Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend and I will come on to that point shortly.

As we work through this process, those MPs who have particularly complex cases will ultimately be contacted directly by the ministerial team—they will be phoned by a member of the ministerial team—to update them on the progress of those cases and, where necessary, to establish further information to allow us to process them.

A crisis of this magnitude demands a wider strategic response from the international community, as my right hon. Friend said. The UK is very much leading in that response. We are galvanising actions around four key priorities: first, preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven for global terrorism; secondly, preventing humanitarian disaster and supporting refugees; thirdly, preserving wider regional stability; and fourthly, holding the Taliban to account for their conduct, including their record on human rights. We will be at the UN General Assembly next week to take forward those priorities with our international partners. Working with the international community, we must set credible tests to hold the Taliban to the undertakings that they have made.

Turning to the motion before the House, I note that there is already a comprehensive range of scrutiny of the Government on the issue. The Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Defence have already launched inquiries on Afghanistan; further scrutiny will no doubt come from the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations and Defence, and possibly from other Committees of this House or the other place. It is not clear what additional value a Joint Committee of both Houses would add.

The motion states that the proposed Joint Committee would

“consider…Government policy on Afghanistan from…February 2020 to…August 2021”.

In fact, the Government’s policy on Afghanistan during that period has been clear and there have been many opportunities to question Ministers and the Government on their approach.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Cleverly]

No, I will conclude, because otherwise I would steal time from hon. Members who wished to contribute to the debate.

The motion proposes that the new Committee

“consider…intelligence assessments made of the…situation in Afghanistan”.

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has statutory responsibility for oversight in that area; it is the proper vehicle for such scrutiny.

The motion then stipulates that the Joint Committee would scrutinise eligibility for the ARAP scheme, but the eligibility criteria have been known to every Member of this House for months and there is no need for a Joint Committee to debate them now or in future. Of course, the overriding challenge that we have faced has not been eligibility per se, but the difficulty of implementing a scheme in the rapidly changing and deteriorating security situation that we have observed in Afghanistan.

Thanks to our brave servicemen and women, no terrorist attack has been successfully launched from Afghanistan against this country in the past 20 years; I am grateful that the hon. Member for Wigan recognised that point. It is painful to watch what has gone on in Afghanistan, but we should remember that 10 million more children have been educated and 8 million landmines have been cleared because of our intervention. In the new reality that we face in Afghanistan today, it will be challenging to preserve those gains—of course it will—but we must do all we can with a concerted new international approach.

The Labour party supported the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. As yet, we have not seen the Opposition putting forward a credible alternative set of policies or strategic approach to this incredibly challenging issue.

As I said, the relevant Select Committees are already looking into the recent events in Afghanistan and providing scrutiny, as they should. The motion would therefore create an unnecessary process and would inevitably duplicate the work of those Committees and divert the Government’s resources from what should be our priority: addressing the needs of those people currently in Afghanistan whom we need to help. I therefore urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject the motion.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party supports the motion. I am very glad that the Opposition tabled it, because there is a great deal to learn from the debacle, the failure, the ignominious defeat that we have seen in Afghanistan. We have expressed a preference for an independent judge-led inquiry and we are still very open to that option, but let us consider the motion that stands before us.

I would quibble slightly with the scope of paragraph (1)(a)(i), which would start the timetable from the Doha agreement; we think that previous events need to be properly considered in the round. I would also quibble with paragraph (1)(a)(ii), because I think that there would be quite a lot of overlap with the Intelligence and Security Committee, a point that has been dealt with already. Nevertheless, we support the motion. While taking due cognisance of the Committee inquiries already under way, we think, as Labour does, that the matter is of such significance and magnitude that it must be properly ventilated.

There is a lot to learn from the past few months. One thing that has struck me personally is that, in all our discussions and urgent questions on Afghanistan during and since the emergency recall, not a single person—on either side of the House, actually—has said sorry. Four hundred and fifty-six service personnel lost their lives. We have not said sorry to the veterans and their families. We have not said sorry to the Afghans who believed our promises and whom we collectively—all of us—failed. We have not said sorry either to our taxpayers, who funded this to the tune of many billions of pounds. There is a real need for more collective humility on all of this. I myself am sorry, because I think we have all let the people of Afghanistan down, and I think we need to learn the lessons from that.

I have to say, even to the Minister, that while I pay tribute to the intelligence personnel, the defence personnel and everyone else involved in Operation Pitting—and to everyone who has spent time in Afghanistan keeping the people of the country safe—to present Operation Pitting and recent events as some sort of herculean triumph is out of tune with the reality of the situation. I pay tribute to all those who have achieved so much over recent months, but we must learn the lessons of this collective huge failure. I would counsel a little more humility from the Government Benches and a little less hubris when we are discussing this issue.

There are also lessons for the conduct of the House’s business, because the responses that Members received from the Government were not as they should have been. We are reasonable people. We understand that things were stretched, we understand that things were unprecedented, and we understand that things were moving very fast. We would have taken all that in the round, but it was particularly galling to have a breezy assurance from the Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary that everything would be dealt with, and that everyone would receive a response “by close of play”.

There is a world of difference between a response and an answer, and the inquiries of many Members, on all sides of the House, were not properly dealt with and still have not been. That is something of which the House should take due cognisance. I think that the distinction between those words was cynically abused by the Prime Minister himself—not by this Minister, who is far more credible on the issue. I think that there has been a collective failure of government. It was suggested earlier that the duty of the House is not necessarily to understand the administration of government. I thought that that was precisely the function of the House. We fear that there has been a failure of collective responsibility in this regard.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

When the Minister was on his feet, I hoped to ask him this question. I myself have tried to obtain a copy of the call logs for each Minister for each day during the month of August, so that we can map what Ministers were doing as the Taliban were advancing across Afghanistan. The Department refuses to publish that information, which it holds. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Department will not even do that, it explains why we in the House believe that greater transparency, not less, in government and ministerial actions is what is needed?

[Alyn Smith]

My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. I would add gently to the Government that perhaps there would not be a call for a specific inquiry if we felt that the inquiries had been dealt with properly thus far.

What we need to do, as a priority—all of us—while learning lessons is get people out and make people safe. I pay tribute to the work that has been done on that, but we need more. The House needs to scrutinise the ARAP scheme itself, but we also urgently need the details of the new scheme so that our constituents can be informed. We in the SNP already think that it needs to be expanded. We do not think that 20,000 is remotely sufficient for the scale of the trouble ahead.

We would also like clarity on the actual timescale. If, as we have heard, “in the coming years” means more people coming in, does that mean that, if 20,000 people apply in the first few months of next year, the scheme will close—in which case it is wholly insufficient—or does it mean that there is a quota for how many people can actually get in? These are basic questions that are as yet unanswered, so we need more details urgently.

Cyber-attack: Microsoft

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Minister is right in one sense, because attribution is important, but actions also matter, so while we congratulate him on the statement of 39 signatories—that is a positive step—when he looks at sanctions, should he not look at the very least for an audit of the role of Confucius institutes in institutions up and down the United Kingdom? Moreover, the current patchwork of international norms benefits authoritarian states over democratic ones. Is it not time for us to heed the advice of the Microsoft president, Brad Smith, in calling for a digital Geneva convention?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. Internationally, we will have to look at how we deal with this new sphere of human activity. It is moving quickly and there is not an established framework to which the international community subscribes in the way there is for armed conflict, for example. That is an incredibly important point.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising the significance of having a range of international partners and multinational institutions on the statement that we made yesterday. As I have said a number of times, it is an important but necessary precursor to other actions that we might take. It highlights to China that we can see what action it is taking and also that its actions contradict commitments that it has made. We are not trying to hold China to our standards; we are trying to hold it to standards that it has put forward itself. That is an important part of trying to establish a global acceptable framework on behaviour in cyber-space.

Ukraine

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the situation in Ukraine. I will let the Minister get to his seat before we get into it. It has been some time since the House debated this issue, and we have even been given an extra nine minutes this evening to do so, although I do not intend to detain colleagues any longer than is absolutely necessary. I should declare an interest as a holder of the order of merit, which was kindly awarded to me in 2019 by President Zelensky as a friend of Ukraine.

It would be remiss of me not to remark on the fact—although I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s territory as far as his portfolio goes—that as we debate the situation in Ukraine right now, there is a blazing conflict in the middle east between Israel and Palestine that cannot have failed to shock Members of the House and members of the Government, not least the bombing of a building containing the offices of the Associated Press and al-Jazeera. But I will leave that there for now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I applied for this debate some time ago, when the escalating situation on the Russia- Ukraine border was the big military news story at the time. We have seen an intense build-up of personnel and heavy equipment on land, air and sea and, contrary to what some believed to be a major drawback from the border by the Russian side, that border is still heavily militarised and the drawback is nowhere near what some seem to think it is. Indeed, the situation right now on the contact line in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine remains as bad as it has been since the conflict started. Just this year alone, since the end of December, 37 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and 74 have been wounded, some of whom have probably died as a result of their wounds.

It is also worth remembering that Ukraine is one of the most infested places on earth as far as landmines are concerned. I pay particular tribute to the work of the HALO Trust, which does an incredible job of de-mining in Ukraine, although not just in Ukraine. The Minister would expect me to speak up for the funding that his Department provides to the trust for its work there and elsewhere, such as in Syria. It is vital that the cut to international aid funding should not result in a cut to efforts to de-mine what is a European country, as is all too often forgotten.

Before I come to what is happening in 2021, I want to take us back slightly. The House will know the 2014 background, understand the Maidan revolution and know of the non-military, non-kinetic warfare that is being besieged on Ukraine, its Government and its people by its larger neighbour the Russian Federation. I was extremely privileged, although somewhat depressed, to visit eastern Ukraine a couple of years ago. I was pleased to have that visit facilitated by the former UK ambassador, Judith Gough, who I think is now in Stockholm. I saw for myself the misery, destruction and poverty that the war has brought upon free European citizens who deserve the right to choose their own path, and not to have one foisted on them militarily by their neighbour.

Since coming back from that trip, I have kept up contact with people I met—politicians, civil society groups and members of the public—in the capital and the east, to stay in touch and ensure that as a parliamentarian I am as informed as possible. Their worry, concern and anxiety right now, today, is higher than they have ever felt it since the days when the conflict broke out.

When we look at the current military projection from the Russian Federation to the borders of Ukraine, although there has been a very small drawback, the war rages in the east, the illegal annexation of Crimea continues and a blockade is now taking place against the sea of Azov. I ask the Minister to be frank at the Dispatch Box in telling the House whether that blockade of the sea of Azov and the Kerch strait represents a breach of the UN law of the sea and of the agreement between Kiev and Moscow on how the sea of Azov should be managed.

As I am sure the Minister would expect, I want to talk a little about the Government’s response. I criticise the UK Government day in, day out—that is my job as an Opposition politician—but I think that their support to Ukraine, particularly but not just in military terms, is one of their better outfits, shall we say. I know that that really matters in the capital of Ukraine; it has my support, for sure, and that of anyone who wants stability and peace in the country and the wider region.

However, I have to come to sanctions policy and to the red herring that is Nord Stream 2. I am afraid that we have had debate after debate and question after question in the House about the Government’s position on Nord Stream 2, which seems to be, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv.” Indeed, I remember that when Alan Duncan was Minister for Europe, that was exactly the position that he would answer written questions with, although I am not sure whether it made it into his diaries: that the matter was not seen as a priority or an immediate threat and was therefore nothing to do with the United Kingdom Government.

That is a false position to take. Although the UK has left the European Union, it is still the case—not least by dint of the UK’s position as a NATO member state, and a founding member state at that—that European security matters. Nord Stream 2 represents an enormous threat to European security and European stability, so I would like the Government to show some muscle. Right now, what I can see is that the only person standing in the way of Nord Stream 2 as it is supposed to operate is the leader of the German Green party, Annalena Baerbock. If she and her party are successful in forming part of the coalition after the federal elections in September, they may well represent a halt to the project.

I can see you getting nervous, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will pad this out so that you can intervene at the appropriate time, which I think is about now.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T.C. Davies.)

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, I hope she is successful for that reason and many others, but I would like to know what the Government’s position on this is now. Has it changed? Has it evolved? Given the Salisbury incident that happened a few years ago alone, how on earth can the Government continue with a head-in-the-sand attitude and approach to Nord Stream 2? We owe ourselves better than that, but we certainly owe our fellow Europeans, not least our friends in Ukraine, a bit more than that too.

I also wish to mention Russia Today, because the war against Ukraine has not just been one of military hardware, foreign fighters, bullets and shells, although they have been a part of the most tragic consequence of it; the information war being fought against Ukraine, not just in Ukraine, but around the western world, is another facet to this hybrid conflict. I would like to know why the Government can correctly sanction a TV news presenter in Russia who is speaking Russian to a domestic Russian audience but will not sanction the head of RT, the global editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, who I am sure is frantically writing out a public statement about me as she hears this. Why will the Government not sanction the head of the outfit that is being used to pump out dangerous disinformation in this country and elsewhere, given that they recognise that this is a threat to our own security and the collective security we stand in as far as NATO, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and much else is concerned? Can we get a more robust and targeted sanctions policy that goes after those who want to sow disinformation, discord, falsehoods and lies and ultimately help continue the propaganda war, as RT does so brazenly?

Let me come to numbers. The war in Ukraine has killed more than 14,000 people, most of them innocent civilians. It has displaced more than 1 million Ukrainian nationals within their own land. I am not sure whether the Minister has had the chance to go to eastern Ukraine to see the impact that the war has had there, but it is a somewhat sorry place. Although I know we will do all we can to help rebuild it, the tragedy of this conflict will go on for many years to come, and that is before we even get on to the situation in Crimea, where a part of Ukraine that was illegally annexed is currently illegally occupied. Human rights abuses are the day-to-day norm there, and Crimean Tatars, some of the oldest peoples in the continent of Europe, are targeted, harassed and imprisoned for the crime of flying the Crimean flag. I would like to hear from the Government what more we can do, now that the Ukrainian Government has launched the “Crimean platform”, to support Crimean Tatars, who are so brazenly and hellishly targeted by Russian forces in Crimea.

In a call a few weeks ago, organised by the chair of the all-party group on Ukraine, the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we talked to some Ukrainian MPs from across the political spectrum. I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again: the anxiety is very real. The threat of a full-on military incursion of some description has not gone away—it just might not happen in the spring. That threat is very much there. I know from talking to those Members of Parliament that they do not want their country to be constantly ignored as a country that is at war, a country that is chopped up and annexed by its neighbour; they want to be contributing to the big challenges that we face today. In my own city later this year we will host COP26. That is what Ukrainian citizens want to be focusing on: climate change, data policy, international crime—all the things that any sovereign European Government should want to focus on.

We on these Benches support entirely the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, sometimes known as the bread basket of Europe or the gates of Europe. It is an old country—a proud people and a proud land with a complicated history. It has had a long association and friendship with people here in the UK; indeed, the Donbass region that is currently the subject of war was founded by a Welshman, and the connections with Scotland are long and well known. I do not doubt at all that the Government are a friend of Ukraine; I just think they could be a better friend of Ukraine, and what is the job of the opposition if not constantly to try to edge the Government into a better place than they might otherwise be?

So I want to hear from the Minister about the sanctions policy the Government follow, because it strikes me as somewhat patchy. I want to hear from the Minister—and I am sure he will tell me—about the planned visit by the Royal Navy later this year. I want to hear from the Minister, although we are not part of the formal peace talks process, about the UK’s diplomatic engagement with France, Germany and other countries to bring that about. And I want to hear from the Minister a positive change in the Government’s position on Nord Stream 2, because this will rapidly pose a threat here; if the Minister and the Government think that the cash generated from that project will not be used against us, that is a rose-tinted naiveté that in fairness I do not believe for one second the Minister would be guilty of.

This is a dangerous time for the Ukrainian people. They have suffered enough. The conflict that goes on—the frozen conflict, as it is sometimes known—can escalate, and that would be in nobody’s interests. I am sure all of us want to see peace and prosperity, and all of us accept that it is not easy, simple or plain. In that spirit, I invite the Minister to not just be a friend of Ukraine but to be a better friend of Ukraine, as I know he wants to be. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing this debate and pay tribute to him for all the work he does in this place on behalf and in support of Ukraine. I understand he is a vice-chair of the all-party group on Ukraine, and, indeed, being recognised by Ukraine is no small achievement; the hon. Gentleman referred to his receiving the very distinguished award of the Order of Merit, and he is to be commended for that.

It is important that all Ukraine’s friends continue to show unwavering support for the country. Principally, that means standing with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and provocation, as well as supporting reforms and Ukrainian institutions. I should have said at the outset that I am here because the Minister responsible for Ukraine is travelling, so I apologise if I cannot go into all the detail that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I assure him that we will do our best to get the relevant responses that he requires.

As we set out in the integrated review, Ukraine forms part of our efforts in the eastern European neighbourhood and beyond to deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia. The UK Government remain resolute in our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We want Ukraine to be secure, stable and prosperous, and we want Ukrainians to be able to define their own future.

We are one of the few international partners that offer Ukraine a full range of military, security, economic, political and governance support. We are at the heart of the international community’s engagement on Ukraine, launching the Ukraine reform conference series, deepening NATO’s partnership with the country, shaping international sanctions against Russia and leading the efforts in the United Nations to hold Russia to account.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also deepened our bilateral ties with Ukraine, particularly through our political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement, which was signed in October by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky. The agreement provides the foundation for a deeper strategic political and trading relationship. It is a framework for continued co-operation on human rights, the rule of law and democracy. It offers opportunities to strengthen cultural ties and links between our people, building on existing UK programmes such as Chevening as well as the John Smith Trust.

I want to go into a little more detail about our work with allies, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, aimed at deterring Russian aggression and de-escalating tensions following Russia’s recent military build-up near Ukraine’s border and in the illegally annexed Crimea. The Government maintain regular senior-level engagement with our allies, working together through the UN in New York, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Vienna, and also directly with the Government of Ukraine. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs have been in touch with their Ukrainian counterparts to assure them of our support for and solidarity with the Government and people of Ukraine, for which we have been thanked by President Zelensky.

Russia’s troop movements last month yet again illustrate Russia’s appetite to provoke and destabilise. Although the Russian Defence Minister announced on 22 April that Russian troops would return to their bases, we continue to monitor the situation closely and we have been clear that Russia’s threatening behaviour is completely unacceptable. In the event of further escalations, we will explore counter-measures with our allies.

Our vocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is backed by our long-standing defence engagement. Our military support is delivered primarily through Operation ORBITAL, the UK’s training mission to Ukraine. Since launching that in 2015, we have trained over 20,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces. In 2019, we expanded Operation ORBITAL to include naval co-operation and last year, we launched the UK co-ordinated multinational maritime training initiative. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last summer HMS Dragon visited the Black sea, including the ports of Odessa in Ukraine, Batumi in Georgia and Constanţa in Romania. Her deployment reflected our support for regional allies and partners and our commitment to regional security and maintaining freedom of navigation, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred.

On that point, we are closely monitoring reports of the Russian decision to close parts of the Black sea surrounding illegally annexed Crimea.

This is the latest example of destabilising activity in the region, following the build-up on the border. We have called on Russia not to hinder passage through the Kerch Strait. That is something we are monitoring closely. We will, of course, take the appropriate action should our calls not be heeded. HMS Dragon’s deployment reflects our support for all the regional allies and partners in that region.

We are also one of the biggest supporters of the OSCE’s special monitoring mission to Ukraine. That plays a crucial role in providing impartial reporting to the international community on the conflict in eastern Ukraine. We are one of the largest contributors to the mission both financially and in terms of personnel, and the Government reaffirmed our commitment to it in our recent integrated review. We also remain supportive of Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. Ukraine achieved enhanced opportunities partner status nine months ago, the highest level of partnership with NATO available. That offers a framework for engagement as Ukraine moves forward with the reforms that are a precondition of its membership pathway.

Hostile Russian activity is not the only challenge we are helping Ukraine face. As the hon. Gentleman referred to on a number of occasions in his speech, we are a friend of Ukraine. That is reflected by our support since the beginning of the pandemic. We have provided legislative assistance to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. We have supported Ukraine to maximise the effectiveness of Government public communications on covid-19. We are also working with civil society organisations to enhance oversight of covid-19 procurement. We have tailored our programme of support this year in defence, economic development and governance reforms to support the recovery from covid-19. Furthermore, Ukraine stands to benefit from the £548 million that the UK Government have committed to the COVAX vaccine initiative, which will contribute to the supply of at least 1.3 billion doses of covid vaccines this year for up to 92 low and middle-income countries. We are also funding the World Health Organisation to train mobile teams to administer vaccines in Ukraine.

Covid-19 and Russian aggression aside, there is another battle going on in Ukraine: the fight against corruption and internal vested interests that seek to hinder vital reforms, which is why we continue to support Ukraine’s reform programme, a commitment the Prime Minister reiterated to President Zelensky during his October visit. I am proud that under our leadership of the G7 ambassadors’ support group in Kiev, we have co-ordinated international advocacy for fighting corruption, strengthening the judiciary’s independence and supporting Ukraine in its implementation of an ambitious reform programme.

Our close bilateral relationship with Ukraine also means that we can be a critical friend, including on matters of internal reform. For example, we have expressed our serious concerns about corporate governance in Ukraine following the recent dismissal of the CEO from the state-owned energy company Naftogaz. We have reiterated to the Ukraine Government that it is crucial to foreign investor confidence that corporate governance of state-owned enterprises is transparent, free from political interference and consistent with international standards. We are also using our programme funding to support economic and governance reforms that fight corruption, improve the business environment, and increase Government accountability. Last year alone, we allocated £14 million in official development assistance and other funding in support of programmes that support prosperity, resilience and stability in Ukraine.

I will try to answer a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked whether Russia Today should be able to broadcast in the UK, and what the latest update is. We all have our doubts about the objectivity of the reporting of RT through its UK television channel, which remains a tool for propaganda for the Russian state. As he will appreciate, broadcasting regulation is a matter for the independent regulator.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. It is important to be accurate about what I said: I was not looking for RT to get sanctioned, closed down, or anything like that. Any suggestion of closing down a TV channel makes me instinctively wince. What I did ask was whether we can have a targeted sanction against the individual who is the global head of RT, Margarita Simonyan. I am in no doubt about RT’s objectivity: it does not have any at all.

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise if I strayed down a different path to the one that he raised. However, he will understand that it is not appropriate to speculate about individuals who may or may not be sanctioned. We continue to consider designations under the global human rights sanctions regulations; speculating about individuals, as I know the hon. Gentleman knows, could very well reduce the impact of designations should they occur.

He mentioned the Crimean Tatars, and rightly so. We are very concerned about the ongoing human rights abuses experienced by ethnic and religious minorities in Crimea. The Crimean Tatars face regular harassment and risk arrest, detention, and threats to seize their property. The UK has contributed £700,000 to the UN human rights monitoring mission that monitors and documents human rights abuses on the peninsula, and provides human rights expertise to promote the right to a fair trial for political prisoners in Crimea. We are also working with Ukraine on the development of the international Crimean platform, to ensure Russia continues to be held to account for the illegal annexation of Crimea and its actions in the region.

I think that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned the carrier strike group in his remarks. We will visit more than one fifth of the world’s nations with the carrier strike group when it sails, and it will also participate in NATO exercises such as Exercise Steadfast Defender and provide support to NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian and security operations in the Black sea. He also referred to Nord Stream 2. We have continuing and significant concerns about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and, of course, for the interests of Ukraine. We must work together to reduce reliance on any single supplier, and we call on the EU to ensure that Nord Stream 2 fully complies with the EU gas directive to help avoid monopolistic practices by Gazprom. We would also like significant volumes of gas transit through Ukraine to be preserved, recognising the importance of tariff revenue for the Ukrainian economy.

Ultimately, our work with the people and Government of Ukraine, as an honest friend and an ally, is to support the democratic choices and rights of the Ukrainian people. It is in support of individuals and institutions, working for a Ukraine that is free from external interference and that works in the interests of all its people, rather than those of a few corrupt and self-interested individuals. It is important work, which I believe we should all support.

Question put and agreed to.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing the debate. In the year of COP26, and the year we hope to start to put the pandemic behind us, the debate is rather timely. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, it seems curious that we are debating a document that has not yet been published. Of course, that is not the only curious thing about the integrated review. The other curious thing about it is that, certainly as far as the defence element goes, all of the budget has been published months in advance of the integrated review being finalised; that happened before Christmas.

The other curious element is when we will we finally see it. If the Minister answers only one question, I feel it should be that one, because when the Secretary of State for Defence gave a covid update not so long ago I asked that question of him and he told us that it would be in the first two weeks of February. Here we are, still within the first two weeks of February, and we now believe that it will be within the first two weeks of March. If the Minister clears up that and nothing else, we will at least have made some progress.

In November of last year we published a 70-point submission to the Government. I am sure that the Minister has read all of it. We put in there some of the things that the Scottish National party would like to see within the integrated review when it is published. We restated our long-standing opposition to the nuclear programme. We suggested that we see proper multi-year defence agreements dealt with on a cross-party basis, much as happens in European countries. We suggested, again, our manifesto commitment of an armed forces representative body. We suggested that the Foreign Office follow examples such as Canada or Belgium, where there is greater public involvement in foreign and diplomatic policy-making, and that we have a proper mechanism by which the devolved Administrations of the UK can engage in foreign policy-making and the use of the Department’s resources.

We suggested, of course, no deviation from the 0.7% aid spend. I think I heard the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) use that dreadful phrase “charity begins at home”. Well, he is never one to miss an opportunity to miss the mood of a debate and my goodness did he when he uttered that phrase in the same speech in which he called for the Government to stick to the global Britain rhetoric. We cannot have both of those things.

We have called on the Government to formally adopt the concept of climate justice, to design a new atrocity prevention strategy, and to have greater policy coherence across all Departments when it comes to foreign policy. One example of that descending into farce was on 2 July last year, when Lord Ahmad, a Foreign Office Minister, welcomed the UN’s call for a global ceasefire, and on 5 July the Trade Secretary announced the resumption of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

We have asked the Government repeatedly to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. We have asked for a commitment to NATO’s standing maritime groups to be prioritised over out-of-area operations that have dubious benefit. We have called on the Government to have resilience at the heart of defence and security policy-making. We have called on the Government to put health, human and economic security on a par with the buying of hard kit and to make it central to the review when it is published.

We have called on the Government to diversify the armed forces recruitment base, with only 11% of the armed forces made up of women. That number is embarrassingly low. We have called on the Government, along with Conservative Members, to rip Capita out of the recruitment process when it comes to the armed forces, and of course to deliver on the promise made to Scotland prior to the independence referendum on armed forces numbers in Scotland—a promise they have never met. We have also called on the Government to provide a mechanism in the review by which we can have democratic oversight of special forces, and to support a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons—something supported by the UN Secretary-General.

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the clock does not seem to be working on the screen, but perhaps I can quickly outline the five pillars by which we will assess the review when it is published. How will it strengthen multilateralism? What will it do to help to reform organisations such as the Security Council and Interpol and to ensure greater collaboration on digital data and cyber? What will it do to enable the UK to be a good global citizen, to promote human rights, to strengthen aid commitments, and to have a proper atrocity prevention strategy? How will it focus on the UK as a north Atlantic nation? Many Members have said that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence policy, as it should be, and yet seem keen to act anywhere other than in its own backyard. The UK is a north Atlantic country. We want the integrated review to bolster resilience. We want it to better enable the Government to define, identify and deter grey zone threats, and ultimately—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. There is not a clock because we have an agreement from the Front Benchers that they will stick to the time limits agreed.

Russian Federation: Human Rights

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

When it comes to sanctions, we continue to look at this matter. We continue to work to protect and promote human rights, and we are considering all options for further actions. However, it would be inappropriate to speculate on future listings.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

The Minister said that she is “appalled” by what has happened to Mr Navalny and described the event as “despicable”. She went on to pray in aid the United Kingdom’s current G7 presidency as “leading from the front” on Russia and said that the UK has “galvanised the international community”. We only have to listen to what Members have said so far to know that it is not the international community that the Government need to galvanise—they need to galvanise themselves. They will not be trembling in Moscow at anything the Minister, who I like, has had to say this afternoon, and there certainly will not be any winds of relief in Mr Navalny’s prison cell from what she has said. I do not want her to speculate; I want her to do something. I want her to implement the full recommendations of the ISC report. She owes this House and those protesting in Russia at the weekend an explanation as to why the Government flatly refuse to do so.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman quotes my words, so I will re-quote them: the UK has galvanised the international community in condemnation of these deplorable detentions. As the G7 president, we issued a G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement on 26 January. When it comes to the issue of the Russia report, as I have set out very clearly, Russia is a top national security priority for the Government. We will be introducing new legislation; I have made that very clear. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites, and we are also reviewing all tier 1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation: UK Response

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald, who has two minutes. I inform the House that I am expecting to run this statement till about 12.45 pm.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and, like others, I welcome much of what was in it. SNP Members of course stand in full solidarity with those in Hong Kong, and indeed those in Taiwan, who see this as a glimpse of what Beijing might have up its sleeve for them in the future. In fact, anyone who has the heel of state oppression on them right now—let us be honest, that is increasing by the day—deserves our support.

I can accept that this is tricky: it is not a black-and-white situation, given the nature of the actors involved. I think that what the Government are doing on BNOs is right, but is there not a danger that allowing so many people to leave is actually exactly what Beijing wants? While I think it is the right thing to do to allow people to come here and, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his statement, to provide them with a path to citizenship, when West Berliners were threatened with oppression, we did not just offer them all visas to leave; we actually stood up for them and offered to defend them. Beyond the statement on BNOs, which is I think right, what else are the Government planning to do in future to support those who are not BNOs and who will be left behind in Hong Kong to deal with the effects of this new law?

I would also like to ask the Foreign Secretary—the Chair of the Select Committee took the question out of my mouth—to expand on how he is teasing together a greater international coalition, because that will be tricky if he is going to bring in the middle east, Africa and others, given China’s enormous global economic footprint through such things as the belt and road initiative and the China strategy. Can I ask him when he expects to see the text of the law? Is there anything in the joint agreement that allows the UK Government to see that sooner rather than later? At what point does he envisage having to take further steps? No one is calling for sanctions just yet, but surely work must be going on to put together something that constitutes a price for Beijing’s heavy hand. Can he confirm whether the law that the authorities in Beijing want to impose has directly led to a reversal on the Huawei decision?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the substance and the tone of his position. We fully welcome his support, as indeed we welcome the support from all sides in the Chamber. This is a powerful opportunity for us to show a united position on this. It is something that successive Governments have agreed on. He asked whether, if we offered to change BNOs’ status, that would be a gift to Beijing. I do not think that that is true. I do not think, from the response of the Chinese Government, that that is correct. They are very sensitive about this, and in any event it is a point of principle. We have fought to live up to our international responsibilities and commitments, and, as I explained in my statement, we regard this as part of the package that went with the joint declaration. If that is upended because of action on the national security legislation, it is only right that we should rethink the position of BNO passport holders. That also explains, in relation to the question from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), why we have been quite careful about timing. We have been prepared for this, and we have hoped it would not come, but as has often been said in this House, we hope for the best and prepare for the worst. The hon. Gentleman asked about how we build up international support. In my view, we do so based on principle and the rules of international law. The obvious riposte will be that we are intervening in internal affairs, but we are not. We are seeking to uphold China’s own freely assumed international obligations. And no, I am not expecting advance sight of the legislation from Beijing.

Middle East Peace Plan

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Lady can chunter as much as she likes, but she needs to understand where we sit in the mainstream of international opinion on this matter, which is as I have described.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her most sincere apology, and I extend an invitation to her as my plus one for tomorrow night’s London SNP Burns supper, at which I am sure she will have a great time. That sounds like a threat, doesn’t it? I am sure that she will have a great time and be welcome none the less.

On the issue at hand, I have to say that I agree with much of what the right hon. Lady said. The Minister can cite as many people as he wants who have come out in some guise or another to support this plan, but I am with the former Israeli defence chief of intelligence and military attaché to Washington, Amos Yadlin, who has said that this is “not a peace plan”, and that it is not

“even a basis for a peace plan”.

This simply will not do. I get that the United Kingdom Government find themselves in a tough position, but simply uttering the words

“this is not our plan”

will not cut it.

The Prime Minister of Israel has made it clear that he will unlawfully annex the Jordan valley—Palestinian land. Annexations are unlawful because they fuel conflict. If the Government can get that right on Crimea, why on earth can they not get it right in this instance? Can I ask the Minister what he is doing to make sure that no undue pressure is applied, either by Israel or by the United States Government, on the Palestinian Authority to accept a plan that delivers neither peace nor prosperity for anyone involved?

[Dr Murrison]

I wish that I was able to be at the hon. Gentleman’s Burns night supper. Indeed, I wish to God

“the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!”

We could go on.

On the subject of annexation, which I think is the burden of the hon. Gentleman’s question, let us be clear. Annexation would be illegal under international law. Some of the rhetoric we saw in the aftermath of the release of this document “Peace to Prosperity” was perhaps overdone and overblown, and it has been reined back on overnight by a number of those who claimed that that would happen in the immediate aftermath of the release of the plan. The UK Government’s position on annexation is, as he knows, very clear, and it is completely compatible with what others say and maintain on this matter: annexation—that is to say, Israel commanding space that has not been negotiated and agreed internationally—would be illegal.

UK Telecommunications

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right to reference the flaws and the criticisms that have been pointed out and made in relation to Huawei, but it is precisely because we have the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board that we can get the right balance between acknowledging the risks, acting on them, and ensuring that we can proceed with investment decisions that are in the country’s national interest.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary talks about Huawei as though it is some kind of Chinese answer to John Lewis, but this is a Faustian pact with the Chinese Communist party, and he needs to be honest about that. On the regulatory aspect, it strikes me that the Government are getting things the wrong way around. They are going to introduce what he referred to as a robust regime for telecoms regulations, but surely that should come before giving a green light to allowing something as dangerous as Huawei into the 5G network. What if the new regime decides that what the Government have just greenlighted is too dangerous? Is there an opportunity to stop it?

[Dominic Raab]

With respect, I do not think that anyone has described John Lewis as a high-risk vendor. The reality is that the Government announced last July one of the world’s toughest regimes for telecoms security, so that work is already in train. It will require operators to raise their security standards to combat the range of threats—whether cyber-criminals or state-sponsored attacks—and we will ensure the legislation contains the full panoply not just of powers, but of enforcement mechanisms.

Britain in the World

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady and I think, given what I am about to say, that I will be able to give her the kind of reassurance she needs. I look forward to working with her in the weeks and months ahead to make sure that we never lose sight of our values, and human rights is a key component of that.

We will strengthen our historical trading ties as we leave the EU, while boosting British competitiveness by tapping wider global markets. We want strong trade with our existing EU partners. They are important and valuable to us as a market; I do not think anyone doubts that. At the same time, we are making good progress in paving the way for our first round of future free trade agreements with the rest of the world. When I was out in the US, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told me in Washington that the US is poised

“at the doorstep, pen in hand”,

ready to sign a deal. A free trade deal with the US would boost businesses, create jobs, reduce the cost of living and expand consumer choice on both sides of the Atlantic, so there is a huge opportunity for a win-win deal.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I want to make some progress but will be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman shortly.

It is also at the same time important that we broaden our horizons to embrace the huge opportunities in the rising economies of the future from Asia to Latin America, and set out our stall as a global champion of free trade not just bilaterally but in the WTO as well.

Of course, a truly global Britain is about more than just trade and investment, important though those things are for our prosperity and the quality of life we have in this country; global Britain is also about continuing to uphold our values of liberal democracy and our heartfelt commitment to the international rule of law—values for which we are respected the world over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I do join with the right hon. Gentleman in making the following point. The international principles and norms and the rule of law in relation to freedom of peaceful protest and freedom of expression apply as a matter of customary international law; it also applies directly because of the joint Sino-UK declaration in relation to Hong Kong. Of course we want China as a leading member of the international community to live up to those responsibilities, and the case the right hon. Gentleman highlights is a very good example of that.

We will continue to be standing up for those values. We will continue to be a leading member of NATO, ensuring that that alliance can rise to the new challenges ahead. We will hold Iran accountable for its destabilising and dangerous actions in the region, but we will also, as we made clear in the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) earlier, encourage it to de-escalate and to seek a path to an alternative future through diplomatic dialogue.

We will call out those who flout international law, like the Russian Government, from its illegal annexation in Crimea and its chemical weapons attack in Salisbury to its cyber-attacks and its propensity for spreading fake news.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

On Russia, and indeed to go back to what the Foreign Secretary said on the US, the United States has been vocal in its opposition to Nord Stream 2, correctly in my view, and the United Kingdom Government have taken the view that it has little to nothing to do with the United Kingdom. Can he assure me that that will be looked at properly in the integrated review he mentions, because it very much is in our interests that Nord Stream 2 does not go ahead?

[Dominic Raab]

I take the point the hon. Gentleman made, and he made it eloquently. We will consider all those issues as part of the review, and it is important that we get the right balance; that is the most I will say for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to say a little bit more about that, because it is one of the crucial campaigns we are taking forward. We should not be so shy about the incredible work we are doing. We are proud of our role in working to eliminate preventable deaths and overcome diseases such as Ebola and malaria. We will be there for those who need our help most in their hour of need, as we demonstrated with our world-leading humanitarian response capability, which was put into action in the Bahamas following Hurricane Dorian. Being a force for good in the world also means championing basic human rights. Coming on to the point raised by my hon. Friend, we are leading global action to help to provide 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030 so that no girl is left behind, all their potential is tapped, and they can realise their ambitions individually and for their countries.

We are also proud to continue, with our Canadian partners, our work to defend media freedoms. I was in Montreal last week to talk about that with my Canadian opposite number. Led by our two countries, we are working with partners around the world to create legislative protections for journalists; support individual journalists who find themselves at risk; and increase accountability for those who threaten journalists whose work shines a light on conflicts and tyranny around the world. We are dedicated to shielding those with the courage to speak truth to power. On that note, I will give way to the SNP.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that attempt at humour. [Laughter.] I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has just said. He is entirely correct. Will he do everything in his power—this was the subject of the first debate I ever had as a Member of this House five years ago—to secure the release of the jailed Saudi writer Raif Badawi?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The important thing, when we are dealing with Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and all those partners with whom we have, let us say, difficult issues to address—Saudi, of course, is a very close partner—is that we are always, particularly with the closer relationships we have, such as with Saudi and other middle eastern partners, willing and able to speak very candidly. I have raised human rights issues with my Saudi opposite number and will continue to do so, including in relation to cases such as the one the hon. Gentleman highlights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, I have found through long experience that although it is a rather crude shorthand, this business of percentages is the one straightforward, simple and clear way of showing to the country what has been happening in relative terms, compared with other high spending Departments, to defence expenditure.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to oversimplify what is actually complex, and rightly so? Should not the debate be led by capability over the simplicity of saying that we meet a certain target? We do an assessment of where the threat picture is at, we determine what capability is required to meet that threat assessment, and we spend the money accordingly. Targets, while simple and easy to understand, do not paint the whole picture.

[Dr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He came in as if on cue, because I was just about to paint what I regard as the spectrum of threats that are necessary to give us the flexibility that we need to have if we are going to prepare an adequate defence policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a great honour to make my maiden speech following many other accomplished and passionate speakers. My constituency of St Albans is very proud of its contribution both to Britain’s history and to Britain’s place in the world. Alban himself is the first recorded Christian martyr and Britain’s first saint. He was executed for giving shelter to a stranger fleeing persecution, and his grave is a site of pilgrimage to this day. Then there is Magna Carta, the great charter of liberties, which has shaped democracies around the world. The very first meetings that led to the drafting of that charter were held in St Albans Abbey. Today, the abbey is surrounded by pubs—lots and lots of pubs. St Albans has more pubs per square mile than any other place in Great Britain and they are steeped in our nation’s history, too.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Let’s all head to St Albans.

[Daisy Cooper]

You are very welcome. The war of the roses started on the doorstep of The Boot, and Oliver Cromwell stayed the night at the inn now known as Ye Olde Fighting Cocks. These two pubs and many more in St Albans and around the country are under threat like never before. They have suffered a crippling rise in business rates, and the measures announced in this Queen’s Speech to help small retail businesses will not benefit those pubs whose business rates are calculated differently and which have a higher rateable value. In St Albans and around the UK, there are pockets of pubs that have had rate increases of between 100% and 2,000%. They need urgent help if they are to survive the next few months, let alone the centuries to come. It would be a cruel end indeed if these pubs, which have withstood the English civil wars, were finished off by a broken, outdated and unfair system of tax.

To keep our pubs going, the Save St Albans Pubs campaign has mapped out many pub crawls. These crawls will take you through the 100-acre Verulamium park, with its Roman walls and ruins, and to the abbey, home to medieval art hidden for 500 years, until now. Visitors and locals alike can walk through the Sopwell ruins. More alarmingly these days, we can also walk along the often dried-up riverbed of the River Ver, one of the most precious chalk streams in the world. Indeed, my predecessor, Anne Main, warned in her maiden speech in 2005 that the River Ver was in danger of drying up, and yet here we are. I would like to say, despite our many political differences, that Anne contributed 14 years of public service to St Albans and to Parliament. I would like to pay a sincere tribute to her for that.

St Albans is not just a place of history; it is a place of international innovation. St Albans is in Hertfordshire, the county of opportunity. Around the city, we have a number of beautiful villages. Bricket Wood is home to the world’s leading building-science centre, the British Research Establishment, and dotted in and around are many other villages that are home to tech and research businesses. These cutting-edge British-based businesses are harnessing technology and knowledge to produce new products, new jobs and new solutions. Technology offers great potential to tackle many of our modern global challenges, and modern technology, science and research are international. British business requires the easy movement of people and skills across borders. This country has benefited from its EU membership, and our research and development sector is just one example of that. My fellow residents in St Albans do not wish to lose the benefits of such close collaboration and alliances.

Close international collaboration and alliance between Britain and our international cousins is essential if we are to tackle the biggest threat of all: the climate crisis. My fellow constituents in St Albans want tough action to avert climate disaster, including a complete moratorium on airport expansion, including at nearby Luton airport. We want to protect our local natural environment. In St Albans, a significant chunk of our green belt is at risk from the monstrosity of a rail and lorry freight terminal. Our chalk streams, including the River Ver in St Albans, are now in crisis, from both over-extraction and the changing climate. Some 85% of the world’s chalk streams are located in England, and most of those are in Hertfordshire. They are known as England’s Amazon for a reason. These precious ecosystems are a unique global asset. Even without further harm, it will take decades for them to recover.

As hon. Members can see, St Albans is blessed with a rich cultural history, cutting-edge businesses, wonderful pubs—did I mention the pubs?—and beautiful green belt. You can see why St Albans is often described as a wealthy, leafy, commuter town 20 miles north of London, but, like many places across the UK, we only have to scratch the surface to see that some people in St Albans are really, really struggling. There is a rising use of food banks and a growing presence of homelessness. There is palpable frustration at how public services, including the NHS and schools, are chronically underfunded and alarm at the rapid increase in crime from county lines. The St Albans-to-London commute should be easy but is often an unreliable, uncomfortable and increasingly unaffordable ride.

To conclude, St Albans has a lot of history to draw upon, but our outlook is to the future. Over the centuries, our magnificent history has continued to inspire. From martyrdom to Magna Carta and the uprising of Iceni’s Boudicca, St Albans has a timeless tradition of being at the heart of our country’s fights for greater democracy, liberties and freedoms. We believe in St Albans that Britain should be open and internationalist. We believe we should work with our closest international neighbours to tackle the global climate crisis. We believe in our responsibility to take in those fleeing persecution and war, as Alban himself did and as St Albans has continued to do, taking in children and families from 1940s London to 21st-century Syria. I am honoured to represent my fellow residents of St Albans here in Parliament and fully intend to honour our traditions and values during the months and years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

What a fine first outing for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)! The former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee did warn me that she was one to look out for. She will not have seen what I could see, which was his career slipping away before him. I have no idea why Ministers on the Treasury Bench are laughing at that, because the same could be said for them. It was in many ways the perfect maiden speech. It contained humour in great serving, it had a generous tribute to her predecessor—a story of whom I will tell her, but not in this House—and just enough steel to show that she is indeed a voice to be reckoned with. She did well, and I wish her well in her parliamentary career.

It would be remiss of me not to also mention the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan)—he certainly has a future in reading audio books, for sure. I had not realised that he was going to start that tonight, mind you, but it was a fine outing that he had as well.

The title of this debate is “Britain in the World”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said in his opening salvo, Britain in the world is not our project. We wish it well—Britain in the world matters to us—but our project is to maintain Scotland’s place in Europe. Scotland, as well as being an independent European country, will be the greatest ally of and closest partner and friend to the rest of the United Kingdom once it has restored its independence.

As others have sought to do, I want to adumbrate the context in which this debate is taking place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said, there is certainly, I hate to say it—no matter how myopic and rose-tinted the lenses of Conservative Members—a receding Britain offering itself out to the world. That can be seen no more than in its exit from the European Union and the way in which that is happening. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, I can accept that the Government now have a mandate to press ahead with Brexit, but it is an arithmetical fact that that mandate does not stand in Scotland, and it is our job to make that case. I plead with the Government, with their huge new majority, to abide by what he mentioned, which is to always understand that one’s opponent might well have a point. Despite the Government’s majority, there should be no monopoly on wisdom. Freedom of movement is one of the greatest diplomatic instruments ever to have underpinned peace on the continent of Europe, and departing from it will be a huge crime to future generations. I plead with those Conservative Members who believe in it to please stand up for it within their own forums.

We have heard much talk about the need for the United Kingdom to start playing a proper and more serious role in the United Nations Security Council, which is one of the instruments of the international order that are supposed to underpin peace across the globe but have been rendered utterly meaningless by events over the past few years—largely, it has to be said, because of the actions of Russia, which is now pretty much the only vote that matters in the Security Council. I want to hear from the Government exactly how they plan to deal with that in the upcoming integrated review. There are already discussions and ideas being advanced at a European level, not least by President Macron. I do not agree with everything he says, but he can sometimes bring forward uncomfortable truths and interesting solutions to counter them, perhaps with a European-style model.

We have, of course, an unpredictable man in the White House—more unpredictable than anyone who has gone before. We have a gangster in the Kremlin who has redrawn the borders of a sovereign European nation by force—the first time that has happened since the second world war. Let us be honest: the world has largely allowed that to happen, and what has gone on in Ukraine has gone unnoticed. In fact, what is happening—this is why I pressed the Secretary of State on it earlier—is that the Kremlin is being rewarded for its actions in Ukraine by dint of the fact that Nord Stream 2 will go ahead. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned hybrid warfare. What do we think Nord Stream 2 is if not an instrument of Putin’s hybrid warfare? We shall reap what we sow. When her predecessor used to stand at the Dispatch Box or respond on behalf of the Government in Westminster Hall, he would tell me and tell the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, that Nord Stream 2 was largely nothing to do with the United Kingdom’s interests. I am quite confident that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will take a different view, and I wish her luck in advancing it if she does.

As was mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), a new kind of political gangsterism is rearing its head— yes, on the continent of Europe, but in other parts of the world as well. I would be interested to see in the integrated review how the Government plan to get the balance right. Of course we would expect Britain to advance its interests and seek to get good things where they are good, but how do they balance that with having the tough conversations that need to be had? I have to be honest: the score sheet does not look too good from where I am standing. We now have a situation where the Government are becoming more and more relaxed on, for example, Huawei. Why on earth would we go ahead and invite this virus into the security apparatus here in the United Kingdom? The United States Government—I cannot believe I am saying this—are right on Nord Stream 2 and right on Huawei, and the UK Government are getting it all wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling mentioned the report on Russian action in this country to subvert democracy and much else. That report has been concealed for entirely political reasons. We do not need to wait for Select Committees to be up and running. The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a normal Select Committee of the House—it exists by statute—so the Government could get on with this and get that report published, as should have happened before the election.

I want briefly to focus my remarks on Ukraine. I declare an interest of sorts in that I am to receive the presidential state honour—I have forgotten the name of the award—from the President of Ukraine, President Zelensky. I have not received it yet, so I am putting that out there just in case I do have to declare it. Ukraine weeps for its sons and daughters every night as, yes, hybrid warfare but also a physical war takes place on its territory. The right hon. Member for Maldon and I have visited the same parts of eastern Ukraine. We have maintained strong relations and even friendships with politicians there who want to see that war coming to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling rightly said, we are not short of platitudes in this House, but I think it can honestly be said that 25 years after the signing of the Budapest memorandum, that document now stands as utterly unfit for purpose. I do not blame the UK Government for that—I do not blame any of the signatories for it—but it does need to be debated. I hope that when I table such a debate, I will find allies around the House so that we can discuss it properly. It is about not just eastern Ukraine but what is happening in Crimea, where Crimean Tatars continue to be subjected to persecution and anyone who flies the Ukrainian flag will find themselves very swiftly in a Russian prison.

Funding continues to dominate as a huge issue for the Ministry of Defence. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)—I am not sure whether he is still in his place—suddenly realise that procurement is a massive issue. Anyone who has attended a defence debate in this Chamber will know that this has been getting discussed since long before I turned up in this place five years ago. As the former Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), mentioned, the last mini review that took place had attached to it a requirement that it be fiscally neutral. It sounds to me as though that will not be the case this time round, and if that is so, it is welcome.

In the last Parliament, I pressed the then Minister of State, the former Member for Aberconwy, on the Government getting serious about the fact that the Ministry of Defence bleeds money as though it is going out of fashion. It is very simple: Governments carry out a threat assessment. Governments then look at what they need to meet the challenges in that threat assessment and fund what they need to. That is where we can get into a proper discussion on multi-year defence agreements. If the small Scandinavian countries can manage this—if they can take the political heat out of defence funding and provide some stability to their armed forces—surely, with the collective imagination that exists here, we should be able to do the same.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making, as he always does, a measured and thoughtful contribution to the debate. Reform of procurement across Government has bedevilled successive Administrations. Leaving the European Union provides an opportunity to look afresh at that, and I hope I might suggest through him that it is an urgent priority for Government to look again at this and to do it better, not only in the Ministry of Defence but across all Departments.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a not entirely unfair point. It does not recruit me to the aim of leaving the European Union, although in fairness I do not think he was trying to. I accept what he says about other Departments, but the idea that procurement laws in the European Union have somehow hampered the Ministry of Defence is clearly nonsense. We only have to look at the example of the fleet solid support ships. All the Government had to do, as other European Governments have done, was to designate them as warships, and then they could have announced that the ships would be built here, giving jobs to shipyards around the United Kingdom.

The MOD needs to stop privatising where it does not have to. Why on earth do we have to privatise, for example, the defence fire and rescue service? When on earth are we going to get to grips with giving proper terms and conditions to the Ministry of Defence police, treating them properly and rewarding them properly for defending critical state infrastructure?

It is good to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government’s defence programme this time round will be different from the last two Parliaments—we will actually have some defence legislation. We will have legislation coming forward on vexatious claims, which Opposition Members will scrutinise line by line. We will be judicious and dispassionate, and we will want to get that right. Indeed, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and I had an exchange on these affairs last week.

There will also be updates to the armed forces covenant, which we welcome and want to see implemented properly. We also want to see better terms and conditions for members of the armed forces. We will continue to make the case for the armed forces to have a proper representative body similar to the Police Federation, as is normal in other NATO countries—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) can chunter away from a sedentary position if he likes, but I have yet to hear a sensible argument from him in the time that he has been here on how we improve those terms and conditions. I am happy to let him intervene.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I was not seeking to intervene; I apologise.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Okay. Sometimes interventions are best made on one’s feet, as opposed to from one’s seat.

Lastly—this was partly the subject of my Adjournment debate last week—it is time that we took seriously the woeful lack of democratic oversight of special forces in this country. Nobody wants to see flexibility reduced. Nobody wants to see the ability of the Government and the armed forces to respond to threats be diminished. Only a fool would advance such an argument. But other countries manage this—the United States of America managed this, and I do not think that its President feels particularly inflexible at the moment.

I plead with Government Members, some of whom I know to be thoughtful on this issue and similar ones—one of them is smiling at me right now—let us have that discussion, and let us have it properly. The United Kingdom lags behind many of its own allies when it comes to democratic oversight of special forces, and it would be a good thing for the Government to seek to end that in a fair, judicious and transparent fashion that still allows security to be taken seriously, but also ensures that the oversight that is lacking is there to give public confidence in our special forces and the rest of the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is during debates like this that I am sure everybody across the House feels a great sense of pride in our country, our island nation, our United Kingdom of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland: open and internationalist but of course united, in which Scotland, of course, has played its full part and will do, I predict, for many, many years to come. Together we can achieve much more than we could apart; together as one nation, together with our allies and partners around the globe.

Today, we have heard some excellent maiden speeches. I was reminded by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary who is sadly not in her place, that the foreign affairs day of the 2017 Queen’s Speech debate was the day that the now Prime Minister was responding as Foreign Secretary. I remember it well, as that was the day that I gave my maiden speech. I am sure it lives long in the memory, especially for the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I therefore had to take issue with some of what the right hon. Lady said and remember the prescience of some of the then Foreign Secretary’s predictions. I believe it was on that evening that the now Prime Minister predicted that this country would be leaving the European Union with a deal. And so on one of the biggest foreign affairs issues of our time, the Prime Minister predicted exactly correctly.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

He was two years out!

[Andrew Bowie]

He may have been two years out, but we got there eventually.

The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a founder member of NATO, a member of the Commonwealth and is the EU’s closest friend and ally. No one country is better positioned to influence the world for the better than the United Kingdom. We have a proud history in this regard. As we leave the European Union, we have the opportunity to mould a new, ambitious and long-term foreign policy with a moral compass and direction. I use the phrase “moral compass” because I believe that more than any other country Britain has a record to be proud of in terms of using its influence overseas and its clout for good. The Government’s 2017 humanitarian reform policy was designed to uphold the UK’s commitment to international humanitarian refugee and human rights law, and the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. The Government’s conflict stability and security fund also facilitates Whitehall Departments to work together on national security priorities such as helping to train and equip the Syria civil defence, known as the White Helmets, to carry out humanitarian operations during the Syrian civil war. The Government estimate that that has saved more than 85,000 lives during that bloody conflict.

The UK is one of only six countries to meet its OECD commitment to spending 0.7% of its gross national income on international aid and it was the first of the G7 countries to meet that commitment. I believe our development budget, especially during international humanitarian crises, is a crucial part of securing Britain’s place in the world and building a truly global Britain. However, there are occasions where aid spending and non-military humanitarian assistance are simply not enough to defend human rights and prevent morally intolerable levels of suffering. That is why I was so supportive of the decision in 2018 to authorise the RAF to participate in co-ordinated targeted strikes, along with our French and American allies, to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their further use in the conflict. We are one of very few countries in the world capable of taking such action. That we did so was important not only because it sent a signal that we would not stand idly by as chemical weapons were used on innocent civilians, but because it signalled our intent to remain and our determination to retain a globally deployable, flexible military, working with our allies to defend our values and interests across the globe.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to that discussion because, if he remembers, the thrust of the reason why we opposed the action at the time was that it was, in and of itself, a reaction. It was not underpinned by any long-term plan, of which there has still been none forthcoming from the Government or elsewhere. Does he lament that, as I do, and does he think that it is time that we had, essentially, a modern-day Marshall plan to resolve the conflict in Syria?

[Andrew Bowie]

I lament that so many thousands of Syrians have lost their lives in a pointless and needless conflict, in which we should have intervened many, many years ago when we had the chance to make a difference in the region. I lament the lack of a long-term strategy in the west for dealing with what is going on in Syria, but, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, I am also very proud of the action that our pilots and the Royal Air Force have taken alongside allies to deter Bashar al-Assad from using such heinous weapons against his people—innocent civilians who have been caught up in this conflict.