and it should be a broad consideration of the tumbler facility. I commit to an urgent update from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on that. He might also usefully cover the finance element of the Russia report, as the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. He then asked a perfectly valid question about staffing levels at Departments and public agencies with regard to sanctions. Having met members of the legal team earlier today, I am confident that we have some of our best people on it. It is an urgent priority and I think we have the required staffing levels.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned United Russia. I will not be drawn into giving an answer to that now, but I commit to formally replying to that question. He also asked about sequestration. That is a live topic as we consider the remarkable financial challenge of the reconstruction of Ukraine. Clearly, there is a legal context, but that is actively under consideration in the Department. We have already embarked on a great body of work in advance of us hosting the Ukraine reconstruction conference next year. Of course, it is more urgent than that, and it is something we are considering.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is generous. I have mentioned the importance of keeping at the cutting edge of this. There is an important group established by Ambassador McFaul, the former US ambassador, in which a number of UK experts are involved. However, I am not clear whether there is UK Government representation in that. Will the Minister assure me that we are keeping in close contact with such groups that are trying to be at the cutting edge, to ensure we have the toughest regime possible implemented in the quickest way?

[Leo Docherty]

I commit to keeping that on our radar. That sounds like a useful proposition, so I am happy to commit to it.

I was pleased to hear questions from the hon. Member for Walthamstow. She asked some good questions about implementation, because this is all about implementation. If we cannot implement it, it will not make a difference and there is no point in doing it. I can give her absolute reassurance that we are in lockstep with our EU and US allies. This is a global effort that is intelligence-led. We each use our domestic law, but this issue is very much joined up because it is a global threat and the response that it demands is global. All our agencies are involved on a daily basis in prosecuting and pursuing this kind of threat.

The hon. Lady asked about public authorities, the balance of compulsion and them volunteering information. Our expectation is that this involves bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. It is designed to ensure that they have a road map to being helpful, rather than requiring them to do something they do not want to do. Most people will want to be doing this; it is designed to lay out a clear pathway to information being shared urgently with the Treasury. That is our expectation, but we will measure the response and use that as a mechanism for holding to account and judging success.